The Guilty Plea Magistrates

Interior of an empty courtroom with gavel and sounding block on the desk.


In a nation that speaks to the; (i) ‘…Supremacy of God; (ii) …Its sovereignty: (iii) …A society of free men and women; and (iv) …Free institutions’ [CO: 1981: Principle: A], among the community of nations, it shall consider itself civilize. However, given the unpredictable nature of humans, such dictated a social control mechanism. Likened to most democracies the ‘Rule of Law’ demands that ‘Civil and Criminal Courts’ were established within the ‘Magistracy.’ The Courts, purposefully established, without acrimony, victimization or discrimination, were to serve the common good. Such purpose speaks to fair trials, unbiased adjudication, impartial decisions and equitable ‘Dispensation of Justice.’ To all practicing attorneys and Face Book friend, ‘Kathy.’


This commentary looks at the ‘Functional responsibilities of Magistrates’ as they relate to ‘Summary Criminal Trials.’ It also looks at; (i) ‘… Role of Police Court Prosecutors; and (ii) …Role of Defence attorneys.’ Framers of the ‘Constitution’ have long anticipated that those running afoul of the law, may not be financially heathy. Thus, in criminal trials, many will be placed at grave disadvantage. This was always likely, particularly when sitting ‘Magistrates’ seems ‘Fixated on Guilt,’ as opposed to conducting full trials. They also knew that a handful of adjudicators may not offer protection to the ‘Unrepresented defendants.’ Thus, a handful of Magistrates seem not well-positioned to build their capacity or develop a deep sense of reasoning and good judgment.


Incidentally, as it affects ‘Pleas of Guilty’ in cases not presided over by ‘Magistrates,’ whether or not ‘self-prompted, voluntary or legally advised, such ‘Pleas’ are generally accepted in most jurisdictional Courts. Irrespective of public perceptions, that which might be politely given for; (i) ‘…Clearer adjudicating understanding of Magistrates: (ii) …Knowledge of Police Court Prosecutors; and (iii) …Awareness of legal practitioners,’ the constitutional provision states; (a) ‘…Every person who is charged with a criminal offence ‘SHALL’ be ‘Presumed Innocent’ until proved or had pleaded guilty’ [CO:1981: Section 15]. The operative word ‘Prove,’ suggests that a person shall be fully tried and the prosecution have not only discharged its ‘Burden of Proof,’ but shall also do so ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt.’


Then likened to an improperly aborted pregnancy, such ‘Plea’ had reportedly left many angry and anguished. The ‘Criminal Justice System’ will have failed them. Then there is the most fundamental doctrine of ‘Equal Treatment’ before the law. This has been made sufficiently clear by the ‘United Nations Article 7.’ It states; ‘…All are equal before the law, and are entitled without any discrimination, to equal protection of the law’ [1948: United Nations Declaration of Human Rights]. Undoubtedly, unfamiliarity with the ‘UN Doctrine’ and constitutional provisions, neither provides guidance to those with inclinations for ‘Magisterial Short Cut,’ nor prevents jeopardy to the ‘Starved of Knowledge.’


As a consequence of such course of action, many not only became ‘Self-convicted Defendants,’ but also found themselves in disappointing despondency and deep and regrettable financial straits. Thus, an advice, legal or otherwise to enter a ‘Plea of Guilty,’ is an advice for; (a) ‘…Self-conviction; (b) ‘, Imposition of fine; (c) …Incarceration.’ Frequently, ‘Bad Legal Advice’ has seen these manifestations The ‘unrepresented defendants’ are in no better position. Given reasons to feel disappointed, several persons were not only said to have harbored feelings of being deceptively misguided. Adding to their frustration and miseries, many were said to have found themselves in ‘Double-Financial Jeopardy.’ This included; (i) ‘…Settlement of questionable unregulated legal fees; and (ii) …Paying unexpected hefty Court fines.’


Nations within the ‘British Commonwealth’ with shared jurisprudence have accepted ‘Guilty Pleas in Criminal Trials.’ These are the ones that have entered ‘voluntarily by a defendant;’ or (ii) …That advisedly guided by practicing attorneys instructionally retained in the capacity of ‘Defence Counsels.’ A third, which in recent times has reportedly emerged within the ‘Magistracy,’ was one said to have been associated with ‘Intimidatory Tactics.’ For specific reasons, likened to an unwanted pregnancy many constitutionally-presumed innocent defendants, ‘Fearing Custodial Sentences,’ were said to have aborted full trials, thereby opting for ‘Guilty Pleas’ and magisterial semi-favorable sentences.


It has been said that ‘Knowledge is Power.’ Invariably, ‘Power,’ wielded acrimoniously, spitefully, punitively and prosecutorally, has not only been the cause of most of man’s miseries, but also the weapon that has destroyed those so wielding it.  Nowadays, within the ‘Magistracy,’ some adjudicators were said to want to have, and wield power, without ‘Knowledge.’ From their very attitude and action, some appeared to have believed that ‘Power is Knowledge.’ Even as they sought to wield it with impunity, they shall know that ‘Power’ not only ‘Corrupts,’ but also ‘Consumes’ the wielders.


That which might be said of ‘Prime Minister Gaston Browne,’ is that ‘Bus’ is made for ‘Maria and Gaston’ to ride in. Not to be run over by ‘Treacherous Ministers.’ Therefore, none may ask ‘Prime Minister’ about ‘D. Giselle Isaac, Algernon ‘Serpent’ Watt, and most recently, Harry Josiah’s’ mental ‘Pain and Anguish,’ said to have been caused by identifiable ‘Cabinet Ministers’ [ANR: Video: March 8, 2022].  Even before aggrieve defendants have left the premises housing the ‘Magistracy,’ though not necessarily occurring with increasing frequency, the cries of the indigent and unrepresented defendants can be heard near and far. The apparent arbitrarily wielding of ‘Magisterial Power’ was said to have been mentally felt.


None may deny that adjudicators have ‘Statutory Magisterial Powers’ as provided in the ‘Magistrate’s Code of Procedure (MCPA)’ [A&B: Chapter 255]. Still, an adjudicator shall not harbor the erroneous belief that ‘unfettered magisterial powers’ reside in his office. Therefore, none shall act arbitrarily, contrarily or in any manner, capable of being visited by Courts of superior jurisdictions. The recent ‘Horrible Experiences’ of defendant/litigant ‘Anderson Carty,’ clearly speak to the apparent truth of ‘Abuse of Magisterial Powers’ [A&B: January 17, 2922].  Should ‘Hope of Advantage’ be held out to a defendant that influenced a ‘Plea of Guilty,’ such person may have been deceived into waiving his/her ‘Right’ to a ‘Full and Fair Trial.’ When such was intimidatory or threateningly entered, such constitutes ‘Travesty.’


Adjudicators and Police Court Prosecutors,’ need no instructions, suggestions, nor unsolicited advice that it shall never be the pre-conceived idea or pre-judgment that persons appearing before the ‘Magistrate’s Courts’ are ‘Presumed Guilty.’ Such presumption would not only be seen as reckless and injurious to a defendant, but also could be seen as a ‘Travesty of Justice.’ Adjudicators, whether competent or incompetent, shall know that it is only when full trials are conducted, will they be positioned to make informed or rational determinations as to ‘Guilt or Innocence.’ Moreover, they shall know that their function is not merely to give and accept ‘Facts of Case.’


Unfortunately, familiarity with the ‘UN Doctrine’ shall have guided adjudicators away from asking the constitutionally-presumed innocent defendants for ‘Explanations,’ particularly, having entered ‘Pleas of Not Guilty.  Such apparently not being magisterially-observed, they shall know that the ‘Constitution’ unambiguously states that; ‘…Every person who is charged with a criminal offence, ‘SHALL’ be afforded facilities to examine in person or by his legal representative the witnesses called by the Prosecution before the Court.’ Therefore, likened to the ‘Word of God,’ these are among the ‘Provisions of the Constitution’ [CO: 1981: Section 15 (2)].


Further research has shown that the ‘Short-Cut-Approach’ by ‘Magistrates’ take, and seemingly favored by some ‘Defence Attorneys,’ was said to have caused consternation in several defendants. This was said to have occurred when for reasons of expediency or for ‘Want of Defence Skill,’ attorneys had chosen to function as ‘Mitigators.’ As it affects the right to ‘Full Criminal Trial,’ this is attainable only when ‘Magistrates’ conduct and adjudicate in such trials. Their trials and tribulations often manifested themselves when the integrity and ability of practicing attorneys were seen as starved of scruples and professional competence, and adjudicators were seen as complicit facilitators. Consequent upon this, many defendants have been given reasons to believe that their ‘Ignorance and Unfamiliarity’ with Court procedures and/or proceedings, have been disadvantageously exploited.


Those so appointed to adjudicate, know all too well that their handling of criminal Cases, shall not only show that justice was done, but shall ‘Manifestly’ be seen that it has been done. The dictum of ‘Lord Chief Justice Gordon Hewart’ [UK:1870-1943], has been referenced in many criminal trials. In his tenure, and under judicial considerations, he posited that ‘…Open Court proceedings protect defendants against arbitrary and partial decisions.’ It could never be said that when the indigent unrepresented defendants appeared before ‘Magistrates’ and coercively or threateningly entered ‘Pleas of Guilty,’ they were given a fair opportunity to be heard.


The ‘Magistrate’s Code of Procedure Act,’ makes it sufficiently clear to all that should a ‘Defendant’ not admitting the truth of the charge, the ‘Magistrate’ shall hear the case by receiving evidence from the prosecutor.’ Then upon the closing of the Case for the prosecution, if so called upon and if so opted, the adjudicator shall hear evidence as may be adduced by the defendant’ [MCPA: Section 83: Chapter 255]. This is the point when adjudicators found that a ‘Prima Facie Case’ has been made, and the ‘Burden of Disproof’ shifts to a defendant. Even so, the ‘Burden of Proof’ still resides with the ‘Prosecution.’


Yet, there are those ‘Adjudicators,’ that were said to have been heavily reliant upon ‘Guilty Pleas.’ That which has been reported has been an observable pre-occupation, issuing threats of greater punishments, if the ‘Unrepresented defendants’ were tried and found guilty. Not only have some legal luminaries saw this ‘Magisterial Practice’ as a grievous breach of ‘Natural Justice,’ but also a particular Law enforcement intellectual saw such defendants as facing ‘Serious Ethical Dilemma.’ The constitutional provisions make it sufficiently clear even for ‘First Formers’ of the ‘Jennings Secondary School (JSS)’ to understand that ‘Defendants’ shall be permitted to defend themselves before the Court.


Research has revealed that many defendants would rather take their defences to full ventilation of the facts. Many believe that in so doing, adjudicators will be better positioned to make proper magisterial assessment of the evidence of the Prosecution that they are legally-bound to prove their Cases ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt.’ Given that which was reportedly trending within the ‘Magistracy,’ those that shall have been ‘Adjudicating’ would have been seen as substituting their magisterial function to mere ‘Facts Taking.’ This occurs only when defendants reportedly placed under threat of conviction, entered ‘Pleas of Guilty.’


It is well known that defendants with the financial capability in retaining practicing attorneys, have purposefully done so to mount criminal defence at their trials. Anticipating that there may be financial challenges, the provision made it optional for defendants to represent themselves, either; (a) ‘…In person; or (b) …By a legal practitioner of his own choice’ [CO: 1981: Section 15 (2) (d)].  Research has shown that a very small minority of the ‘semi-skilled legal practitioners have shown little versatility in ‘Civil or Criminal Practice.’ Ignorant of their professional competence, the ‘Innocent and Unsuspecting’ defendants were said to have been hoodwinked into entering ‘Pleas of Guilty.’


Today, seemingly favoring the ‘Guilty Plea Approach,’ some ‘Adjudicators’ could care less about long established authorities herein referred in this commentary. It was well known that when there were no conducted trials, the inexperienced ‘Magistrates’ were placed at a ‘Great Disadvantage.’ This would have been consequential of not being positioned to adjudicate and in the process, develop their skill. This happens when there was no opportunity for adjudicating ‘Magistrates’ to observe the demeanor of witnesses, their credibility and to assess the truthfulness and cogent way the evidence adduced to the Court was delivered.


Specific to public office appointments, the constitutionally-stipulated principles speak to positions within a person’s professional competence, as well as provisions for those holding reasonable expectations for advancement. Very prudently inserted into the ‘Constitution Order,’ is a criterion that speaks to; (a) ‘…Merit; (b) …Ability; and (c) …Integrity’ [CO: 1981: Principle- B]. By the very insertions, persons so considered shall know that their appointment speaks to ‘Public Trust.’ Thus, they shall not only bring functional value to ‘Public office,’ but also add ‘respectability, dignity and integrity’ to such office. Those holding positions on the ‘Magistracy’ shall know that they are not exceptional.


Therefore, those holding certain offices within governmental institutions, shall never be perceived as opportunistically filling positions, not only for reasons of expediency or merely for ‘Gainful Employment,’ but also without the requisite skills and competencies. They shall not be abusive, neither by wielding ‘Power and Authority,’ vexatiously, acrimoniously or with impunity. Well-placed observers know, and have caused reasonable inferences to be drawn, that some appointments may not necessarily have been made on the ‘Constitutional Criterion,’ but as the result of environmental influences.


Respecting the infrastructure housing the nation’s ‘Magistrates’ Courts,’ conspicuous to the public, has been the pathetic and woeful state of disrepair. Every structure seems to be in dire need of repair. Such state could not be reasons for apportioning blame for the apparent incompetence or laziness in adjudication of summary criminal cases. The current state of affairs obtains in some Courts speak to an urgent need of a ‘Magistrate’s Guide Manual.’ While some conscientiously sit and adjudicate, a very small minority seemed to have savored the ‘Short-Cut Approach’ offered by ‘Guilty Pleas.’ Little do they know that such approach has the effect of stymieing their own adjudicating ability and advancement. Even with such assertion, in some jurisdictions, some adjudicators appeared to have been placed in holes not made for ‘Square Pegs.’


Lest it might be misconstrued, let it be said that no ‘Round Pegs’ could ever fit snugly into ‘Square Holes.’ However, as circumstance necessitate or situations demand, a ‘Square Peg’ can be purposefully placed into any ‘Round Hole.’ None may deny that persons appointed to the ‘Magistracy,’ are charged with the ‘Administration of Justice.’ These judicial officers appear to have been overjoyed to have secured appointments within the ‘Magistracy.’ Seemingly, there may have been a few that may have been ‘Financially Malnourished’ from their private legal practice. In consequence of their appointment to the ‘Magistracy,’ none may ignore the essentiality of their ‘Magisterial Role and Functions’ of those appointees. Since necessity knows no law, these are suitable to fit anywhere. Invariably, however, one or two may become problematic.


Among this few, are seemingly those that appear hell bent in making the life of the indigent members of society ‘Torturously Miserable.’ In recent times that which seemed to have bedeviled the unrepresented defendants and the silent practicing attorneys, has been the apparent arbitrary way identifiable few adjudicators were said to have been performing their ‘Magisterial Functions.’ The ‘Short-Cut-Approach,’ clearly does not position ‘Magistrates’ to become adept, efficient or proficient at adjudication. That which judicial officers shall know, is that Courts shall be mindful of the ‘Inherent Danger’ in criminal investigations. They are also aware of the potential for self-incriminating jeopardy constantly facing persons suspected, accused of, or charged for acts of criminality.


The ‘Unrepresented Defendants,’ left to conduct their defence were said to have been pre-maturely seen as guilty of committing the offence charged. Several have confided in trusted sources, that even before ‘Police Court Prosecutors’ were called upon to commence the prosecution, defendants were asked to provide ‘Explanations’ on the particular incident.  Such was attributed to a few judicial officers that had shown scant regard to the constitutional provisions. Such provision states; ‘…An accused person shall obtain the attendance, and carry out examination of witnesses to testify on his behalf, and on the same conditions as those apply by those called by the prosecution’ [CO: 1981: Section 15 (2) (e)].


None may deny that in most jurisdictions within the ‘OECS,’ acceptance of ‘Pleas of Guilty’ are all part of the ‘Case Disposal Process.’ Such, however, is advantageous only to the expeditious disposal of summary criminal cases, but seem not to enhance the quality of magisterial adjudication. Whether or not the novelty of the position of ‘Magistrate’ excites the ego of the small minority of ‘Adjudicators’ or magisterial power surges to the brain, these were said to have become embittered, and constantly ranting and raving. Such un-magisterial-like exhibitions, were said to have occurred in certain Courts, where the legally unrepresented defendants had pleaded ‘Not Guilty.’


That which shall be understood, is that the ‘Magistracy and Adjudication’ are not just about accepting ‘Guilty Pleas,’ or call for the ‘Presentation of Facts.’ Without subscription to the ‘Oath/Affirmation,’ such ‘Facts’ would not have been given the ‘Litmus Test’ of ‘Cross or Re-examination.’ That which shall be considered; (a) ‘…Procedurally wrong; (b) …unreasonable; and Unfair,’ was that before the ‘Unrepresented Defendants’ were called upon to take such subscription or to say, ‘So Help Me, God,’ ‘Adjudicators’ were said to have concluded the defendants were as ‘Guilty’ as the ‘Judas Iscariot,’ who was scripturally reported to have betrayed ‘Jesus Christ,’ not just with a ‘Treacherous Kiss,’ but also for ‘30 Silver Coins’ [Matthew 26: 15].


Though not necessarily for their non-lucrative privilege positions, ‘Magistrates’ shall be seen as being more appreciative of their unique role in an institution responsible for the administration of justice. Respecting the ‘Development of Competencies,’ likened to the ‘Facts Taking Magistrates,’ ‘Police Court Prosecutors’ would have been in no better positioned to develop their ‘Prosecutorial Skill.’ This has always been the case when no ‘Evidence in Chief’ was adduced for magisterial consideration. Conversely, there would have been no opportunity for ‘Defence Attorneys’ to vigorously ‘Cross Examine’ witnesses for the prosecution.


Equally as much, ‘Police Court Prosecutors’ shall always endeavor to develop their ‘Prosecutorial Skills,’ so too shall ‘Defence Attorneys’ seek to enhance their skills, as well as or develop the ‘Technique of Persuasion.’ There are those practicing attorneys who expects that where public confidence appeared to have been shattered and Magistrates appear to frustrate the cause of justice, with some degree of ‘Ministerial Urgency,’ some decisive remedial action shall be considered. This shall not only bring respite to the aggrieved, but also help in making the ‘Magistracy a Bastion of Hope.’ By so doing, it shall help in restoring its tarnished ‘image, dignity and integrity.’


In summary criminal cases, where ‘Pleas of Guilty’ have been entered, irrespective of the superiority of intelligence, handsomeness, beauty, laziness or crassness,’ no ‘Magistrate’ shall claim that he/she has adjudicated in such matters.  Conversely, without trial, no ‘Defence Counsel’ shall claim to have defended his/her client. Research has shown that there were some truly great advocates. They were identified in the persona of – ‘Sir Edward Marshall Hall [1858-1927] and William Norman Birkett’ [1883-1962]. They were said to have been especially gifted, both from birth and by nature.’


In spite of the apparent limited opportunity to gain more professional experience as to become more adept, ‘Adjudicators, Police Court Prosecutors’ and in particular, ‘criminal law Defence Counsels’ may elect to go to full trial, as opposed to advising ‘Pleas of Guilty.’ By such approach they would be positioned to develop ‘Re-examination Skill.’ Researchers have revealed that; ‘…The vast preponderance of skilled and successful advocates, have done little than acquired a technique; …One that any person of reasonable ‘Intelligence and Aptitude’ can acquire by ‘Patience, Application and Practice’ [1971: David Napley: Technique of Persuasion: Preparation for Trial: Page 1]. These could never be achieved through ‘Pleas of Guilty.’


There have been very good reasons for the ‘Non-self-Incriminatory Principle.’ Such principle states; ‘…No person may incriminate him/herself in any criminal wrongdoing.’ This was provided for the protection of the innocent against abuse of powers, particularly by those investigating crimes.’ Magistrates shall know that only by holding full criminal trials, positions them to assess the ‘Totality of the Evidence’ adduced to the ‘Court.’ In their respective roles, adjudicators and police court prosecutors, as well as practicing attorneys retained as defence counsels, may find a principle that has been established knowledgably useful. Such principle has long been explained in the Case: ‘Blunt v Park Lane Hotel Ltd’ [1942]. 


In that explanation, apart from the constitutional ‘Presumption of Innocence’ [CO: 1981: Section 15], the principle provides protection against (a) ‘…Being wrongfully charged; (b) …Criminally penalized; and (c) …Forfeit property legitimately acquired.’ Even more instructive, has been the right to ‘Self- Representation’ before the Court. Such right has not only been derivative from ‘Common Law,’ but also widely recognized and practiced long before those that, adjudicate, prosecute and defend, cried to be breast fed. Consequent upon this provision, it is incumbent upon ‘Adjudicators’ to know that they have a ‘Magisterial Responsibility’ in offering protection to the unrepresented defendants.


In some jurisdictions within ‘Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS),’ for whatever reasons, the vast majority of legal practitioners appeared to have resigned themselves to a ‘Civil or Litigating Practice.’ Conversely, several have embarked upon a practice in ‘Criminal Law.’ Recently expressing tribute to veteran legal practitioner and ‘Pro Bono Service Provider, John E. Fuller,’ ‘Bar Council, ‘President Lenworth Johnson’ [Antigua and Barbuda] spoke to the issue of a ‘Criminal Practice.’ He posited that; ‘…Lawyers are shying away from criminal law [Observer: October 18, 2021].


This suggested that only a few practicing attorneys have been so engaged and may so be retained. Consequently, the ‘Bar Council President’ has urged its membership to extend the legal profession to a ‘Criminal Practice.’ Such has the advantage in making practicing attorneys more proficient and retainable. From the approximately ‘200 fraternal members,’ though many more, this has seen a short list of the ‘…Dane Hamiltons QC: …Lawrence Daniels; …Wendell Robinsons; …Cosbert Cumberbatch’s: …George Lakes: …Gail Christians; …Sherryann Bradshaw’s; …Kendrickson Kentish’s: …Michael Archibalds; …Dr. David Dorsetts; …Leon ‘Chaku’ Symisters; …Andrew Okolos: and …Pete McKnights,’ with virtually no competitiveness.


When the issue of a ‘Public Defender’s Office’ was reportedly raised by ‘Senior Crown Counsel Adlai Smith,’ this was welcomed. Supportive of the idea, ‘Attorney General and Justice and Legal Affairs Minister, ‘Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin,’ embraced the idea by assuring a gathering of legal colleagues. He responded; ‘…It is my administration intention that every ‘man or woman’ who appears before the Court has access to good representation, in either criminal or civil matters regardless of their financial capabilities’ [Observer: October 18, 2021].


Whatever generation or whoever such ‘Public Defenders Office’ shall be serve, one may quicker see a ‘LadyBoy’ posting on social media something inferentially thought-provoking or damning. Moreover, one may hear a person answering to the name ‘Washington Emanuel Bramble,’ and genuflecting in a lady-like manner before ‘Acting Chief Magistrate Dexter Wason.’ Such appearances may be for anything, but an offence under the ‘Electronic Crimes Act (ECA)’ [No.14 of 2013].


None may ‘Harbor Illusions’ over the ‘LadyBoy’s apparent escape from committal proceedings. Such, if followed through, could see the ‘Directions’ of ‘Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Joanne Walsh’ [Section 26]. Thus, if for any other reason he ‘Rambled’ his way back into ‘Contentious Face Book Postings,’ there may still be no ‘Shock and Awe.’ For there shall be no ‘Committal Proceedings or Trial in Camera.’ Should the ‘Cantankerous Washie’ then opts for the ‘Trial by Judge Alone Mode,’ male/female, such ‘Judge’ shall sit only where ‘Judges’ are supposed to sit. The Accused shall sit in the ‘Accused Box,’ buffered by the ‘Provost Marshall and Commissioner of Police, Atlee Rodney QPM.’


In its application to ‘Pleas of Guilty,’ this dictum seems most relevant to this commentary. Given this perspective, ‘Magistrates’ shall not ‘Sit in Anticipation’ that persons appearing for trial will enter ‘Pleas of Guilty’ would be entered, then simply call on ‘Police Court Prosecutors’ to present ‘Facts.’ Such appears to be rapidly developing into a ‘Magisterial Trend’ that has seen more ‘Guilty Pleas and Pleas in Mitigation,’ than actuality of trials. Frequently, with ‘Sheets of Antecedents,’ longer than the ‘156-mile-long Jordan River’ [Israel], a very small minority of practicing attorneys were said to have befuddled the minds of clients as to have influenced beliefs that Courts will not impose upon them ‘Custodial Sentences.’ However, late in the afternoon, many ‘Self-Convicted Clients’ reportedly came to the realization that penalty of a term in ‘Institutionalized Residency,’ saw them being placed under lockdown by ‘5 pm,’ even bef

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]


  1. Wow! Such is the spiralling decay of our so-called “Justice System! May God deliver us all (prayfully).

    A thought provoking script by an excellent and well-researched writer. This piece MUST call the Nation to attention, with much deliberate urgency!

  2. The WHOLE parliamentary system is wrong headed. A system of the CROWN and COMMONERS creates a two tiered system, one group that makes the laws and one who is BOUND by those laws. To make matters worse, it is a system of CORPERATE LAW, actually, it is maritime Law (the Law of Sea). Forget about trying to find any justice in these courts using the corporate identity they tagged you with from birth. The identity that is spelled out in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. This is the person that they think they own.
    * Ask these people if they own you… No?
    * Ask them if (your name in small letters) ever signed a contract with them. NO?

    They hold NO jurisdiction over you as a FREE MAN unless you let them.

Comments are closed.