MARY GAUDRON BIAS EVIDENT IN NSW COURT OF APPEAL DISGUSTINGLY OBVIOUS

The decision handed down this morning in the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, New South Wales Underwood v Gaudron [2015] NSWCA 269 heard by Basten JA; Macfarlan JA; and Ward JA, is a disgustingly obvious display of corruption and bias.

Like all the other stinking decisions in thousands of court cases, the decision today to not provide Remedy or Equity to the only member of the family missing out on a modest inheritance, is so reprehensible as to be incomprehensible to any thinking person with even a modicum of morality.

Not only that, but the so-called judges (with a small j) saw fit to award all costs to the unfortunate sibling that Mary Gaudron has choosen to disown.  .

To say that this decision would cause a complete and utter breakdown in the public’s confidence in the judiciary would not be an understatement.  To deny the unfortunate little sister of Mary Gaudron any equity in the case is an affront to decency and the common law.

What is obvious is the bias towards Mary Gaudron who is clearly a protected species.   This decision is so in your face, that if everyone understood the decision, there would be rebellion in the streets.

While Mary Gaudron’s sister, Helen Underwood, is a pensioner in public housing, she is no walk-over.  She is educated in the law, and fought valiantly to be heard.  Unfortunately what seemed like a fair-hearing was in fact a pre-cooked kangaroo court.  The decision and the submissions do not match.  They have ignored the submissions, refusing to address issues brought up and the evidence to substantiate the submissions such as the “Application for Administration not made according to law”; “The Administration not Administered according to law”; “The family provision proceedings not conducted according to law”; “Tthe Queensland Family Provision case on Misrepresentation”, “not all evidence before the court”, and “The Family Provision Conducted in the Executors own interest” were not even mentioned, nor the “Duty of Care”.

A further in-depth article will be posted where we will examine and cross-reference the submissions from the transcript to compare that with both decisions so you can see why the bias is evident and disgustingly obvious.

The initial article posted on this site titled ” Retired High Court Judge Mary Gaudron Implicated in Fraud Case”, taken down upon request in the hope of a settlement, but fortunately reposted on Mikiverse alleged Mary Gaudron’s aboriginal heritage.  This post stated this question:

The Mabo case decisions were made between 1982 and 1992.  Was the Mabo decision affected by the Club of Rome‘s Earth Charter, and was Mary Gaudron’s decision in any way influenced by this Charter?
Mark McMurtrie on November 26, 2012 at 9:33 am said:

I feel the matter of Mabo was unquestionably impaired by Gaudrons’ obvious hatred for anything ‘AB-original – even herself it seems.
It is not improper to suggest that ALL of those who sat the bench on the Mabo case should have recused themselves due to self interest in the form of financial joinder to the Crown – which was, after all, a party to the proceedings in various forms and guises.
There is also the fraud of Native Title which then flowed from those cases, and the fact the Crowns minions have secreted the rights of the Tribes to establish their own separate sovereign States and establish their own political and other structures – protected by International law.
The High Court has demonstrated, and this matter now further exacerbates the evidence of corruption on the bench in respect of the Crowns lack of jurisdiction over Tribal peoples. Not to mention the severe harassment of the people and their families who are standing up to the Crown on these matters by the Crowns’ police and other agents – contrary to UN resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 Oct 1970…..to which the Corporate State of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and its’ States are bound.

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.