Part 2
The best is to get back to the old system where people who were respected in the community were adjudicating, as then you will get more likely a fair and proper decision! Lawyers may act as advisers but should not adjudicate, at least that is my view.

I did write to the judges of the High Court of Australia regarding their 14 November 2006 judgment having been the product of fraud and hence they could set aside the judgment, but not that I expected them to do so, and they didn’t.

For purpose of writing books, I need to show I followed every possible way to seek to resolve matters but obviously for the writing of the books it is better if they do ignore it. For the general community however it is terrible that judges have, so to say, place themselves above the law.

In my books I publish actual transcripts of proceedings to show how the judges of the High Court of Australia were conducting proceedings that one would normally refer to as KANGAROO COURT and STAR CHAMBER COURT kind of proceedings.
To make such comparison and/or claim can land a person quickly in imprisonment if the court were to hold this to amount to placing the Court in disrepute, to tarnish the reputation of the Court, being it contempt of court or otherwise, hence in my books I make sure to use relevant material to prove what I am stating. Over the years no judge ever was therefore able to get me on this as they cannot disprove the transcripts of proceedings!
In my book
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3
I indicated how in my view John Howard is a mass murderer, etc for unconstitutionally invading the sovereign nation Iraq.
The High Court of Australia so far refused the case to proceed against John Howard, as my books set out.
Seems to me our legal system is up the creek!

Dear Mr Malaysia student. Well you have come to the wrong country to get an honest education on this subject as one thing they will not teach you what is actually happening in the pretend-courts.
The individuals you have described as judges are actually appointed by the various State and Federal Parliaments as judges but when they sit at the Bench in the pretend courts they sit as individuals and not as judges bound by their judicial oath of office because there has not been any curial process to constitute the institution of the COURT. In Queensland the Supreme Court Act 1995 describes what the SEAL of the Qld Supreme Court looks like and when it is to be used and affixed to the Originating Process and orders. The rules of the Supreme Court "UCPR" 968 & 969 also define when the SEAL is to be used on the originating process and the orders from that court.
The judges do not need any further powers of discretion as they are not sitting as a judge who are bound by there judicial oath of office, if you don’t object to this pretender hearing your dispute he will deal with it appropriately and if you provide your implied consent he has all of the discretionary power you are prepared to give him by your ignorance of the due process of the law and the curial process.
I will also say that the hearing that commenced today in Townsville is being conducted in a TRIBUNAL with a JURY and not one of Her Majesty's Supreme Courts because the Registrar of the Court in Townsville has been instructed not to use the statutory SEAL of the Qld Supreme Court on the indictment, the originating process, served on the Police officer. He has not objected to this fraudulent process ( forged document) and the Attorney-General has not objected to this process offered by the judicial scammers so the show will go on but the decision will be in the public interest determined by the Govt policy and not in accordance with the rule of law.

em..so means that judges should not be given more directionary power? Judges are more experienced and not easily inluenced so that they can given more power to examine the evidences and witnesses.and some family cannot afford money to employ a lawyer,so does it means that judge can be given more power by that?

renee, this problem is at least as old as civilization.

judges are human beings, not ethical machines. even when they try to dispense justice, they may be unqualified to do so by their individual life history. and they are often corrupt. or lazy. or asleep. or prejudiced.

the citizens of athens dealt with this problem in a different way: they put legal issues before large juries(several hundred) selected on the morning of the trial. the number of jurors and speed of the trial made bribery of the jury nearly impossible, and the large number meant a cross-section of citizens heard the case, producing a just decision in the eyes of the citizenry.

i think a 'citizen's trial' would be easy to operate nowadays. there could be technical support in assembling reference material, but no need to depend on the personal qualities of a judge. they're obsolete.

By now our student friend could be forgiven for thinking we are a lawless people.
Not true! it is our love of fairness and equity that turns us against the judiciary.
Rich or famous people get wrist slaps, we mostly think some who can show by secrete methods membership of a certain group get a free ride.
Most of us are unhappy to see almost tiny sentences for crimes we are truly offended by.
It is clear some who pass down court rulings have zero idea or concern about community feelings.
I am assured by the number who share my concerns that less power not more to overrule common sense be given to these lost in a space of their own people.

Belly it is not my love of fairness and equity that turned me and many others against the judiciary but our personal experiences in the so called courts as self litigants because we were initially unhappy with the non-performance of the incompetent lawyers paid for with real money that should have been used to feed our families and not wasted on these parasites.
I have personally had forty to fifty hearings and witnessed just as many at six levels right up the High Court at a hearing I witnessed in Brisbane. Not one of the matters lodged (not filed) in the pretend court Registries, was the statutory COURT SEAL ever used or displayed on the originating process. This issue has been discussed with a politician and a Minister in Qld and an independent poly in Sth-Aust and our suspicions have been confirmed by them and the last couple of hearings in the pretend Supreme Court of Qld.
Concerns about community feelings have got nothing to do with the decisions but protecting the ruling regime, State and Federal, rules the day and it does not matter how much you pay the professional bottom feeder for a couple of hours in the Masonic Temple run by the Catholic Brotherhood they are just protecting their foot soldiers. To understand the difference between power, authority and what is an authorised exercise of power is a good starting point. Without using the statutory Seal on the originating process to properly constitute the institution of the COURT they, the individuals sitting as pretend judges have no authority to exercise any power until you allow it to happen by your implied consent or you giving them jurisdiction and that we have tested and they just don’t like it and adjourn the matter for a further attempt to scam you again. Six hearings in the Qld Supreme Court and three judges and number seven to come if they set it for another hearing but I have my doubts I believe that it will be the second matter sitting in the Registry because they refuse the SEAL the process