Homelessness is a huge problem in Australia today, with the SMH yesterday saying up to 65,000 children under 14 are homeless or in danger of becoming homeless. Add to that the homeless men and women who are evident on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne, and probably Brisbane. Could this be the fault of the seven Justices on the High Court who have allowed the Australian Constitution to be undermined, and many people unjustly deprived of their homes and jobs, because since 1953, they have allowed the Parliament to dictate outcomes to themselves and allowed State Governments to undermine and make virtually useless all the State Courts that are supposed to be able to exercise federal jurisdiction. I believe that the High Court has been derelict in its duty to supervise all courts in Australia and because of its dereliction of duty, that good people who would do something about homelessness and poverty are stopped from doing so by State Judges exceeding their powers. Is homelessness the fault of the High Court?

Peter:"...because of its dereliction of duty, that good people who would do something about homelessness and poverty are stopped from doing so by State Judges exceeding their powers. Is homelessness the fault of the High Court?"

I have a CD to watch tomorrow and maybe it will help answer some of my questions about what you talk about.

But how do the State Judges stop the people from doing something about homlessness?

Please Peter, go easy on me... make it simple.

The dramatic rise in homelessness is a direct result of the family breakdown. Many young ones don't feel they belong with step dads or defactos. Secularism bears more of its ugly fruit which has supported by many judges over the last couple of decades.

Peter the Believer,
if good people who would do something
about homelessness and poverty
are stopped from doing so by State Judges,
how come a decision in 1953
makes virtually useless all the State Courts?

Australia has been in the hands of lawyers, with the lawyers monopolizing every position of heavy administrative law, right up to the seven on the High Court. The refusal of Sir Robert Garran to explain in syllables as short as those used in the section 79 Constitution, that this section is a guarantee of jury trial in Australia, and the failure of the High Court to ever clarify its meaning, is the direct cause of family breakdown, throughout Australia.

At Law School, the technique of deconstruction is taught, and when S 79 is deconstructed into its constituent parts, it is clear what it should mean. It is headed number of judges, with only the first letter, Number capitalized.

The first three words of the section, read, the federal jurisdiction. What is federal jurisdiction, and note the un-capitalised nature of the words. Federal jurisdiction is the application of the judicial power of the Commonwealth to questions of fact that impact upon the everyday lives of ordinary Australians. If we are Christians, and sometimes go to church, instead of regularly, then we miss the claim that Almighty God owns everything, and is in fact the Sovereign of Australia, and the judicial power of the Commonwealth is His Power, exercised in the name of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, His representative.

The judicial power of the Commonwealth is the source of enormous wealth, properly applied, and when exercised in accordance with law is nothing to be afraid of. As currently exercised by the four classes of Federal Judge, created by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, it is perfectly alright to be very afraid. These Judges work on the principle of fear. All children should be afraid of a Federal Judge. Such a Judge can make you homeless at the stroke of a pen. If your mum and dad are mentally disturbed, just plain greedy, or simply do not want to try very hard to give a good home to their kids, then the Federal Judge will aggravate the situation. The Family Court is the enemy of children. The High Court should end it.

There are as said before four classes of Judge in the Federal Courts. The lowest are the Federal Magistrates. The second are the Federal Judges in the Federal Court, the third are the Federal Judges in the Family Court, and on top of the heap are the seven Justices on the High Court, who think they are Judges too, but should be Justices only. All of these are public servants, but dedicated to serving the legal profession from which they are always appointed, by a misguided and misled Federal Executive. The service of the public is only a secondary consideration. In fact thay believe they are not Public Servants, but Judicial Officers, but like all officers should be subject to the law. They do not think they are.

Many were once Christians, but they can no longer be Christians and do the dirty work asked of them by the Legal Profession, because the Holy Bible absolutely prohibits Judges in the New Testament. They have some tolerant Priests who still let them take communion in Anglican Churches, and some in the Roman Catholic Churches who do the same, but they should all be excommunicated, because as the New Testament says in Ephesians 2: 12: They are without Christ aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

In an oblique reference to the Christian basis of Commonwealth law, Sir Robert Garran cited this section with approval. This is where the word Commonwealth comes from and is missing from United States Bibles.

Every single Federal Court Judge in Australia is a pagan, and the fruits they produce are homelessness, despair, poverty, and on their heads rest the cries of the homeless children of Australia. The need to have priests is deeply rooted in the human psyche. Many people have a deep seated fear that they will not be good enough to come to Almighty God, unless they have what used to be called a sky pilot. The sky pilots so many now rely on, are simply State Public Servants.