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