If someone wants to take a real sample, of how a Legal System works; one has to go in a place, where the MOST CLEVEREST Lawyers and Criminologists are.
I went to the University of Cambridge. There, I took my sample.
At that time, the University of Cambridge was second in the World Rank. The Institute of Criminology (which is part of the Faculty of Law) was at the first place in the World Rank like Discipline.
Hence, it was a very good sample of Lawyers and Psychologists.
The FACTS are REAL, even if: they are written with satirical and ironical style; and, names are avoided.
Although the Lawyers were unable to defend and to guarantee Legality (Fairness and Individual Rights), the worst things have been done by Criminologists.
University of Cambridge and Law’s Mystification
“We are Girton, Super Girton, No one likes us but we do not care”
Girton College’s song.
Up on the time …
… there was a wonderful, gorgeous and nice, Graduate Student, who went to the University of Cambridge for studying Criminology.
He wanted to learn to defend Liberty and Freedom against wicked felons. He believed, strongly and firmly, to meet the Most Honest, Brave and Upright, Peoples there, but … a capricious and unpredictable Fate wanted to show Him something else!
At that time, Fate was walking in Elysium. While Luis Velez de Guevara and Alain-Renè Lesage were arguing about a book, He met them. Fate thought to be unusual, inside that Place of Peace and Harmony, so Much Ado for Nothing! Therefore, he moved forward them. After they explained Him, the most important reasons of their right disagreement, Fate decided to read: both, the Luis Velez de Guevara’s book (El Diablo Cojuelo); and, Alain-Renè Lesage’s book (Le Diable Boiteaux).
Fate found both of them so enjoyable that, after having learnt about hypocrisy, falseness and insincerity, of Spanish and French peoples, … he asked to the writers: “why don’t we give a look at English elite’s hypocrisy?”.
Both the writers, … for some forgotten historical reasons …, were so pleased and delighted at the idea, who prayed and implored Fate to make this happen!
Hence, they chose like sample, the best English Elitist University, the University of Cambridge. But, they had a disagreement about the protagonist. Luis wanted a Spanish one; Alain-Renè a French one. Therefore, Fate decided to call another writer, William Shakespeare, for making the choice. Shakespeare said: “No English person can write like Italians do. Actually, Italians do everything better than others. I was indeed (surely not English but) Italian. My real name is Michelagnolo Florio. Hence, I choose that gorgeous, witty and ironical, Italian Student”. Michelagnolo indicated an Italian One, who was arriving at Wolfson Court (Girton College’s Graduate Accommodations) right at that moment.
Fate said: “so, we decided; so, it is; so, events will be”.
*** *** ***
METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING … AFTER “STAR WARS” A NEW SAGA: “CAMBRIDGE WARS”!!!!!
Whereas people believe University of Cambridge to be a “paradise” (which is inhabited by gentle, pure and honest, bright people), it should be also described (metaphorically speaking a là Star Wars) like a Sith’s Academy (where the Chancellor and his Senate passed to the Dark Side of the Force!!).
If I want to describe you everything, I will need the time to run a new Star Wars’ Saga. Hence, I will be very brief. I will describe you, few of the events that become object of a legal proceeding, which is strongly connected with the principium of Supremacy of Law.
But, thanks the metaphorical language, you can understand why … one Cambridge’s Student decided to: become a Rebel; and, refuse his title and his sit at the Senate offered by the Chancellor!!
Like Master Yoda, he preferred the exile from the Empire!!!!!
This is the History of how an enjoyable Girtonian Student (who has never ever been a dissident) became Rebel against Power!!
*** *** ***
THE REAL MEANING OF “RULE OF LAW” FOR CAMBRIDGE OFFICERS AND LAWYERS
Although the Cambridge Academics and Lawyers (such as: Allan) stated “in the Public Squares and Streets” that Rule of Law encompasses ideas about: Individual Liberty; Natural Justice; Substantial and Procedural Fairness; Equality; etc…; etc…; … their real idea is another one.
They believe themselves above the Law. They believe Power above the Law. They do not apply Rule of Law: either, like a principle of Formal Validity; or, like a principle of Substantial and Procedural Fairness, etc… .
Does “Rule of Law” mean Supremacy of Law above Power? NO, of course! Are You Fool for believing this? Remember my son, … People, who disagrees with Power, are Deviant and Mentally Insane.
At the University of Cambridge, Rule of Law is NOT applied like Supremacy of Law above Power.
Some examples are here infra (below).
Example number 1: Degree Committee of Law
The Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge give to the Degree Committees some powers. The Degree Committees can exercise them, but they must respect the Law. According to the principium of Supremacy of Law, Degree Committees’ decisions are valid only, and only if, Degree Committees respect the procedures, which discipline their activity.
Well, the University of Cambridge’s Degree Committees were used to make decisions without respecting the procedures. Exempli gratia, they were used to decide without having the quorum, the legal members’ number that must be present for having a lawful deliberation!! Moreover, members were used to sit and to vote when they were in conflict of interest!! Furthermore, members were unable to see that some of the Reports, which they had to consider for their decision, were missing!! In addition, other information, which were reported, were false!!
Even the Board of Graduate Studies, which has the duty to verify the regularity of the procedures, made all its decisions: on one hand, without having most of the Reports (!!); on the other hand, using false information (!!). Some members of the Board were also in conflict of Interest. The Board was used to act above the Law.
So, we should not be surprised if even the Board, which declared to have deeply verified the regularity (!!), did NOT recognize HUGE ILLEGALITIES, which were self-evident by the same documentation they: either, received; or not received (for the missing reports!!). Actually, the Board itself created and added most of those irregularities and illegalities to hide the previous unlawfulness!!
But, they are simply very few of the irregularities and unlawfulness, which were made by the Degree Committee of Law and Board of Graduate Studies. Actually, they did not comply at all with any of the rules they had to follow and to obey!!
In other words, the Degree Committee of Law (which is composed by the most outstanding lawyers and criminologists) and the Board of Graduate Studies believed themselves to be above Law. Hence, they did not have any problem to make unlawful decisions.
Example number 2: Board of Graduate Studies
The Board of Graduate Studies of the University of Cambridge had the duty to pass the complaint, which the Graduate Student sent to the Review Committee, to the Review Committee.
The Board of Graduate Studies did NOT have any discretional power. Well, the Board of Graduate Studies refused to pass the complaint, which the Graduate Student sent to the Review Committee, to the Review Committee!!
The Board of Graduate Studies acted completely against Law. The Board of Graduate Studies believed to be above the Law.
Example number 3: Secretary of the Review Committee
The Secretary of the Review Committee of the University of Cambridge must pass to the Members of the Review Committee all the documents, complaints and grievances, which Graduate Students submit to the Review Committee. She has not any discretional power. She must simply pass the papers. Actually, It is a quite easy job.
When the Graduate Student discovered that the Board of Graduate Studies refused to pass to the Review Committee the complaint, which the Graduate Student submitted, he sent that complaint also to the Review Committee. He wanted to inform the Committee about it. Well, the Secretary of the Review Committee refused to pass to the Committee’ s members the complaint and the documents that were sent by the Graduate Student.
The Secretary of the Review Committee believed herself to be above Law. She exercised a power that she did not have. Hence, she violated the principium of the Supremacy of the Law.
Example number 4: Administrative Secretary
The Administrative Secretary of the University of Cambridge is the Head of the Secretariat of the University of Cambridge. The Legal Office of the University is a part of the Secretariat.
When a Student submits a Formal Complaint, the Administrative Secretary must nominate the Reviewer without delaying.
Well, the Administrative Secretary was used to NOT nominate the Reviewer at all. It was a method to force students to give up with their Formal Complaints!!
The Administrative Secretary acted, more than once, against Law. He believed (and learned at Cambridge) to be above Law.
Therefore, the principium of the Supremacy of the Law was violated also in this case.
*** *** ***
Only once, the Administrative Secretary nominated the Reviewer. This happened ONLY as the Administrative Secretary was forced to nominate the Reviewer.
First of all, The Graduate Student had to submit a Formal Complaint versus the Administrative Secretary’s abuses. Then, the Graduate Student had to submit three formal requests for opening a Disciplinary Enquiry versus the Administrative Secretary. They were sent to: the Vice-Chancellor; the Registrary; and Proctors; … of the University of Cambridge.
These requests were indispensable as the Administrative Secretary stopped the complaint versus Himself, acting: against Law; and, in conflict of interest.
Only at that point, it was decided that: the Administrative Secretary would not be charged, if he nominated the Reviewer within **/**/****.
As a result, the Administrative Secretary nominated the Reviewer in the last useful day!
But, this has been a rare exception.
Indeed, the Administrative Secretary did not nominate the Reviewers for the others complaints. He did not pass also to the Council of the University the request, which was made by the student, for receiving financial help for paying legal advices. Indeed, at that time, the University of Cambridge wanted appearing a fair place. So, it was decided that: if students had had to complain versus the University, the Council would have considered helping them to pay for the legal advice. Of course, it had never happened. The Administrative Secretary did not pass even those requests to the Council. It was just part of … VOID PROPAGANDA. Actually, after our student submitted that request, the University abolished that regulation few months later!!
This shows how Cambridge People dislike strongly and deeply the principium of Supremacy of Law!! This indicates also that: most of nice values, they tell to people, are just VOID PROPAGANDA.
Remember my son, … People, who disagrees with Power, are Deviant and Mentally Insane.
How does Power act above Law? How does Power deny people’s rights? How does Power prevent and stop people’s protests, complaints and remonstration?
At the University of Cambridge, some of the most outstanding criminologists have created and taught a very simple and easy to handle method to allow Power to eliminate whoever protests and complains against its abuses, violations and illegalities. Power can act above Law as people, who protests against it, are accused to be: both, deviant; and, mentally insane. This is as … whoever complains against Authority should be: either, “deviant”; or, “in an abnormal mental state”. Authority is always right for them!! Moreover, they believe that: deviant is whoever does not comply with Authority!! It does not matter if Authority acts illegally!! It is a pretty easy game!!
This was the only thing they “taught” to Me. Exempli gratia, when I spoke with one of them about the irregularities and a possible complaint, it was told Me: “I do not advise You to complaint against Authority. You can, but the complaint will not be considered. Listen to Me carefully. Remember, … People, who disagrees with Power, are Deviant and Mentally Insane. Only people, who are stressed, disagree with Authority”.
At the end, you shall not be surprised about what it is happening in the World, nowadays. If people receive this education, exempli gratia, at Cambridge, we will surprise to find a better World!!
Hence, what it is happening, nowadays, between European Union and Greece is about this. Power (e.g. financial power; European bureaucratic power, etc…) wants to prove that it is above Law. Power wants to prove that its interests are more valuable than human rights, people’s liberties, democracy, … . Power wants to see if it can act above Law without responding for this. European Union is acting unlawfully several times. Actually, we should exit as soon as it is possible from this kind of Union.
Does “Rule of Law” mean Substantial and Procedural Fairness as Allan teaches? NO “idiot”, of Course not! Do you really believe in Fables and Fairy-Tales that we tell to people?!?! Do you still believe in Christmas Father as someone told You that?!?!?!?
Rarely is the principium of Supremacy of Law applied at the University of Cambridge. Far more rarely is it applied like Substantial and Procedural Fairness a là Allan!!
- it is NOT procedural and substantial fairness to pass to the Degree Committee of Law false information!! It was done to manipulate the decisions and actions of the Degree Committee.
- It is not procedural and substantial fairness to pass to the Degree Committee false letters/emails to libel (slander) students!! It was done to destroy student’s reputation among the members of the Degree Committee!! Years later, the same Degree Committee recognized that the emails were: false; and, NOT written by the student, but other person (the identity of the latter was also proved)!! It is not procedural and substantial fairness to libel and to slander students!! This was done by a Criminologist!! She, then, accused other Officers of the University to have done this!!. But, the latters did NOT. It was proved without any doubt that, who slandered and libeled, was that criminologist!! Actually, she did most of the illicitness and abuses.
- It is not procedural and substantial fairness to hide those false letters/emails to students!! It was done to prevent that students could prove that those emails/letters: either, were false; or, were written by others!!
- It is not procedural and substantial fairness to give erroneous applications to the Degree Committee for guiding its decision. Exempli gratia, it was changed the Research Proposal!! In other words, the Research Proposal, which the Student sent to the Degree Committee, was not given to the Degree Committee!!. The Degree Committee received another one, which did not have any connection with the subject !?!?!?
- It is not procedural and substantial fairness to omit to give some documents, which had to be given!!
- It is not procedural and substantial fairness to take letters and documents that are sent to other persons!!
- It is NOT procedural and substantial fairness to give students false information about the complaint procedures!!
- It is NOT procedural and substantial fairness to force students to NOT submit complaints about illegalities done by the University!!!!
- It is NOT procedural and substantial fairness that University Officers ask to everyone in the University to make the student give up with his complaint, instead of considering it within the right procedures!!
- It is NOT procedural and substantial fairness that the Secretary of the Board of Graduate Studies (who has to guarantee the respect of the regulations) asks to the Student’s Tutor to open another procedure (without informing the student) that would have stopped the complaint submitted by the student!!
- It is NOT procedural and substantial fairness to deny students any access to documents for: forcing them to give up with their complaints!!; preventing them any possibility to verify the regularities and/or IRREGULARITIES made by the University Officers!!
- It is not procedural and substantial fairness to persist in those behaviours for years!! Actually, this proves (without any doubt) the bad faith and intentionality of those people!!
Truly, the list is very long!! These are very few examples, but they are enough to prove that the principle of Rule of Law is NOT applied like a principle of procedural and substantial fairness a là Allan!!
Does “Rule of Law” mean that “All law should be prospective” a là Raz? NO, NO, NO, and still NO! Rarely have I seen a desperate case as You are! … But … wait a moment. Who is Raz? Here at Cambridge, we have never ever heard about Him. Here at Cambridge, we do not say that name!
You can wonder if the Lawyers and Officers of the University of Cambridge preferred to apply Rule of Law as Raz (a lectures of the University of Oxford) teaches!!
It seems a crazy idea, but we can verify.
According to Raz, one of the meanings of Rule of Law is: all law should be prospective.
Unfortunately, the University of Cambridge disagrees even about this!!
The Formal Complain Procedure was changed after the Formal Complaint was submitted. New regulations were applied to deal with the complaint. In other words, the University changed the “rules of game” during the “game”!!
This does not comply with Role of Law a là Raz!!
MY CHANCHELLOR! WHAT DOES “RULE OF LAW” MEAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE? ANSWER: IT MEANS “POWER IS ABOVE THE LAW AND IT CAN DO WHATEVER IT WANTS”. COME WITH ME TO THE DARK SIDE OF THE FORCE, LUKE.
All in all, Lawyers, Academics and Officers, of the University of Cambridge (behind the appearance of what they tell to people) believe that Power is above Law. Power can do whatever it wants. This is what they teach with their actions.
Metaphorically speaking, it seems a Sith’s Academy, doesn’t it?
NO, MY CHANCELLOR! I REFUSE WHAT YOU ARE OFFERING ME. I DO NOT WANT YOUR TITLE , I DO NOT WANT TO BE A LIVE-MEMBER OF YOUR SENATE. THIS IS … ANOTHER SAGA!?!?
As a result, we had a Power that affirmed to be above Law.
The principium of Supremacy of Law was substantially abolished.
In this situation, One has only two choices. The first choice (the easier) is to accept the Power’s abuses. This choice reinforces and legitimates the Power to act above the Law. The second choice (the harder) is to defend the principium of Supremacy of Law against Power.
Our Graduate Student made this second choice. He chose to denunciate those illegalities. He did not study Criminology for becoming a Criminal!!
Unfortunately, during these years, he discovered that people are passive and weak. They prefer accept any power’s abuse instead of fighting for their Rights and Liberties. This allows Power to go beyond its limitations. But, peoples have the duty to defend the principium of Supremacy of Law as well as their Rights and Liberties. If they do not, they choose to live under an Arbitrary Power. If they do so, they deserve it.
But, if you choose to live under an Arbitrary Power, I will not follow You. My Loyalty is for the Supremacy of Law. My Loyalty is for the Rights and Liberties of everyone. Hence, I will choose the Exile!! I will prefer to be Alone!!
“We are Girton, Super Girton, No One likes us but we do not care”.
 The book was published in 1641 at Madrid. It was written between 1636 and 1640.
The story speaks about a student, don Cleofas Leandro Perez Zambullo, who liberates a devil, who was imprisoned by an Astrologer. The Limping Devil wanted to thank you the student. Hence, he decided to show him the Truth, behind the falseness of appearances of Spanish society.
 This book was published in 1707 at Paris. There was a new edition with some corrections and additions in 1726.
The story is similar to Guevara’s book. There are few changes. The young Cleofas liberated a limping devil, who was imprisoned by a Magician. His name was Asmodeo. The devil wanted to thank you the young student. So, he decided to show him the Truth behind the falseness of French Society. Lasage wanted to give an account of the brutality, meanness and dishonesty, of the people, who lived in Paris at that time. He veiled it, behind a Spanish context.