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.

Where does a fish go rotten first? From the head. When the head of the judicial system, in an ivory tower, is a Jewish Style Committee of Seven, the Sanhedrin at least had seventy, has policies that protect them from reality, collect seven thousand dollars every week plus perks, and throw nine out of ten applications for justice to them out, how do we have peace order and good government?

The homeless children have no peace, the hundred thousand homeless men and women sleeping rough tonight in the gutters, under bridges, in drains in the major cities have no peace, and every litigant in any Federal Court has no peace, because nothing is predictable in those places. The Parliament of the Commonwealth is charged with making laws for the peace order and good government of the Commonwealth.

Is Family Law Act 1975 good government? We cannot have that determined, by the High Court because they subscribe to a different God, to that of 65% of Australians. That God is the Parliament. The Parliament like Almighty God is jealous. It does not want its pontifications effectively challenged. Their power was challenged twice in the High Court between 1948 and 1952, in the Bank Nationalisaton Case, and again in the Communist Party case, so the lawyers in Parliament decided to kill the High Court. They killed it by restricting access to its power. By tying its hands, and closing its doors, to all except the few who can attract public attention, the absolute power the lawyers crave, was removed from the High Court, and shifted to the Executive Government.

They have continued to shut it away like a virgin, safely cloistered in a convent like environment. The Abbot, used to be Murray Gleeson. He was very jealous of his Virgins Power. Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary, Protestants pray to Jesus Christ, but no one can pray to the High Court. The Virgin Court, should be its name. It should be accessible to everyone as a universal catholic church, the very head of a commonwealth, and homeless children should be given justice

Peter the Believer,
which decision in 1953
transferred State judicial authority
to the Commonwealth?

Peter,

If you are looking for a culprit, then ask yourself who is profiting from the current situation? How many local government bodies have been sacked for corruption? The reality is that councils and their good friends often profit greatly by controlling development, and the hilarious part is that all the regulation is portrayed as something that protects the public. With greater development rights housing would be very affordable and available, and homelessness would not be a problem.

The homeless are the consequence of greed; not of judges, but of those profiting from the severely regulated market by its mysterious and arbitrary relaxations.

Two questions have just been asked, and I will answer them in turn. The first is that the States gave up their judicial power, if they ever had it, when the people of the States agreed by referendum to form a Commonwealth. Prior to federation, all judicial power was exercised by the Crown, on behalf of Almighty God, and there was a prescribed way such judicial power was to be exercised. It was exercised uniformly right across the whole British Empire, with the exception of Ireland, and there was a law called the British Law Ascertainment Act 1853, which was in force in the Australian Capital Territory until about 2001.

As a direct result of copying the Soviet Revolution, Australian Lawyers have managed to convince themselves that the States have judicial power, just as the Soviet Union had judicial power, when in fact there is no State Judicial power, but only one judicial power, that exercised on behalf of the Commonwealth, with the High Court at its apex.

The decision of seven former State based lawyers in 1952, to close the doors of the High Court, to as of right access, using S 86 Judiciary Act 1903, to enact without a referendum, Rules of Court, with one entitled Order 58 Rule 4 subrule 3, which allows a Registrar and One Judge to decide what will be dealt with by the High Court, in direct contradiction of the intent of S 71 Constitution, that there shall be a Federal Supreme Court, was the start of the end of the Commonwealth. It came into force in 1953, and the Federation effectively ended on that day.

The power of Local Councils to take property as they will, destroy lives as they do, and generally be totally Socialist Republics is the direct result of the misguided individuals who were on the High Court in 1952. Like a strangling vine, the throat of the individual has been gradually choked off by creeping socialism of State Governments whose agents Local councils are in reality. The High Court is totally ineffective as the Supreme Court, for Australia

The current High Court are no better than the ones in place in 1952. In 2004, they enacted new High Court Rules 2004. In those Rules are regulation 6.6 and 6.7. Reg 6.06 allows the High Court to decide without a trial of any kind that a proceeding is vexatious, and if a court case is not vexatious, its probably not worth doing. If a person is not vexed, he would never bother going to court. This is the first tool the socialists have used to suppress individual freedom, and both the States and Commonwealth use it to avoid accountability.

Regulation 6.07 allows once again the High Court to avoid its responsibilities as a Federal Supreme Court. Once again it gives judicial power, the power to make a prejudicial judgment to a Registrar and one Justice. In practice the Registrar deputises his power to a Deputy Registrar who takes great delight in sending back documents, with a direction from a Justice that they not be filed. You may think you have a High Court, and you may, but in effect you have not got one because it is a mirage, as far as the judicial power of the Commonwealth is concerned. It is certainly not a Federal Supreme Court.

When the father in any family is a drunkard, or out of his mind on a power trip, like the High Court in Australia today is out of its mind, the family suffers. The Australian Family is suffering. The head of the family is on a perpetual feasting and drinking spree, and has made rules that no one can get in the door, unless they say so. The Parliament of the Commonwealth may as well be a drinking and feasting club as well, because without a fully functional High Court, they are impotent.

Without as of right access to a court to enforce the will of Parliament, and make sure that Local Councils and State Governments obey the Federal Statutes, homelessness will continue, as long as the High Court is addicted to its powerlessness. It has some new faces, so perhaps?

But how do the State Judges stop the people from doing something about homelessness? Because the High Court is out to lunch, permanently, and there is no Federal Supreme Court State Judges are like wild cattle. They do whatever they like, and the High Court refuses to do anything about them.

A Judge first of all, every Judge is unconstitutional. That includes all the galahs on the Federal Court and Family Court, and the Major Mitchells in the State Supreme Courts and District Courts. They are not supposed to be Judges at all, they should be Justices. The words of the Constitution in S 79 are: the federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. Any court means every court, and there was to be no State jurisdiction since 1903.

Like children without a father, State Judges are out of control, and there is no way to bring them back into the mainstream of politics, while the High Court is not willing to do its job. There is whole class of people called Barristers and Solicitors who love conflict because that is where they make their money. However because there is no certainty of outcomes, except that a lawyer will get richer, since 1970, in a Court with a Judge, only the very rich, can ever get a fair go.

Our system was based upon the family. The family was based on a strong father figure at its head, from which justice was available. This very sick and sad nation, with homeless kids to rival some third world countries, and poor men and women living in the streets, is that way because the laws of the Commonwealth, are unenforceable. Christianity is a family religion. Almighty God is the father which art in heaven, but his will be done on earth as in heaven, by a strong family figure. It was in courts that Our Fathers will was enforced. We now have three women and four men on the High Court. Perhaps they will take responsibility for homelessness in Australia and show compassion

Thanks, Peter. I have trouble accepting your line of argument. My points of difference are as follows:

-The severe restriction of peoples' rights stems directly from legislation, for which our elected representatives are responsible.

-Where the abuses have become extreme, the courts have taken action which has included the sacking of councils.

-In a recent decision (<5 years ago), the federal court overturned the efforts of a council to restrict the rights of property owners to lease their properties.

I am of the belief that more judicial intervention is needed in the form of a royal commission into land development in order to make the process fairer and remove the opportunity for corruption.

The reason its the High Courts fault we have homelessness stems directly from Festers Question. Yes Parliaments are capable of making legislation, and nine of the mongrel places do, but in truth their legislative power is contained and must remain within the Constitution. The High Court Luncheon Club, has closed its doors to people who want to challenge legislation as unconstitutional. We get our rights from the Constitution, and the New Testament and while a select club will not let it be enforced we have no rights at all.

The abuse became extreme in 1994, when the “Kable Principle” was supposed to become established, which was that the High Court can knock unconstitutional State legislation, but the lazy SOB’s on the High Court wont accept applications to have it applied. Parliament moved to jail Kable without trial, and the High Court said they couldn’t, but the High Court has still allowed the Parliament of the Commonwealth to make Child Support Legislation, that destroys fathers without trial. That is another extreme abuse.

We don’t need a Royal Commission, we need a working High Court. The High Court Rules 2004 have no provisions to allow the High Court to hear Penal Actions. A Penal Action is an action for a money penalty for breach of Commonwealth Statute Law. Every Council and Every Councillor would end up in the High Court before Christmas, if the High Court was working properly.

They are a symptom of the disease, the cause is the High Court. Parliament in Canberra has done the right thing, and given us plenty of good laws, for the peace order and good government of the Commonwealth, as they are paid to do, but while we have no Federal Supreme Court, and rebel State Courts, they might as well stay drunk the whole time.

The entire system could be fixed by any State, but none want to do so, so the buck stops with the High Court. They are in breach of their obligations, to provide a fair just and impartial tribunal where Statute law can be enforced. Its time they returned

The High Court is under the hammer of the Federal Attorney Generals because any time they want they can indict them all, under S 80 Constitution, and do a Nuttall on them, send them to jail, take their pension, and destroy them absolutely. I think they know this and live in a perpetual State of Fear, because they remain as respected people only by virtue of the goodwill of the nine Attorneys General of the Nine States and Territories that make up the Commonwealth.

A Federal Supreme Court was intended by S 71 Constitution and S 79 Constitution read as I read it was accepted then they would not have any need to be in terror territory all the time.
The only way an English Judge, was not a sinner was when he took the option of calling in a jury. Sinners have always had to pay, either in this life or the hereafter. The Pope took to selling indulgences, so the fear subsided of the afterlife, but a Royal Pardon from the Pope was good here on earth too, so peace of mind came at a price. It still does.

It is the Federal Attorney General, who is most to blame after the High Court. He colludes with his colleagues in the States and conspires with them to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. He has failed to ensure his public servants enforce the Statutes made in Canberra, and is a closet Liberal, because it is the Liberals who mostly want them ignored.

The High Court costs about $70,000 a week to maintain. The Federal Court of Australia about $400,000 a week, and neither is a working court. At half a million dollars a week in salaries, you would think they would try to help the homeless. Both the High Court and Federal Court are given power to interpret the Constitution, but neither will allow you or me to file the necessary papers to start a lawsuit as of right. I say these people are frightened silly, and live in terror

The reason we still have Judges, is the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. In 1983, the Judges realized they were all criminals, and that the private prosecution, if allowed to continue according to the State laws authorizing them, then every one of them from the High Court down to a Local Magistrate, was liable to be indicted and there is no doubt a jury would convict them of attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.

To make it impossible for a private individual to take advantage of the Statutory Authorisation granted by the Parliament of the Commonwealth in S 13 and 15F Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) which says anyone at all can commence an action to commit anyone else to trial on indictment, to take advantage of Section 80 Constitution, the Commonwealth enacted the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. Section 9.5 of that Act allows the Director to take over and discontinue any Private Prosecution, not commenced by himself. This is an acquisition of private property without just terms, in total contempt of Section 51 xxxi Constitution, but the High Court does not care because it is the only reason they can sleep at night.

The liquidated penalty provided by direct Statutory authorization in the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) for an offence against S 43 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth), is $33,000 and for a corporation $165,000. This intervention by the Director of Public Prosecutions has cost Australia’s homeless billions of dollars, as all Judges and Magistrates are liable, and when a Court sits without a jury it is a Corporation Sole, and the Court itself is liable to the Corporate penalty.

Capital C Courts are corporations, so it is no wonder they have no soul, and a Court is like a Temple to Satan and the Latter Day Demons. To have a soul and do justice to a person, a court must be a living breathing authority, and comprise a Justice and twelve people. Even a Justice and four people can be acceptable, but never a Judge

The best business in any town is the Courthouse. It generates a huge amount of State Revenue, and should be the source of about half of all Crown revenue, as it used to be before Income Tax was introduced to fund the coming World War II in 1936.

Because the High Court has been out to lunch, since 1953, the requirement for just terms in the acquisition of your property in your wages, imposed upon the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and on every State Government, by section 51 Placitum xxxi Constitution, has been gradually eroded, and instead of taxation being means tested, which it should be, it is imposed before you even see it. Of course many Australians simply get cash in the hand, and pay no tax at all, and are not breaking any laws.

Because the High Court is not available, and if available will not sit with a jury, this State Corporate Thievery continues unabated. The State of New South Wales believes its Lawyer Priests, that they are not supposed to supply just terms for the acquisition of property. The late great Lionel Murphy, the Judge the State of Queensland used to bring it home to Judges, that they better behave, by sponsoring a prosecution of him for attempting to pervert the course of justice, stated in Metwally a case on which he sat in 1983, that the Constitution applied to every State equally to the Commonwealth. He cites the provisions that do this, but since the High Court is terrified of State Governments with just cause, it has refused to apply Murphy’s Law.

Murphy was eventually acquitted, but not before his health was broken, and he died as a High Court Justice one week after being cleared, of cancer. His dying wish was very Christian. He asked that none of his family seek revenge. It is rather a pity that Robert McClelland who sang Murphy’s praises in his first speech in Parliament, is not cast in his mould.

Kevin Rudd can give us back the justice system stolen by the Liberals, and be a modern hero

Peter the Believer,
if Justices of the High Court
made Rules in contravention of the Constitution,
why didn't the Parliament dismiss them
and annul their Rules
as is the Parliament's statutory obligation
under the Constitution?

Good Question Whistler, why didn’t Parliament annul them. The answer is they are quite happy to see the High Court and Federal Court as their public servants, and the Constitution suspended. The Parliament has a limited time to annul Regulations. The Queen may disallow any law, by s 59 Constitution, within one year, and can annul such laws, but since She is in England, and her delegate the Governor General is a bit slack at times, this was not done in the case of either set of High Court Rules or the Federal Court Rules where they are offensive. However the time limit is set at 15 sitting days at the moment. Have a look here: http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/committee/regord_ctte/alert2009.htm

The High Court can annul any regulations and have a duty to do so, but like so many public servants are afraid to act. The power of Judicial Review of Legislative Instruments is one of the awesome powers of a Christian Legal System. It has not been used since we went pagan. When it is used, as in the Kable decision in 1996, it is disregarded.

There is a Book by Henry Abraham, a Textbook that is not used in Australian Universities anymore, entitled THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. An extract from it is posted on the Net here. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=238

You and other contributors are completely ignorant of the fact that a court can annul legislation and regulations. That is why Parliament has allowed Judges to do as they please. It is also why Judges have probably been told they toe the line or will be indicted.

Parliament has a duty to dismiss the whole High Court for contempt. The High Court Rules 2004 directly contradict s 33 High Court of Australia Act 1979. The Parliament says the High Court must issue process in the name of the Queen, but rebels on that Court have taken Her name off all process since 2004. The Queen’s name, used to be like the name of Jesus Christ, and was very powerful. She herself never discriminated, Judges do. A Judge is not judges and cannot be a court.

The Parliament of the Commonwealth has made legislation granting powers to any person but the High Court has made laws excluding most persons from access to the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The words any person appear in s 58 Judiciary Act 1903, and allow for such a suit to be commenced in the High Court where it has original jurisdiction.

Any person includes any homeless person, and the word State in its proper meaning must also mean the Commonwealth. When the High Court misbehaves as it has done with the High Court Rules 2004 it can be sued in a State Supreme Court, because the Commonwealth has made itself the same as the High Court, in S 45 High Court of Australia Act 1979, so the separation of Church and State is no longer a fact in Australia. The State and Church were one and the same in 1899. In 1900 the Church and State were separated by separating the power to judge from the administrative functions of a Justice, and the Justice was known universally as representative of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, The Queen. The Queen by s 61 Constitution, is Chief Executive Officer of the Commonwealth, so all Justices should be executive officers of Her Majesty.

The complete breakdown of respect for Commonwealth Legislation, by State Governments stems directly from the restrictive trade practices of the High Court. When Paul Keating’s government enacted amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 in 1995, to they say, enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision for consumer protection, it has meant nothing, because instead of competing, the State and Federal Courts, have introduced cartel type Rules, to ensure they do not compete in the sale and delivery of justice. This cartel ensures that the homeless are not housed or cared for.

When New South Wales repealed the provision that allowed any person to sue for a breach of Statute Law, in 1970, it set the scene for homelessness to become an epidemic

The original jurisdiction of the High Court, derives from S 75 and 76 Constitution, and from S 30 Judiciary Act 1903. It has original jurisdiction in all matters arising under the Constitution, or involving its interpretation, and in trials of indictable offences against the laws of the Commonwealth.

Its current Rules provide neither the Forms, not any Rules to allow the prosecution of indictable offences against the laws of the Commonwealth. It should have made Rules necessary for carrying into effect the provisions of the Judiciary Act 1903, especially Section 30 because the Parliament has said they should. It has been an indictable offence since time immemorial to fail to obey Statute Law, but since the High Court has no provision to indict offenders, it cannot or does not want to exercise its original jurisdiction, so the homeless are powerless too.

It is the powerlessness of the homeless that causes the homelessness. The Parliament of the Commonwealth has given power to the homeless, provided they breathe, by s 13 and S 15F Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth), but they are powerless because seven people, three women and four men, have no hearts or compassion whatsoever. The Rules of Court prove this.

The homeless have the power to lift themselves out of poverty by taking advantage of the provisions of liquidated penalties, converting a prison term to a monetary sum, in s 4B Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth), but the block on the road to their rehabilitation is the High Court. In 1363, the Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted 36 EDW III C9, and it said that if any Statute was broken any person could complain and get a remedy, or anyone on his behalf could too. This was in force in Australia in 1828, and should have been tucked away safe from repeal by any State Government, by S 118 Constitution, on the 9th July 1900.

The homeless will stay homeless until Kevin Rudd insists the High Court do its job under the Constitution. The High Court has enormous power to do good. Why do they choose not to?

Kevin Rudd said he would address homelessness in his first term in office. Bickering between the States and Commonwealth, have stopped him, but the old saying, give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he will feed himself forever, applies to homelessness.

There was no homelessness before Judges were allowed to make their own Rules of Court. There should be no homelessness in Australia because we are an enormously prosperous country, with vast mineral wealth, resources to feed ourselves, but the wealth is unevenly distributed, because the Judges of all the Courts, have made Rules of Court to exclude most people from access to them.

Homelessness in Sydney flows directly from the failure of the High Court to accept suits from people adversely affected by contempt by Local Councils for Commonwealth laws. The Commonwealth in the Trade Practices Act 1974 has made every law necessary for the abolition of homelessness. The one thing that instills fear in the heart of a public servant is a court. They (courts) were an essential part of Christian Australia. A court was where even the poor could pray, and get relief.

A court was a branch of the Anglican Church up until 1900, because until then Justices of the Peace were appointed by the Church, and the separation of Church and State was effected by universal jury trials, of all except very minor criminal offences.

To fix homelessness Kevin Rudd should deliver an ultimatum to the High Court. Fix your Rules of Court to reflect the duties cast upon you, or face indictment for attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The evidence he could use against them is their published Rules of Court. If a man or woman will not work, he or she does not deserve to keep the job they have, and if the High Court continues to refuse to work it should be sacked. Blatant contempt for Parliament should be raised in the Parliament. It has the power and should use it.

The fees the High Court wants to consider an application are currently set at $2726 for a Corporation and $1,364 for an individual, and that may be a fair price if they would do some work for that money. It is twice as much as the Federal Court charges to start a proceeding, but neither of them constitutes themselves in their original jurisdiction as a proper Ch III court. Both Courts will waive these fees if a person is unable to pay, due to difficult circumstances, so there is no impediment to a homeless person filing in the High Court except the Rules of Court that prevent them getting in, and if they get in, getting justice.

Before Judges started making Rules of Court giving themselves absolute power, and becoming absolutely corrupted, the Justices of every Supreme Court in every State had to get consent in writing before they could sit without a jury. That meant the courts referred to in the Constitution were incorruptible, and lawyers were not in a position to sell and buy judgments from Judges. The first entrepreneurial Judges were in South Australia, and persuaded their Parliament to allow them to sit alone without juries, so giving them the opportunity to sell justice and make a personal fortune.

The Courts now operating in Australia in every State including the Commonwealth, are wide open to charges of corruption, and every opportunity is given to Judges to sell justice. Before 1986, Victoria had Chambers where consent orders could be entered, but all trials had to be in open court. Judges and Magistrates all over Australia are selling justice, and anyone who goes to Court without a lawyer, can expect to be severely shafted.

The court was a place where the Biblical Promise, in Matthew 7 Verse 7 was carried out and Almighty God and the Queen both kept their word. Ask and you will be given what you ask for.. for everyone who asks receives. The only way a Justice could refuse to give an applicant what he asked for was if a jury said he could not

Peter the Believer,
Eddie Mabo made an application
which succeeded
to the High Court when he was homeless.

The fees the High Court wants to consider an application are currently set at $2726 for a Corporation and $1,364 for an individual, and that may be a fair price if they would do some work for that money. This is a disgrace and is typical of the poor quality thinking that prevails when some people are given a commission to run a business. For the peace order and good government of Australia the filing fee in the High Court should only be about one tenth of that, $136.40. It should be a freely available service not an expensive privilege to access the High Court.

Yes Whistler, Eddie Mabo did win in the High Court, but he won for the wrong reasons. The High Court held that Almighty God was no longer Sovereign in Australia but some Aboriginal God peculiar to them, and this decision has virtually destroyed every piece of property in Australia. It could have been decided on what they call adverse possession, which is a title that used to be available when people lived on land for a long time as was the case there. These people are thinking they are Almighty God when in fact they are Satanic.

Jury trial was your guarantee of a fair go, and of everyone’s property rights. If the High Court represented the Christian majority of Australians, they would accept every document offered for filing, and use their power to remit them to a whole bundle of courts, that became capable of exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth in 1903. The “Kable Principle” should see them do this on every occasion, that someone is dissatisfied with the result of a Judge only Court.

In S 2 Judiciary Act 1903 the Parliament of the Commonwealth clearly says that all Judge and Court proceedings are entitled to be picked up and quashed by the High Court, and the matter sent back for retrial, under S 44 Judiciary Act 1903, with directions. The directions should specify jury trial to comply with Christianity, unless the person elects to be tried by a public servant

Peter the Believer,
the Courts of an equal rights Republic
accommodate women and men of all beliefs.
Aborigine women Christians are tried in a women's jurisdiction
Aborigine men Christians are tried in a men's jurisdiction.

I had a call from a very distressed fifty something chap this afternoon, one of many I get, who has been trying to get a trial of some issues he has with both the State and Federal Governments.

I get a few of these from time to time, and they are mostly very distressed people on the verge of homelessness or homeless already, due to corrupt bankruptcy proceedings, proceedings by jealous relatives who want the older generation to sell their home, go into a nursing home on the pension, and give them their perceived share of their parents wealth, or simply older people who have worked hard, been befriended, and placed by their so called friends in protective custody under the Guardianship Tribunal.

It is directly the fault of the High Court that such people are being made victims. If the High Court was actually diligent in its defence of the Constitution, was prepared to accept all attempts to file cases in it, dealt with everything brought to it, by every distressed individual who goes there, and stopped trying to be Almighty God, and allowed the Christian principle of jury trial to be restored, there would be an outbreak of peace and goodwill among all men and women.

This chap’s mother who is Italian and around seventy five, has been placed in a Nursing Home by one of her daughters. She, the mother is not disabled, speaks some but not good English, and desperately wanted to live out her days until she was disabled in her own home, so she could be Nonna ( Grandmother) to her children’s children. She is a Roman Catholic. The Nursing Home is probably Roman Catholic, and no doubt think they are doing the right thing.

The Guardianship Tribunal ordered her home sold, and the proceeds paid to the Nursing home, after legal fees incurred by the application to imprison this elderly woman. I know of another case of Mortgage fraud, where a 75 years old pensioner woman has had a mortgage taken out over her home by her son for $1,000,000. Who’ll be next?

The general decline in morality of all corporate governance in Australia not just the homelessness that can directly be attributed to the High Court is because the High Court is the leader in lawlessness in Australia. When the highest court in the land cannot obey the law, and directly contradicts the statutes made to keep it honest, why should anyone in Australia be honest.

It seems that dishonesty is the norm, and the total departure from decency and morality instead of being confined and maintained by the High Court is led by them. Because the High Court is dishonest all lower courts feel completely free to be dishonest too.

It appears that the High Court does not understand that the State Religion in 1900 was Christianity, and that S 116 was enacted to give Roman Catholic Australians equality, not abolish Almighty God completely. We have the worst possible atheists as the seven criminal sinners who govern the conduct of Australia in its corporate identity. When the Rudd Government made anti cartel laws recently the three women and four men on the High Court should be the first to be convicted. The cartel they head, is the worst offender within the borders of Australia. Instead of competing with State courts, to deliver services to the Australian public, they restrict access to the Federal Supreme Court, and as a consequence abolish accountability throughout the system.

In 28 days after the 24th July 2009, serious cartel behavior will result in a jail term, but since the Director of Public Prosecutions is given cartel powers to exclusively prosecute its unlikely to make any difference, except to the personal fortune of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The continued restrictions on the delivery of justice services by the High Court are likely to continue, and its continued conduct as an exclusive club is also likely to continue.

All that is likely to happen is an increase in bribery and corruption. The incentive to bribe a Judge or Magistrate is greatly increased, and the personal fortune of the Chairman of ASIC is likely to be greatly enhanced

Solicitors and barristers used to all be Christians before 1870, when lawyers were admitted back into the English Parliament and the principles of the Holy Bible as the ultimate Rule Book were understood by everyone. Open disagreement by Roman Catholics meant they were excluded from public life in England, and large numbers of convicts were drawn from the Catholic population.

Gradually the understanding of the system has been eroded, and the High Court as constituted in 2009, is as much a victim as the hapless Australians who would or should be able to rely upon them. The Parliament of the Commonwealth still starts each day with the Lord’s Prayer, from Matthew 8 Verse 9-13 of the Official Bible, the King James Version. Courts were courts of our god, as referred to in Psalm 92 verse 13, and if a man or woman was planted in the House of the Lord, he or she prospered in the courts of our God. In other words it was important to go to church and know the Gospels.

A court, was a place where the promise in Matthew 7 verse 7 was carried out. Ask and you shall receive, knock and you shall enter, seek and you shall find, and it was also a place where no man or woman judged another. The curse of Statism is judgmentalism. The Holy Bible prohibits it absolutely, and when one person condemns another, to prison or in any other way, he or she is a sinner. However while the condemned person is not a Believer in Jesus Christ, he or she is outside the Royal Covenant, and there is no crime in sentencing them. The benefits of Christianity only flowed to the King or Queens Family. That was the body of Christ.

A solicitor or barrister prepared a prayer for presentation to a court, or an ordinary person did it himself, and while Christianity still ruled, it was the duty of a Justice to grant it, unless a jury said it was to be refused. Homelessness will stay with us, until the High Court relents and repents.