More on the “Child Stealing” Tin Foil Hat Brigade

It’s all kicking off in the comments thread to this post, in which I looked at the legal campaign of Chris Jarvis. Mr Jarvis has had his children removed by the courts and social services, for reasons that he hasn’t specified. His response to this is to mount a private prosecution against Leeds City Council for genocide.

For some reason I can’t quite fathom, his prosecution was struck out on the spot by a district judge. He now plans to take his case to the London High Court.

Mr Jarvis seems to be presenting himself as something of a legal expert in certain conspiracy theory circles. In this blog post he extols the virtues of acting as a Mackenzie friend (a lay person who acts in lieu of a lawyer during a court hearing).

As he says in the above video, “If you wish to see the end of the law of the lawyer…then we must make these people redundant and surplus to requirements….Let’s make the lawyer something of yesterday.” He had acted as a Mackenzie friend to one Norman Scarth, who had been imprisoned for contempt of court after recording a court hearing.

Mr Scarth appears to be something of a colourful character in himself. A World War Two veteran who has stood for election on various occasions, though his electoral campaigning in the past has got him arrested for shouting abuse through a loudhailer. In 2001 he was imprisoned for wounding a bailiff with a chainsaw.

In his YouTube video, Mr Jarvis makes great play of the respect he was given in the court when applying for a writ of habeas corpus for Mr Scarth. I must confess to being somewhat surprised by this approach. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m given to understand that it’s considered a fairly easy thing to get out of prison for contempt of court. Basically what you do is go before the judge and say that you’re sorry and you won’t do it again, thereby purging your contempt.

Mr Jarvis links to the Bailii page for the court hearing. Curiously though, he doesn’t mention the outcome.

Conclusion on habeas corpus

    1. In the absence of any basis upon which it would be proper to conclude that the Claimant has been imprisoned unlawfully or that his imprisonment has become unlawful I could not grant the writ of habeas corpus. As I sought to point out to the Claimant in the hearing on 15 August 2011 his interests are much better served by an appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. I am satisfied from documentation referred to by the Claimant and sent to me in the post either by the Claimant or persons acting on his behalf that the Claimant has lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal. It is that court, in my judgment, which should adjudicate upon whether or not the finding of contempt of court and/or the sentence imposed for the contempt should remain.
    1. I do not pretend that I have dealt with every point which the Claimant made during the course of a speech which lasted about 45 minutes. I have, however, dealt with all of the points made which I considered had any bearing upon whether the Claimant was detained lawfully.

Purging contempt

  1. During the course of his oral representations Mr Jarvis raised the possibility of the Claimant applying to me to purge his contempt. In some ways this was a surprising application since in his own representations to me the Claimant demonstrated nothing but contempt for the order made by HH Judge Rose and, indeed for the judge himself. Nonetheless I felt it my duty to consider this possibility. I did so upon the assumption that I had jurisdiction to entertain an application although Ms Lambert was not able to confirm that I enjoyed such jurisdiction. I reached the conclusion that assuming I had jurisdiction to deal with the matter I should decline to do so. It seemed to me that the appropriate forum for any such application would be the judge who had found the contempt proved and who was, far better than me, in a position to judge the seriousness of the contempt and the genuineness of the Claimant’s application to purge his contempt. Alternatively, such an application could be made to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. It is a possible outcome of the appeal that the court will uphold the finding of contempt and also determine that a sentence of six months’ imprisonment was an appropriate one. Even in those circumstances, however, the court might be prepared to entertain an application to purge the contempt. I raise that possibility for the Claimant to consider. Whether he makes such an application and whether the Court of Appeal entertains it is not for me to determine.

Or, to summarise, “get stuffed and use the proper channels”.

Mr Jarvis is at pains to point out in this conspiracy theory podcast that Mr Scarth subsequently had his sentenced reduced by the court. What he doesn’t mention is that it doesn’t appear to be down to anything he did. Rather, he was released early because the judge decided that “the nature of his personality disorder means that he is not one of those who is likely to see the error of his ways and, to use technical language, purge his contempt.”

Perhaps the lesson is that unless you can’t get legal aid and can’t afford a lawyer, if you’re before the courts then you’re better off instructing the qualified professionals. In his video, Mr Jarvis quotes a legal maxim, “He who fails to assert his rights has none.” Maybe he should consider another, “He who represents himself in court has a fool for a client and a lawyer.”

About these ads

10 Comments to “More on the “Child Stealing” Tin Foil Hat Brigade”

  1. This makes it very clear that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

  2. If you believe everything that is written within this blog in terms of the articles you have to understand you are living in a false construct of mental reality.

    I can only beleive in the system being very scared of being held accountable for its crimes and this blog is turning out to be nothing more than some sort of propaganda counter effect to the positive progress being made by people like myself.

    I invited you to come on to my radio show and debate in open to the public the issues, but you continue to write absolute one sided social worker speak drivel, where you are truly of a belief that you are in a higher place in society than myself or others around you.

    YOU ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS!

    WE THE PEOPLE JUDGE YOU!

  3. P.S. MY CHILDREN WERE REMOVED FROM [two names removed] for being found for CHILD NEGLECT and SEXUAL ABUSE, the local authority in the name of [name removed] did conspire to pervert the course of justice that sees these people free and roaming the streets with the care of three young children.

    I HAD NO CHILDREN REMOVED! MY CHILDREN WERE USED AS WEAPONS AGAINST ME BY A PSYCHOTIC EX WIFE NAMED ABOVE. I DID NOT HAVE ACCESS. I NEVER HAD ACCESS AND THEIR HAS BEEN NO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

    The case NEVER sat before a Magistrates Court, there have NEVER been any criminal charges brought against ANYONE.

    MY CHILDREN ARE STOLEN BY THE STATE.

    BRING ON ANY COURT CHALLENGES OR JUST GIVE ME MY CHILDREN BACK AND PAY ME OUT.

    • You had no children removed? In that case, might I ask why you’ve posted a YouTube video of your children being removed?

      • My child ran away from the children’s home to me, her place of safety, they had a ‘recovery’ order that they faked to make it look like it was issued from a Magistrates Court.

        The social worker who faked the Order resigned that day I challenged it at Court and left in tears after I attempted to prosecute her, but as I have said before you people believe you are above the Law, you are not, you might have it where you can get away with things at the moment, but times are changing.

      • You rant, shout and bully people, reducing them to tears, and hang around with people who would overthrow our liberties and subject everyone to the diktat of Fuehrer Jarvis (in your vile and murky dreams) and chums, and yet you wonder why your children have been removed. If society were truly the way you say it is you wouldn’t be walking around free now. You are walking proof of the falseness of your delusions. (Some might call you a w*nk*r but I wouldn’t dream of being so coarse.) ;)

    • How did your children get from your ex-wife’s care to the childrens’ home, if no court was involved?

  4. The thing is with these Public Servants aka Social Workers and the like all think that they are above it all, they abuse their position, they lie in the Courts, in the Assessments, lie in everyday life and to be honest I would not be surprised if they actually lie to their closest friends and family because if they can do it at work they will do it in life as it becomes part of whom that they are,.

    That is for the ones that are even registered of course! best laugh is that if you dare to argue your point because you see through their egotistical point of view (God forbid) then you are seen as weird so they order (not ask but you are ordered) to see a Psych that they employ and in turn actually make a bias assessment against the parents! all because of their Pseudo Science Quakery techniques that should be outlawed because it is a catch all, fact is that the very people aka Social Worker, Psychs etc are actually the ones with the mental illness because they see everyone as either a target or next test subject instead of been human and seeing humans!

  5. Dear Zarathrusta,
    If you are not a lawyer, then you have certainly swallowed all the propaganda of the profession. All too many people in Britain believe that everything in the papers is gospel truth, & even more so, believe that any words uttered by ‘A Judge’ are as if God himself had spoken.
    Well, I was much the same until the age of 70, believing, as we were constantly told, that “British Judges are the Finest in the World”. From that age there came a succession of shocks, all my lifelong beliefs shattered as I began to learn that the Legal/Judicial Mafia are at least as bad as Al Capone in Chicago. I hope you might be anxious to learn, in which case please see normanscarth.blogspot.com then, for more information, contact me direct on againstcorruption@hotmail.co.uk
    Chris Jarvis can be proud at having created a landmark in British Law when he was given right of audience in making the Habeas Corpus application for me. In saying that he was ‘Refusing the Application’, Mr Justice Wynn Williams showed he knew nothing of Habeas Corpus: Though unintended, he actually granted the Application, the hearing being an implementation of that granting. It couldn’t have taken place at all without. He showed his ignorance even further by failing to order my realease when the Governor of Armley Gaol failed to turn up to justify my impisonment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,845 other followers

%d bloggers like this: