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?