Once again we are asking ourselves about our Parliamentary representatives, but why are we not asking them to ensure that when they labour away on our behalf, that we have an effective and certain method of either enforcing the laws they make, or having them struck down. It is the same wth the High and Federal Courts. If these useless well paid individuals were honest, yes honest, we would have a way of enforcing Statute law, and it would not matter how bad our pollies were, we could do something about the bad laws and keep the good ones.

Max was going to get one of his polly mates to investigate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. If it is law it fixes the problem like this

Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 27
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.

As I have said before, a search of Hansard in 1985-1986, will prove it was enacted as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 . It says it was assented to on the 6th December 1986. Sections 12 and 13 Acts Interpretation Act 1901, make a Schedule part of any Act. When are we going to ask the Parliament to stop, until it makes sure that what it enacts is law, and enforceable. This law makes solicitors and barristers criminals, because they are members of an exclusive club. Is the only law what a solicitor or barrister says is law?

Maximillion, why not bring back eugenics so that any person exactly the same height as Ivan Milat is prohibited from standing for Parliament because obviously they're a potential serial killer.

This would have nipped John Howard's political career in the bud but there'll have to be some sacrifices to improve the quality of Parliament.

Or maybe you could just torture anyone member of Parliament who disagrees with to catch the rubbish that slips through the cracks.

Waterboard your way to parliamentary perfection.

The sky's the limit when you're trashing democracy.

Sensible selectivity, what about selectively sensible. Why have we allowed a small monopoly to take over the government of Australia? We have allowed this to happen because we have the worst set of lawyers in the whole world, and probably the worst religious leaders as well. We have allowed the lawyers to take the place of the Pastors and Priests, and reduced the pastors to hand wringing apologists for the mightiest power in the Universe, Almighty God.

We have a High Court that excludes most people from access to it. It could allow everyone to access its power, and cover itself with glory, but it has made regulations, 6.6 and 6.7 High Court Rules 2004 that directly contradict legitimately enacted Federal Statute Law. When are the Attorneys General of the State and Commonwealth, going to indict them for insubordination, strip them of their salaries, and superannuation, and put a bit of the fear of God, in their black hearts.

If the High Court were to accept everything offered to it, without any discrimination, as Parliament has directed, it does not have to hear all these applications itself as it does now, throwing nine out of ten out. It should teach itself the meaning of a Capital letter, when used in Statute Law. In S 2 Judiciary Act 1903, Appeal is defined to include an application for a new trial, if the matter has been decided by a Court or Judge. The Constitution does not use the words Court or Judge, standing alone anywhere in Ch III.

They have the power in s 44 Judiciary Act 1903, to send every application received back for a new trial with a direction for a jury, to either a State Court or the Federal Court. The lazy dishonest and totally inappropriate behavior, currently carried out by the High Court, should be the subject of contempt proceedings in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. This nonsensical selectivity, indulged in by the High Court where it obeys some Statute and ignores others is deplorable. It should be all in or all out. Seven Judges should be accountable

When Sir John Kerr, handed government to Mal, in 1975, he stipulated that the Government do nothing except caretake, and pay its bills, until it went to the big jury in a general election. You be the big jury in this case. The High Court stands indicted in the forum of this electronic medium. You are the judges, the same judges as a word used in S 79 Constitution.

It says: The federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. There is one capital letter on Parliament. Parliament has not prescribed how many judges there should be. It has created Judges, but in s 2 Judiciary Act 1903, it has prescribed a new trial, if a Judge sits in a Court.

The High Court stands accused as a criminal corporation, of attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth. It stands accused of discrimination, it stands accused of failing to uphold the provisions of the Constitution, and do its sworn duty owing allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by leaving Her name off all process issued out of that Court since 2004. It stands accused of directly ignoring a clear Statutory prescription from the Parliament of the Commonwealth, contained in s 33 High Court of Australia Act 1979. S 33 says: All writs, commissions and process issued from the High Court shall be: (a)in the name of the Queen;

The High Court Rules make no mention of the Queen. By Section 129 (5) Evidence Act 1995, (Cth) this document is admissible against them. We should also indict all the staff who aid abet, counsel and procure these individuals to break the law, and every barrister who goes there to defile the Parliament by accepting this contemptuous conduct. The cry in 1972, to the big jury was Its Time. In 1975, the big jury said Times Up. Perhaps unless KR and Julia see fit to call times up, to the disrespectful unsubordinate High Court, you, the big jury may call time out again

No, I said I have a work connection where I bump into them occasionally, and I would print out your question and pass it on. I have printed it, but as yet haven't crossed paths with them, sorry.
When I do, I will, and see if they provide an answer. No promises though, I'm in no position to push them.
They're no mates of mine, I wouldn't let one in my door, not without locking up the valuables, and the breakables.

Max,
You know my local member too? What bothers me is his incessant snuffling as he rolls in the mud. Then runs off squealing when faced with something he doesn't understand....which is anything that isn't in HIS immediate benefit.

Although he is a perfect argument of why we need either a better selection criteria for parliament or the activation code for natural selection. :-)