Legal

2026-08-31

I don't believe that these are protests against Islam specifically (although I'm sure there are plenty of miscreants who would like to so categorise these matters).

But they are certainly against what passes for our government for letting in - nay, welcoming - illegal immigrants of all descriptions and none (but strangely mostly young men) apparently indiscriminately.

One has to ask why we bother with immigration laws at all when we apparently fund the French to shepherd boatloads of illegal migrants across the channel. Of course we are told that we are funding them to stop the flow...  but the flow keeps on coming, so that's obviously untrue.

It has reached such heights of absurdity that something has got to give - our task is to make sure that it's our government that gives, rather than the peace.

Easy to say, harder to do.

(9 minutes)

...

2026-08-31

Central government plans to "devolve powers" to Councils by merging District Councils (how does that work again?) are running into legal actions.

"Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Hampshire councils have set out their intention to launch judicial reviews, while Devon, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire have warned they may do so"

In my own county past efforts to save money by cooperation between neighbouring councils were abandoned - so I'm not convinced that central government have both thought through the practical implications, and decided on the amalgamations strictly on the basis of the benefits expected to accrue to residents.

The Daily Sceptic reports.

2026-08-29

This is not Party Politics (despite Robin Tilbrook being chairman of the English Democrats).

It is a case of national concern, and giving recognition where it is due.

Between Robin Tilbrook's court case and Rupert Lowe's private inquiry, the government was caught in a pincer on the topic of rape gangs.

Make of it what you will.

2026-08-28

When mega-corporations buy their way out of a lawsuit by "settling" for a sum of money out of court, who wins?

Does the public, or even "the greater good" (for whom the authorities notionally work) win?

What price lack of disclosure in court? What price the uncovering of the truth?

What price the covering up of the truth?

What is more important in a public interest case: truth and disclosure, or money?

Interest of Justice are very clear about this, but who was party to the cover-up?

2026-08-26

David Starkey, genuine National Treasure (being one of the very few still breathing who understands the British Constitution and how we got here) holds forth at the Institute of Economic Affairs (no it's not something out of "Yes Minister") on where it all went wrong.

Plenty of food for thought here, including the clear (but unstated) idea that words are indeed spells. Well, if they act like spells, then they are indistinguishable from spells, especially when they come freighted with an assumed meaning that actually isn't appropriate to the particular usage...

Maybe we should insist that all politicians should wear a conical hat to remind us.

But judges don't get a free pass either:

"... although you pay obeysance to the idea of democracy, it's too dangerous to allow it to work without controls... instead you have this marvellous thing, 'liberal democracy', which means.... democracy that is limited by

2026-08-25

This follows on from When Court Judgements Stray Off-Piste, an American case concerning child custody, in which he had a passing involvement which turned out to be significant.

Who knew that apparently straightforward court cases could be so nuanced? 

And nuances there are aplenty, enough indeed for the three further articles that Martin Geddes offers.

Two smoking guns, and just one envelope

What the two smoking guns reveal

...

2026-08-23

Mandating any therapeutic medicine to be added to food automatically negates the "informed consent" rule, in my book.

It should therefore be challenged as illegal.

Good luck with that.

Still, nobody it seems can agree on how much "folic acid" (ie: artificial folic acid) we should be medicated with, so one seems entitled to ask "where is the science here?".

Or is it just an absurd self-serving merry-go-round?

"We are the government, therefore we must legislate - it's what we do".

And if we the people don't call them to account, that's what they will continue to do.

2026-08-22

Martin Geddes analyses an American Court Case to pin-point the salient points at which judgement appears to have strayed.

Not because he wants it reviewed (maybe he does, maybe he doesn't) but because it's instructive to illustrate the various ways in which judgement can stray.

2026-08-23

Constitutional Cluedo.

2026-08-21

Interest of Justice filed a lawsuit in Washington DC to which the government had 90 days to respond.

That 90 days are up, but they now have another 60 days due to "procedural error" in the original filing.

That puts the expected hearing in the same time window as the Netherlands civil case against Albert Bourla et al in Leeuwarden.

IoJ brings us up to date.

Plus another article on related matters.

2026-08-21

The latest communication from Mark Sexton pulls a number of threads together based on investigations carried out by Ian Clayton (Ethical Approach UK).

It concerns the government's enforcements of its Covid policies, and raises further serious questions about the legal basis for those enforcement operations, alongside Operation Talla.

"Does this expose a collaborative effort to target Solicitors and Doctors who get in the way of the government, Covid and its vaccine program?"

(9 minutes)

Read the report THE CASE OF PHILIP HYLAND EXAMINED

2026-08-13

As ever, nothing may be as it seemed...

The English Bill of Rights was drawn up following the "invasion" of William of Orange and his wife Mary.

But the Parliament that passed the Bill of Rights was more concerned for the rights of the well-to-do than the rights of the common people. Was this the beginnings of the power of the commercial oligarchical interests that now have their apogee in the World Economic Forum?

Will Keyte reviews the events of the time.

(62 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video

2026-08-12

MKUltra, MKNAOMI, and the perversion of every aspect of civilised government that the population relied upon for its safety, health, and indeed, freedom.

Interest of Justice, yes, the same IoJ that is currently suing the federal government for its allegedly unlawful handling of the Covid inoculations, reviews the unbelievable history of covert and illegal operations against the American people over many decades.

Operations that have led to many appalling crimes over the years, but perhaps none more appalling than the recent global pandemic scam whose after-effects are still causing misery and death.

"Let Justice be done though the Heavens fall"

2026-08-11

Ian Clayton's complaint to Durham Constabulary with regard to their handling of his earlier December 2023 complaint, which was prompted by Dominic Cummings' testimony to Parliament, which could be construed as setting up a route by which normal legal requirements were set aside - "laws for thee but not for me"...

The main article being a summary of what we now know about operation Talla and the Police reaction to reports of suspected criminal activity associated with what is known as the Covid pandemic.

Our Reporting on Operation Talla

2026-08-09

In our modern world not everybody (a small minority actually) pays any attention to astrology, but whether we are astrologists or not, we all have an interest in the rule of law.

And that interest is coming due, as we are reminded by Interest of Justice, who are suing the federal government for the unlawful imposition of experimental medical products in manners completely contrary to the Nuremberg Code.

At this Lion's Gate Portal, will the government respond? They have already hauled Dr Fauci before the Senate for a grilling that revealed more in what it refused to clarify than in what it did clarify. Has the tide of denial and obfuscation finally turned?

"You are the reason IoJ is still standing. Every person who has shared this, prayed over it, or chipped in what they could is the reason a case with no [law]

2026-08-08

What is the difference between the UK's system of Justice and a fascist dictatorship's system?

Those who displeased the authorities in a dictatorship could be dragged off to an undisclosed destination and be "disappeared" without "justice being done and being seen to be done".

It's the "being seen to be done" that is important for public confidence in the system.

Crucial in fact.

But we aren't anywhere near being unable to see it being done here are we?

Yet under Tony Blair the Family Courts were set up to "spare the people's embarrassment", reporting restrictions were applied and much previously legal reporting was curtailed. Did this make it more difficult for justice to be convincingly seen to be done? Was the custody and upbringing of children a relatively minor matter?

We have come a long way since

2026-08-05

Martin reviews his irrelevant and unexpected involvement in a child custody case in America.

The location doesn't matter - the technique does, since it can be applied in any jurisdiction to pervert the course of justice.

2026-08-03

"Following on from this post I made on the 31st of July 2026"

A Practical Guide for Members of the Public

"If it takes down the whole system, so be it"

2026-08-03

Martin Geddes has spent an inordinately large part of his recent life investigating how legal systems degrade, and attributing that degradation to a reaction to stress - when the system is sufficiently stressed, something has to give in order for it to continue to operate.

So far so good.

The problem is that in so failing it may sacrifice aspects of its integrity.

And when integrity is sacrificed, how does the result differ from the same result deliberately engineered (or perhaps merely tolerated) for nefarious reasons?

"In honest hands it [law] constrains power. In dishonest hands it becomes a remarkably effective weapon for acquiring and preserving power while maintaining the outward appearance of legality."

Martin calls it "

2026-08-02

"Cancer" is perhaps the most feared diagnosis that a patient can receive, especially because (a) the treatments on offer are so potentially unpleasant and (b) because they have such a poor record of actually curing the disease.

Oh, and big Pharma have such a government granted monopoly that anybody else who has the temerity to offer a treatment that might actually work gets prosecuted to the full extent of the law regardless of whether or not it works. One might think that anybody that offered a treatment with the poor results that chemo and radiation actually achieve should really be the ones who are prosecuted, but the NHS being a government-sponsored institution is obviously way above such petty criticism.

"... cancer is not a disease the body produces against itself but the body’s containment response to injury it cannot resolve"

But

2026-07-31

(8 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video here.