Harry Dunn Case Update: Demands to Meet Bo-Jo in Person After Loss at Judicial Review

Another Harry Dunn case update, just before the holiday lull sets in, which should last until late January when the family's civil suit in the U.S. has its next milestone. Anyway, the issues in that case captivate me, whereas Joe Biden does not, so it's the Dunn case again. 

Last Saturday we learned from the UK Mirror that the mother of the victim wants Boris Johnson to meet her following the dismissal of the family's judicial appeal:

The mother of tragic Harry Dunn wants Boris Johnson to meet her following a High Court ruling that his alleged killer has diplomatic immunity.

-- snip --

Charlotte said: “We still haven’t been able to meet the Prime Minister. We’ve asked him on no end of occasions to meet with us, but because he refuses, we’ve never been able to ask him questions directly and get an honest answer. Boris just will not meet us. It’s bizarre. We’ve met President Trump half-way around the world, but we still haven’t met our own Prime Minister who is an hour up the road. It makes no sense to me," she added.

You have to meet him in person in order to ask him a question? I’m not so sure that’s really necessary.

That aside, I have an idea why her own PM won’t meet with her. If you want to have private meetings with a head of state, it helps if you do not rely on a maniac ‘advisor’ to do all your reading-writing-speaking-and-listening for you, which is the role she allows him to play. 

The problem is, that guy is bad!, as the PM's staff knows, and no head of state will be caught in the same room as him. 

His recent over-the-top reaction to U.S. Embassy London's disinclination to include him in a private meeting that the mother had requested pretty much defines the word "manic." 

Speaking of that bad advisor, The Mirror's story included this latest announcement from him:

The family’s spokesman Radd Seiger has already spoken to officials from the US Embassy in London and the foreign office since Monday’s high court verdict.

“Officials.” Really? What officials are those? He did not disclose that information to The Mirror, so let me guess. It was the telephone operator at the embassy, and whichever Foreign Office duty officer got stuck with taking calls from random crackpots on Tuesday last week. 

It's hard to believe how thoroughly in thrall the family is to an obvious blowhard bullshitter, but see for yourself. Watch the video clip in which the mother - responding to that same embassy invitation which did not include her Svengali - describes how completely he interprets for her everything she sees and hears. 

Maybe someday the mother and the rest of the family will look back and see that everything he has told them about international law was wrong, that none of his assurances have ever worked out, and that none of the government agencies and officials who receive his frequent demarches care in the least about the demands he makes of them. 

"Come on, man!," to allow myself one small Bidenism. Get red-piled on that guy. Until then he’s keeping you out of discerning circles.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Update as of December 1

The Dunn family announced today that they have dropped their legal dream team and are going with new representation for the appeal. 

Makes sense to me. If your legal dream team had been shot down as badly as their legal dream team was shot down at the judicial review, you'd want a new team, too. 

To recap, this is what the High Court justices thought of the old dream team's arguments:

Creative though they are, the Claimants' arguments under Ground 1 [whether diplomatic immunity existed] ultimately amount to playing with language in order to address the weakness in the case arising from the lack of an express waiver. This play is easily identified: they seek to avoid the effect of the VCDR [Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations] by re-classifying the advance waiver of Mr Sacoolas' immunity as a new creature ("limited immunity") and then arguing that this limited immunity, by implication, has also silently attached to the family members (whose full immunity has never been in fact waived expressly in accordance with the mandatory language of Article 32).

For completeness we should record that there was nothing in the case law and textbooks relied upon by the Claimants in relation to the so-called "derivative" nature of a family member's immunity which affects this conclusion.

 Yeah, I'd switch horses in the middle of the stream, too.