tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4090803257998696458.post8924998114469814823..comments2023-10-23T06:12:33.993-07:00Comments on The Crutch Collective: Report of the Atos Recruitment Evening Picket GlasgowThe Crutch Collectivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03941301792126663440noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4090803257998696458.post-55857207365486360762011-06-08T11:53:17.604-07:002011-06-08T11:53:17.604-07:00Important for use in fighting Atos, both in appeal...Important for use in fighting Atos, both in appeal cases and over the consequences of what they do. Nobody has ever offered a reasoned refutatiion that this "court change" is real, the logic for it holds up sentence by sentence, don't be another campaign that ignores it and helps it stay covered up.<br /><br />THE COURT CHANGE: Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. "Open to open-ended fault finding by any party". <br /><br />Its shifting of power in favour of ordinary people ensures that it has been under a media silence. Still, it is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments. <br /> <br />This follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on a scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries' laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence. <br /> <br />Hence, the original ECHR is now, and since then, an illegal entity, because it broke all preexisting precedent that courts recognise the correct order of time, and it claimed a power of finality to issue decisions whose content is a factual impossibility. But for the original ECHR to lapse in this way, also breaches the European Convention's section on requiring an ECHR to exist. Hence, this section requires the member countries to create a new ECHR that removes the original's illegality. The source of the illegality being left standing was in the claimed power of final decision. Hence, the only way the new court can remove the illegality is by being constituted such that its decisions are not final. If decisions are not final, the only other thing they can be is open-endedly faultable. <br /> <br />This requires the courts in the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries' courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in all the Council of Europe countries.<br /> <br />The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.ternhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17710224070068773971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4090803257998696458.post-82179862804876617662011-06-06T16:16:26.672-07:002011-06-06T16:16:26.672-07:00Maybe we need to 'up the anti' and ensure ...Maybe we need to 'up the anti' and ensure that ATOS Origins employees, require escorting from their buildings, every working day of their lives?wheelzukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11222705198645312628noreply@blogger.com