‘Official Oppression’; the concealing facts by way of ‘Abrogation’ and non-disclosure of ‘Affidavits’ and supporting documentary evidence, which is an abuse of one’s power’ and ‘fraud’…
Constitutes ‘Official Misconduct’; ‘maladministration’; ‘malfeasance’; ‘nonfeasance; and ‘misfeasance’ in a ‘Public Office’…
“A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null”.
“in odium spolitoris” ~ "in hatred of a destroyer".
And; i: am; without evidence; knowledge or understanding that any evidence to the contrary exists and furthermore;
Case Law:
a) In Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2004] EWCA Crim 868, the Court of Appeal held, that a public official who dishonestly abuses his position of trust, by failing to disclose information, that he is under a legal duty to disclose, is guilty of misconduct in public office, which is a common law offence…
The court said that; "the essence of the offence is breach of duty by the public officer, where the motive is irrelevant, provided that the act or omission was wilful and without reasonable excuse or justification" (para 61).
The court also said that; "the duty must be a duty of a public nature, and the act or omission must be calculated to injure the public interest, so as to call for condemnation and punishment" (para 62).*
b) In R v Bowden [1996] 1 WLR 98, the House of Lords affirmed that; a judge who deliberately conceals from the parties a personal interest in the outcome of a case is guilty of perverting the course of justice, which is also a common law offence.
The court said that; "a judge who has such an interest in the outcome of a case, as might reasonably be thought likely to influence his decision, ought not to sit on it. If he does so, knowing of his interest, he commits a grave breach of his judicial oath. If he conceals his interest from the parties he adds to his breach of duty an element of deception which makes his conduct criminal" (p. 105).*
c) In Attorney General v De Winton [1906] 2 Ch 106, the Court of Appeal held that; a public official who holds a public office in trust for the public, is bound by fiduciary obligations and must not use his office for private gain. The court said that; "a person who accepts an office under the Crown, whether it be judicial or ministerial, accepts it subject to this condition, that he will not make use of his office for his own private purposes. He holds it in trust for the public; and if he uses it for his own private purposes he is guilty of a breach of trust" (p. 113).*
(Author’s) comment:
Please note in paragraph c); the use of the term ‘Trust’.
IMHO… this denotes that the individual referenced is a ‘Trustee’… 🤔
Constitutes ‘Official Misconduct’; ‘maladministration’; ‘malfeasance’; ‘nonfeasance; and ‘misfeasance’ in a ‘Public Office’…
“A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null”.
“in odium spolitoris” ~ "in hatred of a destroyer".
And; i: am; without evidence; knowledge or understanding that any evidence to the contrary exists and furthermore;
Case Law:
a) In Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2004] EWCA Crim 868, the Court of Appeal held, that a public official who dishonestly abuses his position of trust, by failing to disclose information, that he is under a legal duty to disclose, is guilty of misconduct in public office, which is a common law offence…
The court said that; "the essence of the offence is breach of duty by the public officer, where the motive is irrelevant, provided that the act or omission was wilful and without reasonable excuse or justification" (para 61).
The court also said that; "the duty must be a duty of a public nature, and the act or omission must be calculated to injure the public interest, so as to call for condemnation and punishment" (para 62).*
b) In R v Bowden [1996] 1 WLR 98, the House of Lords affirmed that; a judge who deliberately conceals from the parties a personal interest in the outcome of a case is guilty of perverting the course of justice, which is also a common law offence.
The court said that; "a judge who has such an interest in the outcome of a case, as might reasonably be thought likely to influence his decision, ought not to sit on it. If he does so, knowing of his interest, he commits a grave breach of his judicial oath. If he conceals his interest from the parties he adds to his breach of duty an element of deception which makes his conduct criminal" (p. 105).*
c) In Attorney General v De Winton [1906] 2 Ch 106, the Court of Appeal held that; a public official who holds a public office in trust for the public, is bound by fiduciary obligations and must not use his office for private gain. The court said that; "a person who accepts an office under the Crown, whether it be judicial or ministerial, accepts it subject to this condition, that he will not make use of his office for his own private purposes. He holds it in trust for the public; and if he uses it for his own private purposes he is guilty of a breach of trust" (p. 113).*
(Author’s) comment:
Please note in paragraph c); the use of the term ‘Trust’.
IMHO… this denotes that the individual referenced is a ‘Trustee’… 🤔
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment