The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Our sloppy rule of law

Our sloppy rule of law

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Pelican,
Thanks for posting the link to the Pru Goward article. I missed that, probably because it was not on the main news pages.

Yes FGM is a glaring example of our double standards. I have taken an interest in FGM simply because I think it is barbaric. I know that Auburn and Canterbury hospitals in Sydney have specific units set up to deal with post FGM problems and I read recently that Royal Melbourne Womens Hospital treat some 600 patients a year with problems caused by FGM. We don't know the full extent because no records are kept. Same for forced marriages.

To me it is unbelieveable that we are talking about mutilation of little Aussie girls and governments condone it.

Unless some girls die, and I wonder if a death from infection would simply be stated as such without refering to any associated FGM. Unless there are deaths then the situation will continue.

If we could make it a state election issue or some large media mob decide to take up the cause is what is needed badly
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 11 July 2010 1:26:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are a lot of good lawyers, coz ya cant shoot all the dogs, just because some of em have fleas. However, they have been deliberately dumbed down, to make them ineffective, by the almost universal requirement these days to have a University Degree. They are almost universally fixated on Law as God, not Law as Justice. See Pierre Schlag: University of Colorado. http://stripe.colorado.edu/~schlag/ Law as a Continuation of God by Other Means, 85 California Law Review 427 (1997): A great article that explains why Atheists and Greens flock to the legal profession.

The trouble with lawyers, is that they are fixated on form, but short on substance. When they abolished Strict pleading, with the Judicature Act 1873 ( Imp) the lawyers returned like dogs to their vomit, to their insistence on Rules. Before anyone can get their day in court, they must comply with the Rules. They used to say every dog deserves his day in Court. However that word court, is universally misrepresented to University students, as a place with a Judge in it. That is not so, and they come out almost universally misled and deceived, ready to mislead and deceive the general public who put their trust in them.

A court is a place where a Justice sits as President, or Queen if you are a Monarchist. It is a feature of all successful republics: A la USA where any matter ( which is a flash name for a court proceeding) involving $20 or more has a Constitutional guarantee of a jury trial. With that President sit 12 people drawn from the general public, with a few exceptions. The facts are found by the twelve, not the President, and when this happens corruption is almost impossible to organize.

The most corrupt Australian State is probably New South Wales closely followed by Queensland, and the Commonwealth. Victoria is heading that way, but there are some very conscientious Magistrates in Victoria, and some gutsy lawyers. Everyone with a justice issue, should check out Victoria. It may just save the Commonwealth. Julia is a Victorian lawyer, so lets hope
Posted by Peter the Believer, Sunday, 11 July 2010 11:41:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Talk about sloppy law. Lawyers are not Engineers, so if the wheels fall off the cart of justice, they simply sit in the corner and cry, to keep the engineers from fixing the problem. An Engineer has looked at the Constitution, as if it was an instruction Book, for the proper functioning of an engine. The engine is the Government of the Commonwealth.

He looked at S 51 Placitum vi, and says that the Commonwealth must take over and control the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth. Just because the Statute says shall have power, does not mean they don’t have to. If they have power they must use it. The Engineer looked at S 58 Constitution, which gives the Queen power to assent, through the Governor General to all laws passed by both Houses of Parliament. He says that the Constitution falls down if it’s not applied to the States.

How much misery is inflicted by State Laws. Since 1986, the State of Victoria has not enacted any law in the name of the Queen. Can it be Australian Law? Can it be shown and enforced in an Australian Court. Between January 8 1991 and January 21 1991, the Commonwealth stopped enacting in the Queen’s Name. Is this illegitimate too? Where was our referendum, he asks. Slop Sloppity Slop.

He want to know why we have to go to a Magistrates Court restricted by State Legislation, S 100 Magistrates Court Act 1989, to a $100,000 limit, and no power to enforce S 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 which declares that any law inconsistent with the Constitution is to be declared invalid. As a court, it must be a Commonwealth Place. The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth is ubiquitous and omnipotent. The State Governor must be a delegate of the Governor General or the Constitution is defeated. He says treachery, in S 24A of the Crimes Act 1914 is defined to mean bring the Sovereign into hatred and contempt. The Engineer say the Queen, has been misguided by lawyers, and engineers should be more involved
Posted by Peter the Believer, Sunday, 11 July 2010 5:52:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fantastic Peter you have knocked my socks off; genuinely!
Posted by we are unique, Sunday, 11 July 2010 8:46:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When the Old Testament prophets, wrote about Jesus Christ, they said this: Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called. Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

That is what Engineer Almighty God said he would send, and he did. English Celtic Scholars worked this out, and adopted the teachings of this man, as their Constitution. We are supposed to have this system, because S 116 Constitution is supposed to preserve it, and we had it in 1900. We actually had it until both our lawyers and our Churchmen got sloppy and lazy. It is still a wonderful story.

Would Muslims come here if they had to become Christians. If they knew that if they offended against our laws, they would have to face the spirit of Jesus Christ in a jury. It works. Even hardened Judges, are humbled in the presence of a jury, and it worked for the English in the face of every attempt to conquer them since 1297.

Justice is a Royal Prerogative. Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second represents Almighty God, so we have atheists and Greenies, wanting a Republic. Why? So they can make us slaves. Despite their best efforts to sloppily sabotage the government, the Parliament of the Commonwealth has passed some great laws. They have also passed a lot of rubbish. There is a way to sift the rubbish from the good bits, and it was courts, not Courts that did it for us until 1970.

The Peace of Almighty God is available to us through a Magistrate because in Victoria a Magistrate can issue an injunction. He is authorized by the Parliament of the Commonwealth to do so, in S 80 Trade Practices Act 1974 and in S 12 GD of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 if a Bank or Insurance company is screwing you, and disturbing the peace. Either Tony or Julia should clarify these facts. Winners are grinners
Posted by Peter the Believer, Monday, 12 July 2010 10:59:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have you ever wondered why people with cattle have blue dogs. Without blue dogs, cattle are almost impossible to handle. It’s the same with politicians. They are wild cattle and running rampant over our rights and property, and more and more people are getting angrier and angrier.

The Prime Ministerial Candidate who promises to give the people back their blue dogs, so they can keep the politicians honest will deserve support. Politicians are a lot like most people. They like to get something for nothing. In order to do this, they press ganged State Judges and Magistrates into Commonwealth service, and then removed the blue dog laws, that allowed the people to insist they act within the law.

The blue dog laws are the laws in the Crimes Act 1914 S 13 and 15F that empower ordinary people to be policemen, and there are laws that came with the Commonwealth, in 1900, that enable the people who are so motivated to claim half the penalty provided.

To stop Police becoming wealthy people, and keep them as slaves, the Politicians have made laws prohibiting Police from collecting half of these penalties, even though, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which would immediately be accepted as law, if we had our own blue dogs, the Police cannot suffer discrimination.

Police are only human, and when Abe Saffron gave Police the equivalent of eighty five thousand dollars today in 1970 every week to let him run brothels, sly grog and gambling casinos, they took it, and Rob Askin the Liberal Premier, abolished the Supreme Court so the common informer, the Community Blue Dogs could no longer work, after getting the same amount every week. NSW is a shambles.

What the Parliament of the Commonwealth must do is provide just terms, under S 51 Placitum xxxi Constitution, to both Police and Magistrates, so they will enforce Commonwealth laws, for the benefit of everyone.

Just as an aside, the Political Party that wanted to abolish prayers in Federal Parliament, all eight of them, have no representatives at all in the Parliament today
Posted by Peter the Believer, Monday, 12 July 2010 3:29:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy