The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Racist Judges Legislating from the Bench

Racist Judges Legislating from the Bench

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. All
Dear KMB,

There are some posters on this Forum
from whom you get a glimpse of
the fullness and wholeness of life
in general. Posters who craft their
statements with harmony. Statements
which allow space for reflective
insight, and which yield their wisdom -
and richness, layer by layer.

I get the feeling that you could be
such a poster - if you set your mind to
it.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 3:56:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,
That's the politest rebuke I've ever received.
Posted by KMB, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 9:24:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear KMB,

My pleasure.

I've got to admit - the mere fact that you
don't preach - impresses me.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 4 June 2009 7:27:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Living in Sydney, the Roman Circus is never too far away. Yesterday, Friday, I attended the Coliseum, on the 23rd Floor of Queens Square, in the Blood Red redecorated High Court. I saw the latest travesty of justice played out, with three High Court Justices playing Judges, and throwing the usual Christians to the lions.

As an example of man’s inhumanity to man there could hardly have been a better example. At enormous cost, for the place was full of these funny little men, with dead sheep on their heads, justice was denied. No reasons were given, because it was just a leave to appeal application. The bit that really gives me the pip, is the pig ignorance, of the three serious people who made the decision. One was I am told Justice French. These highly paid individuals, can do right and choose to do wrong.

To do right, all these people had to do was say: Has there been a jury trial? Answer: No. Answer: Well Ping ( polite the ng should be ss) off and do it properly according to the Constitution before you come back and annoy us again. We Order: Under S 44 Judiciary Act 1903 that there be a New Trial, in the Federal Court of Australia with a jury of 12, paid for by the Commonwealth, in accordance with S 79 Constitution, and if the parties can find an error of law, in the verdict of the jury, then come back to us. Costs against the Commonwealth.

Instead, these wishy washy highly paid snobs, gave an indecisive answer. The Commonwealth is supposed to be a Model Litigant. Ha ha ha, de hardy ha. With a stacked deck, the Judges paid by the State to serve the State, how can the Commonwealth lose. Only by separating the power of Church and State. If Church and State were separated, as they were before 1970 in New South Wales, when jury trials were as of right, Christians would not have to be regularly fed to the lions in the High Court. The court could be Royal Blue
Posted by Peter the Believer, Saturday, 6 June 2009 3:08:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy