Comments on: New Project http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/ Constitutionally-limited government, 1688-2006, RIP. Pass the bananas. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:28:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: ivacbs http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-14832 Mon, 07 May 2007 23:25:37 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-14832 <a>519216</a> [url=174="goodurl_megabase.txt]519216[/url] 519216 [url=174=”goodurl_megabase.txt]519216[/url]

]]> by: Frank Respinger http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-8063 Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:09:08 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-8063 23 January 2007 My complaint of misappropriation of leader's funds was lodged with the Office of the Commissioner on 10 February 2006. Despite assurances from the Commissioner's Office that the complaint was being investigated, it was not until November 2006 that the police admitted the complaint was never investigated. By then it was too late. This action by the police enabled the Labour led government to pass validating legislation thus legalising the theft of Taxpayers money. If police had carried out their duties responsibly a charge would have been laid and the Darton v Clarkwould have proceeded. MPs who voted for the Validation Bill in any case offended against the Crimes Act 1961 - Part 6 Crimes affecting the administration of law and justice - Bribery and corruption. Police by their non action and misleading statements also offendad against the Crimes Act. Why did 4 months elapse between The Chief Electoral Officer's complaint to the police on September 6 2005 and the the start of the police investigation at end of January 2006? The investigation was corrupted. 23 January 2007

My complaint of misappropriation of leader’s funds was lodged with the Office of the Commissioner on 10 February 2006. Despite assurances from the Commissioner’s Office that the complaint was being investigated, it was not until November 2006 that the police admitted the complaint was never investigated. By then it was too late.

This action by the police enabled the Labour led government to pass validating legislation thus legalising the theft of Taxpayers money. If police had carried out their duties responsibly a charge would have been laid and the Darton v Clarkwould have proceeded.

MPs who voted for the Validation Bill in any case offended against the Crimes Act 1961 - Part 6 Crimes affecting the administration of law and justice - Bribery and corruption.

Police by their non action and misleading statements also offendad against
the Crimes Act.

Why did 4 months elapse between The Chief Electoral Officer’s complaint to the police on September 6 2005 and the the start of the police investigation at end of January 2006? The investigation was corrupted.

]]> by: Dean Knight http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-5133 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 00:27:28 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-5133 Bernard: Any news? Is the case officially dead now? Regards Bernard:

Any news? Is the case officially dead now?

Regards

]]> by: Curious http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-3168 Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:37:24 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-3168 Will you be seeking costs? This might be an interesting argument - you only stand to lose your case because Labour pushed retrospective legislation through Parliament. Difficulty with the argument would be that you would be bringing Parliamentary proceedings into question in Court - a no-no. But if a Judge were willing to find (in the course of deciding costs) that if it were not for the legislation you would have won, you might achieve what you hoped to achieve through the lawsuit. Will you be seeking costs?

This might be an interesting argument - you only stand to lose your case because Labour pushed retrospective legislation through Parliament. Difficulty with the argument would be that you would be bringing Parliamentary proceedings into question in Court - a no-no.

But if a Judge were willing to find (in the course of deciding costs) that if it were not for the legislation you would have won, you might achieve what you hoped to achieve through the lawsuit.

]]> by: Murray http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-2943 Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:06:05 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-2943 Its a lose lose situation when Labour has the power to write it's own self serving laws. Its a lose lose situation when Labour has the power to write it’s own self serving laws.

]]> by: Bernard http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-2926 Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:28:14 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-2926 On the face of it I agree but if we make a judge chuck it out when we know there's no legal ground for continuing we probably get done for costs and I have no desire to pay Labour's bills. I've just found out tomorrow's meeting has again been delayed (again) for a week or so. More later. On the face of it I agree but if we make a judge chuck it out when we know there’s no legal ground for continuing we probably get done for costs and I have no desire to pay Labour’s bills.

I’ve just found out tomorrow’s meeting has again been delayed (again) for a week or so. More later.

]]> by: Murray http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-2914 Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:01:12 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-2914 Concur with kiwi donkey. You pull it and it gives dear leader the opportunity to claim victory. A judge kills it it he has to attribute it to the law being rewritten. Concur with kiwi donkey.

You pull it and it gives dear leader the opportunity to claim victory. A judge kills it it he has to attribute it to the law being rewritten.

]]> by: kiwi_donkey http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-2909 Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:55:40 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-2909 Please don't withdraw. Make the judge dismiss it. It is an important political point. Please don’t withdraw. Make the judge dismiss it. It is an important political point.

]]> by: Bernard http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-2748 Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:37:14 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-2748 We're going to withdraw on Monday. There's no useful way forward that I can see. The simple fact is that Labour knew they would lose in court and so have rushed through this legislation in time to prevent us from going any further. We'll never get to see whether they would have filed true-but-politically-destructive or well-spun-but-perjurous affidavits; we won't get to dig more nasty letters from Heather Simpson out of the Parliamentary Service; and we won't get to hear whatever juicy comments the judge would have used to describe Labour's behaviour. We’re going to withdraw on Monday. There’s no useful way forward that I can see.

The simple fact is that Labour knew they would lose in court and so have rushed through this legislation in time to prevent us from going any further.

We’ll never get to see whether they would have filed true-but-politically-destructive or well-spun-but-perjurous affidavits; we won’t get to dig more nasty letters from Heather Simpson out of the Parliamentary Service; and we won’t get to hear whatever juicy comments the judge would have used to describe Labour’s behaviour.

]]> by: Dean Knight http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-2745 Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:52:33 +0000 http://www.darntonvsclark.org/2006/10/26/new-project/#comment-2745 BD: Have the proceedings been discontinued? Is there still to be a hearing or call on Monday? DK BD:

Have the proceedings been discontinued? Is there still to be a hearing or call on Monday?

DK

]]>