QLD LABOR RAMPS UP LNP FASCIST LAWS PROVING A ONE PARTY STATE

Queensland Labor Attorney General Yvette D’Ath is proving herself to be just as unpopular with Queenslanders as Campbell Newman.  According to the Friday’s edition of the Courier Mail on 19 June 2015, “Drinkers face Random Bar Booze testing from Police”.

This cultural shift will disrupt the good old Aussie tradition of buying your mates a beer at the local bar if the police Gestapo are allowed to turn up at essentially private outings by Queenslanders, without a warrant, and demand that you blow in the bag in order to build a case for the government prosecution for the pre-crime of violence.

What about the consent of the governed?  What happens to those people who refuse to blow in the bag?  Will the government charge them with being violent in a public place, like they charge drivers for being drunk behind the wheel if they refuse to submit to a breath test?  .

Or perhaps the Labor government will charge non-violent dissenters with being drunk and disorderly?  Will they hand dissenters fines, or will the police get violent towards the non-violent dissenters, handcuff them and throw them in the watchhouse for being drunk, violent and disorderly because they refuse to submit?  Will dissenters lose their right to go out and become banned from nightclub precincts altogether if they don’t submit?  Will continual dissent see normal law-abiding citizens end up in jail for pre-crime offences?

Will licensed pubs, clubs and restaurants be placed under economic duress by becoming unwitting targets in the further fascist crackdown to control the movement and actions of otherwise law-abiding citizens?

When will the young people wake up from their slumber?  Everyone in Queensland particularly young people need to learn Jurisdictionary® so they can protect and enforce their rights in a court of law without spending a large amount of money on expensive lawyers.

 

RICK WILLIAMS MP FAILED LEGAL ARGUMENT

Rick Williams, MP endorsed by Labor in the State Seat of Pumicestone, is a Defendant in the case against Unitywater and Moreton Bay Regional Council, is also a Justice of the Peace Qualified (Queensland) and a Certified Financial Planner.

The Courier Mail article on Wednesday 17th June 2015 attempted to sensationalize the story by calling his claim “bizarre”  to make it look as though Rick Williams was insane for mentioning the Constitution, Contract Law and The Torrens Title system that backed up the notion that his land is his own.  Not only that, but the Rupert Murdoch owned paper, the lap-dog of the political party system, said that the case raised “… serious questions about Labor’s pre-selection and vetting process”.

Labor cannot be seen to have a thinking man who appears to be part of the current Worldwide Revolution in Nationalism and Liberty in its ranks of boot-lickers, as all members of Labor are expected, nay required, to tow the party line, which is Fabian Socialist in nature.

The arguments against Unitywater and Moreton Bay Regional Council are on the right track, but are not completely correct, and in law, if there is a mistake or misnomer in one sentence, then the whole sentence is struck out.  Rick Williams is correct in his assertion that there is “…no enforceable WET INK contract of agreement” with Unitywater. Unitywater has a monopoly on its supply of water, where is the consumer choice here?

Unfortunately water is something that we cannot live without, and for that reason Unitywater operate an extortion racket, to make people pay for water which is an inalienable inherent right.  He is correct to state that Unitywater was placing him under economic duress.  Pay up or die for lack of water.  If Unitywater cut off his supply of water, would this not amount to attempted murder?

It all comes down to whether or not you know who you are, a fiction (corpse-oration:  dead man speaking: your birth certificate registration number) or are you a spirit inhabiting a body?  If you are an atheist and say you are just flesh and blood, then even cadavers are flesh and blood which puts you back to the status of corporation, for even the dead have estates.  This follows the old Bablyonnian law that declared all the slaves as being dead in the eyes of the law, but the remedy was in the Live Birth Certificate.   Learn how to attain legal remedy by learning how to conduct your own lawsuit using Jurisdictionary®

Rick Williams major fault with his argument, was using the Commonwealth Constitution and the Torrens Title system.  Unfortunately the Commonwealth Constitution is no longer valid or in operation because all the world became insolvent in 1933.  Can a company declared insolvent still operate?  Yes, if it is placed under Administration, the company Constitution becomes invalid and the Administrators control the functions of the company. This is what has happened to Australia.  We became insolvent in 1933, like so many other countries, and our Constitution largely became invalid from that date.  We are now run by the shadowy Central Bankers and IMF.

Although Councils do not technically have the right to tax, with the Constitution in mothballs, they can and do disguise the land tax as rates.  Their rate notices are purposely not broken down into its relevant subsections such as garbage collection, otherwise people would realise they are being forced to pay a tax to the owner of the land, which is the Crown, which is owned by the Private Central Bankers.

If people are forced to pay a tax on the land, then the owner of the land, the Council, representing the Private Banking Fraternity, can repossess the land.  If that is the case, then mortgages and legal title become just ink and paper.

As for the Torrens Title system of registration, just ask any farmer whether or not their land belongs to them, and you’ll be presented with a tonne of legislation that virtually eliminates all rights to land ownership in Queensland, indeed Australia, giving more rights to the land to those who seek to exploit it, being the big corporations and the government itself, than to the landowner.

The key is the word “registration”, particularly the prefix “regis” which means the King, the “Crown”.  Once anything is registered to the Crown, the Crown becomes the legal owner of the thing and you then pay to use that which you have surrendered; ownership is vested in the Crown.

The legal system, hence the economic system of Central Bank oligopoly is supported by stupid barristers and lawyers.  Having said that, all in the profession of law are not bad people. some such as Dr Graves from Jurisdictionary® have the peoples best interests at heart because they want you to learn how the system works so you can learn how to protect your rights, without having to use expensive and often out-of-reach lawyers.

Remember lawyers are bound to worship the court, and some do so in more ways than one, especially if they are part of the freemasonic clique.  The law schools state on one hand that uncertain clauses in contracts are illegal, yet mortgages with variable interest rates, with no upper limit, are allowed to stand as lawful.  How can this be so?

Rick Williams MP should quit the labor party and stand as an Independent, and cement himself as representing the people and not the corporations, which is the Labor and Liberal fascist Fabian Socialist agenda.

COUNTDOWN TO THE APPEAL AGAINST MARY GENEVIEVE GAUDRON FORMER HIGH COURT JUDGE

The countdown is on for the public to get a rare glimpse of the former High Court Judge, Mary Genevieve Gaudron’s life, as she sits in the courtroom as a defendant against her sister Helen Underwood, in an Appeal on a family provision matter, bringing insight into the private family saga that served as the backdrop to a political era that defined the Nation.

The whole sorry state of affairs, which concerns a small estate and an alleged two page Will written by their mother, has generated a judgement in excess of one hundred pages. The Plaintiff, Mary Gaudron’s sister, now known as Helen Underwood changed her name so as to not be identified with her sister, lives off a meager pension and has housing assistance.  Helen will be representing herself against not only a former high court judge, but someone who was awarded a University of Sydney Medal for Law for her work in Estate Law.

An interesting fact that identifies why Mary Genevieve Gaudron rose to such high ranks in the law was because she had an eidetic or photographic memory, and this by itself does not mean she has handed down law using any common sense or wisdom, or indeed morals.  However, Mary Gaudron’s rise to the esteemed heights of the first woman to sit on the High Court Bench, means that she is considered a veritable “god” by many in the field of law who look up to her and hold her in the highest regard, including the Judges, the Registrars and all the underling Barristers.  It is therefore unlikely that her sister, Helen Underwood, will be afforded a fair appeal hearing or judgement unless the public can fill the courtroom with concerned Australians to bear witness and hold the court to account. How can there be a fair trial or appeal when the painted image of the defendant hangs in the court itself?  No Judge who hears the matter comes with clean hands and without ingrained bias.

Interestingly the Sydney Morning Herald’s journalist Louise Hall wrote on July 28th 2014 that “… Mary Gaudron was a judge in the highest court in Australia, sitting on landmark cases such as Mabo and Wik … earning a reputation as a passionate advocate for equality and human rights”.  However Mary Gaudron’s raw emotional display of hatred for her sister thus far contradicts any supposed display of advocacy for equality and human rights When Mary Gaudron is kept on a high paid judicial pension with fringe benefits, she has shown by her actions she does not have an equitable bone in her body.  Mary Gaudron’s actions have shown that she has taken great delight in the fact that her sister cannot afford medical care or a decent pair of shoes.  It is indeed unfortunate that the Sydney Morning Herald coldly disregards her sister’s plight of being poor, over the joyous reporting that the former High Court Judge won the initial trial.  That the journalist Louise Hall cannot see anything wrong with suffering and inequity is a blight on the moral landscape.  Shame, shame, shame.

Perhaps this post might inspire Mary Gaudron to reconsider and settle with her sister thereby avoiding a return to court.

Otherwise you can be assured that after the Appeal, and a judgement has been handed down, that there will be a lengthy article followed up by a expose and a tell-all book that will be a fitting final chapter to Pam Burton’s book about Mary Gaudron, “From Moree to Mabo:  The Mary Gaudron Story”

 

Invitation:
The public is invited to attend the Supreme Court Sydney in the hearing of Helen Underwood and Mary Genevieve Gaudron (former High Court Judge) and her sister, Kathryn Theresa Gaudron on Tuesday 25th August 2015 at 10.15am.  

Countdown to the Appeal:  0 days to go.

Publication of this appeal is deliberately being kept from the public in the mainstream media.  Infact,  “She,  who cannot be named” has perhaps through influence and favours, hijacked the last post of this blog which advised the public of the upcoming appeal, with those words suspiciously missing from google searches.  This repost attempts to remedy that matter.

UPDATE:  The Decision was reserved and is expected to be handed down on the morning of Tuesday 8th September 2015.  An in-depth article will be posted soon after the decision.

Truth Exposes Cancer Council’s Biggest Morning Tea: Fraud, MisRepresentation and Negligence

6 June 2015

Recently the Cancer Council held its Biggest Morning Tea at various private and public locations throughout Australia.  At these morning teas the Cancer Council begged for donations for research, prevention and support, and states on its website it has raised over three and a half million dollars thus far.

Splashed on papers everywhere were people enjoying a coffee (most likely sweetened with sugar or aspartame) and donuts which are made up of refined white flour cooked in artery clogging hydrolysed vegetable oils such as Canola which contains genetically modified organisms (GMO’s), a type of frankenfood, after the scary monster Frankenstein, made up of different parts of people all sewn together.  On that note, if science says it is two years away from head transplants, why can’t they cure cancer?

That answer is revealed when you study history.  Cancer Council Australia commenced in 1961 as the Australian Cancer Society, then the six state Cancer Councils agreed to establish a federal body to promote cancer control at the national level.  The rate of cancer in Australia has more than doubled, it is out of control, under the auspices of the Cancer Council their website states that now one in two Australians will get cancer.

For any “thinking person will at this point start scratching their head, because there is something wrong with this picture.

On the Cancer Council website it tries to hammer the alternative health movement of holistic medicine (indigenous, sacred, whole, energetic) which regards food as both medicine and poison.  This belief system was the predominant medical training in America before Carnegie and Rockefeller got their hands on the medical education system, effectively banishing holistic medicine to the sidelines in favour of the chemical industry.  Mainstream doctors are taught a few things about nutrition, in so far as the standard knowledge that cancer patients should avoid sugar.  Yet, in the test to detect cancer patients are injected with sugar.

The Cancer Council are negligent and are misrepresenting the facts in regards to the causes of cancer by tearing down those that prefer to eat good food. For instance their website “The Biggest Morning Tea” states:

  • ‘Clean’, ‘raw’, ‘natural’ and ‘paleo’ ingredients: The increasing interest in so-called ‘clean’ eating, ‘raw’ food, and paleo diets has resulted in the creation of ‘healthier’ treat alternatives and the use of ingredients such as rice malt and agave syrups, xylitol, coconut flour and oils, cacao powder, and sea salt flakes. Cancer Council does not endorse these diets, recipes and ingredients to be healthier alternatives as they still contribute to kilojoule, saturated fat, sugar and sodium intake. Recipes using these ingredients may not necessarily be considered healthier recipes, and should be balanced with indulgent recipes that contain more accessible baking ingredients such as sugar, butter and plain flour.  (Emphasis mine)

Here the Cancer Council are telling you to eat sugar and plain flour, and are misrepresenting saturated fats, as their explanation is far too simplistic and treats all saturated fats as equal which they are not.  Given that sugar is a known favourite food of cancer cells and plain flour is the cause of gluten intolerance, therefore inflammation and immune disorders caused by leaky gut syndrome, why are they telling you to eat it?

If the Cancer Council won’t address the cause of why one in two Australians get cancer, how can they prevent it, or cure it?  Isn’t it logical that in order to find the cure for cancer, you first have to find the cause of cancer?  If cancer is not something you “catch” then it must be associated with what we put in our mouths and what is absorbed by the skin?

The Cancer Council talks about excessive kilojoule intake, which again is far too simplistic, however they fail to address a far more important count of exposure to chemicals, insecticides and GMOs.

Naturalnews.com reports that sunscreen, which is heavily promoted by the Cancer Council, contains nano particles which are more easily absorbed by the skin and contains ingredients which are carcinogenic.  Not only that, but not getting enough sun blocks Vitamin D production by blocking UVB rays and Sunscreen also blocks a pigment called melanin.  Vitamin D has proven anti-cancer properties.  Why is the Cancer Council ignoring these carcinogenic properties contained in the use of sunscreens?

Could the Cancer Council’s agenda be to secretly promote more cancer through mis-representation, brainwashing and outright negligence, rather than lessening cancer rates?  The statistics since 1961 certainly seem to indicate that this is the case.

If we looked closely at the Cancer Council Board of Directors and associates you will most likely be sure to find conflicts of interest and bias as there is sure to be links to pharmaceutical companies, agricultural companies and chemical companies, after all the Cancer Council push chemotherapy drugs, ignoring the fact that chemotherapy was developed from Mustard Gas at Yale University, which is famous for the secretive Yale undergraduate secret society called Skull and Bones.

Further comments welcome.