Yes, you do, every time. And since you're too much of a lying coward to
address the issues I'm sure you will run away again.

DO you like it when we play your game of selectively modifying someone's
post? No? Well fucking stop doing it yourself then you dishonest gutless
turd.

As everyone can see, fags can't answer some very basic points that have
blown away the same shit he's been babbling in here for months, so
instead resorts to his trademark deceitful modifying of people's posts
and hiding with his tail between his legs. Just so you all know this
isn't just in this thread, this has been his 15 or more year history of
usenet. Wonder if he'll bring in his anal invading mate to come defend
him, usually happens when he gets blown out of the water. Lets see.....

Just as you claim pedophilia is ok as long as you're a priest huh?
Should be careful putting words into people's mouths fuckwit lest it
come back to bite you.

We'll get back to North Korea, but first... Funny, why are you not
commenting on Iran? How about Serbia? Or any of the other glorious
religious bloodbaths that you love so much? Should they not by your
flawed logic be the glowing torch of your claims being much more
religious than Australia or most other countries??? Why aren't you
living in one of those places? Oh that's right, you're AFRAID of very
religious countries, you prove it by living here where we are free to
believe or disbelieve anything we like!!! I mean that's the rule frauds
like you go by isn't it?

Oh what? I'm sorry? Didn't quite catch that???

<fags whimpers as he runs away yet again from the point that the most
religious of all societies are also the most horrible of all societies>

Give you a hint though Fags, one that obviously flew right over that
tiny little brain of yours. Societies where religion, or lack of, are
enforced are always going to be clusterfucks (North Korea, Serbia,
Iran). Here we prove that, irregardless of religion or atheism, a
country is fucked up if it tries to force you to believe one way.

Societies where the government says believe or disbelieve what you like
and respect each other are always going to do better.

Fags on the other hand, being a moron, can not quite grasp this no
matter how many times this most basic and obvious fact is given to him
on a platter. Because he's a fucktard.

You may also want to look at
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Someone who has more of a clue than fags pointing out that the higher
the levels of religion in the developed world the higher the rates of
crime, higher mortality rate, etc.etc.etc.

It appears we can conclude two things, if "belief" or lack thereof is
forced upon you then the country is likely to turn to shit, it isn't
about having religion, or not having a religion, it's just a sure-fire
indicator that you are living in a repressive society and obviously it
will not just be religion that is repressed it will be all facets of
life, people will not be happy, people will not strive for excellence,
the place will fall to shit. Fag's myth dispelled.

Secondly in societies where we are truly free to believe or dis-believe
as we see fit (such as Australia) the rate of belief is slowly dropping,
and it appears from the study linked above the more these beliefs are
dropped the happier and healthier a society becomes. To compare two
edges of the spectrum to each other lets look at Japan and the US. The
US is ridden with crime, poverty and hatred. It is one of the most
religious of those countries where people are allowed to choose their
beliefs. Japan on the other hand is one of the least religious of these
countries and has the least of these problems.

Writing's on the wall fags, you're just too much of a fuckwit to read it.

news:hbb5hh$g0b$1@adenine.netfront.net...

Enema induced brainfart, after Kagaroothisfist mixed up the nozzles again?

On Oct 17, 1:04 pm, "Sunny" <wombatlo...@gmail.com> wrote:

LOL !

Interesting to note how the Newmont / Newcrest , Boral &  BHP
Criminals' mole & Tyrwhitt Filth "s son,  is becoming abusive to the
point of foaming at the mouth in his hate of Australia Greatest Mining
Pioneer of All Times !

Amusing indeed to remark,  through that Antipodean Puke's dialectic,
the worn out arguments served to me over the years !

May be that Mining Manure & their Political Protectors are fearing
something & are trying to fend it offf ?

In any case, I address at this occasion my warmest Congratulations to
Mr Kanga

Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining PIoneer

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyj_gWqdDWQ

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

Inquiry into Access to Justice.d.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZMGFlNzNjYzAtZjE5ZC00Y...

Letter to Mr Charles Pham.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNzY2YjNhNDYtZTkzYi00N...

Senate.Enquiries.update. 31July2009.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNTk3OGU2NGQtYTc2MS00Z...

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.

cheers

PHAM

administrator
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/

- Hide quoted text -
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka

    Chas,

    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 ...

read more »

Can't remember the last time an "atheist" got busted for pedophilia, seems
they are 100% christian scum (mostly catholic)....they have been touching
kids up for 2000 years...as one journalist put it when referring to the
Catholic Clergy in Ireland she used the "endemic" when referring to the
rampant pedophila in the church...seems that religion has produced the
lowest form of filth on earth....not atheism

news:ycqdnaIUA7HAHUvXnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyj_gWqdDWQ

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

Inquiry into Access to Justice.d.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZMGFlNzNjYzAtZjE5ZC00Y...

Letter to Mr Charles Pham.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNzY2YjNhNDYtZTkzYi00N...

Senate.Enquiries.update. 31July2009.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNTk3OGU2NGQtYTc2MS00Z...

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.

cheers

PHAM

administrator
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/

- Hide quoted text -
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka

    Chas,

    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
...

read more »

In article <eWeGm.50724$ze1.42...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,

*
  "[Australian] lobbyist Robbie Swan argues "It is now an established
   and obvious fact that the recently published Australian Pedophile
   and Sex Offender Index listed 'Clergy, Church and Religion related'
   as the largest identifiable group of offenders -- by almost twice
   the size of the next group." Court records since the publication
   of this references how the conviction of priests for child sex
   abuse is running at 4:1 to other occupations. This means that the
   church and religious orders in Australia could be producing up to
   approximately one-third of the nation's pedophiles. Warming to his
   argument, Swan points out "that if the same number of church-based
   pedophiles had come from the sex industry, a Parliamentary inquiry
   would have commenced years ago. The sex industry and the church
   both employ approximately 20,000 people in Australia. As it
   appears, the sex industry seems remarkable free of convicted
   pedophiles ... no prostitutes, X-Video producers or sex shop owners
   appeared on the Pedophile Index and none have been recorded in
   court records since."

                   --from "SCANDAL - the Priest and the Swan"
                      Australian correspondent Joe Zemecki

earle
*

indeed...nice backup post...

news:earle.jones-90BE26.15253429102009@news.giganews.com...

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyj_gWqdDWQ

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

Inquiry into Access to Justice.d.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZMGFlNzNjYzAtZjE5ZC00Y...

Letter to Mr Charles Pham.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNzY2YjNhNDYtZTkzYi00N...

Senate.Enquiries.update. 31July2009.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNTk3OGU2NGQtYTc2MS00Z...

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.

cheers

PHAM

administrator
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/

- Hide quoted text -
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka

    Chas,

    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
...

read more »

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 ~

for background info.
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/nac.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm
"True Geology" Foundation Document
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327
"Turcaud Bath" as a free gift to Suffering Humanity
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/107947

*****************************************************

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/

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyj_gWqdDWQ

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

Inquiry into Access to Justice.d.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZMGFlNzNjYzAtZjE5ZC00Y...

Letter to Mr Charles Pham.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNzY2YjNhNDYtZTkzYi00N...

Senate.Enquiries.update. 31July2009.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNTk3OGU2NGQtYTc2MS00Z...

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.

cheers

PHAM

administrator
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/

- Hide quoted text -
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka

    Chas,

    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
...

read more »

In our last episode,
<796a966c-d721-45ec-997b-274cc0071...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
broadcast on alt.atheism:

Oh great.  It's kooky with extra kook sauce on the side.

--
  Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/>                 September 5913, 1993
            291 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
  Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.

On Nov 8, 3:12 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:

Well I suppose you believe it's all behind you ?

Le-Turd - Did I rattle your DUNNY CAN?

You STUPID, DEMENTED, SMELLY, CHEESE EATING, FROG !

"Greatest Mining Fraud of all Times" < Enema_H...@neuf.fr > wrote in
message
news:36cc07b2-d02c-4f11-ac7e-180a3ee584dd@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
<snip>

No no no,  that's what you and Kangastain believe with your mutual enema
parties.

It's the same kook who predicted that a huge tsunami would flood a large
part of Australia on October 24th (or was it the 14th, these kooks get me
confused). As nothing out of the ordinary appears to have happened on either
of those two days, I'm just LMAO at him.

--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer

On Nov 9, 3:46 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:

(snip clueless rant for decency 's sake)

Just postponed for reasons independent of my will, but still on the
planning board !
Now regarding the Black Plague of 1918 - 1921, you must note that as I
said, there is a 10 min immediate cure ....but that 's too good for
you Bastards !

You don't deserve it indeed !

Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud

"Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times"

news:ac5240eb-c253-40da-a3a3-f3a98585f619@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 3:46 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:

(snip clueless rant for decency 's sake)

Just postponed for reasons independent of my will, but still on the
planning board !
Now regarding the Black Plague of 1918 - 1921, you must note that as I
said, there is a 10 min immediate cure

You are slipping Turdarse, you claimed "immediate remission"

####  More  Turcaud speak (25 Sep 05) :
Do you know how long it takes to cure Tetanus in final phase
 i.e.  when the person is in inverted spring position & ready to die
from asphyxia ?
Answer : One second flat !
. and with the Quacks 's allopathic sects,  worshippers of Jenner &
Pasteur ?
Answer : End of the road !
Polio ? Damned easy and no drug taken either !
2 days and it 's over.
Diphtheria, Tuberculosis, Small Pox, Plagues bubonic or black,
 Leprosy etc ...  immediate remission !

26 Sep 05 (Turd speak) :
Re enema again, I personally do this every full moon
and continue by a 3 days fast. When fasting long period,
say up to 40 days,  like I did in the desert
by ex, enema have to be taken every day.

Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times wrote:
<snippage replaced for context and accuracy>

Yeah suuuuure, moron. If I didn't believe you before, what makes you think
(and I use that word losely in your case) that I'd believe you now?
It's just more reason to laugh at your idiocy.

Have you no shame or are you proud of your ignorance, or both?

--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyj_gWqdDWQ

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

Inquiry into Access to Justice.d.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZMGFlNzNjYzAtZjE5ZC00Y...

Letter to Mr Charles Pham.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNzY2YjNhNDYtZTkzYi00N...

Senate.Enquiries.update. 31July2009.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNTk3OGU2NGQtYTc2MS00Z...

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.

cheers

PHAM

administrator
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/

- Hide quoted text -
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka

    Chas,

    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
...

read more »