Wednesday, 23 November 2011

Nelly has a point. Can any legal counsel represent us fairly?

Is there still any doubt: the law is written by landowners, for landowners?

At the end of the case management hearing today, City of London Corporation versus Persons Unknown of Occupy London, a gentleman naming himself "Nelly" stood forth and declared that our defence counsel, a QC, as a previous employee of the 'Mayor?' cannot possibly represent us without prejudicial interest.

The bewildered judge quickly rose before Nelly could finish his statement and the court was cleared. And Nelly was mocked by the protesters as not representing the protest either.

I witnessed this as an act of courage. Clearly he has a point. Clearly all sides will oppose him fiercely. We mean to change a corrupt system of unearned income protected by the law, using the law.

Our QC told us later "not to worry as he is used to all that!"

But is Nelly right? The entire judiciary, the legal institution and its representatives were long ago captured by a corrupt system that protects landowners against the whole world. And have become so habitually used to that corruption, they can no longer see it.

The 1%. Today anyone who rightly challenges it is seen as insane. Yet is private property in God's earth justice? It may well be the law.

For a sworn lawyer to join the 99% they would each have to go through a Damascian Shift at least, before being a fair advocate.

Long ago the law was written by landowners, for landowners.

I mean to change that, by restoring the land to the commons, and abolishing all taxation.

To free the people from all this corruption is the supreme goal of the Occupy protests. Isn't it?