The applicant is Elizabeth Webster, a candidate in the 2017 election for the Liberal Democrats. She sought funding for a judicial review via Crowd Justice. She wrote:
In spite of what the Government claims, the Article 50 notification given on 29 March 2017 is invalid, and we are seeking to challenge its legality in the courts. If we are successful, the notification will be nullified, Brexit will be halted, and the decision to leave or remain will be back in the hands of Parliament where it belongs.Bet she'd not have said that if Parliament was overwhelmingly pro-Brexit. But she goes on:
Think of Article 50 as the exit clause in a contract, with one condition to be met: Has a constitutionally valid withdrawal decision been made?From this, we can see that Webster is clutching at straws, flapping about like a bird with a broken wing in the middle of a stormy ocean. The rest of the verbage suggests to me that Webster is issue-illiterate.
Monckton reports that the court slammed the claim:
(3) The claim is, in the words of the Court, “unarguable”, “doomed to fail on the merits” and “Totally Without Merit”. The Article 50(1) decision, the Court held, was authorised by Parliament in the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal Act) 2017 and was contained within the Prime Minister’s letter of notification.Wasn't this obviously the case at the outset? So obvious that it was blindingly forseeable? What did Webster read before she decided that an application for judicial review would be appropriate (even if time-barred anyway)? Does this mean that Webster, who cannot legitimately claim ignorance, misled the public when soliciting funds for this insane claim? Did she obtain monies by deception (i.e. by holding out that it had a fair chance of success when, obviously, it had none)? Does Crowd Justice feel happy about being used to fund vexatious, frivolous, politicised fake claims?
On the face of it, Crowd Justice probably are happy to channel monies to politicised claims. The site boasts its successful cases, and they all seem to originate from a Leftist view of the world. The company behind the site is The Justice Platform Limited, whose parent company is The Justice Platform Inc, with offices reported to be in New York, but whose incorporation is in Delaware (meaning that it has nearly perfect anonymity). The corporate face of Cultural Marxism?
The problem is that Webster is not alone. Far from it. Another example of a voice with the pretence of relevant work experience is David Wolchover, a keen proponent of the illegality of Brexit etc. He summarised his views in the New Law Journal (paywalled) on 15 January 2018. In so doing, he demonstrates why an expert in one field is not an expert in a different field, yet implies a claim to some thought leadership ("It is understood that all three cases will broadly speaking be predicated on the arguments put forward in my articles."). Wolchover is a barrister of criminal law, not constitutional law. Unsurprisingly, Wolchover errs in the typical technocratic way of failing to distinguish between "legal" (a matter of following a pre-defined process) and "political" (defining the said process), resulting in a false belief that somehow a decision must follow a legal process before it becomes right. Whatever "right" is supposed to mean in Wolchover's context. In accordance with a referendum, perhaps? Oops.
What is it with these evil, anti-democratic Remainaics that, nearly two years after they lost the referendum, they still arrogantly refuse to accept the result?
It must be the technocratic wing of the Cultural Marxist Empire to drive us ordinary plebs to civil war!
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.