Michael Martin speaker of the House of Commons and Chairman of the Expenses Committee did everything in his power to cover-up the abuse of his, and other MPs’ expenses. In principle and in law the decision of the trial judge is said to be res-judicata, which means, “decided by a competent court as final”. Even after res-judicata whilst in possession of Constructive Notice and Constructive Trust, inter alia, he made a further vexatious and oppressive application to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to cover up the true extent of the expenses, which is an abuse of process, inter alia.

Harriet Harman MP, said, that MPs’ had acted within the spirit of the rules. However, both Harriet Harman and Alistair Darling, being lawyers, ought to know that the rules have no Locus standi in principle and in law and are contrary to the “Spirit of the Law” inter alia. All MPs’ expenses, at all times, must be accountable and transparent.

The legal costs, according to Michael Martin’s legal representatives, were in or around £500,000 for which the taxpayer is forced to pick up the tab. Martin must pay these costs. In principle and in law proceedings can also be brought against: legislation; the rules and any orders and decisions made.

The questions that need to be answered are:

1. What steps have been taken to recover from Michael Martin MP, the legal costs and fees run up by Michael Martin?

2. What steps have been taken to recover from MPs’, expenses that are not legitimate, inter alia?

3. Who is ultimately responsible and accountable for the recovery of all these expenses, legal costs and fees?

4. When will all accounts and evidence be made available and placed in the public domain to show complete transparency, accountability and proof, that all expenses, legal costs and fees have been paid back to the Taxpayer?

In principle and in law, on equitable grounds and as this is a matter of public interest I would strongly advise Alistair Darling to give full and proper comprehensive answers to the above questions.

As we have seen, attempts have been made to black out the true extent of MPs’ expenses. In such circumstances it is appropriate to institute legal proceedings seeking injunctions inter alia.

I would strongly advise Alistair Darling that those involved in the expenses scandal and its cover-up, most foul, would be ill-advised to rely upon the use of whitewash. Any attempt to black out expenses, is an attempt to oust the authority of the Court and in such circumstances it may be appropriate for indictment proceedings.

The proposals that were put forward to clean up MPs’ expenses have been watered down. It seems that the new body set up to over-see MPs’ expenses is nothing more than a society for the protection of MPs’. Let me make it perfectly clear to Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, that regardless of its independence, any attempt to make it exempt from the jurisdiction of law and independence of the Court would be unlawful and contrary to EU Articles, inter alia.

In a democracy No Government or MP is above the law. Our MPs’ have no respect for the checks and balances of democracy.

“Where one man is more powerful that the other and uses his power oppressively he must pay for his illegality and bullying in the ordinary way…… But for officers of the crown their power must be subordinate to their duty of care.” Rooks v Barnard, Lord Devlin HOL.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/index.html

That means the ball is in our court and time will tell whether they are right or not.

I hope ‘we’ don’t let them off too lightly!

We don’t need a change of government, we need a complete purge of the political class!

They’re perks parading as expenses, and should be taxed just like income, therefore the “salary” equivalent of that expenses element is actually double what the graph says.

ie the graph hints at around £15,000 per year as an income boost from expenses, whereas in fact it’s more like an extra £30,000 equivalent gross income boost because of the tax aspect.

or am I missing something, or is my maths shite?

So it depends on what our local selection procedures come up with; if they put forward a tory candidate who’s new and who says they won’t claim these kind of perks, then I’ll vote for them, if not then I’ll vote for any other new candidate who’s also not a labour candidate and who says they won’t claim these perks.

If no candidates say they won’t claim these perks, then I’m not voting.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/labour-manifesto-to-focus-on-bullying-injured-soldiers-200907281936/