Wonder if OOL is going to say why they have been off online all day.

Hopefully, they haven't been hit by a denial of service attack.

Dont' think the lawyers would have the know how.

I think we will just love our lawyers again, and fairly soon. Two weeks ago, the High Court ruled that an Army Officer cannot constitute a court under the Constitution. Fourteen years ago Paul Keating’s government with the help of former Chief Justice Mason, ( so I have heard) drafted a Commonwealth Criminal Code. One section is:

S 268:10 Crime against humanity –enslavement

(1) a person ( the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) The perpetrator exercises any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over one or more persons ( including the exercise of a power in the course of trafficking in persons,in particular women and children) and
(b) the perpetrators conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
Penalty: imprisonment for 25 years.

(2) In subsection (1) :
exercises any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person includes purchases, sells lends, or barters a person or imposes on a person a similar deprivation of liberty and also includes exercise of a power arising from a debt incurred or contract made by a person.

The States have perpetrated a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, by making us all attend a Military Court constituted by a single officer, and all Judges and Magistrates are offenders.

Because the Courts erected by the States and Commonwealth since 1970, are in effect all Military Courts constituted by an Officer, in civil and criminal jurisdiction, with all representation vested in the Officers of the Supreme Court, the legal profession has mounted a systematic and widespread attack on the civil population of Australia. People have always hated oppression.

To be loved, the legal profession has to take this problem up with all the Judges and Magistrates in Australia, and point out to them the risks they are taking by sitting without juries. Both sentencing and conviction are the prerogative of a jury. All the lawyers have to do is set our people free, and we will love them for it

Everyone has a deep seated and basic need to be appreciated and respected. If that need is not satisfied the human body destroys itself with cancer, depression, obesity, premature ageing, sugar diabetes, heart disease and a whole host of other unpleasant side effects. Newtons first law is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

What really upsets me is all the law is there to have the best life and society that mankind can devise. As the lawyers have tightened their monopoly, by gradually concentrating all power in the hands of about 1500 lawyers, their mental and physical health has rapidly deteriorated.

The most dangerous job in Australia is to be a Federal Court Judge. Its dangerous not because Australians are given to assassinating such people, but because the human body destroys itself when it departs from basic morality. Judge Hely is an example. There are plenty more. Sir George Kneip, retired at seventy and died in three weeks. The health of Justice Einfeld, who is presently languishing in prison, is not good. Justice Kirby, just retired looks ninety years old. Justice Mary Gaudron is not well.

I have seen the far North Queensland Judges, age before their time. We just lost Justice Dutney at 54. What is really sad is that the seven wise judges on the High Court can fix it overnight. They can if they choose, call Ruth Cheetham in and say, Accept everything that anyone wants to file here. No exceptions, everything.

When the process is filed, either a Registrar or a Judge has a quick look at the complaint, and if there has not been a jury trial, the High Court has the power, immediately, to remit the matter back to either the Federal Court or a State Court exercising federal jurisdiction, under S 44 Judiciary Act 1903, with a direction for a jury trial. If they do that, lawyers will be loved and respected again and the very essence of democracy restored. God will be pleased. Lawyers have the opportunity to be the most loved and respected members of society.

As our unelected government we would love our lawyers without reservation, if they did their job properly and when they left University, and were admitted to practice knew the Constitution like they should. The Constitution is a marvelous document and is like the Bible in respect of law. Lets look at how it should work.

By Reference to S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and 109 Constitution, it is paramount and the late Lionel Murphy confirmed this in a case called Metwally in 1984 shortly before he died. If it’s not within the Constitution its not a law he said.

In Victoria the Parliament has transcribed an Imperial Law, called the Statute of Westminster 1275. It says that elections shall be free. The word used is election, and if we had any good lawyers, they would lobby Judges to obey that law. To elect is to choose. In law it means freedom to choose mode of trial, and also to choose, when convicted of a first offence, to pay a fine as provided by the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) and avoid jail, or go to jail. This choice, by S 118 Constitution which say that full faith and credit shall be given throughout the Commonwealth to the laws public Acts and records and the judicial proceedings of every State, should be requested by every lawyer every time. Justice Einfeld should have been offered that choice and so should Rene Rivkin.

Further if every lawyer knew the Constitution, they would know it sits on the top of a whole pile of Imperial Acts like a Star on the top of a Christmas tree. They would know that the Australian Courts Act 1828 was not repealed by the Australia Act 1986 in S 11 and unless a court is an Australian court, it cannot conduct a judicial proceeding, as referred to in S 118. Ninety nine percent of courts in Australia are not Australian courts. Our civil rights are abused every day, and our lawyers could fix it by asking a single Federal Court Judge to rule in truth

I know a lawyer whose client would love her. Her client is facing a term in jail, having been sentenced by a single State magistrate sitting alone. He has not been sentenced by an Australian court, but by a State Star Chamber.

By S 39B (1A) (b) Judiciary Act 1903 the Federal Court of Australia has the same original jurisdiction as the High Court, and by S 23 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 is entitled to issue Writs of all kinds, as the Court (it should read court to be within the Constitution) thinks appropriate.

The Judges (read judges to comply with S 79 Constitution ) of the Federal Court have made a set of Federal Court Rules. In those Rules is Order 54A Mandamus, prohibition injunction against an officer of the Commonwealth. This Rule allows a lawyer ( litigants in person are not welcome in the Federal or High Courts) to apply to a single Judge for a mandamus to compel the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to enforce S 268:10 and 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) as paramount laws of the Commonwealth on all State Judges and Magistrates.

The penalties are draconian, 25 and 17 years jail respectively. But they could elect as Australians to pay a fine instead. They would then stop the practice of using State laws to make slaves of us. The States have mounted a systematic and widespread attack on the civilian population of Australia for the purposes of making us all slaves, and exercising ownership over us, and lawyers could end it. 268:12 makes it a seventeen year jail term to not apply the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, so that Act is law too.

Lawyers we want to love you. But to be loved you need to be lovable, and someone who is lovable is honest to both themselves and their profession. If you respect yourselves you will get respected, and remember, that a court, has paramount power, and Acts of Parliament can be tried and found wanting. Thank you Legal Eagle for this thread

Yes, I agree Peter, we all want to trust our legal people. However, I have just watched a Today Tonight piece about Keddies The Lawyers and their incredible overcharging. Obviously, they are not the only firms of solicitors doing this. It is hardly good publicity for the profession.

My sympathies often go out to judges - high court or otherwise. Their's is a profession not many could perform in our society. They have to judge cases sometimes contrary to their own beliefs and standards. They have to judge purely on law not personally held feelings or standards. Not many people can do that, be completely unbiased. What a terrible job they have and no wonder they age and die early. I do respect these legal people and let's be clear about this, judges do not get particularly high remuneration for their efforts to society.