There has been a lot of reading and thinking going on here since the last post, a lot of blanks have been filled in and the outlined child’s picture book in my possession has finally had the colouring in that it so badly needed…
For that I have to thank both Maurice (the subject of the last post) for leading me to the information and SUZON FORSCEY-MOORE for the original research that she did on the subject in hand. Much of what is to written below comes from this research though I am adding some of my own suppositions to it, to show why it has been the catalyst that it has to my thinking!
I do not care if you agree or not with the information set out here, whatever may be the case I hope that you will find something of value in it, something to learn which you did not know/realise!
Where to start?…we all know that the bankers have got away free and clear from the debacle that they dropped us ALL into, have you,like me, wondered why/how? Suzons work shows only too clearly the answers to those wonderings…have you also (like me) wondered why our so called representatives in government, especially the executive, make such blatant ‘volte face’ upon assuming the reins of power?…have you (like me) wondered about the supremacy of parliament?…have you, thought out the ‘masons/illuminati’ thing and been left wondering at the gates of the impenetrable City of London?
Well I believe that all these things and more have their answers here in the roots of this rats nest of iniquity…the question must be posed and answered, ‘Where does this leave LAWFUL REBELLION?’, for if we are honest with ourselves after taking this information on board, there never will be any change in the ‘status quo’ through such a stand, pay attention we are going on a little trip into history, a little trip which will make you believe (if you accept the basic premises put forward here) that ‘history’ is alive and well today and nothing…NOTHING ever changed for the better for ‘us’ the people. I can see only one answer, though it may have many paths open to reach the goal, I wonder if you will see that answer for yourselves…your actions/reactions will tell!
The year is 1067 and William the Conqueror, lately arrived from parts unknown across the channel, establishes his first ROYAL CHARTER to the Corporation of the City of London. (I have often wondered why Willy did not attack and subdue through force the city of London, most of the history that I know suggests that London was too strong a fortification and Willy decided that the trading going on from there was too important to waste by sacking it, there may be a kernel of truth in that but regardless of what his motives were at the time , what he did do is what haunts us to this day!)
A Royal Charter? what do we ‘the peasants’ know of Royal Charters?… well precious little, is the answer to that. I think we all have some idea of what we think them to be but do we know what a Royal Charter bestows upon the chartered ones…try this for size and see if it fits…
Royal charters-granted to commercial interests, professions, institutes,universities and 66 UK cities- are currently individually negotiated by the Privy Council Office with the relevant minister, indicating that they are not documents produced as a matter of mere formality or custom but are contracts which have been carefully deliberated.
So what?…well the commonly held view of such things is that they are ‘mere formality or custom’, for most people do not bother to think further that this about such things, to most it is a bit like being given an OBE for your good work or some such, if it is thought about that far, it is the equivalent in the ‘business world’! Nothing could be further from the truth!
Although charters are individualised, almost all create a hiearchical structure with powers and privileges concentrated at the top…
…and here comes the kicker…
Royal charters explicitly command JUDGES, MINISTERS and CIVIL SERVANTS to give favourable treatment to the chartered body, wrongdoing (including ‘non-recital’ or concealment and ‘mis-recital’ or deception) notwithstanding. That this command is not only made but obeyed can be seen in the ‘Lloyds of London’ fraud and in numerous acts of parliament.
If deception and concealment (the elements of fraud) have been contractually excused in advance at the highest level for over 900 years, then how well do standard assumptions hold up now? (my Caps,for emphasis)
If you will forgive me I am going to drop a whole PDF in here for your attention…(numbering ‘in the body of the text’ refers to footnotes, they are the numerals without full stops behind them, for convenience of reading I will colour the main text orange)
Some commonly held beliefs are that:
1. the British Empire lost most of its power and influence
2. our government is a constitutional monarchy / parliamentary democracy
3. the royal prerogative is limited to a few formalities
4. the Privy Council is primarily concerned with Commonwealth matters
5. UK judges are independent, impartial and uphold ‘the rule of law’
6. cabinet ministers decide policy
7. the monarch defers to the will of Parliament
8. incorporation is a defensible basis for doing business
9. market forces are natural and efficient
10. privatisation and deregulation have been driven by economic theories
11. the “special relationship” with the US has been a good thing
12. poverty, crime and war are inevitable
REFUTATIONS IN BRIEF
substantiated in <evidence.pdf>
1. The British Empire4 lost most of its power and influence
A more accurate term would be ‘Norman-English Empire’–’Norman’ for its origin5
and ‘English’ for its headquarters. Royal charters remain in force in the United
States, Australia and probably elsewhere. The Royal Society of St George (‘to
promote all things English’), established in New York in 1770, remains active to
this day. More importantly, the concept of entitlement remains strong (and
damaging) in the empire’s headquarters and its outposts. National boundaries
mean little when power and privilege are at risk–which they almost always are..
The Norman-English empire was and continues to be a dominant force in the
world. The characteristics of its dominant aristocratic and corporate agents
include a willingness to murder and steal for personal gain without regard to the
suffering of others.
4 A term first used by John Dee (1527-1608), a prominent mathematician who made important contributions to
navigation and astronomy. Dee was alleged to be the model for Shakespeare’s Prospero.
5 The current Royals are descendants of William the Conquerer. See Gascoigne’s Encyclopedia of Britain
(1993) pp 550-51 and the end papers of Kitty Kelley’s The Royals.
2. Our government is a constitutional monarchy / parliamentary democracy
The United Kingdom is a confusing mix of theocracy, plutocracy and (selfdescribed6
) military regime. Much of the power that Parliament has in theory is
commanded by a cabinet which defers in practice to the monarchy and
its supporters, including the Liverymen of the City of London.
Feudalism is described by Gascoigne (p 229) as a system of administration ‘by
which the upper levels of a military society assign land to those below them in
return for military service when required’. The peasants are required for labour as
well as military service. Perhaps ‘feudal’ society is as good a label as any.
3. The royal prerogative is limited to a few formalities
The royal prerogative is considerably more extensive than the 2004 report by the
Public Administration Select Committee acknowledges.7 Royal charters are not
mentioned in the body of the report, nor has there been more than a passing
mention (and no hint of their constitutional significance) on royal websites or in
recent television documentaries about the monarchy.
4. The Privy Council is primarily concerned with Commonwealth matters
The Privy Council itself is composed of peers of the realm, bishops of the Church
of England, serving and former cabinet ministers, members of opposition front
benches and individuals chosen by the monarch.8 The Privy Council’s judicial
committee functions as a court of appeal for some Commonwealth countries and
provides ‘Visitors’ who adjudicate complaints within universities.
However, the Privy Council Office has a finger in every pie. It drafts primary and
secondary legislation, brokers royal charters, is in charge of the NHS and
regulates all regulatory bodies. It is the means by which the monarchy rules
without appearing to rule.
5. UK judges are independent, impartial and uphold the rule of law
The UK judge is a well looked-after9 royal employee under orders to protect the
monarchy’s supporters within his jurisdiction. He allows the privileged to ignore
the rights of individuals. He is not bound by precedent (case law) or the principles
of natural justice. He uses the language of justice but all too often delivers its
Because the rule of law is not upheld, proceedings (including ‘independent public
inquiries’) are outcome-driven. The status of the parties routinely determines the
6 “The Duke: A Portrait of Prince Philip”, ITV, March 13-14 2008.
7 “Taming the Prerogative” March 2004
8 Ann Clywd, the Labour MP who supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 seems to be in this category
9 The judges at the Central Criminal Court ( the ‘Old Bailey’) are wined and dined daily by the owner of the
court, the Corporation of the City of London.
6. Cabinet ministers decide policy
Cabinet ministers (and most prominently the prime minister) are the public
figures which divert attention away from the invisible drivers of policy. Perhaps not
everything is decided by the men who dominate the City’s Worshipful Companies,
but probably most things of financial and legal importance are.
7. The monarch submits to the will of Parliament
There are contending forces which bring to mind Matthew Arnold’s ‘ignorant
armies that clash by night’. Because the decision-making process is subverted
by powerful advantage seekers with conflicting interests, Parliament has little will
of its own.
Queen Anne was the last to withhold royal assent.10 It is probably fair to say that
the monarch submits to the will of the monarchy’s supporters as expressed
8. Incorporation is a defensible basis for doing business
Those who believe in fairness, decency and democracy would disagree.
Deregulated capitalism–based on the hierarchical structure of the corporation–
uses one crime (blackmail) to perpetrate other serious crimes for personal gain.
9. Market forces are natural and efficient
Market forces are manipulated and detrimental to the common good.
10. Privatisation and deregulation have been driven by economic theories
Men, not theories, drive events. The same kind of people who pay others to steal
works of art have acquired public assets at knockdown prices. The deregulating
‘Big Bang’ of 1986 was the doing of City men and their enablers in Parliament.
11. The ‘special relationship’ with the US has been a good thing
The Norman-English empire has always been a prominent political and cultural
influence on the United States. That influence has been baleful to the extent that it
involved the near-extinction of the native population, the buying and selling of
slaves and the use of slave labour for personal enrichment, more than two
centuries of military adventurism and the denial of equality of opportunity and
outcome. American monarchists have had their own warrior kings and turned
‘defence of the Realm’ into ‘national security’ to achieve antidemocratic ends.
The US has been a baleful influence on the United Kingdom to the extent that it
has agreed with and has backed traditional royalist enthusiasms, including the
zealous development, manufacture and use of weaponry.
10 Gascoigne p 547
12. Poverty, crime and war are inevitable
Poverty and crime (like the Irish “famine” of 1845-7) are not due to actual scarcity
but to policy. Aristocrats and quasi-aristocrats find it convenient that Bagehot’s
“lower orders” may be dim, brutish and criminal to confirm their argument that
given the same privileges, the disadvantaged would be as bad as they are.
War, in which elites can consolidate and increase their wealth, also binds a
people into allegiance. A soldier wants to believe that his seeing and perhaps
doing bad things have been for a good cause. Concepts like ‘serving our country
by protecting it from terrorists’ is a rationalisation which tends to carry the day in
i) Nobody living created the Norman-English empire.
ii) Royal charters are not the only ‘licences’ detrimental to the common good.
The claim that nothing done in it the name of the Crown can be wrong also
protects and encourages wrongdoing.
iii) Although there is much to be concerned about at present, the present
monarchy has not been implicated anything on the scale of the misnamed Irish
Famine, the South African concentration camps, the Zulu massacres or the mass
starvations in India. The indications are that the royal family values as well as
needs the respect of the people.
iv) Monarchy can coexist with good governance. Of the most equal societies cited
by Wilkinson and Pickett, the most equal is Japan, followed by Sweden, Denmark
and Finland with the last being the only republic.
v) It would be wrong then to read this research as an attack on the royal family or
even the monarchy’s political front men. It is critical of the advantage seekers who
use corporate status behind the scenes to enrich themselves at the expense of
vi) Even so, the first consideration is to decrease inequality by ensuring that
everyone gains something of value: increased personal security.
A NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT
A monarchy released from dependence upon the wealthy few is free to appeal to
the people for its support. It could do so by a number of measures which would
increase the health and well-being of all, with no one’s happiness noticeably
diminished and almost everyone’s happiness enhanced. The royal family has
won the affection of many for a number of reasons. Now they are free to win the
affection of us all.
© Suzon Forscey-Moore 2009 May be distributed or quoted on a non-profit basis with proper
Is the picture of the deception played upon us getting any clearer to you?…by this stage of reading a great many loose ends were tying themselves quietly together for me, I am not unread, nor uneducated in the various threads that we have all been chasing down through our ventures into and around subjects like the ‘Freeman’Movement, the ‘Sovereign’ movement, Lawful Rebellion etc. etc. and much of what I had learned made a great deal of sense (common?) to me but there has always been something missing, the exact mechanism by which we are all subjected to the whims of the powerful. I believe this to be the key to that missing mechanism, and the problem now becomes what can be done about it and how….
I will give you a little more of Suzons work here to help you see the whole a little clearer perhaps…
Entitlement: Aristocrats Defend Privilege (1884)
A Critical Examination of the Dissenting Report on City Livery Companies
Royal Commission 1880-84
ABSTRACT: The privileges enjoyed by City liverymen in return for their support of the
monarchy founded by William the Conquerer in 1066 have no logical or moral
foundation. In 1884 certain aristocrats within the Royal Commission attempted to justify
the privileges of City of London liverymen without admitting that the privileges in the
livery company charters included favourable treatment by judges and ministers. Their
argument–which amounts to nothing more than an unsupported claim–may be summed
up in a word: entitlement. The main report favoured some government oversight of the
livery companies but the dissenting report omits relevant matters, including the livery
companies’ direct links to the armed forces and the favoured status which to this day
allows City liverymen to unduly influence legislation and be protected in the law courts
despite wrongdoing, including ‘non-recital’ (concealment) and ‘mis-recital’ (deception).
The nature of aristocratic entitlement is the greatest freedom to take advantage of
opportunities for personal gain and pleasure with little regard for the welfare of others.
The dissenting report of 1884 is a defence of aristocratic privilege set out by men
who were themselves aristocrats or quasi-aristocrats. Their protest against
interference with the freedom of City of London liverymen to control a trade and
amass treasure, property and power without government oversight1 relies upon
entitlement which has either been inherited (‘patrimony’) or paid for
Had the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms been in existence, the dissenters might well have cited
Article 11(1): Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to
freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade
unions for the protection of his interests.
However, it is important to distinguish between the idea that individuals have the
right to associate with others to protect their common interests and the right of a
few people, acting secretively, to advance their interests at the expense of the
The argument that aristocrats are entitled from birth to privileges denied to others
has no moral or rational basis. As Thomas Paine reasoned in The Rights of Man
almost a century before the report was published, there are no hereditary judges,
mathematicians or poet laureates.
1 Contrast this with the treatment of recipients of means-tested benefits who must, upon demand,
hand over bank statements. passbooks and personal information, including names of any co-habitants.
2 Freemen and apprentices are also members of livery companies, but their privileges are limited. They
serve as a company’s power base and, in return, may have access to education for their children and a
pension in old age.
Key statements (in bold) have been extracted from the dissenting report3 and
subjected to analysis.
[The livery companies’] constitution was always aristocratic. (p 3)
The companies, like other chartered bodies, were and are hierarchies of
dominance, mini-kingdoms with their own courts. An aristocratic constitution
establishes rule by a privileged minority.
These reasons [sic] have caused the companies to consist largely of
non-craftsmen4 from the earliest times, and the proportion of noncraftsmen
seems always to have been particularly large among the
administrators or governing bodies. (p 3)
The companies were and are aristocratic because they were designed by
powerful persons to benefit themselves and their progeny. Patrimony, the
inheritance of liveryships by sons and daughters, is one method by which the
DNA of the powerful is perpetuated. The power of the wealthy does not end when
the body dies. Those who control corporations are seekers of immortality.
[F]or the last four hundred years the companies of London have been
mainly what they are at the present day, viz., associations identified in
name with-trade and manufactures, but whose real objects have been
rather hospitality and benevolence. (p 4)
Hospitality is undoubtedly an object to this day. Livery company websites offer, in
the words of their members, glimpses of social life in the City of London:
The dinner menu was well balanced with fine wines from Alsace, Bourgogne and
Victoria and proved unexpectedly educational. The starter was a delicate goat cheese
crottin (a rather unsavoury word which can be found in any reasonably broad-minded
French dictionary). The cheese is produced in the village of Chavignol near Sancerre
from the milk of mountain goats and has an intense but not overwhelming flavour. This
was followed by pan fried mullet and seared cannon of lamb. This cut from the eye of
the loin is currently a favourite of Gordon Ramsay’s at Claridge’s. Loving cups were
circulated in the time-honoured way.5
The Master of the Worshipful Company of Distillers attended the following events
between 27 April 2006 and 9 November 2007:
Heriot-Watt Lecture, Edinburgh
Cooks Company Dinner, Innholders’ Hall
Funeral and eulogy for Budge Brooks
Court Trip to Bordeaux
Distillers Golf Day at West Kent GC followed by weekend at Ironbridge
Sherrifs Common Hall and lunch
3 The full dissenting report, as well as the main report, may be found at http://www.british-history.ac.uk
4 This distancing from trade and commercial interests seems disingenuous. Whatever the facts were at the
time of the report, there is considerable evidence that in recent times the livery companies have effectively
been self-serving unelected unaccountable policy making organisations. In 2000, the Worshipful Company
of Water Conservators had liverymen with addresses at Severn-Trent Water Ltd, Yorkshire Water Plc and
The Environment Agency. (Source: City of London Directory & Livery Companies Guide 2000, pp 285-6.)
5 The Newsletter of the Worshipful Company of Fletchers, May 2006, p 6
Court meeting at Tallow Chandlers’ Hall
Lunch at Chilean Ambassador’s residence
Cricket at Sutton Valence School
Masters & Clerks Dinner at Innholders’ Hall
Sheriffs and Recorders Fund at Old Bailey
Lord’s [Cricket Ground] Tour and Cocktail Party
Garden Party at Buckingham Palace
Lunch at Butchers’ Hall
Golf Match v Brewers
Beefeater Distillery Inspection
Lunch Nursing Yeomanry Guildhall
Glass Sellers Dinner
Cask Group Lunch
Livery and Ladies Banquet at Mansion House
Vintage festival and lunch
Keepers of the Quaich Dinner at Blair Athol Castle
Scottish Golf Day at Prestwick GC
WSET Annual Lecture
Framework Knitters Banquet
Vintners Livery Banquet
Lord Mayor’s Appeal
Lady Mayoress reception at Mansion House
Poppy Day Appeal at St Paul’s
Mistress Badge Ceremony at WSET6
Adam Smith observed in The Wealth of Nations (1776), “People of the same trade
seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation
ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices”.
[The Ironbridge Gorge Museum Livery Weekend], initiated in 1983 by the then Lord
Mayor of London, Sir Peter Gadsden, provides a great opportunity for fellow Masters to
socialise and compare notes away from the formality of the round of City events that
otherwise bring them together. Benefiting from the long-awaited arrival of summer
sunshine, the weekend was a great success. New friendships were forged and common
challenges shared in the unique and fascinating surroundings of the birthplace of the
The dissenters devote considerable space to recording livery company support
for education but make no mention of their support for the monarchy’s armed
forces, even though royal charters have always been revoked and granted to raise
funds for military excursions.
A splendid buffet in the Royal Signals Museum gave us all a chance to look round the
museum and the various exhibits covering the history of both Blanford Camp and the
Signals Regiment. The afternoon session concentrated on practical soldiering skills
taught. A thorough briefing on survival skills from one of the instructors who has spent
some time with the SAS gave us some useful insights on how to survive on some of
those more exotic business trips, although the improvised clothing used to keep warm
might not look that good in the boardroom.
Our grateful thanks to Brigadier Ted Flint and Colonel Gordon Rafferty for arranging
and hosting our visit, and Lt Colonel James Langley–Commanding Officer of 11 Signal
Regiment–and all of his staff for their assistance in making this a fantastic day out, both
informative and enjoyable.8
6 ‘The Distillate’, newsletter of the Worshipful Company of Distillers, Winter 2007, p 7
7 ‘The Worshipful Company of Insurers Newsletter’, June 2008, p 1
8 ‘Monitor: The Worshipful Company of Information Technologists Newsletter’, April 2008, p 4
Many of the (currently 108) livery company clerks are drawn from the highest ranks
of the armed forces. Circa 2007, a list included four from the Royal Air Force (one
Wing Commander, two Group Captains and one Air Vice-Marshal), 13 from the
Royal Navy (three Captains, three Commanders, two Commodores and five Rear-
Admirals) and 21 from the Army (one Major, seven Lieutenant-Colonels, eight
Colonels, four Brigadiers and one Major-General).
Kevin Cahill (2001) writes of those promoted by the Plantagenets:
At the end of the day it was their capacity to hang onto wealth, even as the number of
the wealthy outside the core aristocracy increased, which enabled them to sustain the
positions created for them by the Plantagenets when they were in power and on the
throne. That and the myth of their origin, which was easy enough to promote if you
could afford the feasts, banquets and balls necessary to the social promotion of
Socialising is an essential part of becoming an insider, someone who has made
friends, is in a position to do favours for those friends and who will expect favours
from them in return. Belonging to a social group is beneficial physiologically as
well as financially. Social relationships have chemical “feel good” payoffs and it is
natural to seek them out. The problem is not the formation of a social group, but
the covert use of wealth and power to exercise undue influence in legal and
political arenas. In other jurisdictions influence peddling is an imprisonable
offence, but in the UK doing favours and accepting favours in return is a way of life
which–thanks to privileges entrenched in royal charters as well as custom–has
never been properly scrutinised.
If hospitality and benevolence are proper activities and above reproach in
themselves, it does not follow that they constitute a valid reason for an
organisation to be exempt from government oversight and regulation.
Despite a flawed and feeble veneer of democracy, today as before there are
people of privilege and people without it, with the former being above the law and
the latter being oppressed by it.
[T]heir corporate property is as much their own, and with as full a right
of disposition in the eye of the law, as that of any private individual, and
the Crown has no more right to inquire into the mode in which it was
acquired and the way in which the income arising from it is spent, than it
has to make similar inquiries with respect to the estate or income of a
landed gentleman or merchant. (p 4)
This strong claim of entitlement placed Queen Victoria in very much the same
position as King John’s in 1215. The aristocracy sends its message that “rank
has its privileges” which “the Crown” must honour. Sovereigns have been
deposed by the plots and intrigues of barons. Kings and queens have granted
favours to keep their heads as well as their crowns.
9 Kevin Cahill, Who Owns Britain: The Hidden Facts Behind Land Ownership in Britain and Ireland (2001), p 124
The ruling class obtained, retained and increased its power and influence through
centuries of murderous force, but would draw a line under the actions of their
ancestors while being no more accountable to the public or concerned about the
harm done to others by incorporation. Members of Parliament have not
understood this or have tied their own hands and not addressed it.
[T]he few really highly-paid officials who are in the employment of the
companies hold positions of importance, and are professional men of
ability, who could easily have found equally remunerative occupations.
This claim is unsupported by evidence. Failure, as the current banking ‘crisis’
shows, is well-rewarded.
That is not to say that genuine accomplishment goes unrewarded. Judges who
preside over difficult civil trials or head public inquiries into matters of importance
to the Crown are promoted. That they find no significant wrongdoing by ministers,
civil servants and businessmen takes considerable skill whenever there is
substantial evidence to the contrary.
As regards the mode in which the company’s income is expended, the
company trust that the same sense of the duties attaching to the
possession of property which has hitherto guided them in the
administration of their own will continue to do so; and they venture to
think that in this respect they have no reason to fear a comparison
with the most liberal among the wealthy nobility and gentry of the realm.
But considering this point to be one affecting themselves only, they
decline to notice either the censure or the commendation which may
have been expressed by others in reference to it. (p 10)
This letter from the Mercers’ Company (first in precedence among City livery
companies and, according to its website, the owner of significant parcels of
property within and outside of the City) is an assertion of superiority which need
not be questioned, even though only those at the top are ever in control of assets
Their property being at law the companies’ own, the product partly of
their own savings, partly of absolute gifts to them, and the income from
it being in great part spent for the public good, we join with the Lord
Chancellor in “declining to contemplate” any State interference with this
property or with the companies in their administration of the income
arising from it. (p 16)
But–we outsiders may ask–who has made the law, today and for centuries,
if not the aristocrats and their hangers-on? And what sort of law have they
created, if not essentially self-serving? Legislation is still drafted by what are
effectively royal servants in the Privy Council Office.
Any person having the slightest knowledge of the London Companies
must be aware that patrimony is the very essence of their constitution.
Patrimony is the aristocrat’s primary claim to privilege. A history of murder and
theft by ancestors is not decried or denied, but found to be an acceptable, if
perhaps unfortunate, foundation of wealth and power.
Much privilege has been inherited by the descendants of thieves and murderers.
Entitlement equals their “right” to maximum freedom to exploit opportunities for
personal gain and pleasure without being obliged to consider the impact on
A clue to the dominant aristocratic mindset may be found in the opinion of the
Victorian journalist and MP Walter Bagehot who stated: ‘We have in a great
community like England crowds of people scarcely more civilised than the
majority of two thousand years ago…The lower orders, the middle orders, are
still, when tried by the standard of the educated “ten thousand”, narrowminded,
It was also Bagehot’s view (echoing Edmund Burke) that ‘yesterday’s institutions’
were ‘the most ready, the most influential, the most easy to get obeyed, the most
likely to retain the reverence which they alone inherit’.11 Though outsiders (today
including women and ethnic minorities) may be welcomed into the ranks of the
livery companies for their talents and money and to dilute the white male image,
the prevailing assumption seems to be that, while aristocrats and quasiaristocrats
may be imperfect, Bagehot’s lower and middle orders would be no
better and might even be worse if given the chance. Stanley Milgram’s
experiments12 demonstrate that how people behave is more likely to be
influenced by the situation they find themselves in than by their personal values.
Caught in a social trap, few people would want to be seen to ‘let down the side’
and betray their class, their friends and their colleagues.
The argument of ‘less corrupt than others would be’ was not raised in the report.
While it may be a belief which gives psychological comfort to the elite, because
there are reasonable democratic alternatives, it can not be a sufficient
endorsement of hereditary entitlement or entitlement by wealth.
The dissenters’ report acknowledges that livery companies were incorporated
bodies, enabled by royal charters to regulate trade and amass treasure, property
and power. What is not acknowledged is that royal charters placed City liverymen
above the law via the royal command for judges and ministers to favour them in
disputes and legislation, “mis-recital” (deception) and “non-recital” (concealment)
The commission, probably established under duress and intended to soothe the
public into thinking that something had somehow been done, had no discernible
10 Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution (1867) p 6
11 Ibid. p 7
12 Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority (1974)
impact. Queen Victoria, who preferred the romantic Disraeli to the reformer
Gladstone, would have been predisposed to defend hereditary privileges.
There have been and will continue to be disagreements among those in the ruling
class, but its dominant13 members have shared a belief about where their
common interests lie and have defended the status quo. This is understandable,
mistaken and counterproductive. Security as the preserve of an elite is not much
security for those they exploit or for the exploiters themselves.
Greater security for everyone, based upon a clearer understanding of the feudal
past which has continued in a more subtle guise, should be our common goal.
© Suzon Forscey-Moore 2009
Published in the public interest. May be distributed on a non-profit basis with proper attribution.
Do we get the picture now… the Barons Committee we as Lawful Rebels are putting so much faith in is nothing more than a part of the whole conspiracy to keep the power in the hands of those who support the monarchy. This conspiracy obviously includes ALL the major political parties who are held to ransom by the power brokers of the ‘City of London’, we the people do not get a look in and never really have when you stop to think about it…
E V I D E N C E
1. The first charter
The first charter of the Norman-English dynasty1 was granted to the
Corporation of the City of London2 by William the Conquerer in 1067.
2. The successful dynasty
HRH Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of William the Conquerer.3 HRH Prince
Philip is also a direct descendant of William the Conquerer.4
3. Privy Council Office functions
Arts, Leisure and Sport
Applications to use ‘university’ in a business name
Burial grounds – arranging closures
Facilities and Corporate projects
Orders in Council – drafting and issuing
Policy groups – administrative support
Privy Counsellors – arrangement of new appointments
Privy Council Meetings – arranging
Privy Council Meetings – preperatory work
1 “Norman” for its origin and “English” for its headquarters.
2 “City of London Livery Companies” (2006), City of London Public Relations Office, p 17.
3 Bamber Gascoigne, Encyclopedia of Britain (1993), pp 550-51.
4 Kitty Kelley, The Royals (1997), endpapers.
Royal Charters – production of
Statutory Bodies – administering appointments
Statutory Instruments – receipt and preparation
Science, Engineering and Technology
Statutory health Care Regulation
The assignment of these tasks to office staff shows four additional areas of
Statutory Health Care Regulation
Accountants professional bodies
Medical Institutions and Royal Colleges
4. The range of chartered bodies
Royal charters are, with few exceptions, the basis for most of the 108 City of
London Livery Companies.6 Royal charters have also been granted to 66 cities,
a large but unknown number of schools, colleges, universities and institutes,
almost every profession including legal, financial, health, construction, energy,
technology, management, agricultural, manufacturing, transport and the press.
5. The number of chartered bodies
The number of unrevoked chartered bodies is reported to be “400 or so” but the
list published online by the Privy Council Office has been systematically altered
page by page. The total of those listed comes to 546 but the actual count is
probably closer to a thousand and possibly more.
6. Royal charters are intended to be binding contracts
Royal charters satisfy all the elements of legally binding contracts (except for
propriety), including quid pro quo (something for something).7 City livery
companies provide financial assistance to Church of England schools and all
branches of the military.8
5 Organisational chart of the Privy Council Office (April 2007)
6 Survey of City Livery Company websites.
7 Laurence Koffman and Elizabeth MacDonald, The Law of Contract (1992) London: Fourmat Publishing
8 Survey of City Livery Company websites.
7. The charter of the Worshipful Company of International Bankers
Almost no City livery company website makes its charter available online
to non-members.9 One exception is the Worshipful Company of International
Bankers which contains this implied command to ministers and judges in section
Our royal will and pleasure is that this Our Charter shall be construed benevolently
and in every case most favourably to the Worshipful Company and the promotion
of the objects of this Our Charter.
8. The composition of the Worshipful Company of International Bankers
In 2008, the master of the Worshipful Company of International Bankers was the
Chief Executive of Fortis Bank (his predecessors included the chairman of the
Camelot Group, a former governor of the Bank of England, a former chairman of
HSBC Holdings, a former chairman of Lloyds TSB Group and senior adviser to
Morgan Stanley & Co International). The deputy master was chairman and CEO of
Arbuthnot Banking Group and members of the court included representatives from
Wachovia Bank, the London Stock Exchange, JP Morgan, Credit Suisse and the
chairman of Europe, Middle East & Africa Merrill Lynch International.
9. Charters order ministers, judges and civil servants to turn a blind eye to fraud
A significant though unknown number of Royal Charters currently in force
command either explicitly or by implication that judges, ministers and public
servants give favourable treatment to the chartered body “non-recital
(concealment) and mis-recital (deception) notwithstanding”.
The BBC charter granted in 1996 states: We do further will, ordain and declare that
these Our Letters or the enrolment or exemplification thereof shall be in and by all
things good, firm, valid, sufficient and effectual in law according to the true intent
and meaning thereof and shall be taken, construed and judged in the most
favourable and beneficial sense for the best advantage of the corporation in Our
Courts of Record as elsewhere by all and singular Judges, Justices, Officers,
Ministers and other Our Subjects whatsoever any non-recital, mis-recital or any
other omission, imperfection, defect, matter, cause or thing whatsoever to the
contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding.
10. The compositon of the City of London’s Financial Services Group
The Financial Services Group is composed of 11 livery companies: the
Worshipful Company of Solicitors of the City of London, the Worshipful Company of
Chartered Accountants, the Worshipful Company of Chartered Secretaries and
Administrators, the Worshipful Company of Marketors, the Worshipful Company of
Actuaries, the Worshipful Company of Insurers, the Worshipful Company of
Arbitrators, the Worship Company of Information Technologists, the Worshipful
Company of World Traders, the Worshipful Company of Management Consultants
and the Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers.
11. Senior judges accept hospitality from the Corporation of the City of London
Each year senior figures in the English judiciary accept hospitality from the Lord
Mayor of the Corporation of the City of London.
My Lord High Chancellor and Secretary of State, My Lord Chief Justice,
Master of the Rolls, Fellow Aldermen, Mr Recorder, Sheriffs, Ladies and
Gentlemen. Welcome all of you to the Mansion House and a special
welcome to all of you who are here at this annual dinner for the first time.
At their dinner the Bishops always attempt to win first place in the annual
race to drink more of our best Mansion House claret than anyone else.
The cognoscenti amongst you will know that you Judges have won the
prize for several years in succession and I feel sure you will not wish to
disappoint my accountant this evening.10
According to the City of London website, the corporation owns and operates the
Old Bailey and provides daily luncheons for the judges.
12. Many City Livery Company clerks have high-ranking military titles
A significant number of City livery company clerks have high-ranking military titles.11
This suggests that members of the aristocracy may predominate.
13. The royal connection to offshore banking
[W]hat unites the three dependencies [the Isle of Man, the island of Jersey and the
island of Guernsey] is that each euphemistically described as an offshore banking
centre. In practice, all three are amongst the world’s major tax havens. (Of the 24
offshore banking centres world-wide recognised by the Offshore Financial Centres
Directory, 14 have the Queen as head of state…This is a characteristic they share
with many of the Queen’s overseas territories, including Anguilla, Bermuda, the
British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Gibralter and the sovereign territories of
Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados and Belize…
[T]he Queen is…also head of state to the bulk of the offshore-banking and taxhaven
industry. In banking terms, the banks on her territories handle most of the
trillions of dollars held outside the main financial systems of the civilised world.12
10 Speech by The Rt Hon The Lord Mayor of London Alderman David Lewis, 15 July 2008.
11 City of London website
12 Kevin Cahill, Who Owns the World (2007), p 49
14. A reversal of the BBC’s previous royal charter
The current BBC charter reverses the previous command: This Charter shall be
interpreted objectively. The presumption that a grant by the Crown is to be
interpreted most beneficially for the Crown and against the subject shall not apply.
15. Composition of the Worshipful Company of Paviors
Today the principal object of the Company is to further the ‘craft of paving’ in its
modern context that is the planning, research, design, construction, maintenance
and management of all paved surfaces as used in floors, pedestrian areas, playing
surfaces, hard standings, landscaping, pavements, streets, roads, motorways and
16. Sir Kenneth Cork’s intention to make ministers subservient
Kenneth Cork (deceased), a City insolvency practitioner, government ‘fixer’ and
Lord Mayor from 1978-79 describes his creation of ‘instant’ livery companies:
So we proposed to the Court of Aldermen that there should be a new breed of
livery company which could be brought into being instantly. Those who could
show that they qualified by having the necessary power, influence and charitable
funds, and were respectable in every way, should not have to go through the
traditional process. The City officers were utterly opposed to the concept of instant
livery companies…But the Court of Aldermen jumped at the idea. They saw them
as adding power to the office of Lord Mayor. In any future argument with the
government, a Lord Mayor could point to his court of Aldermen containing
members of the new professions who were giving him full support, and ask the
Prime Minister whether he thought it was in his interest to fall out with
influential people of that calibre… [emphasis added]
The professions I had in mind were the Chartered Secretaries, the insurers, the
80,000 Chartered Accountants, the Chartered Surveyors, the marketers, the
bankers, the actuaries. All such had personal skills which had replaced the ‘craft’
skills of old. They were another kind of craft. Moreover they had standing and
integrity, and supported by ample funds, for whom the City was designed…Such
people as I envisaged forming the new instant livery companies had a vested
interest in keeping the City intact, in keeping the aldermen and the Corporation
free of the GLC and any political flavour it might have…
Many asked where the professional institute would end and the livery company
begin. This presented no problem. The Chartered Accountants, for instance, ran
the profession, but the Great and the Good joined the livery company, which gave
them the facility to give service after they had ceased to serve on the institute —
senior and respected people, not necessarily retired, but probably still working in
their firms. As livery men they would influence their own profession and the
Institute, while recognising that the independence of the City of London and of the
Lord Mayor protected their independence. [original emphasis]14
17. The Worshipful Company of Insurers sets ‘something of a record’
Considering that insurance has thrived in this City for well over three hundred
years, it is perhaps surprising that the industry had not spawned a Livery Company
centuries ago. In fact, the Insurers’ Company set something of a record in moving
from incorporation as a Guild Company to the achievement of Livery status within
the space of three months, [amazing, usually takes years] the formal letters patent
being granted on 18 September 1979 and presented by the Lord Mayor, Sir
Kenneth Cork, on 19 October 1979 to create the Worshipful Company of Insurers.
The Company was formed following an initiative by Sir Kenneth Cork who, during
his year as Aldermanic Sheriff, came to recognise the desirability of the important
financial services to the City being represented by Livery Companies able to play
a full part in the governance and development of the City.15
18. Sir Kenneth on throwing doubt on the reputation of British insurance
The vehicle he used to inflict ‘this gigantic swindle’ on the British public–to use
Judge King-Hamilton’s words–had limited liability, and was called the Fire, Auto
and Marine Insurance Company Ltd. As a foreigner, he saw limited liability as a
delightful invention of the Western world which excused people like him from
personal risk. As a crook he would only consider it the attitude of a weakling to
admit that limited risk assumed limited responsibility. It would have been beyond
him to realise that to be granted limited liability was a privilege, and that in
exercising it an entrepreneur had a debt to society to be excessively honest in
every calculation he made. Most of all, such a code insisted that, having led
people into a mess, the last thing an honest operator did was walk away and leave
them there. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the Savundra debacle was not
the harm he did to the company’s 400,000 policy-holders with their 43,000
outstanding claims, which was bad enough, but what he did to potential overseas
customers for British insurance for whom the reputation for honesty and straight
dealing of British firms was second to none. For anyone to throw doubt on the
reliability of the insurance market in Britain in the way Savundra did was
unforgivable. It was this that earned him universal contempt.16
14 Cork on Cork (1988) pp 218-19
15 Worshipful Company of Insurers website (May 2007)
16 Op cit.
18. The Lord Mayor of London travels with the status of cabinet minister
For example, we prepare briefings for the Lord Mayor’s overseas visits: he spends
up to a third of his time travelling overseas, with the status of cabinet minister, and
we brief him on [Insurance] matters to assist his discussions with overseas
business people, regulators, officials and Government ministers…17
19. The status and duties of the Lord Mayor of the Corporation
As head of the City of London, the Lord Mayor presides over its governing bodies –
the Court of Aldermen and the Court of Common Council. He is Chief Magistrate of
the City of London, Admiral of the Port of London, Chancellor of City University and
President or Patron of many other civic and charitable organisations.
He also has a much wider business role – working for Britain as a whole,
supporting and promoting the world’s leading international financial centre, the City
of London, both at home and abroad. His position as a trusted spokesman for the
business community is enhanced by the entirely apolitical nature of his office. 18
20. A royal charter is a mark of royal favour
After the grant of a Charter of Incorporation, the Privy Council does not monitor the
proceedings of the body or institution so incorporated in any way. This is partly
because Charters are granted only to institutions which have already, over a
considerable period, demonstrated their responsible approach. It is also
because, because being a mark of Royal favour, it would be inconsistent with the
policy underlying such a grant to interfere with it…Constitutionally, it is not open to
the Privy Council to intervene in any way in the affairs of a chartered body unless
allegations were made of so scandalous a nature as to suggest that charter should
be withdrawn…[A] “body incorporated by Charter is not, of course, in any way
above the law.19
21. The composition of the Worshipful Company of Security Professionals
Membership of the Company is drawn from the Security Industry in its widest
sense and includes leading security professionals from the industrial and retail
sectors, serving and retired members of the police and armed services, security
consultants, academics, heads of security for corporate businesses, investigators
and electronic surveillance companies.20
17 Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers website (May 2007)
18 City of London website (May 2007)
19 Privy Council Office letter to Austin Mitchell MP (24 June 1992)
20 Worshipful Company of Security Professionals website (April 2007)
22. Other City Livery Companies of particular interest
Worshipful Company of Apothecaries (the pharmaceutical industry)
Worshipful Company of Brewers/Worshipful Company of Distillers/Worshipful
Company of Vintners
Worshipful Company of Builders Merchants
Worshipful Company of Constructors
Worshipful Company of Environmental Cleaners (cleaning and waste industries)
Worshipful Company of Fan Makers (air conditioning)
Worshipful Company of Fuellers (solid fuel, solar, atomic, gas and electricity)
Worshipful Company of Horners (plastics industry)
Worshipful Company of Ironmongers (ferrous metal industry)
Worshipful Company of Lightmongers (lighting and electrical industry)
Worshipful Company of Shipwrights (arms trade)
Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers
Worshipful Company of World Traders (ships, insurance, commodities, finance)
23. Margaret Thatcher’s support for monetarism, free trade and deregulation
The great advantage I had over many of my contemporaries in politics was that
whereas they had first to be persuaded of the theoretical advantages of
monetarism, free trade and deregulation, the technical arguments and insights
were so completely in harmony with my fundamental instincts and early
experience that I was much more easily convinced–and my convictions helped me
to convince others.21
24. The Fraud Act 2006 obstructs prosecution for fraud
2 Fraud by false representation
1. A person is in breach of this section if he
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends by making the representation–
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause a loss to another or expose another to a
risk of loss [emphasis added]
25. Ignorance of City Livery Companies is almost universal
Writing of MPs’ finances, a prominent associate political editor wrote:
George Osborne was rewarded for addressing the Worshipful Company of Painter-
Stainers, whatever that is.22
Compiled by Suzon Forscey-Moore in the public interest
21 Margaret Thatcher, The Path to Power (1995) p 568
22 Kevin Maguire of the Daily Mirror in the New Statesman (11 May 2009
To my mind these charters are at the root of much if not all of the evil which surrounds us today, the charters seem to me to be no more or less than the charters/warrants handed out to the privateers of old to legitimate their piracy on the high seas, only these pirates stayed at home to fleece the sheep that lived with their eyes firmly closed against any infractions by the BOYS WITH THE BIG STICKS…it is surely time that the sticks were removed from their hands permanently, and we the people, got to share in the wealth that has been stolen from us (and those unable to protect themselves around the globe) by the predations of the grasping and greedy, who know no shame for their continuing rape of any and everything, in pursuit of their wealth and power!
I am indebted to SUZON FORSCEY-MOORE for the information she has provided here and wish that I could thank her personally, but alas that can never be as she has died since writing these notes to us all…the only way that I or any may thank her now is to spread this information as far and wide as we can and carry on her work to expose and change the way this ‘OUR’ world is organised and run…
I hope that you have found this posting interesting, please pass it along….
It has been a long haul down to here but I want to leave you with one more piece from SUZON it is an affidavit that she wrote for a court case on the USA, it does repeat some of the above work but it is strung together in a particular way that really rips the British courts and the Judiciary to pieces…enjoy!
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
7th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY,
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
THE SOCIETY OF LLOYD’S
Case No. : CA 03-542 (55)
AFFIDAVIT OF SUZON FORSCEY-MOORE
I, Suzon Forscey-Moore, of 53 Abbey Road, Cambridge, England CB5 8HH, based
upon my personal knowledge, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am a citizen of the United States and a naturalized subject of the United
Kingdom. I was born and grew up in Jamestown, New York and moved to the Los
Angeles area where I lived for 25 years. I first came to England in 1976 while a
student at Pitzer College in Claremont, California. Pitzer awarded me a BA in
English in 1977. I moved to Cambridge, England in 1987. In 1992, I began to
campaign for ministerial accountability. In 1996, I began campaigning for judicial
reform. In January 2001 I was awarded a Master’s degree in law by DeMontfort
University in Leicester, England for my dissertation on The Prerogative of
Summing Up in Miscarriages of Justice in the Crown Courts of England & Wales. I
began work on a PhD on the English Civil Justice system at Anglia Ruskin
University in Cambridge in September, 2002.
2. I make this affidavit at the request of Charles B. Lembcke, counsel for Karl
Aronson. I have been advised that it will be submitted in response to the question
posed by the Court at the hearing on Lloyd’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to
whether the English legal system offers fair and impartial tribunals.
3. The true nature of the English legal system should be properly established
for the protection of past and future investors who are citizens of the United States
and other jurisdictions as English courts are, despite their considerable reputation,
neither fair nor impartial.
4. This affidavit contains material which may be outside of the norms of
evidence. However, due to historical and cultural differences and in the context of
the important issue to be decided, descriptive material is relevant and necessary if
the Florida Court is to reach a well-founded and defensible decision.
5. Contemporary hearings in English courts may be best understood as
traditional theatrical rituals in which agents dressed in ceremonial 18th century
costume unselfconsciously honor their oath of loyalty to the Queen by dismissing
and/or punishing unimportant people for their foolish insistence on justice and fair
play. Courts in other jurisdictions should distance themselves from the perverse
character of English law where unexamined belief in an hereditary system of
privilege trumphs the fair application of principles of law.
6. It would be wrong for the Florida Court to turn a blind eye to a system in
which the rights of the individual are sacrificed for a perceived but unjustifiable
greater good, the protection of a privileged hereditary elite.
Jaffray v. Lloyd’s in the Court of Appeal for England & Wales
7. This case reveals, through its historical context and in the recent conduct of
the English judiciary in Jaffray, that financial affairs and affairs of state in the
United Kingdom, have been and continue to be decided by a secretive elite
largely composed of and of mutual benefit to hereditary aristocrats.
8. Lloyd’s of London, an international insurance underwriter, evolved from
transactions between shipowners, merchants and insurers in the 1680’s. It
was given a unique status by Parliament in the Lloyd’s Act of 1862. Lloyd’s names
were men of considerable wealth and influence.
9. Until greater suffrage was allowed in the1830’s, Parliament was openly run
by the hereditary aristocracy, men who used their positions to pass laws for their
own benefit, whether that was legitimising their bastards or raising the price of
grain or deciding the most advantageous location of a new canal.
10. The aristocracy did not have to relinquish their power to continue to order
things to their personal advantage. Every elected Member of Parliament (MP) has
to swear allegiance to the Queen in order to be able to speak, to have an office and
11. The United Kingdom of which England is the dominant nation is selfdescribed
as a “constitutional monarchy” even though there is no constitution and
no current plans to adopt one. The Royal Prerogative, a notion undefined in law and
operating without parliamentary oversight, allows ministers, judges and other
administrators unlimited and unrestrained use of power.
12. In 2004, the House Select Committee on Public Administration studied the
Royal Prerogative. The result was that ministers proposed to entrench their
secretive powers under the Royal Prerogative in the Legislative Regulatory and
Reform Bill which opponents labeled the Abolition of Parliament Bill.
13. Crown immunity is the mechanism which enables the prerogative. It is
accepted by those in power that anything which is “done in the name of the
Crown”–every administrative, legislative and judicial action–is immune from
prosecution. The assumption is that those in power can do no wrong.
14. The Royal Arms in the form of the Lion and Unicorn and a motto which
proclaims Dieu et mon droit (French for God and my right) presided over the Court
of Appeal in Jaffray, just as they hang behind the bench in English courtrooms and
appear on the letterheads of the Queen’s government. This is no outdated and
quaint symbol but a genuine emblem of the Queen’s overarching authority.
15. There is also a mostly hidden motto on the Royal Arms: Honi soit qui mal y
pense, which is French for “Shame on whoever thinks evil of this”. Criticism of the
Queen and the hereditary system she represents is pre-condemned.
16. Americans pledge their allegiance to a flag which represents a nation where
the ideal is liberty and justice for all. In England everyone in a position of authority
pledges their allegiance to the Queen, an individual who by accident of birth
inherited unlimited powers of patronage. Neither Parliament nor the Judiciary have
any restraining effect.
17. When the interests of the Queen and any part of her elite government are
at risk, only one outcome is acceptable. Legal proceedings in English courts
are therefore driven to that outcome by fair means or foul.
18. Criminal law (which is of little concern to the hereditary powers) is highly
codified. Government at all levels, however, has “codes” and “guidelines” which
can be breached freely. The conduct of the commoner is ruthlessly scrutinized
while misconduct by their “betters” goes unpunished. White collar crime, with
very rare exceptions, goes untried and unpunished in English law.
19. In the civil action in England’s Court of Appeal in the matter of Jaffray v The
Society of Lloyd’s, the court found that the Lloyd’s sales brochures used to attract
investors had misrepresented their audits as “rigorous” and “true and fair”. The
court found that these statements were both untrue and material. The court also
found that Lloyd’s had “no audit at all”. Lloyd’s misled investors, creating financial
ruin for tens of thousands. The mental and physical trauma of this would lead to
suicides and early graves, yet the Court of Appeal, in its great serenity, failed to
hold Lloyds to account.
20. In the Jaffray hearing, witnesses could not be cross-examined because of a
perverse requirement that the cross-examiner accept the witness statement as
true before cross-examination. This not only impedes the search for truth, but
protects an unprincipled witness from the (however unlikely) risk of being
prosecuted for perjury.
21. Litigants in person were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses at all, a
clear demonstration of unequal treatment (in 1993-94, litigants in person had a
96% failure rate in the Court of Appeal).
22. Fraudulent concealment was not allowed to be at issue in Jaffray. The
doctrines of fraudulent concealment and/or fraudulent non-disclosure are not
recognised under English law.
23. The Jaffray appeal was not misconducted under English law (no such thing
is possible given the English judge’s unfettered discretion), but English law does
not recognise the delivery of justice and remedy to those who have been defrauded
as its duty. The English Court of Appeal accepted that it had a higher duty to uphold
private legislation rubberstamped by Parliament.
24. Names who have suffered damage and loss have been denied
compensation because Section 14 of the Lloyd’s Act of 1982 grants Lloyd’s
immunity. Self-granted and undeserved immunity is an almost universal
characteristic of English law. Immunity confers privilege and undeserved privilege
25. Lloyd’s had immunity for all acts except intentional fraud. The authors of the
act would have known that intent is hard to prove and easy to deny.
26. Judges are covered by Crown immunity in all their actions. Barristers cannot
be sued for negligence. Geoffrey Robertson QC, a barrister with 25 years
experience stated in regard to this immunity (1999):: “…[B]arristers are well paid
and immune to actions for negligence…They cling to their immunity from actions
for negligence – an unjustified privilege which protects incompetents from being
27. Some barristers can earn as much as £3 million (over $5 million) in a year.
They may be highly skilled, but their main value to clients may be in the high fees
they charge. English courts can and frequently do make the losing side pay some
or all of the other side’s costs. Parties will settle rather than face costs that could
28. Combine the barrister’s immunity with his weatlhy client’s power of financial
intimidation and there is very little that can’t be done to destroy the chances of any
opposing party. Money decides legal matters.
Failure to Prosecute for Corruption
29. Robertson said about corruption, “I meet colleagues from other countries
who are ‘special prosecutors’, putting behind bars Mafia bosses and masters of
the Wall Street universe, or who head commissions which catch by their white
collars corrupt politicians and public servants and policemen. But in Britain, you
still have to be pretty stupid to end up in prison”.
Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice
30. Mr. Ian Hay Davison, the CEO of the Society of Lloyd’s from 1983 through
1985, wrote a letter to a distressed Lloyd’s name saying that:
Mr. John Taylor 3rd December 1997
Holly Tree House
Suffolk NR34 8AL
Dear Mr. Taylor,
Thank you for your letter of 23rd November. During my time at Lloyd’s
and subsequently I had a series of lengthy interviews with the Serious
Fraud Office concerning the various frauds. Regrettably, the
Government, on policy grounds, decided not to prosecute any of
those involved and no successful prosecutions were brought.
(my emphasis) I was, and remain, extremely indignant and disappointed at
From Ian Hay Davison
31. When Hay Davison brought matters to the attention of the authorities, he did
so in the hopes that they would prosecute and bring criminal proceedings, but no
steps were taken. In a witness statement, he said,
“I continue to regard that as being a major strategic mistake taken at the
highest level of Government. It allowed Lloyd’s to believe that it could
operate effectively above and beyond the law (my emphasis)”. Such a
cultural belief, whether true or not, can only lead to arrogance and a
disregard of legal requirements. In my opinion that is precisely what has
happened at Lloyd’s since 1986.”
32. He added, “[T]here must be something wrong with a system of criminal
justice in which a shoplifter goes to jail for petty theft and a City fraudster, who
may have stolen millions, gets away scot free” (my emphasis).
Violation of Article VII of the Bill of Rights
33. In English civil law, the trial judge can deny trial by jury, as happened in
Jaffray. US litigants unwillingly compelled to take their chances in English
courts lost the protection guaranteed to them in Article VII of the Bill of Rights: “In
Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,
the right to trial by jury shall be preserved”. In Jaffray, US citizens were deprived of
one of their most important constitutional rights, trial by jury. On that ground alone,
finding English courts equivalent to US courts would be wrong. The Founding
Fathers wrote an unqualified protection of the individual into the US Constitution.
The Fiction of an Impartial and Independent Judiciary
34. English judges have been drawn from what Americans would call the upper
classes (“male, pale and stale”). Almost all High Court judges are graduates of
Oxford and Cambridge, universities so elite that students are freed from lowly tasks
like making their own beds and doing their laundry.
35. English judges are political appointees chosen by the Lord Chancellor by a
“secret soundings” process (just recently to be replaced by a commission) who
cannot be disciplined for misconduct. Circuit judges are given luxurious houses
(and cooks, cars and drivers) as public hotel accommodation might somehow
contaminate and compromise their independence.
36. However, five of the judges who presided over Jaffray and other Lloyd’s
litigation in the High Court and Appeal Court are on the Contributing Faculty of the
London Law Shipping Centre of which Lloyd’s is a sponsor.
37. In England, partnerships, memberships, societies and associations are
much more important in public administration. Some official working partnerships
are between local authorities (district and city councils), police and the courts. They
work as one and not necessarily for the public good.
38. English legal practitioners–lawyers and judges–regularly dine together in
the Inns of Court.
39. I have seen a judge refuse to recuse himself from hearing a case of
“scandalisint the court” when he was one of the nine judges who had been
accused of treason.
40. When the Birmingham Six, whose convictions for an IRA bombing were
overturned after 17 years of wrongful imprisonment, sued the police, accusing
them of assault, the then Head of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal stopped
the action saying, “If the six men win, it will mean that the police were guilty of
perjury…and that the convictions were erroneous…this is such an appauling vista
that every person in the land would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should
go any further'”.
41. That is not much different from from the Court of Appeal refusing to follow the
implications of Lloyd’s criminal activities in Jaffray.
42. Eight years later (1988), the same judge followed up by saying about the
Birmingham Six after the evidence of the injustice had been made clear, “It is better
that some innocent men remain in jail than the integrity of the English judicial
system be impugned”.
43. That is not much different from the Court of Appeal effectively saying in
Jaffray, “It is better that thousands of people are wrongly made destitute than the
integrity of Lloyd’s (and the government which should have deterred Lloyd’s fraud)
44. The judge who made the comments above was the much revered Lord
Denning, a decent, moral, intelligent and articulate man deemed “the people’s
judge” and “the judge of the 20th century”. Denning’s reputation and the system’s
reputation had become entwined. Finding fault with the system was beyond him.
Individuals for whom the system works, will see no need to analyse it. It is the
victims on whom that difficult burden falls.
45. Inquiries into possible government misconduct are placed into the hands
of Law Lords who are usually Privy Councillors (q.v.) sitting in Parliament in the
House of Lords. Their inquiries proceed along predictable lines: (1)a
conveniently limited remit; (2) an investigation inside that remit; (3) a lengthy
exposition of the evidence gathered; (4) some sharp words of rebuke, usually
limited to minor points; and (5) an exoneration of the government. The reports
published by Lord Butler (into the “sexed-up” dossier on Iraq and WMD’s),
Lord Hutton (on the death of Dr David Kelley) and Lord Justice Scott (on the
Matrix-Churchill arms to Iraq scandal) all follow this pattern.
No Separation of Powers
46. In the late 19th century, the constitutional authority Walter Bagehot
declared the obvious, that there was no division between executive, legislative and
judicial power. The English legal system is not significantly different than it was in
1850-51 when Dickens was writing about its destructive nature in Bleak House.
The Lord Chancellor is still the head of the judiciary, a party politician, the most
privileged member of the administration and an unelected member of Parliament
in the House of Lords.
47. Bagehot wrote that “Just as the American is the type of composite
Governments, in which the supreme power is divided between many bodies and
functionaries, so the English is the type of simple Constitutions, in which the
ultimate power upon all questions is in the hands of the same persons (my
The Privy Council….A Secret Government
48. The government of the United Kingdom is like a parade float, carefully
designed to be admired on the outside (“British justice is the best in the
world”), with the driving mechanisms hidden and the driver unseen. The Privy
Council, originally a secret group of advisors to the monarch, exists to this day,
uniting in common cause the Law Lords, Appeal Court judges, Cabinet ministers
and leaders of opposition parties with Princes, Dukes, Earls, Viscounts, Barons
and Bishops from the Church of England.
49. Privy Councillors, including Appeal Court judges, swear an oath to place
the interests of the Monarch above all else (“You will to your uttermost bear faith
and allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty”) in direct contradiction to their judicial oath
to adjudicate “without fear or favour”. The oath also enshrines secrecy: “You will in
all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council…keep secret all Matters
committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated secretly in Council”.
An Accommodating Press
50. In 1979 on a BBC TV program, a prominent newspaper publisher was
asked whether it was true that he had once said that if his reporters uncovered
a Watergate type scandal in Britain he would have difficulties in allowing them to
print the story. He replied, ‘I believe in Britain first…If it would harm Britain, I
would suppress it.'”
Threat of Order to Pay the Other Side’s Costs
51. I chose not to go to law to complain of fraud (though the evidence was
irrefutable) for the following reasons: (1) I have observed that it is almost always
the party with higher status who wins; (2) I have observed that the police and
Crown Prosecution Service cannot be relied upon to take action; (3) I have
observed that judges split attempted class actions into individual complaints and
then turn a blind eye to the aggregate loss and damage; and (4) I could be made to
pay not only my own more predictable legal costs but also the other side’s
potentially ruinous legal costs. There is no limit to the costs that can accrue.
52. The threat of having to pay the legal costs of a party with very deep pockets is
the factor which most deterred me from taking a dishonest person to court. I have
been denied justice and–due to his status–he remains free to continue to corrupt
my elected representatives and defraud other people.
53. Judges have even been known to require the winning party to pay all of the
losing party’s costs.
54. In a 1999 report on access to justice, the then Head of the Civil Division
admitted that English civil law was “too expensive, too slow, too unequal, too
uncertain, too fragmented and–to many–incomprehensible (my emphasis)”.
55. Any legal system which is too expensive, too slow, too unequal and too
uncertain provides a strong temptation for all manner and forms of wrongdoing.
Attitudes Towards European Law
56. When in November, 1996 the then Lord Chancellor journeyed to Strasbourg,
France, to ask the European Court of Human Rights to respect the right of British
courts to manage their own affairs “in full recognition of their national character,
traditions, religious beliefs, and moral standards”, he echoed the journalist and
MP, Edmund Burke who set out the case (1790) for accepting society as it is.
Burke asserted that society could not be judged by rational standards and found
wanting. This defence of the status quo is exactly what Tom Paine argued
against in the Rights of Man. It’s an admission from the highest source that the UK
desires and intends to deviate from European Law.
57. When a senior Law Lord was acting as the Queen’s Visitor (a Privy
Councillor with powers to adjudicate in university disputes) he refused to allow an
open hearing with public and press on the grounds that he saw “no reason to do
things any differently than we always have done” despite the student citing a
European Court ruling (Scarth v United Kingdom) in which the government had
given an undertaking to allow open hearings under most circumstances.
Secret Government Vetting of Jurors
58. According to Robertson, between 1974 and 1978 no fewer than twenty-five
cases involved secret vetting of the jury panel. This involved a secret prosecution
application to the trial judge who would order court officials to hand to Special
Branch (similar to the CIA) a list of the names and addresses and occupations of
jurors on the panel for a particular trial, so that “checks” could be made with police
and security records to see whether any juror was listed as having strong political
views, or any hostility to the state (e.g., by making a complaint against the police).
Prosecuting counsel could then challenge the reason given. Any information
suggesting that the juror would be hostile to the defendant would never be
supplied to the defense, because that would give the secret vetting game away.
59. The whole system had been kept quiet, in the hope that lawyers and MPs
would never find out. [An official] claimed to have drawn up ‘firm safeguards’ to
ensure that the system was not abused, but these too were of course secret, so no
one could ever know whether they were firm, or even whether they had been
60. William Pitt used specially vetted juries to convict for sedition defendants
who sympathised with the French Revolution. Jeremy Bentham’s Elements of Jury
Packing (1821) condemned a vetting system “which is regular, quietly established
and quietly suffered. Not only is the yoke already about our necks, but our neck is
already fashioned for it.”
61. On 15 January 1997, I was contacted by Mr Geoffrey Scriven, an English
businessman living in Manchester, England. He was a Litigant in Person who had
been given “the restricted green papers” along with his bundle by a judge who told
him, “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth, Mr Scriven”.
62. While waiting to receive photocopies of Mr Scriven’s green papers, I recalled
being told by another Litigant in Person, “We always lose…It’s decided in
advance…Some people have papers to prove it.” Within two days I had obtained
copies of green papers from Mr Dennis Gardner of Nottinghamshire, England and
Mr Peter Prankerd of Devon, England.
63. The green paper documents, identical in format, were headed Court of
Appeal, Civil Division and bore the title SUMMARY in a distinctive typeface. The
dates were 18 February 1991 (Gardner), 9 March 1992 (Prankerd) and 8 July 1996
(Scriven). Each was stamped in red: IMPORTANT: THESE PAPERS ARE A PART
OF THE COURT RECORD AND MUST BE HANDED TO THE ASSOCIATE [judge]
AND NOT TO THE PARTIES.
64. Lord Woolf, Head of the Civil Division, in a Court of Appeal Practice
Direction (TLR, 8 December 1998) admits that ex-parte communication were
standard operating procedure when he stated that “Bench memoranda” (delivered
as ex-parte communications) “normally consisted of the facts involved in a
particular appeal, a history of the proceedings in the lower courts, an indication of
the issues on the appeal and any opinion which the judicial assistants had on the
merits of the appeal (my emphasis).”
65. When the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, gave his Hamlyn
Lectures in November 1993, he said that any submission would be “put before a
judge in accordance with the principles natural justice with an opportunity for them
to be countered by any opposing party”. Yet his own department, the Lord
Chancellor’s Department, had been disregarding that principle for at least two
66. It is my view that such documents, which have every attribute of a ruling
drafted in advance, are not disclosed to the parties because of the possibility of
disputable errors. It is the most important document in your case and you cannot
see, and therefore cannot contest, its contents.
67. Another serious concern is that the government lawyers who prepare these
documents also advise litigants in person on the status of their cases. The litigant
thinks he or she is speaking off the record and informally, when they are effectively
appearing before the bench. Unfortunate the litigant who somehow offends the
68. These documents were prepared for the Court of Appeal, the same court
where the wronged Lloyd’s Names sought justice in the Jaffray appeal.
No Requirement to Report or Investiagate Perjury
69. Perjury can be reasonably assumed to be commonplace in English courts
as there is no legal obligation for authorities to report or investigate it. According to
a recent criminal justice study by Susan S. M. Edwards (2002), when people are
prosecuted and sentenced for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice, only about 1% receive a sentence of three years or more out of a maximum
of four. Perjury is perhaps more likely to take place in civil cases because money
and property are involved, but there has been very little research into the subject.
Transcripts Modified to Prejudice Appeals
70. Transcripts are unreliable because they are edited by the judge before
being “approved”. In or about 1997 I was shown a verbatim or unapproved
transcript which was given by mistake to a litigant in a child custody case and the
judge-approved and edited version. The only difference between them was that a
section where the mother was shown to be reasonable and willing to compromise
had been cut. There would have been no reason for the judge to do this except to
prejudice her appeal.
Destruction of Evidence
71. Evidence of serious unprosecuted crime can be destroyed. When in 1993
I found evidence in a Metropolitan Police Report in a Detective Chief Inspector’s
distinctive handwriting that he had committed perjury in sworn testimony which
destroyed the defense case in a criminal trial, I made a request of the Official Court
Stenographer at the Old Bailey to preserve the untranscribed notes because they
contained evidence of a police conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, she
refused, even though my MP had backed my request.
Grand Juries Abolished
72. In 1933 the established order became entirely self-regulating when
Parliament abolished grand juries. Ombudsmen tend to find for the complainant in
2-3% of cases.
Plea Bargaining Unknown
73. Plea bargaining, an effective motivating factor in obtaining inside information
from co-operating co-conspirators which enables prosecution for fraud, is
unknown in English law. Whistleblowers are routinely harshly punished as the
legislation which could protect them is ineffective because of lack of enforcement in
the courts. Without plea bargaining, the co-conspirators close ranks so it is little
wonder that almost all the large fraud trials have collapsed or ended in acquittal.
74. The most wide-ranging study ever conducted by an independent body or
government agency (1999) produced empirical evidence that indicates that in
England and Wales a substantial majority of people with non-trivial justiciable
problems live unhappily with injustice in order to avoid going to court.
75. From face-to-face interviews with 1,134 individuals with non-trivial justicable
problems (out of a random sample of 4,125 adults), Professor Hazel Genn of
University College London, found that, although almost all interviewees felt that
they had a moral right to a fair resolution and had sought advice from a Citizens
Advice Bureau, law center or solicitor, 80% took no legal action.
76. Genn concluded that “greater certainty about the enforcement of legal
rights…in the civil context might have an impact on the behaviour of those
who evade their responsiblities…when the likelihood of sanction seems
remote”. In less academic terms, if people could be brought to justice, there
wouldn’t be so much wrongdoing.
77. People avoid going to court because of the fundamental flaws (my term) that
the head of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal identified in 1999: “[It is] too
expensive, too slow, too unequal, too uncertain, [my emphasis] too fragmented
and, to many, incomprehensible.”
Some Recent Opinions
78. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King has a prestigious position
in the English regulatory scheme, equivalent to Chairman of the US Federal
79. The (London) Times reported his remarks on or about 22 June, 2006 as
“Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, delivered a fierce attack on
the commercial legal system at the Mansion House. Mr. King said the
adversarial system for settling civil legal disputes was in reality ‘a
profitable monopoly of lawyers’ and called for the Government to take
steps to reform the law.”
80. In a recent Times interview, Robert Wardle, director of the Serious Fraud
Office, warned that the police and prosecution authorities trying to combat fraud are
struggling. In a letter to the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, QC, Wardle said in
his annual report: “There remains a gap between the incidence of fraud and the
number of investigations, let alone prosecutions…I am not suggesting that the
justice gap can be closed–merely narrowed.” At present, he told The Times,
“frauds are going uninvestigated and unprosecuted” (my emphasis).
81. It is my carefully considered opinion given with all due respect, based
upon personal experience and knowledge, that English courts are not fair and
impartial tribunals where things get put right. English courts are corrupt forums
based on unwarranted privilege which perversely excuse and conceal the gravest
Sworn this day the 11th of September 2006 in Cambridge, England
Sworn before me
A SOLICITOR/ Commissioner for Oaths
Suzon Forscey-Moore B.A., LL.M.
Thank you SUZON, it has been a pleasure getting to know you and your work!
Suzon’s work has been extracted from Maurice’s website, to give it as wide an audience as possible!