Il Conte Barlov
@il-conte-bsrlov.bsky.social
English lawyer
Sometime commentator on legal topics of interest & especially US Constitutional Law.
‘Mostly harmless’
Personal a/c. All views my own.
Sometime commentator on legal topics of interest & especially US Constitutional Law.
‘Mostly harmless’
Personal a/c. All views my own.
In the context of proposed UK reform of the current system of ‘trial by jury’, in the criminal courts, it’s perhaps useful to read at least paras 113-117 of Part 1 of the “Independent Review into the Criminal Courts’” (2025):
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be8...
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be8...
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
November 25, 2025 at 11:23 PM
In the context of proposed UK reform of the current system of ‘trial by jury’, in the criminal courts, it’s perhaps useful to read at least paras 113-117 of Part 1 of the “Independent Review into the Criminal Courts’” (2025):
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be8...
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be8...
Reposted by Il Conte Barlov
Juries are not perfect.
Many of the worst miscarriages of justice have followed jury trials.
But the merit of juries is not so much the power they have, but the power they prevent others from having.
They mean a judge cannot just nod-along with prosecution evidence and give a guilty verdict.
Many of the worst miscarriages of justice have followed jury trials.
But the merit of juries is not so much the power they have, but the power they prevent others from having.
They mean a judge cannot just nod-along with prosecution evidence and give a guilty verdict.
November 25, 2025 at 7:12 PM
Juries are not perfect.
Many of the worst miscarriages of justice have followed jury trials.
But the merit of juries is not so much the power they have, but the power they prevent others from having.
They mean a judge cannot just nod-along with prosecution evidence and give a guilty verdict.
Many of the worst miscarriages of justice have followed jury trials.
But the merit of juries is not so much the power they have, but the power they prevent others from having.
They mean a judge cannot just nod-along with prosecution evidence and give a guilty verdict.
Uk Govt proposals, 2 vastly reduce, the ancient right 2 jury trial in criminal cases to all, except the most serious, must be vigorously resisted. The negative impact on an innocent person’s life, can be more serious than the charge itself. Juries are a safeguard against abuse of power by the State.
November 25, 2025 at 6:00 PM
Uk Govt proposals, 2 vastly reduce, the ancient right 2 jury trial in criminal cases to all, except the most serious, must be vigorously resisted. The negative impact on an innocent person’s life, can be more serious than the charge itself. Juries are a safeguard against abuse of power by the State.
President Trump’s giving a Press Conference in Saudi Arabia. He’s told the media, that so far, his trade tariff receipts exceed $US 17 TRILLION and he’s expecting over 21 T soon.
But IMAO the official figures don’t exceed 1/4 of one Trillion…!
But IMAO the official figures don’t exceed 1/4 of one Trillion…!
November 18, 2025 at 6:13 PM
President Trump’s giving a Press Conference in Saudi Arabia. He’s told the media, that so far, his trade tariff receipts exceed $US 17 TRILLION and he’s expecting over 21 T soon.
But IMAO the official figures don’t exceed 1/4 of one Trillion…!
But IMAO the official figures don’t exceed 1/4 of one Trillion…!
When returning a ‘true’ bill of indictment against Comey, if Halligan had misdirected the Grand Jury in law, ie that they could render such a bill otherwise than solely on the basis of the materials in the record before them, how can the GJ’s bill be upheld, nevertheless, as legally valid?
November 18, 2025 at 1:15 AM
When returning a ‘true’ bill of indictment against Comey, if Halligan had misdirected the Grand Jury in law, ie that they could render such a bill otherwise than solely on the basis of the materials in the record before them, how can the GJ’s bill be upheld, nevertheless, as legally valid?
IMAO…
Unquestionably, the BBC’s edit splicing parts of Trump’s 01/06 speech together was v wrong & misleading. But, claiming $1 B for alleged defamation, is both OTT & a trifle rich, when he’s a tendency 2 play a bit ‘fast & loose’ with ‘facts’ himself.
I predict he’ll struggle with his lawsuit.
Unquestionably, the BBC’s edit splicing parts of Trump’s 01/06 speech together was v wrong & misleading. But, claiming $1 B for alleged defamation, is both OTT & a trifle rich, when he’s a tendency 2 play a bit ‘fast & loose’ with ‘facts’ himself.
I predict he’ll struggle with his lawsuit.
November 14, 2025 at 1:08 PM
IMAO…
Unquestionably, the BBC’s edit splicing parts of Trump’s 01/06 speech together was v wrong & misleading. But, claiming $1 B for alleged defamation, is both OTT & a trifle rich, when he’s a tendency 2 play a bit ‘fast & loose’ with ‘facts’ himself.
I predict he’ll struggle with his lawsuit.
Unquestionably, the BBC’s edit splicing parts of Trump’s 01/06 speech together was v wrong & misleading. But, claiming $1 B for alleged defamation, is both OTT & a trifle rich, when he’s a tendency 2 play a bit ‘fast & loose’ with ‘facts’ himself.
I predict he’ll struggle with his lawsuit.
It blows my mind, that in the Land of the Free and home of the Brave, it should even become necessary 4 a federal judge, 2 enjoin the executive from failing to fund SNAP. Whilst he denies it, IMAO, if 4 nothing else, Trump’s apparent willingness. to starve the poorest US citizens = his impeachment.
November 2, 2025 at 8:55 AM
It blows my mind, that in the Land of the Free and home of the Brave, it should even become necessary 4 a federal judge, 2 enjoin the executive from failing to fund SNAP. Whilst he denies it, IMAO, if 4 nothing else, Trump’s apparent willingness. to starve the poorest US citizens = his impeachment.
4 Fed habeas claims, why not have automatic rule, requires notification 2 D of P’s filed claim, preserves notice down changes in chain of custody & temporarily forbids any person (with notice) from causing/ permitting removal of Plaintiff from US Fed Court jurisdiction, pending further order ? ?
October 31, 2025 at 12:35 AM
4 Fed habeas claims, why not have automatic rule, requires notification 2 D of P’s filed claim, preserves notice down changes in chain of custody & temporarily forbids any person (with notice) from causing/ permitting removal of Plaintiff from US Fed Court jurisdiction, pending further order ? ?
Senate Bill S 2070
“The Insurrection Act 2025”.
Introduced 06/12/25.
I’m curious.
What circumstance are envisaged, by supporters of this Bill, as justifying the need to amend the existing Insurrection Act (as codified in Title 10 USC) ??
Why expand Presidential power in this extraordinary way?
“The Insurrection Act 2025”.
Introduced 06/12/25.
I’m curious.
What circumstance are envisaged, by supporters of this Bill, as justifying the need to amend the existing Insurrection Act (as codified in Title 10 USC) ??
Why expand Presidential power in this extraordinary way?
October 21, 2025 at 9:05 PM
Senate Bill S 2070
“The Insurrection Act 2025”.
Introduced 06/12/25.
I’m curious.
What circumstance are envisaged, by supporters of this Bill, as justifying the need to amend the existing Insurrection Act (as codified in Title 10 USC) ??
Why expand Presidential power in this extraordinary way?
“The Insurrection Act 2025”.
Introduced 06/12/25.
I’m curious.
What circumstance are envisaged, by supporters of this Bill, as justifying the need to amend the existing Insurrection Act (as codified in Title 10 USC) ??
Why expand Presidential power in this extraordinary way?
What do people think? Is it nonsense? Or seriously possible, that Trump’s deployments of National Guard might be ‘test run’ for later mission ? Perhaps a ploy 2 obtain SCOTUS precedent upholding his legal power? So law will back him, when / if he wants 2 invoke, a far wider mass deployment later?
October 21, 2025 at 8:41 PM
What do people think? Is it nonsense? Or seriously possible, that Trump’s deployments of National Guard might be ‘test run’ for later mission ? Perhaps a ploy 2 obtain SCOTUS precedent upholding his legal power? So law will back him, when / if he wants 2 invoke, a far wider mass deployment later?
2 many, it might well seem a striking ‘conflict of interest’ 4 Pres Trump, as Executive head, 2 claim $230 M from DOJ (comp 4 alleged bad faith federal investigations into him), it being an executive agency, subordinate to him.
But will that likely ruffle, even a feather, amongst his MAGA faithful?
But will that likely ruffle, even a feather, amongst his MAGA faithful?
October 21, 2025 at 8:24 PM
2 many, it might well seem a striking ‘conflict of interest’ 4 Pres Trump, as Executive head, 2 claim $230 M from DOJ (comp 4 alleged bad faith federal investigations into him), it being an executive agency, subordinate to him.
But will that likely ruffle, even a feather, amongst his MAGA faithful?
But will that likely ruffle, even a feather, amongst his MAGA faithful?
UK’s National Grooming Gangs Inquiry.
3 survivors of horrific sex abuse scandals, have resigned as panelist’s of the Inquiry, b4 a Chair of Inquiry appointed. They similarly complain of their concerns not being ‘listened to’ and request a judge be appointed Chair. IMAO this raises a serious…
3 survivors of horrific sex abuse scandals, have resigned as panelist’s of the Inquiry, b4 a Chair of Inquiry appointed. They similarly complain of their concerns not being ‘listened to’ and request a judge be appointed Chair. IMAO this raises a serious…
October 21, 2025 at 7:42 PM
UK’s National Grooming Gangs Inquiry.
3 survivors of horrific sex abuse scandals, have resigned as panelist’s of the Inquiry, b4 a Chair of Inquiry appointed. They similarly complain of their concerns not being ‘listened to’ and request a judge be appointed Chair. IMAO this raises a serious…
3 survivors of horrific sex abuse scandals, have resigned as panelist’s of the Inquiry, b4 a Chair of Inquiry appointed. They similarly complain of their concerns not being ‘listened to’ and request a judge be appointed Chair. IMAO this raises a serious…
Following recent
adverse media disclosures, Prince Andrew announces that, he will relinquish his royal titles, including title Duke of York.
adverse media disclosures, Prince Andrew announces that, he will relinquish his royal titles, including title Duke of York.
October 17, 2025 at 6:11 PM
Following recent
adverse media disclosures, Prince Andrew announces that, he will relinquish his royal titles, including title Duke of York.
adverse media disclosures, Prince Andrew announces that, he will relinquish his royal titles, including title Duke of York.
Did I hear him correctly? Did Secretary Hegseth just tell hundreds of US Military leaders that, ONLY the ‘male standard’ of fitness would determine, the mission readiness of military personnel ??
September 30, 2025 at 2:57 PM
Did I hear him correctly? Did Secretary Hegseth just tell hundreds of US Military leaders that, ONLY the ‘male standard’ of fitness would determine, the mission readiness of military personnel ??
US v Khalil
IJ orders K’s removal. (I’m not sure if that creates a ‘final order’?) If final, as I understand s. 242(b)(9), any claim his deportation is ‘unconstitutional retaliation’ for his 1A protected speech, must proceed by judicial review in 5CA after & if the BIA has dismissed his appeal.
IJ orders K’s removal. (I’m not sure if that creates a ‘final order’?) If final, as I understand s. 242(b)(9), any claim his deportation is ‘unconstitutional retaliation’ for his 1A protected speech, must proceed by judicial review in 5CA after & if the BIA has dismissed his appeal.
September 23, 2025 at 5:44 PM
US v Khalil
IJ orders K’s removal. (I’m not sure if that creates a ‘final order’?) If final, as I understand s. 242(b)(9), any claim his deportation is ‘unconstitutional retaliation’ for his 1A protected speech, must proceed by judicial review in 5CA after & if the BIA has dismissed his appeal.
IJ orders K’s removal. (I’m not sure if that creates a ‘final order’?) If final, as I understand s. 242(b)(9), any claim his deportation is ‘unconstitutional retaliation’ for his 1A protected speech, must proceed by judicial review in 5CA after & if the BIA has dismissed his appeal.
Leaving ANTIFA aside, please can someone identify the specific source of Pres. Trump’s legal power to designate ‘a domestic terrorist organisation’ ?
Statute, Code, section, or a Constitutional power ?
Should any form of ‘due process’ be afforded prior to any such designation ?
Statute, Code, section, or a Constitutional power ?
Should any form of ‘due process’ be afforded prior to any such designation ?
September 23, 2025 at 10:34 AM
Leaving ANTIFA aside, please can someone identify the specific source of Pres. Trump’s legal power to designate ‘a domestic terrorist organisation’ ?
Statute, Code, section, or a Constitutional power ?
Should any form of ‘due process’ be afforded prior to any such designation ?
Statute, Code, section, or a Constitutional power ?
Should any form of ‘due process’ be afforded prior to any such designation ?
Did President Trump really tell the Nation that the Amish community does not have any children diagnosed with autism?
I dunno. But the below says otherwise…
imfar.confex.com/imfar/2010/w...
I dunno. But the below says otherwise…
imfar.confex.com/imfar/2010/w...
This is the title
this is the content
imfar.confex.com
September 23, 2025 at 9:43 AM
Did President Trump really tell the Nation that the Amish community does not have any children diagnosed with autism?
I dunno. But the below says otherwise…
imfar.confex.com/imfar/2010/w...
I dunno. But the below says otherwise…
imfar.confex.com/imfar/2010/w...
Trump v Slaughter.
SCOTUS 6 :
OUT - goes stare decisis & respect 4 precedent.
IN - comes a no holds barred judicial ‘free for all’. How can the public have confidence in such a court ?
SCOTUS 6 :
OUT - goes stare decisis & respect 4 precedent.
IN - comes a no holds barred judicial ‘free for all’. How can the public have confidence in such a court ?
September 23, 2025 at 3:03 AM
Trump v Slaughter.
SCOTUS 6 :
OUT - goes stare decisis & respect 4 precedent.
IN - comes a no holds barred judicial ‘free for all’. How can the public have confidence in such a court ?
SCOTUS 6 :
OUT - goes stare decisis & respect 4 precedent.
IN - comes a no holds barred judicial ‘free for all’. How can the public have confidence in such a court ?
Charlie Kirk.
His killer(s) will face justice 4 this despicable cowardly & senseless crime. Resort 2 violence has no place in politics. It must be equivocally condemned & renounced. We argue with debates & ballots; not bullets. Murderers will never extinguish the ideology of those they martyr.
His killer(s) will face justice 4 this despicable cowardly & senseless crime. Resort 2 violence has no place in politics. It must be equivocally condemned & renounced. We argue with debates & ballots; not bullets. Murderers will never extinguish the ideology of those they martyr.
September 13, 2025 at 10:38 PM
Charlie Kirk.
His killer(s) will face justice 4 this despicable cowardly & senseless crime. Resort 2 violence has no place in politics. It must be equivocally condemned & renounced. We argue with debates & ballots; not bullets. Murderers will never extinguish the ideology of those they martyr.
His killer(s) will face justice 4 this despicable cowardly & senseless crime. Resort 2 violence has no place in politics. It must be equivocally condemned & renounced. We argue with debates & ballots; not bullets. Murderers will never extinguish the ideology of those they martyr.
Kavanaugh J ‘effectively’ tells 9CA, either allow Govt’s appeal in NOEM v PERDOMO, or we’ll issue cert and do it for you.
FYI - I laughed when 1st heard Noem’s 4 generic factors (‘none actor specific’) justify ICE stop. Plainly contra 4th? 6-3 Supremes agree valid. Sotomayor J’s dissent slays it.
FYI - I laughed when 1st heard Noem’s 4 generic factors (‘none actor specific’) justify ICE stop. Plainly contra 4th? 6-3 Supremes agree valid. Sotomayor J’s dissent slays it.
September 8, 2025 at 8:58 PM
Kavanaugh J ‘effectively’ tells 9CA, either allow Govt’s appeal in NOEM v PERDOMO, or we’ll issue cert and do it for you.
FYI - I laughed when 1st heard Noem’s 4 generic factors (‘none actor specific’) justify ICE stop. Plainly contra 4th? 6-3 Supremes agree valid. Sotomayor J’s dissent slays it.
FYI - I laughed when 1st heard Noem’s 4 generic factors (‘none actor specific’) justify ICE stop. Plainly contra 4th? 6-3 Supremes agree valid. Sotomayor J’s dissent slays it.
Secretary of Defence Hegseth’s echoed his words:
“T]he next & most important domain 4 Warfare will be..Space..both offensively & defensively…”
Will US trash Outer Space Treaty (1967)?
“States shall not place..nuclear..or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit.. or station them in outer space…”?
“T]he next & most important domain 4 Warfare will be..Space..both offensively & defensively…”
Will US trash Outer Space Treaty (1967)?
“States shall not place..nuclear..or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit.. or station them in outer space…”?
September 4, 2025 at 2:20 PM
Secretary of Defence Hegseth’s echoed his words:
“T]he next & most important domain 4 Warfare will be..Space..both offensively & defensively…”
Will US trash Outer Space Treaty (1967)?
“States shall not place..nuclear..or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit.. or station them in outer space…”?
“T]he next & most important domain 4 Warfare will be..Space..both offensively & defensively…”
Will US trash Outer Space Treaty (1967)?
“States shall not place..nuclear..or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit.. or station them in outer space…”?
I’m wondering if Trump’s preference 2 govern by executive order, started a similar trend in another branch of US Government ?
Is there a parallel between executive fiat and SCOTUS rulings on their ‘emergency docket’ ?
No reasons = no accountability?
But if reasons given, ‘binding’ precedent made?
Is there a parallel between executive fiat and SCOTUS rulings on their ‘emergency docket’ ?
No reasons = no accountability?
But if reasons given, ‘binding’ precedent made?
September 4, 2025 at 9:25 AM
I’m wondering if Trump’s preference 2 govern by executive order, started a similar trend in another branch of US Government ?
Is there a parallel between executive fiat and SCOTUS rulings on their ‘emergency docket’ ?
No reasons = no accountability?
But if reasons given, ‘binding’ precedent made?
Is there a parallel between executive fiat and SCOTUS rulings on their ‘emergency docket’ ?
No reasons = no accountability?
But if reasons given, ‘binding’ precedent made?
London Uk.
Epping Forest v Somani.
“Bell Hotel” asylum seekers.
CoA has allowed SSHD’s appeal & set aside the interim injunction previously granted by Eyre J requiring hotel 2 cease accommodating circa 130 asylum seekers put there by SSHD.
Per Bean LJ : “Eyre J made a number of serious errors…”
Epping Forest v Somani.
“Bell Hotel” asylum seekers.
CoA has allowed SSHD’s appeal & set aside the interim injunction previously granted by Eyre J requiring hotel 2 cease accommodating circa 130 asylum seekers put there by SSHD.
Per Bean LJ : “Eyre J made a number of serious errors…”
August 29, 2025 at 2:11 PM
London Uk.
Epping Forest v Somani.
“Bell Hotel” asylum seekers.
CoA has allowed SSHD’s appeal & set aside the interim injunction previously granted by Eyre J requiring hotel 2 cease accommodating circa 130 asylum seekers put there by SSHD.
Per Bean LJ : “Eyre J made a number of serious errors…”
Epping Forest v Somani.
“Bell Hotel” asylum seekers.
CoA has allowed SSHD’s appeal & set aside the interim injunction previously granted by Eyre J requiring hotel 2 cease accommodating circa 130 asylum seekers put there by SSHD.
Per Bean LJ : “Eyre J made a number of serious errors…”
Whilst justifying, his decision, to remove Ms Cook as Governor of the Federal Reserve, President Trump observed that:
“We need people who are 100 % above board.”
I’m encouraged that, a convicted felon emphasises the need for high standards of conduct, by other occupants of key public positions.
“We need people who are 100 % above board.”
I’m encouraged that, a convicted felon emphasises the need for high standards of conduct, by other occupants of key public positions.
August 27, 2025 at 4:19 AM
Whilst justifying, his decision, to remove Ms Cook as Governor of the Federal Reserve, President Trump observed that:
“We need people who are 100 % above board.”
I’m encouraged that, a convicted felon emphasises the need for high standards of conduct, by other occupants of key public positions.
“We need people who are 100 % above board.”
I’m encouraged that, a convicted felon emphasises the need for high standards of conduct, by other occupants of key public positions.
Trump’s recently asserted that he has the right to do whatever he wants because he’s President! It echoes a similar grandiose claim by President Nixon. During the Frost interviews, Nixon infamously argued that: “… when the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal…”
August 27, 2025 at 3:00 AM
Trump’s recently asserted that he has the right to do whatever he wants because he’s President! It echoes a similar grandiose claim by President Nixon. During the Frost interviews, Nixon infamously argued that: “… when the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal…”