Judge calls for online court without lawyers to cut costs … Lord Justice Briggs, a Court of Appeal judge, who drew the package of reforms to the civil justice system ALAMY A senior judge has called for the establishment of an online court that does not have lawyers and can deal with claims of up to £25,000. The move would give “effective access to justice without having to incur the disproportionate cost of using lawyers”, a report says. – UK Times
We’ve often made the point that the current Western law system is an illegitimate, expensive botch that would not be practical without monopoly central banking.
It is the counterfeiting and debasement of currency that allows countries like the US and to a lesser extent the UK the ability to rip apart families and imprison people for years for “criminal” activities harmful only to themselves.
The US alone imprisons 25 percent of the world incarcerated population. It pays for this insanity by the over-printing of money.
To add to the obscenity of the US “justice” system, many prisoners are virtual slaves since the system in many cases has been “privatized.”
This means prisons are run by for-profit ventures that may demand prisoners work long hours in increasingly abysmal conditions.
In fact, in various municipalities it has been reported that representatives of private prisons demand the incarceration of a certain amount of prisoners per year.
In Afghanistan, the US pays families for the men, women and children it slaughters by mistake via bombs and drones.
While this is seen as “quaint” by the Western mainstream media, this is the way justice was traditionally carried out from a historical perspective.
In fact, violent alternatives like duels were created to impel people to speak to each other and settle their differences.
Often there were no third-parties at all. The sides involved in a criminal or civil quarrel came to a resolution as best they could.
Probably concepts of “justice” were somewhat foreign to these discussions as was the idea of paying one’s “debt to society” – a wholly awful and rhetorical assumption.
Societies practicing private justice simply wanted to see quarrels resolved and individuals responsible for difficulties quieted.
Alternatively, in various venues at various times, there were professional third-parties who would resolve differences for a fee.
These individuals had every incentive to be fair and practical because they wanted to maintain a good reputation in order to be hired again.
Now Britain – the place from where the current, horrible, state-run, “justice” system emerged – seems to be taking tentative steps to return to private justice.
It’s not much but anything is better than the current system.
HERE, from Family Law:
Lord Justice Briggs has … published his final report into the structure of the civil courts: The Civil Courts Structure Review: Final Report.
It was commissioned by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in July 2015 to coincide with a programme for reform of the courts by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and looking at civil court structures and judicial processes more generally …
The proposal is the centrepiece of a package of reforms to the civil justice system, drawn up by Lord Justice Briggs, a Court of Appeal judge, and commissioned by the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the master of the rolls, Lord Dyson.
The Family Law article goes on to make a number of recommendations on different aspects of the civil justice system, such as enforcement of court rulings, the structure of the courts and deployment of judges.
The idea seems to be that people ought to try to settle their grievances within certain provided parameters and with the help of “case officers” rather than judges as much as possible.
The idea that people can actually negotiate and resolve their own problems without less rather than more state interference is certainly a step forward.
In fact, that is a step toward private justice – the idea of removing the official bureaucracy from resolution process.
Conclusion: Ironically, these ideas are being greeted with solemn praise for their “mastery” of innovative approaches. The system is so corrupt and officious that it does not realize it is reinventing solutions that were commonplace for thousands of years.