The Australian court system is equally as bad if not worse.
The judges and Magistrates think they own the courts and low and behold anyone who disputes their authority in a court room.

Australia is a Common Law country but apart from criminal matters the courts operate under maritime law. The difference being;
1/ Common Law where you are presumed innocent until evidence is produced to determine guilt, and you have the inalienable right to a Trial by a Jury of your peers

2/ Maritime Law where are presumed guilty and you must prove your innocence. Mainly summary and civil claims where you are denied your rights to jury trial and a single judge or magistrate determines your guilt and penalty.

This was great Hugh - pretty entertaining. However, it does not really set out the substance of the problem in relation to judicial bullying. Fair enough, Judge Judy is horrific. But, you have not set out much in way of details in terms of judicial bullying in Australian courts.

Mr. Selby,

‘Appealing to the future’ was in the ‘new books’ display at the State Library of Victoria a couple of years ago.

A luxurious, expensive volume of about one thousand pages with a glossy cover photo of Michel Kirby, ex famous High Court judge, now resting somewhere, probably in a cabin of those mammoth ships designed to assuage boredom.

In due time this masterpiece of graphic art was transferred to a shelf where it has laid since, untouched.

No wonder! With your preamble and the characteristically pompous one of Geoffrey Robertson the book contained three dozen monographs by lawyers verse in the unending legal branches and jurisdictions.

An enormous bore! A huge waste for the only purpose of glorifying one man that officiated at the Altar of Constitutional Legalism!

Who ultimately will have to pay for such waste?

Mr. Selby, kindly, do write to us again when you find a Judge who is not a Bully.

But, be warned! We know the difference between Justice and Legality.

judge judy has corrupted the judge
just as the many 'cop shows'..have corrupted police practive

i have met the 'judge judy type'..many times
and have long realised the blight...is tv

""The scriptwriters for the current ABC series, Crownies,
have crafted an intelligent, young solicitor-advocate who 'falls apart' each time he enters a court room.""

and we think this is a co-incidence
when newbies copy the flawed process?

the term mr..[recall john wayne]
indicates your in the military..[thus under the act]

IGNORANCE OF LAW
is no excuse

lol

or get attracted to the geno-type*
they idolised..on tv...in movies?

""However good he may be as a legal researcher
and 'issue spotter' he has no talent, as yet"'

lol
as yet
thats clever avoidance,

""for surviving in a court room.
He is sport for the bitch trial judge and doomed gladiator entertainment for everyone else in the court room.""

where tv land SETS THE STANDARD*

i have been before plenty of judges
but the fact remains..most are ignorant[wether by choice or deliberated intent]..of true law

ie true law..NEEDS an injured party[criminal law]
or neds an INFORMED fair contracual bound[civil]

no informed contract
no injured party
no case*
[FULL STOP]

but the current SYSTEM...has created this legal 'person'
[under the act]..to wit a legal fiction..

[all 'person's..are incorperal fictions]..
where 'the person'..NEEDS a trustee
because the dead cant talk

ALL persons..are legal trusts
[incorperal]dead corperate FICTIONS*

the vairious ACTS..created by the state..
create the person UNDER the act..[to wit..the marrage act..creates the person under the act][ie the marrage licence[person]

the transport ACT*..creates the person[the licence]
just as the constitution..creates the 'person'..ie a 'minester'..or a house of reps etc..or the dept..[to wit all legal fictions][persons]

the act applies only to those seeking 'benefits UNDER the act'
thus the 'transport act..regulates transport[not travel]
the act creates a 'vehicle'..that must be regesterd..UNDER the act
but if your not transporting[ie carrying trade for money]..you dont fall under the act

but thats too simple
so we get conned

ie conned into regestering under the births act
[creating a 'person under the act]..thus subjected to fall UNDER the act.

we are CONNED into applying for a tax file number
if you got income...[WAGE IS NOT INCOME!]

so much is done upon ignorants
[legal; term imbisiles][ie wards of the state/court..who ned a living 'person'..to speak for them..[cause we begged for lower[under] standing]

go to any court
the judge asks you..if YOU under/stand
[ie stand under the act,..thus if you say you DO under STAND[ie stand under the act]..you fall under the contractual terms of the act

but living human beings..ARNT legally 'person'
[unless your a legal imbisile..or a ward of the court
or declared a 'person'][but heck where would be the right to tell you what to do

or how to think
heck we would be free
and the judge judies of the world wont want that..!

lol

Mr. Selby,

I understand that the book ‘Appealing to the future’ was only for the initiated to the ‘Cult of The Law’.

Mussolini’s, Stalin’s, Bush’s, Gillard’s… Anybody’s Law?

We, ordinary people understand that Law means ‘obey or else’.

What we do not know is what Constitution means and we would be grateful if you could define it for us with intelligible terms in the coming anecdote of the “judge who was not a bully”.

Sorry for having mentioned ‘Constitutional Legalism’. Difficult concept?