Worst ever genocide...Racist White Australian Genocide of Aborigines, and modern slavery by racist highcourt French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan, and australian senate Bartnett and Crossin...Toxic Racism, stealing land for Nuclear Dumps
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:25:53 +1100
Local: Thurs, Oct 22 2009 10:25 pm
Subject: Re: Worst ever genocide...Racist White Australian Genocide of Aborigines, and modern slavery by racist highcourt French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan, and australian senate Bartnett and Crossin...Toxic Racism, stealing land for Nuclear Dumps
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation: Barnett and Crossin changed the name to Australian Human Rights [sic] Act, No more equal Opportunity
An aborigines lead Third party for Human Rights is needed to prevent total meltdown of democracy
>Revolution is nigh
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
Judicial corruption exposes institutionalised racism that reaches all up the way to the High Court Australia. An officer of the Royal Australian Navy is left without medical care as he was harassed victimised and unlawfully discriminated against as he exposed unsafe working conditions in the Navy, that put public safety and lives at risk.
He approached HREOC with a complaint under HREOCA1986 and RDA1975; what he found was institutional racism, coverup and perverting of the Human Rights Act, violating Australia's obligation under International Treaties ICCPR and ICERD. The president of HREOC, John von Doussa violated HREOAC1986 in refusing to investigate his White mates, and then refusing to terminate the complaints so that it can be heard in the Federal Courts.
More institutionalised racism occurred at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where Senior Member John Handley proceeded to pervert justice by fabricating documents and evidence.
Questions of Law will be asked of the validity of the HREOAC1986 and RDA1975 as the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, chair and co-chair, Senators Barnett and Crossin indicated that Inquiries into Access to Justice, Australia's Legal System and the Role of Judges should not be of assistance to Australian Citizens of ethnic backgrounds.
Institutionalised racism and corruption in the Judiciary have made political prisoners of Aborigines such as Lex Wotton, dogwhistled to corrupt police leading to Black Deaths in Custody, putting public health and safety in jeopardy, and allowing a four (4) year old Aborigines girl to die after having been refused medical care at a Qld hospital, political assasination of Phuong Ngo, political assasination of Frederick Toben.
They set them up to fail and when they fail, they call them inferior and lock them up.
Racist and corrupt White nation inciting racial hatred and Black Deaths in Custody, reduce the Black Man to fight for his basic human rights
The High Court Australia has been labelled racist by Justice Michael Kirby. The Australian Michael Pelley called the High Court racist and hyprocrites. They are so afraid of the HREOCA1986, because even the High Court Australia must obey an Act of Parliament.
Corrupt and racist Judiciary will fight with all its might and means to deprive us of HREOCA1986, to deprive us of Habeas Corpus as we file such writs for Lex Wotton, Phuong Ngo, and Frederick Toben. We might not like their politics or ethnicity, but their loss of judicial independence and fairness, and their experience of judicial abuse of discretionary powers will greatly affect us all now and in the future.
Until Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and Australian Parliament secede from ICCPR and ICERD, even the High Court must obey HREOCA1986. We must fight for HREOCA1986 even if the Corrupt changes its name, because it is the only Bill of Rights we have."
Request that UN Committee on Elimination of Racism to prosecute WHITE Racist Nations, incl Australia
Request that UN Committee on Elimination of Racism to prosecute WHITE Racist Nations, incl Australia
Cant the Whiteman be trusted with a signed Treaty?
Come join this petition, and save American Taxpayers' dollars on useless UN rorts that only go to fuel terrorism through their hypocrisy and abuse of UN process, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
<a href="http://www.change.org/actions/view/ request_that_un_committee_on_elimination_of_racism_to_prosecute_white_racis t_nations_incl_australia">change.org</ a>
<a href="http://www.change.org/actions/view/ request_that_un_committee_on_elimination_of_racism_to_prosecute_white_racis t_nations_incl_australia">Change.org</ a>
<blockquote> The Hypocrisy of the UN Human Rights Bodies continues unabated. It seems like the western world can do no wrong, and western countries like Australia can ride rougshod over UN Human Rights Treaties, and at the same time can dictate to less developed nations.
NB. i need the email address of the UN Secretary General
Torsten Schackel Acting Secretary of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Human Rights Treaties Branch Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Tel. +41.22.917.9614 - Fax +41.22.917.90.29 e-mail: tschac...@ohchr.org Palais Wilson - 52, rue des Pâquis, CH-1201, Geneva, Switzerland Mailing address: UNOG-OHCHR, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Joyce Fucio, Administrative Assistant Secretariat of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Treaties and Commission Branch Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Tel. +41.22.917.94.09 - Fax +41.22.917.90.22 e-mail: jfu...@ohchr.org Palais Wilson - 52, rue des Pâquis, CH-1201, Geneva, Switzerland Mailing address: UNOG-OHCHR, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
"Under Article 14 of International Convenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, individuals can file submissions to the International Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination if the country has signed the UN ICERD Treaty and allow the Committee to hear such submissions.
The Committee has a moral obligation if not a legal obligation to investigate and make recommendations. The Committee has a moral duty if not legal obligation to return correspondence.
1. Communication to: Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers
2. Submitted for consideration under International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Kangaroo Court of Australia http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com Institutionalised Discrimination and Corruption in Australian Legal System
The lack of correpondence from the Committee shed bad light on the UN process as a whole and violates the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
We urge Mr Secretary General Mr Ban Ki-Moon to request that the Committee carry out their duty and make Dignity and Justice for ALL and not just some people." </blockquote>
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a Corrupt, Racist White nation
Judicial corruption exposes institutionalised racism that reaches all up the way to the High Court Australia. An officer of the Royal Australian Navy is left without medical care as he was harassed victimised and unlawfully discriminated against as he exposed unsafe working conditions in the Navy, that put public safety and lives at risk.
He approached HREOC with a complaint under HREOCA1986 and RDA1975; what he found was institutional racism, coverup and perverting of the Human Rights Act, violating Australia's obligation under International Treaties ICCPR and ICERD. The president of HREOC, John von Doussa violated HREOAC1986 in refusing to investigate his White mates, and then refusing to terminate the complaints so that it can be heard in the Federal Courts.
More institutionalised racism occurred at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where Senior Member John Handley proceeded to pervert justice by fabricating documents and evidence.
Questions of Law will be asked of the validity of the HREOAC1986 and RDA1975 as the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, chair and co-chair, Senators Barnett and Crossin indicated that Inquiries into Access to Justice, Australia's Legal System and the Role of Judges should not be of assistance to Australian Citizens of ethnic backgrounds.
Institutionalised racism and corruption in the Judiciary have made political prisoners of Aborigines such as Lex
From: Judicial Corruption Australia <nwn.webmas...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:30:43 +1100
Local: Thurs, Oct 22 2009 10:30 pm
Subject: Re: Worst ever genocide...Racist White Australian Genocide of Aborigines, and modern slavery by racist highcourt French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan, and australian senate Bartnett and Crossin...Toxic Racism, stealing land for Nuclear Dumps
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 01:01:53 +1100
Local: Thurs, Oct 29 2009 1:01 am
Subject: Re: Worst ever genocide...Racist White Australian Genocide of Aborigines, and modern slavery by racist highcourt French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan, and australian senate Bartnett and Crossin...Toxic Racism, stealing land for Nuclear Dumps
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 08:28:43 +1100
Local: Thurs, Oct 29 2009 8:28 am
Subject: Re: Worst ever genocide...Racist White Australian Genocide of Aborigines, and modern slavery by racist highcourt French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan, and australian senate Bartnett and Crossin...Toxic Racism, stealing land for Nuclear Dumps
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 23:31:15 +1100
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 11:31 pm
Subject: Re: Worst ever genocide...Racist White Australian Genocide of Aborigines, and modern slavery by racist highcourt French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan, and australian senate Bartnett and Crossin...Toxic Racism, stealing land for Nuclear Dumps
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: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:48:37 +1100
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 11:48 pm
Subject: Re: Worst ever genocide...Racist White Australian Genocide of Aborigines, and modern slavery by racist highcourt French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan, and australian senate Bartnett and Crossin...Toxic Racism, stealing land for Nuclear Dumps
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 02:22:30 +1100
Local: Mon, Nov 9 2009 2:22 am
Subject: Re: Worst ever genocide...Racist White Australian Genocide of Aborigines, and modern slavery by racist highcourt French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan, and australian senate Bartnett and Crossin...Toxic Racism, stealing land for Nuclear Dumps
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 01:38:58 +1100
Local: Mon, Nov 23 2009 1:38 am
Subject: Re: Worst ever genocide...Racist White Australian Genocide of Aborigines, and modern slavery by racist highcourt French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan, and australian senate Bartnett and Crossin...Toxic Racism, stealing land for Nuclear Dumps
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.
|
