|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: MI5-VictimMI5-Victim Date: Nov 30, 2006 07:48
Communications with Security Service Tribunal in 1999
I took some more potshots at the SS-Tribunal in the first half of 1999. The correspondence between myself and the Tribunal
Secretary is detailed on this webpage. Ultimately I decided not to pursue another complaint with them, partly from Robin
Ramsay's advice (and that of a solicitor I consulted), but mostly because it was rather obvious from Mr Brooks' replies
that the Tribunal has no investigative means of its own and is that useless animal, a toothless watchdog.
Included with this first letter was a copy of the leaflet, "Complaints about the Security Service". This tells you that
the Tribunal can order "the service to end its inquiries about you; the service to destroy any records it holds about
those inquiries; the quashing of a property warrant; financial compensation". Yeah, right. Look, there's a flying pig, oink-flap, oink-flap.
My subsequent letter to Nick Brooks, Tribunal Secretary, dated 25 March 1999, said;
Dear Mr Brooks,
We spoke on the phone last week and you kindly sent a copy of the form,
"Complaints about the Security Service".
I have a few questions which I should like to ask you, before I undertake the task of
making a formal complaint. As you know I made a complaint in February 1997, and in June
of that year the tribunal made a bland and unsatisfactory statement that "no determination in
your favour has been made on your complaint". During our phone conversation I expressed
the view that the Tribunal was incapable of performing its functions and acts as a
whitewashing body for the Security Service. My questions are as follows;
|
| Show full article (7.51Kb) |
|
| | 34 Comments |
|
|
Author: Lefty SkywalkerLefty Skywalker Date: Dec 8, 2006 17:55
C'Pi wrote:
> marika wrote:
>> C'Pi wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, but there are no exceptions.
>> Whatever you do, do not talk to ANYONE about "those cases" from
>> today. I mean no one.
>> Or we could get written up.
>> This is just a word to the wise.
>> So if anyone asks you ANY questions about it, just say you have no
>> idea what they are talking about.
>> I know you know that already...
>
> But we still don't know what to do with the monkey.
You and the monkey are getting along nicely, and since you only fling
poo at each other it's easier to clean up after the both of you.
--
Daniel O. Miller
|
| Show full article (0.98Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken ChaddockKen Chaddock Date: Aug 24, 2006 18:26
marika wrote:
> Ken Chaddock wrote:
>
>
>
>> This is quite a disingenuous answer.
>
>
> all i can say to that one is what the hell!!!!!
The "hell" is that we have many situations where the responsibility for
making a difficult decision has been taken out of the hand of the
individual to avoid the situation where pressure, where self...
|
| Show full article (1.37Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken ChaddockKen Chaddock Date: Aug 24, 2006 18:30
Dr. Lippschitz wrote:
> "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
> news:xgsGg.14474$tP4.449@clgrps12...
>
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>
>>> krp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Carol Ann Worstal - Hemingway a/k/a Left, Pargenon...
|
| Show full article (4.56Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Ken ChaddockKen Chaddock Date: Aug 24, 2006 18:34
Hyerdahl wrote:
> Dr. Lippschitz wrote:
>
> (edit)
>
>
>>Family Court is part of the Civil Division and they do award damages
>>regardless of their terminology ( child support etc) Determining paternity
>>fraud is within their jurisdiction because any female can name a man(usually
>>some guy with $$$) as father on a birth certificate and then sue for child
>>support. The Court must first determine if he is indeed the father (assuming
>>he denies it) and the burden of proof is on the female who would be
>>equivalent to a Plaintiff in civil court.
>
>
> You're wrong. There has been NO CASE in family court where damages
> were awarded for paternity fraud.
|
| Show full article (1.01Kb) |
| 25 Comments |
|
|
Author: HyerdahlHyerdahl Date: Aug 24, 2006 19:25
Ken Chaddock wrote:
> Dr. Lippschitz wrote:
>
>> "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
>> news:xgsGg.14474$tP4.449@clgrps12...
>>
>>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>>
>>>> krp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Carol Ann Worstal - Hemingway a/k/a Left, Pargenon etc
>>>
>>>>>>Well, MANdatory DNA testing would not likely be enacted because we
>>>>>>already have voluntary DNA testing. IOW, a father can easily have his
>>>>>>own child tested already, so how likely is it that overlybroad
>>>>>>legislation would hold?
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the men have no idea that they were cuckolded, but if all
>>>>>births ...
|
| Show full article (5.75Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: HyerdahlHyerdahl Date: Aug 24, 2006 19:27
Ken Chaddock wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>
>> Dr. Lippschitz wrote:
>>
>> (edit)
>>
>>
>>>Family Court is part of the Civil Division and they do award damages
>>>regardless of their terminology ( child support etc) Determining paternity
>>>fraud is within their jurisdiction because any female can name a man(usually
>>>some guy with $$$) as father on a birth certificate and then sue for child
>>>support. The Court must first determine if he is indeed the father (assuming
>>>he denies it) and the burden of proof is on the female who would be
>>>equivalent to a Plaintiff in civil court.
>>
>>
>> You're wrong. There has been NO CASE in family court where damages
>> were awarded for paternity fraud.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.20Kb) |
| 15 Comments |
|
|
Author: AvengerAvenger Date: Aug 24, 2006 20:05
"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:xosHg.17061$365.10832@edtnps89...
> Dr. Lippschitz wrote:
>
>> "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
>> news:xgsGg.14474$tP4.449@clgrps12...
>>
>>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>>
>>>> krp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Carol Ann Worstal - Hemingway a/k/a Left, Pargenon etc
>>>
>>>>>>Well, MANdatory DNA testing would not likely be enacted because we
>>>>>>already have voluntary DNA testing. IOW, a father can easily have his
>>>>>>own child tested already, so how likely is it that overlybroad
>>>>>>legislation would hold?
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the men have no idea that they were cuckolded, but if all ...
|
| Show full article (5.44Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AvengerAvenger Date: Aug 24, 2006 20:10
"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:mssHg.17062$365.14074@edtnps89...
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>
>> Dr. Lippschitz wrote:
>>
>> (edit)
>>
>>
>>>Family Court is part of the Civil Division and they do award damages
>>>regardless of their terminology ( child support etc) Determining
>>>paternity
>>>fraud is within their jurisdiction because any female can name a
>>>man(usually
>>>some guy with $$$) as father on a birth certificate and then sue for
>>>child
>>>support. The Court must first determine if he is indeed the father
>>>(assuming
>>>he denies it) and the burden of proof is on the female who would be
>>>equivalent to a Plaintiff in civil court. ...
|
| Show full article (1.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: (krp)(krp) Date: Aug 25, 2006 02:58
"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:mssHg.17062$365.14074@edtnps89...
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>
>> Dr. Lippschitz wrote:
>>
>> (edit)
>>
>>
>>>Family Court is part of the Civil Division and they do award damages
>>>regardless of their terminology ( child support etc) Determining
>>>paternity
>>>fraud is within their jurisdiction because any female can name a
>>>man(usually
>>>some guy with $$$) as father on a birth certificate and then sue for
>>>child
>>>support. The Court must first determine if he is indeed the father
>>>(assuming
>>>he denies it) and the burden of proof is on the female who would be
>>>equivalent to a Plaintiff in civil court. ...
|
| Show full article (1.28Kb) |
| 7 Comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
