Part Two
Another questionable character prominent in the legal appartus and thus of relevance to this essay is also of a Jewish persuasion: his name is Sir Geoffrey Charles Vos:
(often referred to as The Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Vos) is a senior judge in England and Wales. He has served as Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice since 11 January 2021, making him the second-most senior judge in the jurisdiction after the Lady Chief Justice (and President of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal). Source: Grok
He announced in January 2026 that he will retire from the judiciary and as Master of the Rolls on 31 October 2026.
The Hunt and Gather channel recently posted these allegations about him and, having been unable to contact him through the usual channels, took the route of confronting him directly outside his 600+ acre estate. Why?
“Hunt & Gather Reporting and Video@HuntandGatherTV Apr 2
MASTER OF THE ROLLS DOORSTEPPED We have just doorstepped the UK’s most senior judge Sir Geoffrey Vos about his role in inventing a lie that was told to @itvnews by the @MoJGovUK in 2021 to cover up a miscarriage of justice perpetrated by two other corrupt judges, Sara Cockerill and Stephen Males.
Sir Geoffrey Vos ignored a letter from Hunt & Gather on 28th December 2025 about this, announcing his retirement the day after our deadline.
So we came to his farm to ask him in person. For the record, we paid for our bungalow for the week. He goes no comment then calls the police, telling them that I am “attacking” him – another lie. They didn’t attend. Corrupt judges don’t like questions – especially in front of their wives. See if you are convinced by his answers.”
“A family called King from Bradford lost a court case before a judge called Mrs Justice Cockerill. It was a case about costs fraud – something I believe virtually every commercial barrister and judge in London has probably benefitted from, at some point.
Cockerill ignored all the Kings’ best evidence and found against them. She then had contact with an appeal court judge called Stephen Males via a third party called Duncan Matthews.
Cockerill emailed Matthews, Matthews and Males then had a meeting and discussed the case.
This is illegal. Appeals need to be independent.
Nobody should have even known that Males had carriage of the case.
He then denied permission to appeal. I – when I was at ITV – asked the Ministry of Justice about the secret meeting between Males and Matthews. I was told that it had taken place at “a large dinner of the commercial bar association”.
This was a lie to avoid the impression that they had met up to talk about the case. They just bumped into each other at a social event, I was now being told. (Incidentally, discussing the case in this context would still have been illegal, but I assume they thought a social event was “a better look” than the clandestine meeting that probably actually happened.)
The date I was given for this dinner was 22 July 2021 – a few days after lockdown had ended. The Commercial Bar Association would not have had a dinner then.
I wrote to many members of the Commercial Bar Association – some of London’s most prominent legal figures, including Charlie Falconer and Tony Blair’s brother Bill – and they all told me it was a lie.
Before I was told the lie I asked for Geoffrey Vos to be included in the correspondence and he was. So he knew about it. So you have the Judicial press office – under Geoffrey Vos’s direction – lying to a national broadcaster to cover up a miscarriage of justice perpetrated by two other judges. The Kings lost everything, and as you can see – Geoffrey Vos doesn’t want to talk about it. 1:40 PM · Apr 2, 2026″
Now, that on its own is an interesting aside but imagine my surprise when I discovered that Vos was one of the presiding judges who heard the appeal against the Mazur case which I mentioned last week.
The Mazur case, in essence, ruled that only authorised individuals could conduct litigation, in accord with the Legal Services Act, 2007. A victory for common sense and a blow against the industrial scale litigation that is carried out against the folks of the Isles of Britain by factories of paralegals and legal executives, none of whom are qualified in any lawful sense to conduct claims, sign witness statements, bankruptcy petitions and the like.
The result was challenged by the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX). It was not challenged by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority or the Law Society who were the respondents in this appeal of the original ruling.
Quite why this appeal was not struck out on the grounds of it being vexatious and not in the public interest is not clear until we consider that the Judiciary is a captured operation, held in the sway of Jewish and/or foreign interests that are largely financial in nature. Indeed, Jewish interests are invariably and singularly financial ones and that is and always has been the problem. With financial control comes immeasurable power over the cattle, the chattels and the very existence of those of us who are labelled the Goyim.
In any event, Vos and his colleagues sitting in the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of CILEX’s appeal of the Mazur Case on March 31st, 2026:
The core question was the correct interpretation of the reserved legal activity of the “conduct of litigation” (LSA 2007, Sch 2, para 4) and the related criminal offence in s 14 (carrying on a reserved legal activity when not authorised or exempt).The High Court had held that unauthorised persons (e.g. paralegals, trainee solicitors, non-practising legal executives, law centre caseworkers) who performed acts amounting to the conduct of litigation — even under the supervision of an authorised person (such as a solicitor) — were themselves “carrying on” that reserved activity.
This meant they would commit a criminal offence under s 14 unless they could prove a lack-of-knowledge defence. The ruling caused widespread concern across the legal sector because it appeared to restrict standard delegation practices in law firms and law centres.CILEX (as appellant/intervener), supported by other interveners including the Law Centres Network, APIL, and the Legal Services Board, appealed. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and The Law Society were respondents.
Key Issues on AppealThe Court of Appeal identified three main issues:
- Whether unauthorised persons “carry on the conduct of litigation” when they perform litigation tasks under the supervision of an authorised individual.
- What acts actually constitute the “conduct of litigation”.
- Whether the working model used by many law centres (where unauthorised caseworkers handle caseloads under solicitor supervision) was lawful.
Court of Appeal’s Decision and Reasoning
The Court allowed the appeal and restored the pre-High Court understanding of the law.
It is my view that this is the equivalent of wall-papering over the cracks as it changes nothing: a paralegal, a legal executive or an office clerk cannot conduct litigation as they are manifestly not qualified. Therefore, the grounds still stand: in the event litigation is being carried out against an indvidual and the documentation is not being signed by a member of the bar, then it can be challenged and the party should be put to strict proof that it is being supervised. After all, a solicitor who uses a paralegal to sign a false witness statement or a fake bankruptcy petition is liable for those actions of his office ‘clerk’ is he not? Gone are the days when he can hide behind the ‘legal executive’. And that is surely a good thing. All of which, lest we forget, should serve to remind us that these self-serving bewigged individuals are not as smart and all-knowing as they would have us believe.
It is hard for an individual to truly comprehend what is behind all this: I can only reiterate the point that the followers of the Talmud neither know nor care for any such notion as the Golden Rule or the Truth. Deceit is the name of their game and the Talmud provides them with all the justification required to lie, cheat and steal from the rest of Mankind.
In this way, Vos and his ilk have attempted to close the ‘loophole’ – not that it was one: it is more a reinforcement of the Law. How? On the simple basis that a law degree does indicate a modicum of intelligence, a level of IQ level necessary for the job. Competence, by another term.
When profit motives override the Law, then the Justice System is in the quagmire.
That is what we are looking at here: every level of the ‘legal system’ has been captured for profit. The courts are registered for-profit corporate entities, the ‘security’, the cleaners, the clerks, the jobbing-solicitors are all low IQ appointments, many from low IQ countries, the District Judges, the Recorders and the Circuit Judges are all in it for the profit, and hang the Truth. That is where it stands.
I would it were not so, but that is the harsh reality of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Services (HMCTS) in 2026: a captured operation, from top to bottom with an Israeli-qualified Solicitor General sitting in government under a pudding head from Guyana, Mr David Lammy.
Therefore, it is reasonable (and reason is the one quality that is so lacking throughout every level of the judiciary) to assert that it will collapse into its own hubris.
Sir Ross Cranston, another former Solicitor General under the Labour government of 1997-01 presided in a hearing in which the barrister for the defendant stated that yours truly had, by critiquing the various miscarriages of justice, brought the entire “Judiciary into disrepute”. A nonsense on the simple basis that by not enforcing the law and providing remedy, it is those members of the judiciary themselves who have brought the legal system into disrepute.
It is self-evident that the aforementioned characters are part and parcel of a judicial system that is acting for and on behalf of a protected class and to the detriment of the natives of these lands.
The appeal of the Mazur Case stands as blatant an example of a rigged system as can be envisaged. After all, why should a coterie of individuals masquerading as ‘Knights’ and ‘Dames’ have the power to overturn the Common Law at the behest of a corrupt government? And Why should the Privy Council be able to decide what is in our best interests?
The answer is plain: they do not. It is all an absurd illusion. Justice is being sold to the ones with the deepest of pockets and the beakiest of noses.
A Captured Judiciary
When I state that these individuals have no affinity whatsoever with the peoples of these Isles, I cannot overstate that fact. For nowhere in their religious beliefs, in their personal ethos, their morality and their knowing is there any kind of empathy or sympathetic understanding of what it is be native born, with those thousands of years of tradition behind us and a system of law that has been so profound in its influence that it is the jurisprudence upon which any and all common law countries have founded their own systems as our ancestors and fellow patriots emigrated to all corners of the world.
I am so long in the tooth that I can remember the 200th anniversary celebrations of the United States of America’s Declaration of Independence in 1976. Indeed, we were told all about it at the junior school I was a pupil of. Freedom is not only an idea, it is part of our DNA, it flows through our bodies as well as forms in our minds.
It seems appropriate, therefore, that in this, the year of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the great ideal that was the original United States of America, that I point out the capture of the British Judiciary. Make no mistake: it is important and the attempt to undermine the millennia of Natural Law is a milestone that indicates just how far into the national psyche the parasite of Judaism has wriggled its insidious way.
However, rather than admit defeat, we should remember that history is not linear, that events are repeated and never in the history of mankind has Judaism ever succeeded in taking over the world and its peoples. There is some kind of divine safety switch in operation that prevents it ever happening, and that means we are not doomed for, as is always the case, God or the Great Creator is in charge. Not Yahweh and the false gods of the Demiurge. Never have been and never will be.
How long before it collapses into its own hubris remains to be seen but, dear reader, never forget that it is a question of when, not if. By refusing to comply to the falsities and obfuscations, by calling out the invidious financial system and by being in harmony with your divine essence, that knowing of the Golden Rule, Do Unto Others as You Would Have Done Unto You, you will be doing your part in the dismantling, brick by brick, of this wall of bullshit that Rothschild, Disraeli, Churchill et al have each played their part in building.
Sackman, Lammy and Vos are merely misguided puppets who are by way of their incorrigible actions hastening the demise of the Jewish capture of the Judiciary. After all, is it not the case that,
Beauty is Truth and Truth is Beauty
And that is all we need to know on Earth?
_________________________________-
Thank you for your attention. Should you be appreciative of my essays and RogueCasts, then please consider chucking a few quid into the coffers via the BuyMeACoffee button and/or take out a paid subscription at my Substack page, where you will be the first to receive my work. Cheers
_____________________________
RM Social Media links
Rogue Male website
Telegram channel for uncensored content
You Tube Channel
Substack
Twitter/X