"The Holy Bible absolutely prohibits one person from passing judgment on another, but Muslims, Jews and Atheists have no problem doing so."

Christians never judge?

It's self-righteous absurdities like this which will ensure the steady decline of Christianity in the West. Doesn't the bible have something to say about removing logs from one's own eye?

Two things are an abomination. A person whose word is worth nothing, and a liar who cannot see the truth. My Scots ancestors had a remedy for both, and it was to run a claymore through them.

We currently have members on the High Court who get $7,000 a week plus perks. Seven of them in 2004, put their names on a document entitled the High Court Rules 2004. This record should see them all prosecuted, removed from office, stripped of their pensions, and reduced to the status of any other unemployed person. The seven on the High Court at that time were required to take an Oath of Allegiance. So cheaply do they take their word, when given, that as unelected public officials they have taken the name of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second off all process issued by the High Court. S 33 High Court of Australia Act 1979 says:
Writs etc. All writs, commissions and process issued from the High Court shall be: (a) in the name of the Queen;

All Writs should also be issued under the Royal Seal. Under RG Menzies, the High Court made Rules that changed that to a Home Made version. This is prohibited by s 77 (i) Constitution, but that has not worried the Prime Ministers for the past 59 years. The Current seal is a Baalist animistic seal, with a Kangaroo and Emu and a teeny weenie Crown on it somewhere. It was introduced in 1952, at the same time as the Executive Government dictated to the High Court that they make Order 58 Rule 4 Subrule 3, so that the High Court become an exclusive dining club, for the rich and wealthy. In 1976, Liberals made it an exclusive club for Barristers and Solicitors by s 78 Judiciary Act 1903.

They say a fish rots from the head first. The most unethical and hardest job in Australia is to be a Judge or Magistrate. Yes Christianity does prohibit absolutely one person judging another. Even if they get it right the method used is wrong. They have a choice

PtB, I'm afraid your arguments are becoming repetitive and tiresome. Which wouldn't be quite such a problem if they weren't also fundamentally misguided.

>>Do you support "Separation of Church and State"? Absolutely and it is law by the Magna Carta <<

This interpretation of Magna Carta is stretching the concepts of "law", and the word "absolutely".

Magna Carta was designed to restrain the actions of a King who had pushed the concept of "divine right" past any reasonable limits. It may indeed be read as the beginning of a long process to separate the actions of the church and the governance of the kingdom, but it is totally misleading to describe it as "law".

You also clearly have a personal beef with the legal process, since the example you cite from High Court Rules (Order 58 Rule 4 Subrule 3 from the repealed 1952 version) has to do with abuse of the system by plaintiffs.

>>The Current seal... was introduced in 1952, at the same time as the Executive Government dictated to the High Court that they make Order 58 Rule 4 Subrule 3, so that the High Court become an exclusive dining club, for the rich and wealthy.<<

The clauses that match this in the 2004 version are in Chapter 1, 6.06 and 6.07.

6.06 deals with "a person, [who] alone or in concert with any other, frequently and without reasonable ground has instituted or has attempted to institute vexatious legal proceedings", and prohibits action where there is an abuse of process.

6.07 restricts the actual filing of documents, where a "writ, application, summons or other document appears to a Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court or to be frivolous or vexatious,"

Which is all quite normal, and extremely reasonable.

There may be much for us to learn about the minutiae of the legal process in Australia, but I think your continual harping on Magna Carta and the probity or otherwise of our judiciary has nothing whatsoever to do with the "impossibility of atheism".

Have a nice day anyway.

You must be a Lawyer, Mr Pericles.

Only a lawyer whose mind was closed would not know that the Magna Carta is still a law in Australia and that the departure from its provisions embarked upon by the High Court and all the other courts of which it is head, is a gross insult to Christianity and all it stands for.

Before the courts had to have security, and before the lawyers decided we would have a republic on their terms only, the job of Justice and the legal profession was held in high esteem.

Oh yes, the High Court wants to be lazy. It must be lazy or it would have rejected the High Court rules you cite as unconstitutional. They want the power and the glory, but don’t want to work. It is certainly vexatious to them to give justice. Nine out of ten who go there in the mistaken belief that they will get it, never get a jersey.

The thing is the Parliament of the Commonwealth has given these lazy sods the power in S 44 Judiciary Act 1903 to remit every case that has not had a jury trial, back for retrial. Trial without jury was made void in the Habeas Corpus Act 1640, and it is still void.

Menzies was offered a jury in the 1950’s Communist Party Case. He refused and lost, and took it to the Big Jury in a referendum and lost that too. So he decided to ask the High Court to make it impossible for aggrieved parties to get a case filed. Like I said before we should send the whole High Court packing. This vexatious litigant stuff is a criminal offence against S 43 Crimes Act 1914. Every Judge and Magistrate who sits without a jury, gets well paid, but is instantly compromised, and can at any time be indicted and imprisoned or fined.

The only way a Judge or Magistrate can be safe, is to follow the system in the Holy Bible, appoint a jury at the expense of the Commonwealth and take their verdict

Your logic is - how shall we say - larger than life, PtB.

>>You must be a Lawyer, Mr Pericles. Only a lawyer whose mind was closed would not know that the Magna Carta is still a law in Australia...<<

Surely, if anyone would know the positioning of Magna Carta in Australian law, it would be ...a lawyer?

But please, I am not omniscient, so I'm wide open to an explanation of exactly where it appears.

While you are at it, you might provide a clue to the meaning of the bit that followed...

>>the departure from its provisions embarked upon by the High Court and all the other courts of which it is head, is a gross insult to Christianity and all it stands for.<<

An insult to Christianity? Where does that come from?

Before you answer, I suggest you do some research on exactly why the barons were upset with the king, and what they were trying to get him to accept. It certainly had nothing to do with cementing Christianity into the lawmaking process, or even legal process. If anything, it took a substantial step towards the separation of the church from those activities, given that it cut through the "divine right of kings" to make his own laws, at his own convenience.

Better still, do us all a favour, and stop referring to Magna Carta as if it were relevant to today.

Pericles

Thank you for saying what I would like to say to PtB, but really can't be.............

In other words; life is too short to waste on responding to the PtB's of this world. And I have already wasted 60 seconds with this post.