Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, said the Finsbury Park Mosque, in north London, where the handless Hamza preached, was "almost like a honey pot for extremists". It had become a breeding ground for terrorism. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new s/uknews/1509938/Muslim-cleric -jailed-for-inciting-murder.ht ml
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a paedophile 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people (shitskin dunecoons) under subjection - Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ..., Korea., Germany, RSA, USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal stained moslems
From: "Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a paedophile 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people (shitskin dunecoons) under subjection - Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ..., Korea., Germany, RSA, USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal stained moslems" <"Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF >
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:48:32 -0500
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 11:48 pm
Subject: Re: Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, said the Finsbury Park Mosque, in north London, where the handless Hamza preached, was "almost like a honey pot for extremists". It had become a breeding ground for terrorism. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1 509938/Muslim-cleric-jailed-for-inciting -murder.html
Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ., Korea., Germany., RSA., USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal stained moslems Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ., Korea., Germany., RSA., USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal stained moslems Dr. Sir John Howard, AC,
WSCMoF > wrote: > "Yaako Warrior from AUZ., Korea., Germany., RSA., USA., Sweden, Hong > Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of > fecal stained moslems - الإسلام يأخذ الحمار القضيب في الشرج > Mozlems._.fuck-.goats-like-false-.prophet.-.mohammad." wrote: >> Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a paedophile 6th century warlord >> and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement >> brutality as a means of bringing people under subjection wrote: >>> Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, said the Finsbury Park Mosque, >>> in north London, where the handless Hamza preached, was "almost like >>> a honey pot for extremists". It had become a breeding ground for >>> terrorism. - >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509938/Muslim-cleric-jailed-f...
HOW TO BECOME A SHITSKIN MOSLEM - this is how: fuck goats, fuck your mother (nikomak), molest children, wear a beekeepers outfit all the time, never shower or bath, beat your wives, learn terrorist activities at a maddrassa, wipe your ass with stones, sell the donkey you fucked to a nearby village, marry a nine year-old , send your child off to an indoctrination camp, practice thighing with little kids, Hijack a plane, Hijack a ship, ............ Practice all those and you too could become a prophet !!
이슬람의 성기를 빨아 당나귀 - الإسلام يأخذ الحمار القضيب في الشرج
helpingg...@gmail.com nextsapreside...@gmail.com i...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or politicsIranian@googlegroups.com fes...@wn.apc.org arah1...@gmail.com kaled14...@gmail.com islamwayoflife@googlegroups.com furtivo4...@gmail.com niy...@msn.com mehyaaw...@hotmail.com niy...@hotmail.com Thomas Santa - tsa...@med.usyd.edu.au
Wassim Noujeim = Faris Jawad
** Posted from LINKdotNET -Jordan ** http://www.link.net Cybertrust Australia Pty Ltd Fastlink, Jordan
‹(•¿•)› ‹(•¿•)›moslem cartoon character mohammad and his bumchum allaah were child molesting goat fuckers and nikomaks 이슬람의 성기를 빨아 당나귀 - الإسلام يأخذ الحمار القضيب في الشرج ‹(•¿•)› ‹(•¿•)›
helpingg...@gmail.com fes...@wn.apc.org kaled14...@gmail.com nextsapreside...@gmail.com i...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or politicsIranian@googlegroups.com arah1...@gmail.com mehyaaw...@hotmail.com islamwayoflife@googlegroups.com furtivo4...@gmail.com Thomas Santa - tsa...@med.usyd.edu.au
Hamzeh Abu-Abed helpingg...@gmail.com fes...@wn.apc.org nextsapreside...@gmail.com mehyaaw...@hotmail.com i...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or politicsIranian@googlegroups.com arah1...@gmail.com islamwayoflife@googlegroups.com furtivo4...@gmail.com Thomas Santa - tsa...@med.usyd.edu.au
Wassim Noujeim = Faris Jawad
** Posted from LINKdotNET -Jordan ** http://www.link.net Cybertrust Australia Pty Ltd Fastlink, Jordan
BREAKING NEWS - Emily Fabian (aka Em, Millie, Jinan) is now officially an apostate and Divorcee - see attached photo of Emily without the beekeepers suite - she just couldn't stomach Leonardo Fabian's preference to bestiality. - Call Emily Fabian +1-(801) 471-5425, or email ja_tu_mil...@hotmail.com to hear more about her ex-husbands backward mohammadan family - http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Ab8hlafT770nZGR6cHZqOThfMHhwY2szYmc...
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:00:48 +1100
Local: Mon, Nov 9 2009 12:00 am
Subject: Re: Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, said the Finsbury Park Mosque, in north London, where the handless Hamza preached, was "almost like a honey pot for extremists". It had become a breeding ground for terrorism. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1 509938/Muslim-cleric-jailed-for-inciting -murder.html
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 "Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, said the Finsbury Park Mosque, in north London, where the handless Hamza preached, was "almost like a honey pot for extremists". It had become a breeding ground for terrorism. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new s/ukn" by mose
Subject: Re: Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, said the Finsbury Park Mosque, in north London, where the handless Hamza preached, was "almost like a honey pot for extremists". It had become a breeding ground for terrorism. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn
Jewish officials in a major Italian news agency tried to cover the story
> up, but were circumvented by Italian news reporters, who broadcast scenes > from the films live at prime time on Italian television to more than 11 > million Italian viewers. Jewish officials then fired the executives > responsible, claiming they were spreading "blood libel."
"Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a paedophile 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people (shitskin dunecoons) under subjection - Yaako Warrior from AUZ.
WHOSE RUNNING YOUR COUNTRY AND MEDIA NOW?
SAY HELLO TO YOUR NEW ROYALTY AND MASTERS THE MEDIA OWNERS. YUP YOU ONLY SEE AND HEAR WHAT THEY ALLOW YOU TO SEE AND HEAR.
> Rome, Italy -- Italian and Russian police, working together, broke up a > ring of Jewish gangsters who had been involved in the manufacture of child > rape and snuff pornography.
> Three Russian Jews and eight Italian Jews were arrested after police > discovered they had been kidnapping non-Jewish children between the ages > of two and five years from Russian orphanages, raping the children, and > then murdering them on film. Mostly non-Jewish customers, including 1,700 > nationwide, 600 in Italy, and an unknown number in the United States, paid > as much as $20,000 per film to watch little children being raped and > murdered.
> Jewish officials in a major Italian news agency tried to cover the story > up, but were circumvented by Italian news reporters, who broadcast scenes > from the films live at prime time on Italian television to more than 11 > million Italian viewers. Jewish officials then fired the executives > responsible, claiming they were spreading "blood libel."
> Throughout history, various groups have accused sects of Jews of ritually > murdering small children. One such account, that of Hugh of Lincoln, led > to the expulsion of all Jews from Britain in the 13th Century. Such > accounts have generally been discounted, but are so widespread that Jewish > organizations have developed a name for them -- "blood libel."
> Though AP and Reuters both ran stories on the episode, US media > conglomerates refused to carry the story on television news, again saying > the story would prejudice Americans against Jews.
> Jewish gangsters in Russia have become increasingly linked to traffic in > "white slaves" and prostitutes through Israel, according to a recent > report in the Jerusalem Post. Israel turns an official blind eye to forced > prostitution, and does not punish Israeli citizens who choose to own "sex > slaves" as long as the slaves are foreign and non-Jews.
, NZ..., Korea., Germany, RSA, USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal stained moslems" <"Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF > wrote in message news:4af6be54@news.x-privat.org...
> Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ., Korea., Germany., RSA., USA., Sweden, Hong > Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal > stained moslems Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ., Korea., Germany., RSA., > USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., > the slayer of fecal stained moslems Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF > > wrote: >> "Yaako Warrior from AUZ., Korea., Germany., RSA., USA., Sweden, Hong >> Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal >> stained moslems - ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? >> Mozlems._.fuck-.goats-like-false-.prophet.-.mohammad." wrote: >>> Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a paedophile 6th century warlord >>> and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement >>> brutality as a means of bringing people under subjection wrote: >>>> Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, said the Finsbury Park Mosque, >>>> in north London, where the handless Hamza preached, was "almost like a >>>> honey pot for extremists". It had become a breeding ground for >>>> terrorism. - >>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509938/Muslim-cleric-jailed-f...
> HOW TO BECOME A SHITSKIN MOSLEM - this is how: fuck goats, fuck your > mother (nikomak), molest children, wear a beekeepers outfit all the time, > never shower or bath, beat your wives, learn terrorist activities at a > maddrassa, wipe your ass with stones, sell the donkey you fucked to a > nearby village, marry a nine year-old , send your child off to an > indoctrination camp, practice thighing with little kids, Hijack a plane, > Hijack a ship, ............ Practice all those and you too could become > a prophet !!
Discussion subject changed to "Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, said the Finsbury Park Mosque, in north London, where the handless Hamza preached, was "almost like a honey pot for extremists". It had become a breeding ground for terrorism. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new s/uknews/1509938/Muslim-cleric -jailed-for-inciting-murder.ht ml" by Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a paedophile 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people (shitskin dunecoons) under subjection - Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ..., Korea., Germany, RSA, USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal stained moslems
Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a paedophile 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people (shitskin dunecoons) under subjection - Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ..., Korea., Germany, RSA, USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal stained moslems
From: "Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a paedophile 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people (shitskin dunecoons) under subjection - Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ..., Korea., Germany, RSA, USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal stained moslems" <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:59:48 -0500
Local: Mon, Nov 9 2009 2:59 am
Subject: Re: Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, said the Finsbury Park Mosque, in north London, where the handless Hamza preached, was "almost like a honey pot for extremists". It had become a breeding ground for terrorism. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1 509938/Muslim-cleric-jailed-for-inciting -murder.html
Judicial Corruption Australia wrote: > 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.
> - Hide quoted text - > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka > <inspector_rik...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> 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
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:25:18 +1100
Local: Mon, Nov 9 2009 4:25 am
Subject: Re: Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, said the Finsbury Park Mosque, in north London, where the handless Hamza preached, was "almost like a honey pot for extremists". It had become a breeding ground for terrorism. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1 509938/Muslim-cleric-jailed-for-inciting -murder.html
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.
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.
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 "Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, said the Finsbury Park Mosque, in north London, where the handless Hamza preached, was "almost like a honey pot for extremists". It had become a breeding ground for terrorism. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new s/uknews/1509938/Muslim-cleric -jailed-for-inciting-murder.ht ml" by Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a _paedophile_ 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people (shitskin dunecoons) under subjection - Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ..., Korea., Germany, RSA, USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal stained moslems
Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a _paedophile_ 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people (shitskin dunecoons) under subjection - Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ..., Korea., Germany, RSA, USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal stained moslems
From: "Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a _paedophile_ 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people (shitskin dunecoons) under subjection - Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ..., Korea., Germany, RSA, USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal stained moslems" <"Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF >
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:45:29 -0500
Local: Mon, Nov 23 2009 1:45 am
Subject: Re: Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, said the Finsbury Park Mosque, in north London, where the handless Hamza preached, was "almost like a honey pot for extremists". It had become a breeding ground for terrorism. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1 509938/Muslim-cleric-jailed-for-inciting -murder.html
Moslem cartoon character mohammed was a paedophile 6th century warlord and goat fucker who cooked up a false religion in order to supplement brutality as a means of bringing people (shitskin dunecoons) under subjection - Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ..., Korea., Germany, RSA, USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal stained moslems wrote:
> Judicial Corruption Australia wrote: >> 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.
>> - Hide quoted text - >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka >> <inspector_rik...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> 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
|
