Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:30:55 +1100
Local: Fri, Oct 16 2009 5:30 am
Subject: Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:08:22 +1100
Local: Fri, Oct 16 2009 6:08 pm
Subject: Re: Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:53:30 +1100
Local: Fri, Oct 16 2009 11:53 pm
Subject: Re: Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:52:56 +1100
Local: Sat, Oct 17 2009 10:52 pm
Subject: Re: Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:43:29 +1100
Local: Thurs, Oct 22 2009 8:43 pm
Subject: Re: Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:57:17 +1100
Local: Fri, Oct 23 2009 11:57 pm
Subject: Re: Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:00:48 +1100
Local: Thurs, Oct 29 2009 1:00 am
Subject: Re: Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:44:58 +1100
Local: Thurs, Oct 29 2009 1:44 pm
Subject: Re: Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:32:41 +1100
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 11:32 pm
Subject: Re: Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
Dear Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka,
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
Discussion subject changed to "THE ALLEGED SPANISH FLU OF 1918-1921 & ASIAN FLU OF 1958 PANDEMIES WERE IN FACT THE BLACK PLAGUE !" by Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
25 to 40 millions death in the world demonstrating that the Jenner / Pasteurian Criminals theories were & are complete fraud... and so the alleged preventive Vaccinations orchestrated by the WHO criminal organisation in Switzerland ...leading to immediate Guillain-Barré Syndrome in the quickest response of the organism ( an acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP), an autoimmune disorder affecting the peripheral nervous system. GBS is a side- effect of influenza vaccines ) ... and in slower responses Myopathies of Duchêne, Alzheimer, Parkinson, M.Sclerosis & of course paralytic death
Of course the French & British Government did everything to hide the frauds of the most outstanding Holocaust Criminals in all History of Mankind : The Jenner / Pasteur antibiotic clueless fools , the first credited with the worse Tuberculosis Pandemy thanks to his Vaccine Turberculinis strain found in infected cow pustules pus & the other fool with the Lung Cancer & other types of cancers thanks to his abominable vaccine poisons ! Hence although millions were buried in both countries by Tumbrels fulls at night in common graves, nothing transpired except in Spain, which has not vested interest in supporting a most fraudulent science of alleged Medecine ! Of course the clueless Pollies are just doing what told to them by the greedy vaccine producing labs living out of Humanity beliefs that the causes of dizeazezz are germz, viruzez & eugenezzz ! Of course the Black Plagues of 1918 & 1958 demonstrate the fallacies of such Jenner / Pasteur theories, and this is why the real symptoms of the alleged Spanish & Asian Flu were carefully hidden. André Malraux, Minister of the French Republic died of the Black Plague indeed, a few weeks after being vaccinated with an alleged harmless Flu shot.
At the time of writing, only POLAND OF ALL NATIONS HAS THE COURAGE TO REFUSE TO BE PARTY IN THE MASSACRE OF HIS OWN POPULATION BY THE SEASONAL FLU SHOT WHICH UNKNOWN TO ALL CONTAINS THE 3 STRAINS : AVIAN SWINE& BLACK PLAGUE FLU RECOVERED IN CORPSES OF 1918 ABOVE THE POLAR CIRCLE !
HONOUR TO POLAND AN TO THE GREAT POLISH PEOPLE !!!
Q : What are the symptoms of the Black Plague ? A : Overwhelming cyanosis
Q : What happens when the victims die in terrible suffering A: The body become immediately black due to the hemorrhagic blood present under the whole body derm
Q : What is the immediate cure in less than 10 minutes, unknown by the Dizeaze Industry (DI) and tis lecherous bed-side mannered Quacks supporting that criminal Pharmacist/Chemist business ! A : Just find it out ! Note As a clue, as easy as the discovery of the Great Sandy Desert immense deposits... surely the noted Australian Mining & Political Criminals, especially that parliamentary filth sitting on the West Australia Parliament on their fucking arses will find out that answer in no time at all .. Just ask them or their official mining heroes for immediate answer !
With kindest regards to all
Note as a bonus under my signature will appears all the goodies the Criminals ' run Labs are putting in their shot, just to be sure the expected results are obtained
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud Australia Mining Pioneer Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer Mine (Australia largest Copper & Gold Mine) Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines, all in the Great Sandy Desert Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One Never Forgiven ~
CONNAISSEZ-VOUS LA SOUPE DU DIABLE ACTUELLEMENT ASSOCIEE AUX VACCINS ?
Ce qui suit est tellement gros qu’on a du mal à y croire.
- ALUMINIUM (adjuvant) : Responsable de dommages cérébraux, suspecté d'être la cause de la maladie d'Alzheimer, de certaines démences, de comas et d'attaques. Responsable également d'allergies cutanées. Lourdement impliqué dans la myofasciite à macrophages. - SULFATE D'AMMONIUM : Suspecté d'attaquer le foie, le système nerveux, le système gastro-intestinal et respiratoire. - BÊTA- PROPIOLACTONE : Connu pour ses propriétés cancérigènes, suspecté d'attaquer le foie, le système respiratoire et gastro- intestinal ainsi que la peau et les organes des sens. - LEVURES GENETIQUEMENT MODIFIEES (OGM !!!), - ADN BACTERIEN OU VIRAL D'ANIMAUX : Substances qui peuvent se combiner à l'ADN des vaccinés et entraîner des mutations génétiques inconnues. - LATEX : qui peut produire des réactions allergiques mettant en péril le pronostic vital - GLUTAMATE DE SODIUM : neurotoxique connu pour ses effets mutagènes, tératogènes, entraînant des malformations et monstruosités et des effets sur la descendance. Responsable d’allergies. - FORMALDEHYDE (formol) : Carcinogène, impliqué dans les leucémies, les cancers du cerveau, du colon, des organes lymphatiques; suspecté d'occasionner des problèmes gastro-intestinaux; poison violent pour le foie, le système immunitaire, le système nerveux, les organes de reproduction. - POLYSORBATE 80 : Connu pour causer des cancers chez les animaux. - TRI(N)BUTYLPHOSPHATE : Suspecté d'être un poison pour les reins et les nerfs. - GLUTARALDEHYDE : Poison, s'il est ingéré; responsable de malformations néonatales chez les animaux d'expérimentation - GELATINE : Produite à partir de certaines parties de la peau des veaux ainsi que des os de bovins déminéralisés et de peau de porcs. Responsable d'allergies. - GENTAMYCINE ET POLYMYXINE B : Antibiotiques toxiques pour les reins et le système nerveux; responsables d'allergies pouvant être mortelles. - MERCURE (conservateur) : Une substance des plus dangereuses, qui a une affinité pour le cerveau, le foie, l'intestin, la mœlle osseuse et les reins. D'infimes quantités peuvent causer des dommages graves au cerveau. Les multiples symptômes de l'intoxication au mercure sont connus y compris l’autisme. - NEOMYCINE : Antibiotique qui perturbe l'absorption de la vitamine B6. Réactions allergiques pouvant être mortelles. Toxique pour les reins et le système nerveux. - PHENOL / PHENOXYETHANOL : Utilisé comme antigel. Toxique capable de dérégler les réponses du système immunitaire. - BORATE DE SODIUM (Borax) : Mort aux rats ( !) contenu dans le très a la mode Gardasil.
CELLULES HUMAINES ET ANIMALES : tissus de foetus; albumine humaine, sang de porc, de cheval, de mouton; cervelle de lapin, de cobaye; reins de chien, coeur de boeuf, reins de singe, embryons de poulets, oeufs de poules et de canards, sérum de veau, etc.
Et puis il y a maintenant la cerise sur le gâteau avec la nanotechnologie « top secret » pouvant être utilisée pour programmer le cerveau…ou le déprogrammer. Surtout, soyez prudents ! N’en privez pas vos enfants !
Ref Michel Dogna avec d’autres informations d’importances sur un génocide vaccinal planifié. http://www.infomicheldogna.net/
Discussion subject changed to "Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)" by Judicial Corruption Australia
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:47:23 +1100
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 11:47 pm
Subject: Re: Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
Dear Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka,
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
You poor French sod Le-Turd - the fairies at the bottom of your garden and the HOT Aussie sun have warped you brain worse than anyone could imagine. Or on the other hand has it just shrunk - you know just got smaller and smaller until it's the size of a pin head in a big empty shell.
But all those veins still go in there all feeding that tiny little nodule which tries to work so hard, but never quite gets there.
You pooer French demented sod !!!
There are a number of things you can do in order to get by with your affliction.
Firstly you must realize that you have a problem in the first plasce. Surely you must realize that you are a demented Nutter. If you don't believe me, please take my word for it, you DEFINITELY are a NUTTER.
The second thing you must do is to minimize the amount of work you give that poor little pin sized organ of yours. You must treat it with respect and nurture it.
Don't nover load it. Forget all about that COSMIC BULLSHIT. It's all CRAP.
The third thing you must do is to stop confusing that small organ if yours with conflicting information. Stop talking with poor old Horus and Titi. They are with us no longer and no amount of talking to them will do you any good.
Your worst enemy though are those nasty little fairies at the bottom of your garden. You must avoid them at ALL costs. They are no good for your small pin-head sized brain. They fill yoir brain with all sorts of demented CRAP.
The fourth thing you must do, Le-Turd, is to stay away from that cheap red plonk you French Frogs grow over there. It is full of all sorts of pollutants from the polluted soil and groundwater you poor Frogs have to bear over there.
What you need is some good quality Australian wine - not cheap French plonk. It will poison your brain even further. Remember Napoleon suffered the same fate. He died from all the poisons which accumulated in his body.
The fifth thing you must do is to stop shoving that rubber hose up your arse. If God had intended us to do that we would have all been born with reubber hoses stuck up our arses. It is simply no good for you., Your poor little arsehole has to cope with too much already. You shit out of it and you also talk out of it, so it is overworked already.
And Le-Turd stop playing with it, remember it is at the arse end of your world.
The sixth thing you must do is to stop WANKING. Remember you have been inducted into the French hall of fame as France's GREATEST WANKER. Have you heard anything from the city administrators of La Rochelle yet? I sent then an email about nominating you as a famous person who has lived in La Rochelle.
The seventh thing you must do is to come to trhe conclusion that you were wrong all along and that you are not a famous geologist but you are just some poor demented, deluded French Nutter.
Finally you must apologize and learn how to repent. You must get down on your knees and bow your head. You must then place your head between your knees and shove your head up your arse.
If you repent to the correct degree and shove your head up your arse far enough, you will completely dissappear and your problems (and ours) will be SOLVED.
... this is certainly an issue which cannot be perceived by that degenerated Antipodean Filth masquerading as Human beings in that Austral Convict Colony & Hell on Earth indeed !
Unable for most part to "understand" but what is fed in by their Australia Mass Merdias Pen Slaves ...days on end ... and which bring any decent gentleman to the brink of nausea, both by the content or should I say the lack of it & as well the crawling slavish response of the blood-sucking carrion-feeding tap-water poisoned beastly Japanese- surrendering Toads !
Jesus fucking Christ, ,to have done so much & generated so much Mineral Wealth for such Antipodean Manure will remain the cross of my life indeed !!!
> .... this is certainly an issue which cannot be perceived by that > degenerated Antipodean Filth masquerading as Human beings in that > Austral Convict Colony & Hell on Earth indeed !
> Unable for most part to "understand" but what is fed in by their > Australia Mass Merdias Pen Slaves ...days on end ... and which bring > any decent gentleman to the brink of nausea, both by the content or > should I say the lack of it & as well the crawling slavish response of > the blood-sucking carrion-feeding tap-water poisoned beastly Japanese- > surrendering Toads !
> Jesus fucking Christ, ,to have done so much & generated so much > Mineral Wealth for such Antipodean Manure will remain the cross of my > life indeed !!!
> Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Use your magick to find another mine ! You claim to do many things greater !
|
