How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:30:28 +1100
Local: Thurs, Oct 15 2009 9:30 pm
Subject: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
This email contains snippet of how the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission
1. conspire to pervert the Australian de facto Bill of Rights, Australian Human Rights [sic] (and Equal Opportunity Commission) Act 1986
(You will note that the Senate Committee for constitution and legal affairs chaired by Barnett and Crossin have removed the Equal Opportunity part, since our exposing their unlawful discrimination);
2. covering up for their mates in the field of public health: protected species if you are white and have friends who can pervert the system;
3. give false and inadequate information: Notice how Ms Jane Thomson refuses to deal with human rights issues of healthcare as a separation from unlawful discrimination (which becomes intertwined when you consider the hippocratic oath); which is what they are paid to do!
4. she then tries to patronise us with the "you didnt mention your race", which may be true but it was Burt who mentioned it initially.
5, This is the reason why you NEVER EVER allow the Australian Judiciary anywhere near the Bill of Rights, not least since M142 Pham vs French & ors, their abuse of discretionary powers is legendary that Kirby J called the High Court racist....arbitrary and prejudicial extra-judicial determination of legal processes and abuse of the legal principal.....Fight the Federal Attorney General's attempt to give the Bill of Rights to the Judiciary to handle; the Victorian Bill of Rights shows that unelected judges are NOT fit to handle the Human Rights legal aspects.
6. further complaints to the Human Rights [sic] Commission regarding Senate Committee for constitution and legal affairs chaired by Barnett and Crossin (which have been emailed previously), and the Victorian Medical Board's covering up for Mr Burt, will be filed.
(You will remember the 4 year old Aborigines girl who died after being refused medical care by the Qld hospital)
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
7. there are subtle and not so subtle (if you know what to look for) institutional, systemic unlawful racial discrimination, and human rights violations, to health, to education, to employment, as enshrined in ICCPR and ICERD and enforced/able under HREOCA1986;
8. Its time for the International Criminal Court to look at abuse of the legal system and legal principles from the Australian Judiciary and system and parliament, in perverting justice and conspiring to cause injury, arbitrary extra-judicial decisions, under the Crimes against Humanity clause in the Rome statutes of the ICC.
9. Remember that HREOCA1986 is as close to common law as you can get whilst implementing ICCPR and ICERD, the 2 human rights treaties;
10. Les Malezer (Aborigines "leader" and recipient of Human Rights Medal 2008) was asked to enquire about racial discrimination in Geneva at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. After having arrived back in Australia, Les Malezer has gone silent and refusing to return phone calls; it seems Robbie Thorpe is correct that these black "leaders" get fat in selling out their own people.
11. Robbie Thorpe and I will file a High Court challenge to the australian Human rights [sic] commission's abuse of HREOCA1986 46PO as a tool to violate ICCPR article 14.1, to coincide with
STOP TOXIC RACISM Richard Downs and Harry Nelson Indigenous Speaking Tour In Melbourne PROTEST MARCH – Friday 16 October 2009 @10:00 am @184 Gertrude Street Fitzroy- March to Parliament
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: chas x <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:18 AM Subject: Re: Complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against Mr
Peter Burt [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] To: Complaints Info <complaints.i...@humanrights.gov.au>
Dear Ms Jane Thomson,
I had asked you specifically to terminate this complaint, under HREOCA1986 46PO, I had not asked you to determine it at all. And you are lying that its NOT indirect racial discrimination as a threshold. This is why i want this in the Courts as a precedence.
There will be a further complaint of racial discrimination against the Medical Board of Victoria, that i will ask you to determine, and i expect ALL correspondence to be in writing and on the Human Rights Comissionn letterhead, even if the email is legal tender.
Right now I am expecting the termination papers as required by law against Mr Burt.
I will send this to the Attorneys General and the PM's office, for public record. Feel free to publish it widely
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Complaints Info <complaints.i...@humanrights.gov.au> wrote:
Dear Mr Pham
I refer to your email complaint received on 7 October 2009 in which you raised concerns about the actions of a medical specialist Mr Peter Burt. You stated that you believe that his actions amounted to racial discrimination.
This Commission can look into complaints of discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) in specific areas of public life including in the provision of a service. Race discrimination may occur where a person is treated less favourably than another person in the same or similar circumstances and the reason for that less favourable treatment is the person’s race.
In order to support a complaint of race discrimination, it is not enough for a person to show that he or she is from a particular racial background and has suffered some sort of unfair treatment. He or she must show that the unfair treatment was based on or linked to his or her race in one of the areas covered under the RDA.
While I appreciate that you believe that Mr Burt refused to provide you with his service because of your race, you have not clearly set out how the actions or behaviour of Mr Burt was linked to your race. You state that Mr Burt accused you of "playing the race card" however you have not stated why you believe that the reason he treated you the way he did was because of your race. You have also not stated what racial background you are from.
If you believe you have further information which would support that Mr Burt's actions occurred because of your race then the Commission would be happy to consider this information.
The Office of the Health Services Commissioner may be a more appropriate body to deal with this complaint as it can take complaints about the actions of doctors generally. Its website is: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/hsc/. Ph. 1800 136 066.
If you would like to discuss this email or would like any further information about our laws please contact me on 1300 656 419.
Yours sincerely
Jane Thomson
Complaint Information Officer
Complaint Handling Section
From: chas x [mailto:nwn.webmas...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 7 October 2009 4:06 PM To: Complaints Info Subject: Complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against Mr Peter Burt
Dear Australian Human Rights Commission,
Attached is the complaint against Mr Peter Burt. Please have the President terminate it immediately, as a matter of urgency and public interest.
*********************************************************************** WARNING: The information contained in this email may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use or copying of any part of this information is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, we apologise for any inconvenience and request that you notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email, together with any attachments.
Unprofessional conduct and unlawful racial discrimination of Mr Peter Burt Provider
No. 016892CX
1. I give notice of unprofessional conduct of Mr Peter Burt;
2. Mr Peter Burt wants me to make a complaint against him; I am making a full formal complaint against Mr Burt’s unprofessional conduct;
3. Mr Burt wants me to accuse him of racial discrimination; I am accusing Mr Burt of unlawful racial discrimination;
4. Mr Burt wants me to make the complaint public; I will make the complaint very public;
5. Mr Burt wants me to make it personal; I will make it personal;
6. Mr Burt freely admitted that my case was an emergency case;
7. On the 8th of July 2009, I presented at Mr Burt’s surgery;
8. I noticed his waiting room was full and busy;
9. I waited around for over one hour and 45 min to see Mr Burt;
10. In his office, I made an off the cuff remark, that more than 30 min wait was beyond tolerable;
11. Mr Burt then made some remarks about emergency surgeries at the hospital;
12. I have contacts with many health professionals, and I know sometimes professionals just say things to appease the patients; I made another off the cuff question seeking how many surgeries he had done, especially when Mr Burt
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:13:53 +1100
Local: Thurs, Oct 15 2009 11:13 pm
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
This email contains snippet of how the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission
1. conspire to pervert the Australian de facto Bill of Rights, Australian Human Rights [sic] (and Equal Opportunity Commission) Act 1986
(You will note that the Senate Committee for constitution and legal affairs chaired by Barnett and Crossin have removed the Equal Opportunity part, since our exposing their unlawful discrimination);
2. covering up for their mates in the field of public health: protected species if you are white and have friends who can pervert the system;
3. give false and inadequate information: Notice how Ms Jane Thomson refuses to deal with human rights issues of healthcare as a separation from unlawful discrimination (which becomes intertwined when you consider the hippocratic oath); which is what they are paid to do!
4. she then tries to patronise us with the "you didnt mention your race", which may be true but it was Burt who mentioned it initially.
5, This is the reason why you NEVER EVER allow the Australian Judiciary anywhere near the Bill of Rights, not least since M142 Pham vs French & ors, their abuse of discretionary powers is legendary that Kirby J called the High Court racist....arbitrary and prejudicial extra-judicial determination of legal processes and abuse of the legal principal.....Fight the Federal Attorney General's attempt to give the Bill of Rights to the Judiciary to handle; the Victorian Bill of Rights shows that unelected judges are NOT fit to handle the Human Rights legal aspects.
6. further complaints to the Human Rights [sic] Commission regarding Senate Committee for constitution and legal affairs chaired by Barnett and Crossin (which have been emailed previously), and the Victorian Medical Board's covering up for Mr Burt, will be filed.
(You will remember the 4 year old Aborigines girl who died after being refused medical care by the Qld hospital)
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
7. there are subtle and not so subtle (if you know what to look for) institutional, systemic unlawful racial discrimination, and human rights violations, to health, to education, to employment, as enshrined in ICCPR and ICERD and enforced/able under HREOCA1986;
8. Its time for the International Criminal Court to look at abuse of the legal system and legal principles from the Australian Judiciary and system and parliament, in perverting justice and conspiring to cause injury, arbitrary extra-judicial decisions, under the Crimes against Humanity clause in the Rome statutes of the ICC.
9. Remember that HREOCA1986 is as close to common law as you can get whilst implementing ICCPR and ICERD, the 2 human rights treaties;
10. Les Malezer (Aborigines "leader" and recipient of Human Rights Medal 2008) was asked to enquire about racial discrimination in Geneva at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. After having arrived back in Australia, Les Malezer has gone silent and refusing to return phone calls; it seems Robbie Thorpe is correct that these black "leaders" get fat in selling out their own people.
11. Robbie Thorpe and I will file a High Court challenge to the australian Human rights [sic] commission's abuse of HREOCA1986 46PO as a tool to violate ICCPR article 14.1, to coincide with
STOP TOXIC RACISM Richard Downs and Harry Nelson Indigenous Speaking Tour In Melbourne PROTEST MARCH – Friday 16 October 2009 @10:00 am @184 Gertrude Street Fitzroy- March to Parliament
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: chas x <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:18 AM Subject: Re: Complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against Mr
Peter Burt [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] To: Complaints Info <complaints.i...@humanrights.gov.au>
Dear Ms Jane Thomson,
I had asked you specifically to terminate this complaint, under HREOCA1986 46PO, I had not asked you to determine it at all. And you are lying that its NOT indirect racial discrimination as a threshold. This is why i want this in the Courts as a precedence.
There will be a further complaint of racial discrimination against the Medical Board of Victoria, that i will ask you to determine, and i expect ALL correspondence to be in writing and on the Human Rights Comissionn letterhead, even if the email is legal tender.
Right now I am expecting the termination papers as required by law against Mr Burt.
I will send this to the Attorneys General and the PM's office, for public record. Feel free to publish it widely
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Complaints Info <complaints.i...@humanrights.gov.au> wrote:
Dear Mr Pham
I refer to your email complaint received on 7 October 2009 in which you raised concerns about the actions of a medical specialist Mr Peter Burt. You stated that you believe that his actions amounted to racial discrimination.
This Commission can look into complaints of discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) in specific areas of public life including in the provision of a service. Race discrimination may occur where a person is treated less favourably than another person in the same or similar circumstances and the reason for that less favourable treatment is the person’s race.
In order to support a complaint of race discrimination, it is not enough for a person to show that he or she is from a particular racial background and has suffered some sort of unfair treatment. He or she must show that the unfair treatment was based on or linked to his or her race in one of the areas covered under the RDA.
While I appreciate that you believe that Mr Burt refused to provide you with his service because of your race, you have not clearly set out how the actions or behaviour of Mr Burt was linked to your race. You state that Mr Burt accused you of "playing the race card" however you have not stated why you believe that the reason he treated you the way he did was because of your race. You have also not stated what racial background you are from.
If you believe you have further information which would support that Mr Burt's actions occurred because of your race then the Commission would be happy to consider this information.
The Office of the Health Services Commissioner may be a more appropriate body to deal with this complaint as it can take complaints about the actions of doctors generally. Its website is: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/hsc/. Ph. 1800 136 066.
If you would like to discuss this email or would like any further information about our laws please contact me on 1300 656 419.
Yours sincerely
Jane Thomson
Complaint Information Officer
Complaint Handling Section
From: chas x [mailto:nwn.webmas...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 7 October 2009 4:06 PM To: Complaints Info Subject: Complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against Mr Peter Burt
Dear Australian Human Rights Commission,
Attached is the complaint against Mr Peter Burt. Please have the President terminate it immediately, as a matter of urgency and public interest.
*********************************************************************** WARNING: The information contained in this email may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use or copying of any part of this information is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, we apologise for any inconvenience and request that you notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email, together with any attachments.
Unprofessional conduct and unlawful racial discrimination of Mr Peter Burt Provider
No. 016892CX
1. I give notice of unprofessional conduct of Mr Peter Burt;
2. Mr Peter Burt wants me to make a complaint against him; I am making a full formal complaint against Mr Burt’s unprofessional conduct;
3. Mr Burt wants me to accuse him of racial discrimination; I am accusing Mr Burt of unlawful racial discrimination;
4. Mr Burt wants me to make the complaint public; I will make the complaint very public;
5. Mr Burt wants me to make it personal; I will make it personal;
6. Mr Burt freely admitted that my case was an emergency case;
7. On the 8th of July 2009, I presented at Mr Burt’s surgery;
8. I noticed his waiting room was full and busy;
9. I waited around for over one hour and 45 min to see Mr Burt;
10. In his office, I made an off the cuff remark, that more than 30 min wait was beyond tolerable;
11. Mr Burt then made some remarks about emergency surgeries at the hospital;
12. I have contacts with many health professionals, and I know sometimes professionals just say things to appease the patients; I made another off the cuff question seeking how many surgeries he had done, especially when Mr Burt
Discussion subject changed to "So , did she get her death wish? - clean shaven well hung US marine in the after-life? - Re: BREAKING NEWS - Moslem female suicide bomber kills 9 moslems in Iraq - The official said the woman, covered in a traditional black garment known as an abaya, blew herself up near a security checkpoint outside the courthouse. - http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WO RLD/meast/10/08/iraq.main/inde x.html - Keep up the good work shitskin mohammadans - - الإسلام تمالإسلام يأخذ الحمار القضيب في الشرج" by 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
From: "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: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:51:18 -0400
Local: Thurs, Oct 15 2009 11:51 pm
Subject: So , did she get her death wish? - clean shaven well hung US marine in the after-life? - Re: BREAKING NEWS - Moslem female suicide bomber kills 9 moslems in Iraq - The official said the woman, covered in a traditional black garment known as an abaya, blew herself up near a security checkpoint outside the courthouse. - http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/ 10/08/iraq.main/index.html - Keep up the good work shitskin mohammadans - - الإسلام تمالإسلام يأخذ الحمار القضيب في الشرج
‹(•¿•)› ‹(•¿•)›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
helpingg...@gmail.com fes...@wn.apc.org nextsapreside...@gmail.com i...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or politicsIranian@googlegroups.com arah1...@gmail.com islamwayoflife@googlegroups.com furtivo4...@gmail.com
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
Discussion subject changed to "How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters" by Judicial Corruption Australia
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:45:48 +1100
Local: Fri, Oct 16 2009 12:45 am
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
This email contains snippet of how the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission
1. conspire to pervert the Australian de facto Bill of Rights, Australian Human Rights [sic] (and Equal Opportunity Commission) Act 1986
(You will note that the Senate Committee for constitution and legal affairs chaired by Barnett and Crossin have removed the Equal Opportunity part, since our exposing their unlawful discrimination);
2. covering up for their mates in the field of public health: protected species if you are white and have friends who can pervert the system;
3. give false and inadequate information: Notice how Ms Jane Thomson refuses to deal with human rights issues of healthcare as a separation from unlawful discrimination (which becomes intertwined when you consider the hippocratic oath); which is what they are paid to do!
4. she then tries to patronise us with the "you didnt mention your race", which may be true but it was Burt who mentioned it initially.
5, This is the reason why you NEVER EVER allow the Australian Judiciary anywhere near the Bill of Rights, not least since M142 Pham vs French & ors, their abuse of discretionary powers is legendary that Kirby J called the High Court racist....arbitrary and prejudicial extra-judicial determination of legal processes and abuse of the legal principal.....Fight the Federal Attorney General's attempt to give the Bill of Rights to the Judiciary to handle; the Victorian Bill of Rights shows that unelected judges are NOT fit to handle the Human Rights legal aspects.
6. further complaints to the Human Rights [sic] Commission regarding Senate Committee for constitution and legal affairs chaired by Barnett and Crossin (which have been emailed previously), and the Victorian Medical Board's covering up for Mr Burt, will be filed.
(You will remember the 4 year old Aborigines girl who died after being refused medical care by the Qld hospital)
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
7. there are subtle and not so subtle (if you know what to look for) institutional, systemic unlawful racial discrimination, and human rights violations, to health, to education, to employment, as enshrined in ICCPR and ICERD and enforced/able under HREOCA1986;
8. Its time for the International Criminal Court to look at abuse of the legal system and legal principles from the Australian Judiciary and system and parliament, in perverting justice and conspiring to cause injury, arbitrary extra-judicial decisions, under the Crimes against Humanity clause in the Rome statutes of the ICC.
9. Remember that HREOCA1986 is as close to common law as you can get whilst implementing ICCPR and ICERD, the 2 human rights treaties;
10. Les Malezer (Aborigines "leader" and recipient of Human Rights Medal 2008) was asked to enquire about racial discrimination in Geneva at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. After having arrived back in Australia, Les Malezer has gone silent and refusing to return phone calls; it seems Robbie Thorpe is correct that these black "leaders" get fat in selling out their own people.
11. Robbie Thorpe and I will file a High Court challenge to the australian Human rights [sic] commission's abuse of HREOCA1986 46PO as a tool to violate ICCPR article 14.1, to coincide with
STOP TOXIC RACISM Richard Downs and Harry Nelson Indigenous Speaking Tour In Melbourne PROTEST MARCH – Friday 16 October 2009 @10:00 am @184 Gertrude Street Fitzroy- March to Parliament
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: chas x <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:18 AM Subject: Re: Complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against Mr
Peter Burt [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] To: Complaints Info <complaints.i...@humanrights.gov.au>
Dear Ms Jane Thomson,
I had asked you specifically to terminate this complaint, under HREOCA1986 46PO, I had not asked you to determine it at all. And you are lying that its NOT indirect racial discrimination as a threshold. This is why i want this in the Courts as a precedence.
There will be a further complaint of racial discrimination against the Medical Board of Victoria, that i will ask you to determine, and i expect ALL correspondence to be in writing and on the Human Rights Comissionn letterhead, even if the email is legal tender.
Right now I am expecting the termination papers as required by law against Mr Burt.
I will send this to the Attorneys General and the PM's office, for public record. Feel free to publish it widely
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Complaints Info <complaints.i...@humanrights.gov.au> wrote:
Dear Mr Pham
I refer to your email complaint received on 7 October 2009 in which you raised concerns about the actions of a medical specialist Mr Peter Burt. You stated that you believe that his actions amounted to racial discrimination.
This Commission can look into complaints of discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) in specific areas of public life including in the provision of a service. Race discrimination may occur where a person is treated less favourably than another person in the same or similar circumstances and the reason for that less favourable treatment is the person’s race.
In order to support a complaint of race discrimination, it is not enough for a person to show that he or she is from a particular racial background and has suffered some sort of unfair treatment. He or she must show that the unfair treatment was based on or linked to his or her race in one of the areas covered under the RDA.
While I appreciate that you believe that Mr Burt refused to provide you with his service because of your race, you have not clearly set out how the actions or behaviour of Mr Burt was linked to your race. You state that Mr Burt accused you of "playing the race card" however you have not stated why you believe that the reason he treated you the way he did was because of your race. You have also not stated what racial background you are from.
If you believe you have further information which would support that Mr Burt's actions occurred because of your race then the Commission would be happy to consider this information.
The Office of the Health Services Commissioner may be a more appropriate body to deal with this complaint as it can take complaints about the actions of doctors generally. Its website is: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/hsc/. Ph. 1800 136 066.
If you would like to discuss this email or would like any further information about our laws please contact me on 1300 656 419.
Yours sincerely
Jane Thomson
Complaint Information Officer
Complaint Handling Section
From: chas x [mailto:nwn.webmas...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 7 October 2009 4:06 PM To: Complaints Info Subject: Complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against Mr Peter Burt
Dear Australian Human Rights Commission,
Attached is the complaint against Mr Peter Burt. Please have the President terminate it immediately, as a matter of urgency and public interest.
*********************************************************************** WARNING: The information contained in this email may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use or copying of any part of this information is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, we apologise for any inconvenience and request that you notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email, together with any attachments.
Unprofessional conduct and unlawful racial discrimination of Mr Peter Burt Provider
No. 016892CX
1. I give notice of unprofessional conduct of Mr Peter Burt;
2. Mr Peter Burt wants me to make a complaint against him; I am making a full formal complaint against Mr Burt’s unprofessional conduct;
3. Mr Burt wants me to accuse him of racial discrimination; I am accusing Mr Burt of unlawful racial discrimination;
4. Mr Burt wants me to make the complaint public; I will make the complaint very public;
5. Mr Burt wants me to make it personal; I will make it personal;
6. Mr Burt freely admitted that my case was an emergency case;
7. On the 8th of July 2009, I presented at Mr Burt’s surgery;
8. I noticed his waiting room was full and busy;
9. I waited around for over one hour and 45 min to see Mr Burt;
10. In his office, I made an off the cuff remark, that more than 30 min wait was beyond tolerable;
11. Mr Burt then made some remarks about emergency surgeries at the hospital;
12. I have contacts with many health professionals, and I know sometimes professionals just say things to appease the patients; I made another off the cuff question seeking how many surgeries he had done, especially when Mr Burt
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:31:03 +1100
Local: Fri, Oct 16 2009 5:31 am
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
This email contains snippet of how the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission
1. conspire to pervert the Australian de facto Bill of Rights, Australian Human Rights [sic] (and Equal Opportunity Commission) Act 1986
(You will note that the Senate Committee for constitution and legal affairs chaired by Barnett and Crossin have removed the Equal Opportunity part, since our exposing their unlawful discrimination);
2. covering up for their mates in the field of public health: protected species if you are white and have friends who can pervert the system;
3. give false and inadequate information: Notice how Ms Jane Thomson refuses to deal with human rights issues of healthcare as a separation from unlawful discrimination (which becomes intertwined when you consider the hippocratic oath); which is what they are paid to do!
4. she then tries to patronise us with the "you didnt mention your race", which may be true but it was Burt who mentioned it initially.
5, This is the reason why you NEVER EVER allow the Australian Judiciary anywhere near the Bill of Rights, not least since M142 Pham vs French & ors, their abuse of discretionary powers is legendary that Kirby J called the High Court racist....arbitrary and prejudicial extra-judicial determination of legal processes and abuse of the legal principal.....Fight the Federal Attorney General's attempt to give the Bill of Rights to the Judiciary to handle; the Victorian Bill of Rights shows that unelected judges are NOT fit to handle the Human Rights legal aspects.
6. further complaints to the Human Rights [sic] Commission regarding Senate Committee for constitution and legal affairs chaired by Barnett and Crossin (which have been emailed previously), and the Victorian Medical Board's covering up for Mr Burt, will be filed.
(You will remember the 4 year old Aborigines girl who died after being refused medical care by the Qld hospital)
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
7. there are subtle and not so subtle (if you know what to look for) institutional, systemic unlawful racial discrimination, and human rights violations, to health, to education, to employment, as enshrined in ICCPR and ICERD and enforced/able under HREOCA1986;
8. Its time for the International Criminal Court to look at abuse of the legal system and legal principles from the Australian Judiciary and system and parliament, in perverting justice and conspiring to cause injury, arbitrary extra-judicial decisions, under the Crimes against Humanity clause in the Rome statutes of the ICC.
9. Remember that HREOCA1986 is as close to common law as you can get whilst implementing ICCPR and ICERD, the 2 human rights treaties;
10. Les Malezer (Aborigines "leader" and recipient of Human Rights Medal 2008) was asked to enquire about racial discrimination in Geneva at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. After having arrived back in Australia, Les Malezer has gone silent and refusing to return phone calls; it seems Robbie Thorpe is correct that these black "leaders" get fat in selling out their own people.
11. Robbie Thorpe and I will file a High Court challenge to the australian Human rights [sic] commission's abuse of HREOCA1986 46PO as a tool to violate ICCPR article 14.1, to coincide with
STOP TOXIC RACISM Richard Downs and Harry Nelson Indigenous Speaking Tour In Melbourne PROTEST MARCH – Friday 16 October 2009 @10:00 am @184 Gertrude Street Fitzroy- March to Parliament
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: chas x <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:18 AM Subject: Re: Complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against Mr
Peter Burt [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] To: Complaints Info <complaints.i...@humanrights.gov.au>
Dear Ms Jane Thomson,
I had asked you specifically to terminate this complaint, under HREOCA1986 46PO, I had not asked you to determine it at all. And you are lying that its NOT indirect racial discrimination as a threshold. This is why i want this in the Courts as a precedence.
There will be a further complaint of racial discrimination against the Medical Board of Victoria, that i will ask you to determine, and i expect ALL correspondence to be in writing and on the Human Rights Comissionn letterhead, even if the email is legal tender.
Right now I am expecting the termination papers as required by law against Mr Burt.
I will send this to the Attorneys General and the PM's office, for public record. Feel free to publish it widely
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Complaints Info <complaints.i...@humanrights.gov.au> wrote:
Dear Mr Pham
I refer to your email complaint received on 7 October 2009 in which you raised concerns about the actions of a medical specialist Mr Peter Burt. You stated that you believe that his actions amounted to racial discrimination.
This Commission can look into complaints of discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) in specific areas of public life including in the provision of a service. Race discrimination may occur where a person is treated less favourably than another person in the same or similar circumstances and the reason for that less favourable treatment is the person’s race.
In order to support a complaint of race discrimination, it is not enough for a person to show that he or she is from a particular racial background and has suffered some sort of unfair treatment. He or she must show that the unfair treatment was based on or linked to his or her race in one of the areas covered under the RDA.
While I appreciate that you believe that Mr Burt refused to provide you with his service because of your race, you have not clearly set out how the actions or behaviour of Mr Burt was linked to your race. You state that Mr Burt accused you of "playing the race card" however you have not stated why you believe that the reason he treated you the way he did was because of your race. You have also not stated what racial background you are from.
If you believe you have further information which would support that Mr Burt's actions occurred because of your race then the Commission would be happy to consider this information.
The Office of the Health Services Commissioner may be a more appropriate body to deal with this complaint as it can take complaints about the actions of doctors generally. Its website is: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/hsc/. Ph. 1800 136 066.
If you would like to discuss this email or would like any further information about our laws please contact me on 1300 656 419.
Yours sincerely
Jane Thomson
Complaint Information Officer
Complaint Handling Section
From: chas x [mailto:nwn.webmas...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 7 October 2009 4:06 PM To: Complaints Info Subject: Complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against Mr Peter Burt
Dear Australian Human Rights Commission,
Attached is the complaint against Mr Peter Burt. Please have the President terminate it immediately, as a matter of urgency and public interest.
*********************************************************************** WARNING: The information contained in this email may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use or copying of any part of this information is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, we apologise for any inconvenience and request that you notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email, together with any attachments.
Unprofessional conduct and unlawful racial discrimination of Mr Peter Burt Provider
No. 016892CX
1. I give notice of unprofessional conduct of Mr Peter Burt;
2. Mr Peter Burt wants me to make a complaint against him; I am making a full formal complaint against Mr Burt’s unprofessional conduct;
3. Mr Burt wants me to accuse him of racial discrimination; I am accusing Mr Burt of unlawful racial discrimination;
4. Mr Burt wants me to make the complaint public; I will make the complaint very public;
5. Mr Burt wants me to make it personal; I will make it personal;
6. Mr Burt freely admitted that my case was an emergency case;
7. On the 8th of July 2009, I presented at Mr Burt’s surgery;
8. I noticed his waiting room was full and busy;
9. I waited around for over one hour and 45 min to see Mr Burt;
10. In his office, I made an off the cuff remark, that more than 30 min wait was beyond tolerable;
11. Mr Burt then made some remarks about emergency surgeries at the hospital;
12. I have contacts with many health professionals, and I know sometimes professionals just say things to appease the patients; I made another off the cuff question seeking how many surgeries he had done, especially when Mr Burt
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:07:59 +1100
Local: Fri, Oct 16 2009 6:07 pm
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:53:10 +1100
Local: Sat, Oct 17 2009 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:47:25 +1100
Local: Tues, Oct 20 2009 4:47 am
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
Discussion subject changed to "So , did she get her death wish? - clean shaven well hung US marine in the after-life? - Re: BREAKING NEWS - Moslem female suicide bomber kills 9 moslems in Iraq - The official said the woman, covered in a traditional black garment known as an abaya, blew herself up near a security checkpoint outside the courthouse. - http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WO RLD/meast/10/08/iraq.main/inde x.html - Keep up the good work shitskin mohammadans - - الإسلام تمالإسلام يأخذ الحمار القضيب في الشرج"
From: "Yaako Warrior from AUZ., NZ., Korea., Germany, RSA, USA., Sweden, Hong Kong, Canada, Russia, China, Denmark, UK, .........., the slayer of fecal stained moslems Moslems._.fuck-.goats-like-false.-.prophet.-.mohammad."
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:52:58 -0400
Local: Tues, Oct 20 2009 4:52 am
Subject: Re: So , did she get her death wish? - clean shaven well hung US marine in the after-life? - Re: BREAKING NEWS - Moslem female suicide bomber kills 9 moslems in Iraq - The official said the woman, covered in a traditional black garment known as an abaya, blew herself up near a security checkpoint outside the courthouse. - http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/ 10/08/iraq.main/index.html - Keep up the good work shitskin mohammadans - - الإسلام تمالإسلام يأخذ الحمار القضيب في الشرج
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:
> ‹(•¿•)› ‹(•¿•)›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 > nextsapreside...@gmail.com > i...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or > politicsIranian@googlegroups.com > arah1...@gmail.com > islamwayoflife@googlegroups.com > furtivo4...@gmail.com
> 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 ‹(•¿•)› ‹(•¿•)›
Discussion subject changed to "How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters" by Judicial Corruption Australia
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:56:11 +1100
Local: Tues, Oct 20 2009 4:56 am
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:41:20 +1100
Local: Thurs, Oct 22 2009 8:41 pm
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:56:00 +1100
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:01:00 +1100
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
I believe that we have had this discussion previously:
1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people. 2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.
My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi). Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)
With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.
If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is what would happen, the International Community would ostracise Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America, leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without the global community.
Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia, they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem. Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:
After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely
1. Race Discrimination Act 1975 2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia
The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia: Documentary How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police to harass and victimise australians
Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is "discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.
Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?
You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".
We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights, and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory" laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way, ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in denying the existence of the Holocaust.
The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all, they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined "discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.
We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost continuously being moved !
M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary. Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court application?
The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their friends they can save.
eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can set up Nuclear dumps.
Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?
Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.
Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will be tested in the High Court.
These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial officers?
As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and glad to see you using).
Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of corrupt judicial officers and government officials.
If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will test it out in the court of law in case
VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am 6th Floor (?) Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Telephone (03) 8600 3333
This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs and they decided to sweep it under the carpet; Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges Inquiry into Access to Justice They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.
This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act, with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.
Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is dead in Australia.
I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about racism but what I found was; Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008) QUOTE HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that racial discrimination is unlawful. END QUOTE .
It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race and so can discriminate!
As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.
Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against any specific race and is entitled to do so.
.
What however is the problem is that a special legislation against a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.
.
The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used against Aboriginals.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general community.
While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:30:22 +1100
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 11:30 pm
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
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.
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:23:22 +1100
Local: Mon, Nov 9 2009 2:23 am
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
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.
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:38:38 +1100
Local: Mon, Nov 23 2009 1:38 am
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
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 "So , did she get her death wish? - clean shaven well hung US marine in the after-life? - Re: BREAKING NEWS - Moslem female suicide bomber kills 9 moslems in Iraq - The official said the woman, covered in a traditional black garment known as an abaya, blew herself up near a security checkpoint outside the courthouse. - http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WO RLD/meast/10/08/iraq.main/inde x.html - Keep up the good work shitskin mohammadans - - الإسلام تمالإسلام يأخذ الحمار القضيب في الشرج" 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 09:39:47 -0500
Local: Mon, Nov 23 2009 1:39 am
Subject: Re: So , did she get her death wish? - clean shaven well hung US marine in the after-life? - Re: BREAKING NEWS - Moslem female suicide bomber kills 9 moslems in Iraq - The official said the woman, covered in a traditional black garment known as an abaya, blew herself up near a security checkpoint outside the courthouse. - http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/ 10/08/iraq.main/index.html - Keep up the good work shitskin mohammadans - - الإسلام تمالإسلام يأخذ الحمار القضيب في الشرج
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:
> ‹(•¿•)› ‹(•¿•)›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 > nextsapreside...@gmail.com > i...@muslimmatch.com or apa...@muslimmatch.com or > politicsIranian@googlegroups.com > arah1...@gmail.com > islamwayoflife@googlegroups.com > furtivo4...@gmail.com
> 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 ‹(•¿•)› ‹(•¿•)›
Discussion subject changed to "How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters" by Judicial Corruption Australia
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:54:54 +1100
Local: Mon, Nov 23 2009 1:54 am
Subject: Re: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters
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.
|
