MARY GAUDRON FUNDRAISING 101: CORRUPTION AND BIAS EXPOSED IN FAILED FAMILY PROVISION COURT CASE

Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, New South Wales
Underwood v Gaudron [2015] NSWCA 269
heard by Basten JA; Macfarlan JA; and Ward JA\

1.  Bias in the Media
I wrote to Louise Hall recently, a journalist known as a “Court Reporter” with the Sydney Morning Herald, on behalf of Helen Underwood (Mary Genevieve Gaudron’s and Kathryn Teresa Gaudron’s sister). I alerted Louise Hall about the outcome of the Appeal, because when Helen learned she had lost her case for a Family Provision, she was too upset to reply, especially because Hall had refused to acknowledge Helen’s previous emails.  Louise Hall had curtly emailed Helen to ask her about the outcome of her Appeal as she couldn’t be bothered to attend either the hearing or handing down of the judgment.

I also alerted Louise Hall in this initial email to my previous post that said her reporting was “… a blight on the moral landscape” because instead of unbiased reporting, press-titute Louise Hall covered the story about the initial trial, favouring Mary Gaudron, the former High Court Judge.

Helen knew that the Fairfax media machine would continue to lie about the Appeal and that the Sydney Morning Herald would not report on the case, or if it did, it would be a short notice of the outcome only.  There would have been no in-depth research to report the facts of the matter.  According to George Orwell’s famous book “1984”, the omission is the worst type of lie.

As you would expect any bought and paid for press-titute for the Fairfax boys would laud Mary Gaudron’s glorious attributes to the Australian people in order to perpetuate the myth that Australian’s courts are fair and equitable and we live according to the rule of law, when in practice the opposite is true.  Australia is in fact a lawless country whose Constitution was never ratified, and is apparently for sale to the highest bidder.

After Louise Hall announced the dismissal of the appeal on her twitter post, I posted a reply that dared her to write an article on the court case without bias and from a moral standpoint, specifically addressing the question of where is equity and remedy.  I doubt Louise Hall knows the meaning of the words, let alone be capable of writing a essay that would pass the litmus test, a crucial and revealing test in which there is one decisive factor.  If she did have any morals, BIG Brother (the cabal who run the media) would not stand for taking out one of their own, unless of course it was in their own best interests to do so.

Unfortunately for Louise Hall, she has missed out on the chance to break the story, but as many of us are waking up to, the press is no longer independent and unbiased.  Unfortunately the job of educating the public is left to unpaid educators like me to tell the story.

2.  Three Disturbing Factors
As all press-titutes do when giving a favourable head-job to their slave masters; Louise Hall ignored three disturbing factors. The first being that the subject of bias in hearing the case for Family Provision cannot be avoided; the second was that Helen was poor, and thirdly that she was morally due her share of the estate.

3.  Questions That Need Answering
Of the four children, Helen is the only one to not receive a cent, and the one that the court has heaped the costs onto. What did Helen do to deserve the ire from her family?  Helen’s affidavits have asserted blame onto her conniving and cunning sister Mary.  Regardless, we must ask why the Mother’s Will was changed from leaving the estate to all four children to only Mary and Kathryn towards the end of her life.

Another important question that needs to be answered was what provision had the father made for the children especially considering his death predated the mother’s death, and that at the time of his death, divorce proceedings were underway.

The final outcome of the Trial and Appeal were especially strange considering Brother Paul suffered a severe disability due to a childhood accident.  Wouldn’t both or at least one of the parents want to leave a sizeable sum to Brother Paul to cover future employment problems and health care?

The most important question of all is why didn’t the Trial Court and Court of Appeal take these questions into consideration when making their decision?  Although Brother Paul was only named as an interested party in these proceedings, the facts surrounding his role within the family structure certainly clarify Helen’s assertions in her Affidavits.

4.  A Small Estate
Helen is by no means a greedy woman. She would have only received a comparatively small sum from the estate, but to her this small sum would have meant so much more.  It would mean a new life in private accommodation giving her a new start.  She could afford to buy some shoes and some nice clothes, some medical care, a car, update her computer, or even buy a caravan and travel the country.

However it wasn’t the money that motivated Helen to pursue her share of the small estate.  It was the principal of the matter that was the driving factor.  Due to the dysfunctional family relationships, she had an axe to grind and wanted to confront Mary about her behaviour towards herself and her brother.  According to Helen’s affidavits she has known Mary as a serial liar, beginning her quest for fame and glory by using her mother’s favour to get what she wanted, to the exclusion and detriment of her siblings.  Kathryn was known for taking sides that were the most beneficial for her.

As you will see, there are good reasons why Mary Gaudron does not like to dwell on the past and doesn’t like bad press, as reported in Pamela Burton’s unauthorised biography.

5.  A David and Goliath Battle
Helen Underwood, the little sister of Mary Gaudron is the epitome of the mythical David, the underdog. In legal terms Helen’s economic status is known as impecunious, meaning she is seriously disadvantaged.  Helen survives on a small pension and carer’s allowance for her much older ex-husband of $450 per week.  She was self-represented, is not a lawyer although she partially completed her law degree and is self-taught, being a forensic accountant by trade.  To make matters worse she had to travel from Brisbane to Sydney in New South Wales to conduct the lawsuit.

On top of that she had no immediate access to legal representation or legal aid, no immediate access to precedents in NSW using Austlii, having only her own research skills to depend on. To top that off, she was simultaneously confronted on a daily basis with the possibility of an eviction from her housing commission unit because she dared complain about the poor sanitation; having faeces (not hers) flood her unit because the Government failed to address the plumbing problems in the unit block.  She is still facing a possible eviction due to the three strikes and you’re out policy of the Queensland government.

In direct contrast Mary Gaudron is Goliath of a figure in legal circles and the history of Australia.  She receives a judicial pension of $6,000 per week plus entitlements which equates to over $312,000 annually.  We should all feel sorry for the former High Court Judge (she who cannot be named) who obviously cannot manage on her judicial pension and her property portfolio (Struggle Street, I think not!).

She owns the townhouse at Lilyfield, an inner Sydney Suburb valued at $900,000 plus; a Beach House property at Greater Mackeral Beach in Northern Sydney on the Newport peninsula with a minimum value of $750,000; two properties in the Loire Valley, France (no value disclosed), all the while being Director of Hefano Pty Ltd which owns/manages fifteen (15) units in Newtown, a unit at Elizabeth Bay, both inner Sydney Suburbs, up to here admitted to.  Her first husband just died.  A Google Search shows Juan Investments Pty Ltd owns/manages units, the number not known with a possible location in Neutral Bay, Newtown.  The net yearly property income for a singular person as employee is some $315,000 (also $6,000 per week).

That means the former High Court Judge, now retired, is on a weekly income somewhere in the vicinity of between $6000 and $12,000 per week.  That’s up to a whopping $624,000 per year.

To top it all off, the subject of bias cannot be avoided due to her sister’s special status in the legal community, being a former High Court judge, and being senior to the judges sitting in the Supreme Court of Appeal.  Mary Gaudron was a specialist expert in the field of succession law and family provision law, receiving the Sydney University Medal for Succession Law.

While Mary Gaudron is a protected species, having easy access to case precedents, and open access to corruption at its worst, Helen was resigned to use the light of truth, often calling on her strong belief in Archangel Michael to help see her through difficult times.  Helen said that the ordeal of the trial and appeal was a “… pressure cooker from start to finish … the sheer severity and serious disadvantage was hell”.

6.  The Two Page Will
The two page Will generated a 105 page judgement from the initial trial with a transcript of 129 pages, while the Appeal totalled 39 pages of transcript, with all submissions ignored, generating a Dismissal Judgement of just 37 pages. This alone makes one wonder how a two page Will could generate such a long judgement yet be so glibly dismissed on Appeal.  It doesn’t make sense for reasons that will be explored in further detail below.

7.  The Trial
Helen was prepared to run the case on her own, however the trial judge recommended Helen have legal representation, and the barrister assigned for her on a No Win No Fee basis was Therese Catanzariti. This is where Helen’s problems started.  Therese Catanzariti was incompetent and was infatuated by the Defendant, Mary Gaudron.

Barrister Therese Catanzariti failed to object to the Judge’s decision not to record a transcript; failed to read into evidence an important affidavit, and wouldn’t listen to her client’s directions.  Helen accused her of being unable to comprehend the English language.

8.  The Appeal
Helen found out that Ruth McColl was the original judge set down to hear the Appeal along with Basten J. and McFarlan J., however Ward J. was substituted for McColl J. at the last minute. Helen had previously found out, after speaking to a lawyer friend that McColl was ruthless, and that Basten J. was being put in the same position as Dyson Heydon, having to make a decision on his own previous decision, and that McFarlan J. was the thorough gentleman.

After doing some research on the internet, Helen found that McColl J. Had said this on Mary’s Wikipedia page:  “Former President of the New South Wales Bar, Ruth McColl, described Gaudron’s contribution to Australian law as “an extraordinarily humanising effect… the strong views she expresses in cases involving discrimination and like issues, are very influential and important in the development of the law in those areas.”  Helen immediately rang Karla in the Registry and told them she wasn’t happy with McColl J. and warned Registry that she would immediately put McColl on Notice. 

During the Appeal, the problems in the Lower Court were to be exasperated by the lack of acknowledgment of ‘apprehended’ bias that is the ‘appearance of’ not the ‘actuality of’ bias, whereby Helen was required to prove actual bias.  There was also a presumption of infallibility.

Whenever the name on the document “Mary Genevieve Gaudron” was viewed it would instantly summon an apprehension of bias by any hypothetical observer.  The trial judge’s instruction to court reporters to only record the orders on the day and not a transcript, therefore did not record the actual details before the court and the fact that an important affidavit was not read into evidence was evidence of protecting another Judge.  Helen also valiantly tried to get evidence admitted into the Appeal that was not in evidence at the time of the trial.

During the Appeal, the penny seemingly dropped for Ward J. that there were four different versions of the same Will, however they sought to trap Helen by putting incorrect words in her mouth.  The decision was initially reserved.

9.  Proof the Appeal Was Pre-Judged
Helen was so glad to have received what appeared like a fair trial; however a lawyer friend said to her that the appearance of a fair trial is a misnomer because “if they were inclined to not allow your appeal, it explains why you got such a good hearing. They often do that, if you are going to go down”.

Further the Judgement in favour of a Dismissal did not refer to the nineteen Acts and Rules Helen was referring to.  She used the case of Collette and Knox [2010] QSC 132 (unrep) McMeekin J, an unreported case in Queensland which does not appear in the references in the Judgement.  This is an extremely important case as it has become known as the “Collette Principal”, including Barrister Treston’s writings on “Succession: Emerging Issues”. The mere fact that these cases were not included in the references of the Dismissal of the Appeal proves the decision was written prior to the Appeal being heard.

10.  Criticism of Mary Gaudron on Wikipedia Backs up Helen and Paul’s Affidavits
Wikipedia states that at the time of her appointment to the High Court in 1987, the New South Wales legal magazine Justinian (magazine)published anonymous remarks saying that “a melancholy catalogue of sins of omission and commission … ” ought to have weighed against her appointment, and that she held “an emotional disposition inappropriate in a holder of judicial office.” When Gaudron announced her retirement, an anonymous academic said that … among the other High Court Justices, Gaudron was “erratic” and “certainly not among the court’s greats.” Another anonymous academic said that Gaudron’s Labor connections had delivered unearned promotion.

11.  Intention, Corruption and Bias
Gaudron hates her own sister so much Helen alleges she has had to resort to forgery, misappropriation, misrepresentation and maladministration to ensure that Helen was left destitute. Mary Gaudron took money from the estate for her own purposes in order to pay a private arrangement between herself and her brother Paul resulting from their father’s death in 1982.  Mary Gaudron loves her brother so much she tricked him into signing a form that stopped him from seeking any further monies from the estate.

Gaudron was so used to lying about her sister, she stooped lower than low by committing perjury, deception and misleading the Supreme Court NSW to pervert the course of justice and everything in-between to ensure her sister did not receive any money or property or even a memento whatsoever.  Gaudron hid their mother’s death intentionally and Helen was never to find out in time.  The family joined in by keeping the death hidden from Helen.  Gaudron resorted to the full length breadth and depths of legal mis-conduct (professional and unconscionable) in order to not notify Helen who was an interested litigant.  This barely “allowable” method of conduct would only have been known to her being a specialist expert in Succession Law and Family Provision Law,

Gaudron has relied on access to corruption at its worst.  She could not face loss of her public standing on merit and has to be the protected species by buddies in the judiciary.  Whatever happened to their judicial oath?

12.  Brother Paul Exposes Mary’s True Nature
Brother Paul’s Affidavit corroborates Helen’s contention that her sisters and extended family purposely kept the death of her mother from her. Mary’s true colours were exposed when Paul lost his leg in an accident as a young boy; his father advised him that he and his late mother did not seek compensation for his accident on advice from his sister Mary and her university lecturers.   At the same time Paul’s father promised that he would leave him the house and all his property, as his way of providing Paul with some form of compensation for the accident.  Not only did Mary prevent Paul from receiving any form of compensation to go towards medical expenses, she thought it fitting that $80,000, a mere fraction of her annual salary, was sufficient for his future medical expenses and care.

13.  Explosive Family Secret of Aboriginality Revealed
There were some explosive family secrets revealed such as her brother Paul, DNA tested, proved his aboriginality, and therefore there is a strong probability that Mary, Kathryn and Helen are also aboriginal. Paul admitted his aboriginality in an affidavit, stating that his many medical expenses are paid to him through the Australian Government Closing the Gap (CTG) programme.  This revelation has many contentious implications for the Mabo hearings.  Mary Gaudron’s biography would be inaccurate if it did not also record that she was also the first aboriginal to be appointed to the High Court.

In Helen’s Affidavit she stated “In the event the death or incapacity of one or both defendants prior to the conclusion of these proceedings order the verification of the family’s aboriginal bloodline by accessing documents held by Births, Deaths & Marriages New South Wales or elsewhere”.  Of course now she is still denied the ability to claim ‘next of kin’ status; not an executor/administrator or a beneficiary under her mother’s will, with the documents protected by the mother’s privacy.  Even though the case has been dismissed the bloodline will in time be verified as Helen does further research.

14.  Further Explosive Revelations of Attempted Strangulation
Helen’s affidavit further alleges that Mary attempted to strangle her to death when she was a Baby.

15.  Corruption Embedded in Mary Gaudron’s Career
Of course, we don’t believe for one minute that Mary Gaudron succeeded because of her determination. More than likely the real story is that the well-known ladies man, Robert J. Hawke, former Prime Minister of Australia (1983-1991) granted her a favour or two.  Did Gaudron open her legs to make the appointment stick?

If you are wondering why the case was dismissed, you need only look at Gaudron’s moral backbone of being a labor (read socialist/communist) sympathiser.  Looking at Gaudron’s and Michael Kirby’s connection when younger to the communist agenda, they obviously took the much more time honoured approach of patience, a feature of Fabian Socialism, rather than the raw brutality and police state approach of communism.  When I saw Michael Kirby at a legal dinner, he wore his gold symbol of the brotherhood loud and proud.  In fact it does seem odd does it not, that in a time of great discrimination against gays and women, that a gay man and a woman would succeed in gaining the highest and most respectful jobs in the land?

In the time of corruption in the Neville Wran and Joh Bjelke-Peterson governments, Gaudron was NSW Solicitor General.  She was friends with a number of people of bad character such as Lionel Murphy, a disgraced former High Court Judge; Norman Thomas William Allan(­Chief Commissioner of police NSW 1962-1972)  and Sir Robert William Askin (32nd Premier of New South Wales 1965-1975).  There were many people that joined the divide between Queensland and New South Wales.  In the corruption scandal that engulfed the government of Joh Bjelke Peterson and the Wran Government, it is not too far-fetched to say that Mary Gaudron had an interest in keeping the lid on information getting out to the public, because she was directly involved.  Could this be the reason she advised the Wran Government that any member of the police be provided with disincentives to block them from coming forward with further information in regard to the Age Tapes.  There can be no doubt that Gaudron’s advice helped protect her Labor “mates” including Lionel Murphy.

Sir Robert ASKIN (premier of NSW) and Norman Thomas William Allan 1967 (Police Commissioner NSW) and Shirley Margaret Brifman were involved in the Fitzgerald Inquiry in Qld

Wikipedia states that the allegations of corruption against Askin were revived in 2008 when Alan Saffron, the son of the late Sydney crime boss Abe Saffron, published a biography of his father in which he alleged that Saffron had paid bribes to major public officials including Askin, former police commissioner Norman Allan, and other leading figures whom he claimed he could not name because they were still alive. Alan Saffron alleged that his father made payments of between $5000 and $10,000 per week to both men over many years that Askin and Allan both visited Saffron’s office on several occasions that Allan also visited the Saffron family home, and that Abe Saffron paid for an all-expenses overseas trip for Allan and a young female ‘friend’. He also alleged that, later in Askin’s premiership, Abe Saffron became the “bagman” for Sydney’s illegal liquor and prostitution rackets and most illegal gambling activities, collecting payoffs that were then passed to Askin, Allan and others, in return for which his father was completely protected.”

The young female friend could have been the prostitute Shirley Margaret Brifman who was on Askin’s and Allen’s payroll at the time.  Brifman, 35, was supposedly found dead by her teenage daughter Mary Anne and supposedly ended her life in her Brisbane safe house on March 4, 1972, after fleeing Sydney.  Police declared a suspected drug overdose, and did not order an autopsy, however in one article it was stated that the daughter claimed that it was not a drug overdose as a person had visited that night and threatened her mother, and in another article the daughter said her mother was overdosing all the time, and still in another article that a woman who visited Brifman handed her a vial of drugs, telling Brifman to end her life or her children would be targeted.

Brifman was due to be the chief witness against a senior Queensland detective in a perjury case.  Brifman had been paying graft to corrupt police since the late 1950s, and in 1971 had gone on national television and blown the whistle on officers in both Queensland and NSW.  It is believed Shirley Brifman was murdered because she had arranged a live interview with the ABC to blow the whistle on Askin and Allen.

The plot thickens when Helen alleges that at the time of Shirley Margaret Brifman’s murder, Mary Gaudron also lived in the same apartment complex in Elizabeth Bay which was her family home.  Helen said that she thought Brifman was shot in the Elizabeth Bay unit, and she never knew anything about her fleeing to Clayfield, Brisbane, which is the story currently circulating in newspapers.  Considering the file on Brifman was supposedly destroyed and there was a gag order placed on the file contents for up to sixty years, it is clear that there has been a monumental cover-up concerning Shirley Margaret Brifman’s murder.

16.  Losing the Battle to Win the War
In another similar David and Goliath story of the McLibel case in the UK, McDonalds won its court case against some activists, but lost the war of public opinion.  While Mary Gaudron may have won the battle over the Will, moral activists can win the war of public opinion, so if you like this story, please make it go viral to force this story be covered on mainstream media.

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.

Electoral Report fails to address some big Issues: Australian Democracy is an Illusion

Article by Lex Stewart
President, Australians for Honest Elections Inc.
www.afhe.org.au
With comments by R.L.F.

 ·       Does Government have the competence to fix the voting systems?
 ·       The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) has failed
 ·       “Vote Early, Vote Often” frauds can continue, unaffected by this report

The report of the JSCEM released on 15 April touched on some longstanding faults in our electoral system, while tackling few of the major issues that need fixing.

“There are some long-running sores that seem to have been avoided by the Joint Committee in its 216-page report, after conducting 21 public hearings and receiving 216 written submissions, including four from this organisation, Australians for Honest Elections”, said AFHE President Lex Stewart.

Our website http://www.afhe.org.au/our-recommendations.html  lists in approximate priority order 9 major recommendations to overcome deficiencies in our electoral systems.  The JSCEM report has addressed only items 3 and 8 out of our 9.

AFHE President Lex Stewart says, “While we commend the JSCEM in making its recommendation 17 for identity before a person is allowed to vote in person (like the Queensland ID introduced a year ago, which the current ALP government is about to remove), the JSCEM has avoided addressing major issues” such as:-

  • the need to require identity before being put onto the Electoral Roll, i.e. the need to delete Commonwealth Electoral Act Sec 98AA (2) (c) which has been used to create thousands of false enrolments (as were used in the recent NSW State election);
  • the lack of proper ID for postal voting (this major source of rorting was used recently in Queensland inter alia to rob Pauline Hanson of a seat by a tiny margin);

(Postal voting has long been recognised as fertile ground for cheating, therefore many countries do not allow it.  UK Election Commissioner Richard Mawrey QC, who has sent people to jail from both sides of politics, horrified during his visit to Australia 4 years ago, said that ‘postal voting is a recipe for fraud … the system is highly vulnerable at a number of critical  points’;  yet his concerns have been ignored by JSCEM)

  • the need to restore Subdivisional voting – to tackle the multiple voting admitted by the AEC as having been 18,770 in the September 2013 election, yet no prosecutions were done! Nor will any be possible if the JSCEM report recommendations are used!
  • the lack of integrity in the Electoral Roll. Pages 75 to 83 of the report can only be described as ‘pathetic’, when one considers what the Australian National Audit Office reports of 2002, 2004 and 2010 said, things which were largely ignored by the AEC.

“AFHE has pointed out many issues to media and JSCEM over the last 19 months, yet they have ignored most of our concerns, based on 22 years of experience,”

“Due to the inadequacies of this JSCEM report coming out over 19 months after the 2013 election, it is plain to all who would be interested in Australia having an honest democracy, that there remain major issues not yet addressed,” said Mr Stewart.

“Whether the Government and Minister Ronaldson are capable of, or interested in, addressing these issues to have honest and fair elections remains to be seen.”

 Comments:  
For those of you new to the subject of democracy, and whether or not it exists in our country, you can see plainly that democracy is an illusion.  However, reclaiming our “democracy” is a waste of time in reality, since it is a system of Mob (majority) rule.  Now this would be fine if the majority had a strong moral code, was capable of using that thing between their ears (the brain = ability to think (analyse; decode reality) and knew the truth about history.

Unfortunately, as the majority of Australians have differing moral codes if any; the ability to think has been stolen by the dumbing down of intellect in the school system, through dangerous additives in vaccinations and poison in our food and water; and fed propaganda and lies as news, this does not behoove a good form of  democracy anyway.

The answer is the original model of the American Constitution, a Republic, where we all have inherent rights granted to us at birth, and we are all armed, with a limited and small government, where the sovereign country retains its rights to control its own money supply.

When government considers us a fiction (see the Birth Certificate/Legal Person); and gives us benefits and privileges but does not recognise our inherent rights (human rights); and when the government is controlled by corporations not the people, then we have a problem.  A BIG PROBLEM.  The stuff that civil wars are fought over, but the civil war of today is an intellectual war, an Information War.

The answer is to regain control of our education system, and control of the courts by restoring the Rule of Law:  Common Law which in reality is unobstructed Juries and Grand Juries with the power of Jury Nullification, founded upon the Magna Carta in 1215, which is 800 years old this year (2015) but has largely been repudiated by various Statutes masquerading as law.

“The people perish for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6 KJB).

You can start your journey today down the rabbithole, and find out why our country is becoming more communistic and fascist year in and year out by reading Carroll Quigley’s book “Tragedy and Hope:  A History of the World in Our Time”.

And that my friends reminds me of a joke:  “What’s 5000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?  A:  A good start”.

 

APPEAL AGAINST MARY GENEVIEVE GAUDRON FORMER HIGH COURT JUDGE SET FOR HEARING IN SUPREME COURT SYDNEY

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.  This is an Appeal in a Family Provision matter and promises to be interesting to say the least.  Publication of this appeal is deliberately being kept from the public in the mainstream media.

Courier Mail: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

Teething Problems upset Brandis’ plan to fight online propaganda

The Courier Mail has been at it again on Saturday February 21 2015, citing propaganda and using this as a weapon against the people.  The Courier Mail is part of the criminal cabal who have taken over Australia and the western world.  Subtle signs are appearing in prominent magazines in South-East Queensland featuring the slogan “New World Order”.  The banksters (experts) in collusion with governments own just about everything, as the article from The Guardian titled:  “Oxfam: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world”, therefore control almost everything.  What they don’t control, their government and corporate puppets control.  Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the Courier Mail is part of the cabal, and is attempting to control public perceptions and opinions.

The War on Terror, like the War on Drugs and the War on Cancer will never end.  Simply put, as testified to in Carroll Quigley’s book “Tragedy and Hope: The History of the World in our Time”, terrorist attacks are usually carried out by one’s own government, who then use the False Flag Terror attacks, like the Lindt café shooting to pass more laws.  This bungle in security was more than mere governmental incompetence, it was collusion because they allowed it to happen.  The threat of terrorism is an excuse to tax us to death and take away our liberties, so they can spy on us, and then make us pay for it.  This is evidenced by article on p18 “Social Media Spies Cast Privacy Aside:  Brandis flags $18m plan to fight online propaganda”.  Brandis would no doubt class this article as a conspiracy theory, therefore propaganda.

The climate change excuse for taxing us to death can be easily debunked by simply taking a stroll in your local supermarket.  If the Australian Governments was worried about climate change then why do we have fish from Tanzania in Coles when the landmass of Australia is a large chunk of land surrounded by water?   How much power is used in transporting that fish from Tanzania?  Free trade and combating climate change action are incompatible ideologies, therefore there must be an agenda.  What is the umbrella ideology but a plot to bring in and enforce communism and socialism by stealth?

The Courier Mail, the Television and Cinema try to control what information we are told and what is truth.  This applies to all media including the education system, which has modelled itself on the communist ideologies that the State is God.  This was proven by the findings of the 1954 United States House Select Committee to investigate Tax Exempt Foundations influence on education.  The United States, in particular Prescott Bush, helped fund Hitler, and the United States helped build up the Soviet Union’s military and industry.  The Soviet Union is a false enemy of the United States, and if Brandis believes that terrorism is not funded and supported by the United States Military-Industrial Complex, as Eisenhower warned, then he is a stooge.

The articles on p25 of the Courier Mail are just an example of more lies, damn lies and statistics.  The only true story there was the one about a motorcyclist died after hitting a goat.  The other articles were propaganda and lies.  Take the article calling Teething Problems which is a prime example of George Orwell’s Double-think, citing “… some parents have the idea that they are only milk teeth and will fall out.  Kids have these teeth until they are twelve”.  Maybe so, but not in all cases, and the teeth certainly do not all suddenly fall out.  It is a gradual process, as they fall out the adult teeth grow in their place.  The baby teeth are milk teeth and do not need to be filled.  That is a lie made by the Dental Association, probably because dentists aren’t making enough money because parents are trying to save costs.  Why spend money filling teeth that may fall out in six months’ time?  More damn lies and statistics, the Queensland Health Report no doubt would have fiddled with the numbers in order to show a higher incidence of decay in children’s teeth in council areas that don’t have the poison called fluoride in their water supply.  The poison fluoride is not a food, but is a poisonous chemical.  It is an ingredient in sarin gas, rat poison, Prozac and is a known thyroid disruptor.

I am just so sick of the lies, but it’s not just Murdoch or Brandis, it is every one of the stooges who work for these clowns, who follow orders without thinking.  Wilful blindness, criminal negligence, aiding and abetting, call it what you will.  That is the type of student they are churning out of high schools and universities these days.  Useless idiots who use the excuse that they have a family to feed so can’t afford to upset the applecart, but they are just like Winston Smith in George Orwell’s book “1984”.  I do not feel sorry for them at all, and I will laugh at their calamity, when they act without thinking about the consequences.  The journalists are Winston Smith.  They too are suffering from cancer and eating berries contaminated with shit from China.  Duh!!!

Get it through your thick heads, the government and the experts (banksters) don’t care about your health or your bank account.  They want you to be sick, so that Big Pharma and the Medical Industry can bleed you dry.  Brandis will never get rid of people telling the truth.  People like myself are the thorns in their collective sides.  As Martin Luther King Jr has said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”  2+2=4.

ALP Corruption Rife

First published by Pickering Post

Some interesting information came to light this week, (from, um, let’s just say an impeccable source deep within the Labor Party, and I would give my right testicle to be able to tell you who).

I always wondered why the disastrous Julia Gillard was feted as ‘PM extraordinaire’ at the ALP National Conference by Big Bill Ludwig whose union she helped steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from.

To quickly recap: In August of 1996 Gillard was discovered assisting to steal funds from her employer, Slater & Gordon’s, blue chip client, the AWU.

Peter Gordon pulled Gillard in and asked her to explain on tape but apparently the explanation was lacking and Peter Gordon claims to have sacked her on the spot.

S & G Partner, Bernard Murphy, who was also involved in the scam, was asked to leave at the same time. (Later as PM, Gillard promoted him to the Bench of the Federal Court.)

Bill Ludwig was livid and called in the cops to find the funds and lay charges. He also commenced Federal Court proceedings to recover $114,000 that Gillard’s lover, Bruce Wilson, had paid himself and others in redundancy payments once he had realised the game was up.

The Court duly ruled in favour of Ludwig’s application.

This is where it gets interesting. Strangely, and despite the Court ruling, Ludwig made no attempt to recover the $114,000 from Wilson and others.

Stranger still, although the AWU had sacked S & G and moved their account to the other bent Labor law firm Maurice Blackburn, who at the time employed lovers Roxon and Shorten, no attempt was made to recover the defrauded funds or to indict S & G, Gillard, Murphy or Wilson.

In fact Police were so frustrated by the lack of cooperation from the supposed “victims”, they closed the file.

Why? Why did the many “victims” of Gillard and Wilson (all except the AWU’s Bob Kernohan) suddenly want the matter shut down?

Bill Shorten certainly wanted it shut down and even called in the heavies to bash Bob after he refused to accept the safe Melbourne seat of Melton as a pay-off.

“You know, a lot of money changed hands around that time”, said my informant. “No, no I didn’t know that”, I said, sitting bolt upright. “Can you tell me about that?”

“Well, Ludwig was given $60,000 in cash and others were given lesser amounts.”

“By whom?”, I asked.

“Who do you think? Wilson of course!”

“Who were the others?” I asked. “I can’t say who, but let’s just say a lot of money changed hands”, he said.

I lit a rollie,“Let me get this straight, so AWU heavies, whose members were defrauded of hundreds of thousands, were silenced using those same defrauded funds? Do Vicpol know about this?”

“You bet they do.”

So now it makes sense… the missing piece of the puzzle! Shorten, Ludwig and others had, apparently inexplicably, shut down the police investigation because they had willingly become beneficiaries of the defrauded funds. (Although I have no direct evidence that Shorten himself was a recipient.)

Of course Shorten has always been the “go to” man for corruption cover-ups.

He went close to “burying” the $20 million Michael Williamson defrauded from HSU East branch members.

Shorten savagely targeted and victimised whistleblower Kathy Jackson and sequestrated the Union to get his grubby hands on the books.

Fortunately that didn’t work and Williamson, via a plea bargain (he accepted a charge of stealing a mere $1 million) is now facing a long jail sentence.

The Bligh Government, before it was thrown out, handed unaccounted-for millions to Ludwig’s Queensland Racing.

In 1999, Beattie’s Government privatised the TAB and sold it for the bargain basement price of $262 Million.

Who they sold it to (the shareholders) reads like a who’s who of Labor crooks, including Queensland Racing’s Bob Bentley, who he himself admits is “likely” to spend some time with Her Majesty.

Unitab now clears in excess of $100 million per year.

Ludwig’s grifted dollars are converted to numbers and those numbers are converted to power.

Power enabled the unholy alliance of Richo’s and Bob Carr’s NSW Right, Victoria’s Socialist Left and Ludwig’s QLD AWU to present us with a delightful three years of Julia Gillard.

The list of who Julia duly repaid is a long one.

Mafioso bosses ruled from their cells as indeed Labor luminaries intend to.

… and the disgustingly credentialled Bill Shorten has their next tick of approval.