Page 44 - Sample_ITNJ_Book

My testimony as witness brought into evidence pricing and information issues which came out of introductions by the Commissioners of their own experience. This experience was not otherwise brought into formal opening evidence. This included the buy-out price from bondage of a child tied to
a loom for his working hours (900 rupees); and
the example of young men sold to be used for gratification/exploitation purposes ($700). There
was also shown two images side by side: the first image showed kids in a cart on a field putting
their hands out to another kid to help him up (the inference being an image of presumed poverty and exploitation) and the second image showing a luxury yacht harboured somewhere in the south of France (the inference being an image of presumed wealth). The point being made was of the concentration of global wealth, as defined, in the hands of the few. The complex interconnect and causal links between the two requires unbundling. ‘Ethical investing’ goes some way to identifying the problem by demanding sufficient information in market reporting that covers the entirety of the supply chain.
CONCLUSIONS
My testimony concluded by saying that each time there is a perversity (on a register, in the court) the converse (relief) is automatically triggered. This,
on the surface, suggests that the ‘system’ is self- adjusting. This is because the Target (who may be
the subject of bullying for example to cause them
to abandon their standing and estate) automatically acquires a valid cause of action. In practice this is not the case.
- Policy
In practice the apparatus or organs of state are not geared up to perversity or contamination of law enforcement by policy. The Land Registry and Land Charges Register in the UK is an example. The Chief Land Registrar may make a change on the register.
This means a human must consider the potential change and make a decision (not a computer, robot, or computer linked to other computers operated
by labour from a staffing agency). Second he
shall make entries (implicitly having considered
the proposed change). This should be effective in preserving the integrity of the register unless there
is contamination. “Policy” (i) exonerates ‘lawyers’ including ‘conveyancers’ from attaching raw evidence emanating from the principals/owners themselves. Others as land owners must provide evidence; (ii) pushes the operations away from the local area to which they relate, such that the register staff are
not first hand informed and the registers are not accessible by foot and to those who do not use technology; (iii) there are no or limited opportunities for work were register staff to resign. Consequently there is no trodden path for repair. The indemnity from the Land Registrar provided for in law, effectively disappeared to be replaced by a ‘fund’ inaccessible without ‘litigating’ i.e. gone without withdrawal through Parliament, which would not be achieved without full and true picture.
- Money cost of repair is trivial
The money cost of essential repair is trivial. It is achieved by:
• addressing the facilitating devices (ultimately these do not work because a price cannot be put on human life;
• recognising that the biggest advantage of crown proceedings is not value recovered but curtailment of the wrongdoing;
• tackling anonymity at the front door of the court (including funding) as a precursor to crossing the threshold;
• a first authority that value creation by bringing down judicial standing is a perversity and contempt. Contempt of court is a recognized omission from the civil procedure rules;
page 42