Shreya Atrey's work cited in judgement on the right to compensation for domestic workers in South Africa, OTJR Executive Committee 2020/2021: Call for Applications, Watch Kendall Thomas give the 2020 Equality and Diversity Lecture, Institute of European and Comparative Law, Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre. A barrister of Gray’s Inn, he practised from 1979 to 1995 and was appointed Queen’s Counsel [QC] (honoris causa) in 2017. Office: 2117 Eck Hall of Law Phone: 574.631.5989 Fax: 574.631.4197 Email: jfinnis@nd.edu Staff Assistant: Kirsten Niederer CV: View SSRN: View Known for his work in moral, political and legal theory, as well as in constitutional law, John Finnis joined the Notre Dame Law School faculty in 1995. The substance of para. Is Cardinal Bea wrongly accused of something or not? It does equal the ‘Dreyfus Affair’ For shame!! Para. On one account, reported by the Dissent in para. It’s getting hard to know who did what to whom…or not. “Credible and true” is the phrase actually used by the very senior officer of the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Midland to describe the detailed testimony given to multiple police officers on multiple occasions by “Nick” (one Carl Beech), presenting himself as a victim/survivor and/or witness of sexual abuse, and sex-murders, witnessed by him from 1975 (aged 7) to 1984 (aged 16), at the hands of a former prime minister, former Heads of MI5 and MI6, a former Home Secretary, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, and other named persons of similar standing in British public life. Such extremism caused Democrats to lose House seats in 2020.Trump can bask in a successful first term that remade the Republican Party into a multiracial coalition of the broad middle class. She is in turn advised by an independent Selection Panel which receives and considers each application and makes recommendations as to appointment. This should be distributed far and wide over Australia, and, the world. to the sanctuary to assist [the sacristan] Potter [in clearing the sanctuary], the door was already unlocked. Professor John Finnis has been awarded the the title of Honorary QC. (He was testifying when aged about 84, about events over 20 years earlier, in 1996, when he had already been sacristan for nearly 35 years.). The point of the preceding paragraphs was to show, as briefly as possible, how very unsatisfactory the Judgment is in discharging its primary responsibility to apply the law coherently to the case before the court. On the defence case, the falsity of the allegations is a conclusion from all the evidence taken together: that is, from the gaps and alterations in the allegations, from their inherent improbability, and from their incompatibility with the wealth of evidence that the Archbishop was absent from the sacristies at the relevant times (impossibility) and that, in all probability, numerous other people were coming and going and/or unrobing and/or sitting about in the Priests’ Sacristy at those times (impossibility or improbability). By treating falsity as a distinct argument (rather than a conclusion from other arguments) – and also by treating it before improbability and impossibility – the Judgment displays deep confusion about the case’s basic logic, aborts its own rational consideration of the defence, and effectively reverses the onus of proof. In early 2015, the same year the Victorian complainant came forward to testify to Victorian Police that he was a victim/survivor of Archbishop Pell, those of the British persons just mentioned still living had their lives irreparably damaged by 20-hour police searches and public police accusations all made in total reliance on “Nick’s” testimony. Professor Finnis has dedicated himself for many years to the service of legal scholarship and legal education and at the very highest level. But each is incompatible with the complainant’s story. If they do not produce it in a few days, and if Trump pivots to put his fate in their hands, then the pilloried Republicans may well lose the Senate races in Georgia. He has a year or more to decide whether he wishes to play kingmaker among would-be Republican congressional and presidential candidates or run himself for a second term. They not only ignored other evidence from him and other witnesses that ferrying of stuff from sanctuary to sacristy would begin immediately the procession left the sanctuary – but also failed to see that any window of opportunity was eliminated by what they themselves were without demur recording as the sacristan’s actual proposition: that during the whole “five or six minutes” the sacristy door remained locked.If the Judgment could go wrong in these ways, and not notice its own obvious errors, how much more so could the second jury? The Pell Judgment declares its authors’ entire satisfaction with the truthfulness and accuracy of the complainant, and it does so before turning to confront any of the contextualising counter-evidence. For all their media accolades, Gore and Clinton never really accepted their losses in 2000 and 2016, respectively. Anyone tempted to believe George Pell did what he was convicted of doing should read first the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal majority (“Judgment”), next the fuller transcript of the complainant’s allegations that is given in paras. John Finnis. I may even have heard that today at Mass spoken during a homily by a visiting priest from some South African country. Its construction of a five or six minute window of opportunity for the Archbishop to commit singularly vile offences against two thirteen-year-old boys, in the Priests’ Sacristy, has a similar incoherence thinly veiled behind an “of course” and an evasive “taking the evidence as a whole”. But it was not deployed by the prosecution or the Judgment. If you take this short tour, you will see the Judgment fall apart under your eyes. He would then take books from the sanctuary and unlock the door to the Priests’ Sacristy. The phrase is not theirs but sums up the conclusions reached and opinions conveyed in this part of the Judgment. It was both necessary and sufficient for that purpose to persuade the jury that the events were not impossible and that there was a realistic opportunity for the offending to occur.Finally, in relation to “opportunity” (the remaining facet of the alibi – impossibility – no opportunity complex), para. The “independent confirmation” gets nowhere near tending to confirm any claims concerning the Archbishop.About those claims, and the question of “independent support” for them, the Dissent rightly summarises the position:“There was no forensic, or other objective evidence, to support [the complainant’s] account”; indeed, “the jury were invited to  accept his evidence without there being any independent evidence to support it” [410],”…entirely unsupported…”, “no supporting evidence of any kind” [412], [925], [1104].And the Judgment, while clutching at straws to find confirmation, passingly admits the falsity of the complainant’s denials that he had ever been in the Priests’ Sacristy before or after the day on which, he said, he and another boy (now dead) swigged wine and were raped there.