he latest from the petitioner (for the end of Reform UK Party Limited as it cannot meet financial obligations to cover the election costs) is advancing.

So far he has shown: 1) Farage is a corporate actor pretending to be a politician; 2) Reform UK Party Limited is a cover; 3) there are financial problems; 4) lies were issued to the media and now to the Court.

This cannot end well for Reform UK Party Limited.

here is an election coming up in the US. “Decisions [are] outsourced to the highest bidder(s),” a friend has told me, wherein “One dollar : one vote…”

“Elections become auctions, just the way the broligarchs like it. The nations have to choose either millionaires/billionaires/trillionaires or a democracy…”

“Business friendly government” is code for government that gets bribed or compromised to outsource common-wealth to few external actors (sometimes for kickbacks). It is a form of plunder. It’s sold as “jobs”.

In Techrights this was covered in passing under:

• ‘Broligarchs’ Don’t Want Science, They Want Entertainers to Entertain Them (and Make Them Richer)
• Wikipedia – Funded by Slop-pushing Companies and ‘Broligarchs’ – Gave Benefit of the Doubt to Slop, Then Regretted It
• How Can the ‘Broligarchs’ Love Us When They Don’t Even Love Themselves?
• Broligarchs Speech-Policing, Faux ‘Community’ or ‘Hub’ in ‘User-Driven’ Clothing
• What is “Computer Science”? It is What Broligarchs Reject.

he former US President Barack Obama is probably across the road from us right now, as he’s talking there in a few hours.

I have mixed feelings.

He did many bad things.

Only relative to the current President is he a “good” person.

he (former) President Barack Obama will be here this week to give a talk. Across the road from us.

I have had many bad things to say about him (the drone strikes, NSA spy programs etc.), but he was nowhere as bad as the mobster who came after him.

One thing I liked about Obama’s attitude is that he didn’t fall for bait from Faux Noise (Fox News), e.g. heckling over the colour of his jacket.

Obama was “smooth” enough not to be easily provoked, not even by Putin.

The current demented dictator is like a marionette with temper and attitude.

If the current dictator changes the rules to end a two-term limit, then Obama can become a US President again.

oday I published Part II of the series about swatting my wife and I. We never forgot. We took notes. In Part I I added a similar case, as it had been handled by the same solicitor as ours (at the time).

The UK must not become a “police state” like the US. It needs to resist the temptation.

The US is fast becoming another Russia. Maybe they should rename. “United Federation”?

oday I checked CR-2026-007405. I looked at it very quickly just to ensure that Daniel Pocock’s fight against Reform UK Party Limited is progressing, with another update issued yesterday.

From what I can gather, CR-2026-007405 is running ahead and Reform UK Party Limited finds itself in a state of panic. It lied to the public, now it lies to the Court (legally actionable), it sometimes lies to both. It cannot keep its false narrative straight and consistent.

The inevitable outcome is some negative press for Reform UK Party Limited, which basically robbed the taxpayers after it had taken money illegally (from rich foreigners).

Reform UK Party Limited is an instrument of hostile powers abroad.

he latest blog post from Daniel Pocock (Saturday) shows Reform UK making contradictory statements (lies). It either lied to the media or to the Court (or both).

At this point there’s a risk of contempt of court. Will Reform UK go “out of business” and return under another shell/name?

oday I’m reading that, according to the official site of the Court of Appeal: “The Civil Procedure Rules and their related practice directions govern the procedure for the initiation and progress of civil claims before the County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in England and Wales.”

It’s nice that they have Civil Procedure Rules, but in my experience law firms do not obey these rules. When facing a Litigant in Person like me, they vainly assume they’d never get caught or reported for it. Worse yet, they intentionally lie all the time because they get paid for to do so – even if that means they are in contempt of court. Again, they assume they’re above the law and nobody will ever hold them accountable for it.

I wrote about this yesterday.

It should be noted that law firms cannot assert their breaches are accidental, involuntary etc. They went to school to learn these rules.

ut of both interest and necessity (not mere curiosity), lately I’ve been studying how the Court of Appeal operates, seeing it is split into just two areas. For the Court of Appeal Civil Division there is not a long queue of cases (compared to courts below it) and on Monday, for instance, only one Judgment will be issued (Osei-Bonsu v Secretary of State for the Home Department) with no hearings or any of the ordinary things. Three judges will be present: Lord Justice Males, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lady Justice Whipple.

From what I have seen, there are typically if not always 3 judges in such cases. In the past I covered cases where 7 judges issued a ruling. It was about the EPO. The EPO’s management lost.

One upside of the legal system here (despite the considerable cost) is that reporters do not get killed with impunity, people aren’t incarcerated without proper due process and access to justice, sites/papers/articles don’t get deplatformed just because of certified lunatics who try to blackmail webhosts.

I study the law (and protocols) as a Litigant in Person who needs to know how to manage oneself, as lawyers are very expensive. The knowledge gained does help me compose future articles.

recently learned that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) will take a privilege ruling to the UK Supreme Court. Being the SRA, it’ll probably end up being a waste of British people’s money with no serious outcome.

Over the past 3 years I’ve had a lot of hands-on experience with the legal system here. This week, for example, I’ve learned that “Court of Appeal Judges are senior judges with lengthy judicial experience. Appointment is by The King on the recommendation of a selection panel convened by the Judicial Appointments Commission.” In the High Court, judges are forced to retire at age 75.

I learned that many judges are in fact barristers. Some of them get gradually elevated to that role, with or without “Silk” (KC), but there is still potential for conflict of interest due to past loyalties or old colleagues (who might still be close friends).

The SRA has a similar “revolving doors” problem; many who work at the SRA came from law firms and many people inside law firms used to work for the SRA. Many solicitors and barristers once worked for the government (e.g. Home Office or Ministry of Justice).

How do we tackle this issue without ‘insulting’ people?