Secret court jails father for sending son 21st birthday greeting on Facebook after he was gagged fro

Yeah, after reading this article I'm quite shocked.

Is this so-called "judge" such a power-tripping, egoic sucker for respect and bureaucratic red tape that he upholds a stupid gag order years after there is any point to one?

And how did the court find out about this message? I don't recall reading that.



You people in the UK need to stage an armed revolt or something, at this rate.....

A LIFETIME length gag-order, and some people are sanguine with that? Okay..

Originally posted by anubis93
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

i'm sorry, the same thing happens all over the world. You are found guilty of something and given punishment. in this case what ever caused him to have the gag order in the first place. Now you have broken that order, they don't need to retrial you. Since it was a verdict and you broken the verdict. Same issue with prisoners in jail who beat each other up or worse. They get tossed in solitary without even seeing a judge first.

Try reading it before posting you won't sound so stupid.

The gag order is clearly to keep the pubic unaware of the crime against this man.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978

seems like the U.K. government doesn't understand what "representation" means after all these years.

i'm not taking a crack at brits mind you, just pointing out that the people of the world all share a common problem:corrupt governments.

I'm glad both sons took it upon themselves to go public with this story to defend their father as well as bring humiliation to their mother and the courts.

The father may not be able to speak, but his sons can sure pick up where he left off!

Similar things happen in the USA ,but yeah,we have the "patriot" act .

reply to post by Sankari


This is twice now I have seen you on ATS either defend secret courts or outright claim they have been "debunked" (you words).

Here's an unpalatable fact for you according to the British press, Secret Courts exist and they are trying to gather more power via legislation:

The opposition to secret courts is gathering pace

Last-ditch bid to dilute secret courts plan fails

Anonymity for those jailed by 'secret courts' is wrong, says Lord Chief Justice

I have purposely omitted results from the Daily Mail as I don't consider them a credible source. Now whether we call them "Secret Courts," or "Closed Courts," is a matter of splitting hairs. The result is the same. I pride myself on being a member of a fair and open society where justice is seen to be done, where innocence is a given until proven by the courts and a jury otherwise. Secret/ Closed Courts make a mockery of that premise and represent a slip into chaos. Where we are no longer allowed to ask the question, "Was this individual truly guilty of an offence?" Some of the greatest examples of miscarriages of justice were because someone, perhaps a member of the public or a journalist said, "This doesn't make any sense." In a Secret/ Closed Court system, that scrutiny is impossible.

Your continued defence of Secret/ Closed Courts is simply indefensible.

If I am correct in my thinking, a Judge sent a man to jail for a posting on facebook wishing his own son happy birthday.

His 'crime' seems so utterly trivial and the punishment so utterly draconian that one wouldn't believe this is 2013.

However, what really bugs me, apart from the triviality is what the cost for this triviality to the British Tax Payers and the individual concerned is:

Firstly the jail cost, Court costs and transportation to jail costs plus of course if he appeals.

The fact that the man will now have a criminal record (were he not to have one from the past) and his CAB report will probably preclude him from working again if he is wage or salaried, unless he's self employed.

His lost time working and the impact on his earnings and his credit rating.

Insurance companies are in on the act and may refuse to insure him with a criminal record.

He may not/never be able to work again so will be eligible to benefits till he retires.

The fury of his family and friends at this draconianism, they will see him as a victim and more resentment
will build against cooperation and respect for some of our illustrious 'authorities'. We already patronise criminal bankers and the establishment but the general public hell no!

We don't just punish people courts think are guilty, we persecute them as well.

Welcome to England, I'm surprised more of us haven't left yet.

reply to post by Shiloh7


What an interesting and prescient post from someone so new to ATS. Hoping you stick around a bit friend.

An order to never speak of your own children? If I didn't know any better, I'd say I've finally heard everything.
What genius thinks an order like that is a good idea? It serves no purpose other than to apparently soothe the ego of a vindictive ex-spouse. Someone on the sentencing committee was sure biased.

Feminazis, all men are intrinsically evil and feminism is all about equality. Just so long as wimmin are beyond being held accountable for their actions and the subsequent consequences. That is the central tenet of feminism wimmins feelings are more much more important and lead to us all living in a much better world.

Originally posted by Shiloh7
If I am correct in my thinking, a Judge sent a man to jail for a posting on facebook wishing his own son happy birthday.

You are not correct in your thinking, read the article and do a bit of research and you will find the reason he was jailed.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

Its probably easier if the establishment has Brits focusing on other perceived threats, like Moslems, rather than on the government, which actually has the power to strip them of their rights and liberties.

The government has confiscated the people's right to bear arms. Apparently there is one camera per every 32 Brits. In another thread, it was said that the average Brit pays 75% in taxes. And now we learn of secret courts...

But you guys should worry about those Moslems...

edit on 2-6-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)

Unfortunately, the Brits never really had much in the way of a Bill of Rights and Liberties, like the Constitution or US Bill of Rights.

Magna Carta was about as close as they came. Brits NEVER had the right to bear arms, and the cameras have been around since the early 1950's.

The average Brit definitely does NOT pay 75% taxes though - even the top rate is only about 50%, most pay around 20 - 25%.

The secret courts are very, very concerning though.

But regarding the Muslims (please spell it right) the anti Muslim fervor in the USA is far worse than it is in Britain, thanks to right wing media such as FOX NEWS

Originally posted by babybunnies

Unfortunately, the Brits never really had much in the way of a Bill of Rights and Liberties, like the Constitution or US Bill of Rights.

Magna Carta was about as close as they came. Brits NEVER had the right to bear arms, and the cameras have been around since the early 1950's.

Look up the Bill of Rights 1689 some time, then come back and apologise.

I feel sorry for the son. He will NOW have to live, with the guilt and shame for the rest of his life. After all, it was....... HIS....... BIRTHDAY....... Now, his dad is in jail for sending him well wishes via the internet? Why was his dad forbidden? I don't get it....... If the son was living with his father? Why, was it forbidden for a father to wish his son "HAPPY BIRTHDAY?" Isn't that what a "FATHER" is suppose to do? This story just doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe, I'm just stupid and I'm missing something? Hope it all works out for the Boy and his Father. I hope the courts will have mercy. If not, all I can say is, THANK GOD there IS a GOD... and... THANK GOD there are ANGELS WATCHING and TAKING NOTES........

A concept that had been brought to my attention recently seems to apply here.

If you agree to a condition (and in this instance the man agreeing never to name the "boy" as his son) and accept the consequences of breaking the condition, then paying the price of breaking that condition makes absolute sense.

My question is, why would anyone EVER agree to the condition and why didn't he fight tooth and nail in the courts? Doesn't the British courts have an escalating path to higher courts? I believe Canada bases its court system on the British so taking it to the "Supreme Court" should have mitigated some of this..

reply to post by babybunnies


A family coat of arms bestowes the right to bear arms and meet justice and practically every freeborn British family has a coat of arms and that is ingrained in our national make up

The temporary ban on hand guns will soon be overturned because we are not prepared to stand by and allow criminals to be the only ones have hand guns.

If you call the police in this country to a respond to a fireamrs threat they don't give you a time they look at a calendar and give you a possible date.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


I don't know how it is in the UK, but, in the US it has nothing to do with what the Court Order tells you to do or not to do. They may give any arbitrary instruction, ludicrous or not, say to pay X amount of dollars--even if you shouldn't have to pay X amount of dollars; X amount of dollars is unfair or X amount was not the amount ordered in similar cases. (You can challenge the instruction to pay X amount of dollars, but, X amount is determined by a formula you have a right to rebut, but, not allowed to know what the formula is you are rebutting --making it impossible to rebut X amount of dollars at the time the order is made. And, so it is with the gag order, one may not know the situation that allows it to argue against it at the time the order is made.) It is about the Order, itself. You are punished for violating the order, not for violating the instruction. It's just that violating the instruction is violating the order and so it appears as though you are being punished for violating the instruction. Law is precise in it's language and akin to a state of madness. He is likely being jailed for violating the order, the violation just happens to be publicly naming his son.

For instance, in Washington State, USA (paraphrasing RCW 26.50.110 apps.leg.wa.gov...)

Whenever an order is granted or there is a valid foreign protection order and the respondent or person to be restrained knows of the order, a violation of any of the following provisions of the order is a gross misdemeanor except in certain conditions and, among other things, a violation of an order issued shall also constitute contempt of court, and is subject to the penalties prescribed by law.

You get misdemeanor charges and contempt of court for violating the order, not for violating the provisions.

While the closed family court hearing is, technically, a secret, in that it is a publicly closed proceeding and the records are not public, that may not remain the case for long. The US has begun to open some of the family court proceedings to the public, though, it is still at the judge's discretion (say, in sexual abuse cases) and the records are still closed to the public. Maybe, the trend will catch on in the UK. The problem with family courts is that it is an administrative hearing and not a trial (to see the difference read www.differencebetween.net...) and, secondly, family courts do not make decisions based on the precedents of similar decisions en.wikipedia.org... but, according to judicial discretion. en.wikipedia.org...

The hearing was likely only on whether the order was violated, not whether the provision was legal or lawful. (And, being at the judge's discretion, it probably was, plus, the judge would just say they are not "here to retry the order.")

As for lack of counsel, this may explain:

In agency adjudication, the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel does not arise. However, parties are permitted to be advised and represented by counsel at the party’s own expense. Denial of right to counsel may result in the setting aside of an agency decision. Rehearing is allowed on setting aside of agency decision on the ground of denial of right to counsel. However, a party is at liberty to waive his/her statutory right to counsel. Failure to obtain representation by counsel will not affect the need to exhaust administrative remedy. administrativelaw.uslegal.com...

Maybe, the system needs an overhaul.

Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice and I did not read the article before giving my opinion.

While this may not be occurring exactly the same way in the US, there are parallels here that should be noted. Mainly that the government no longer works for the people. Both countries are supposed to be democratic, and the justice systems are meant to be fair, to minimize the possibility of sending innocent people to jail, having miscarriages of justice occur, etc. The fact that there are secret courts in Britain says more about the mindset of the government than anything else, at least in my opinion. It is the same in the US as well.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

Secret Court ? No Arrest? No Lawyer?

Hummm ... ..

I guess things are a Little different in the UK. I always thought the Brits were more civil than that.

When did the "Secret Court" come about? I had never heard of it before.

If this is Any sign of things to come I suspect the Summary Executions will soon be implemented.


EDIT:

I am curious to know.. . Does the UK have anything similar to the Patriot Act?

If so, it might be in the language that makes this possible.

edit on 2-6-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)

"My" country is JOKE!

So where does someone stand with these secret courts? Are they legal...

I would go totally, mentally, bonkers and start pulling esophagus from peoples necks if I were treated like this!
(Yes I understand this would land me with a real manslaughter/murder charge, but knowing UK police within my vicinity wouldn't have guns, coz they're #, I'd take my chances and rather die than put up with that treatment).

How can such an organisation even exist or carry any weight? No RIGHT to representation, that's the point - IT IS A RIGHT!

~CrzayFool