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.

Edward Snowden links Australian Installations to NSA

Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

Article Mirrored from Citizens Electoral Council

Five Eyes’ spy ring—pick the odd man out

America’s National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden has revealed the Australian installations that are part of the NSA’s global infrastructure for spying on the broad civilian population—at Pine Gap, Shoal Bay near Darwin, Geraldton, and HMAS Harman outside Canberra.

MikeCriss Blog - Pine Gap

MikeCriss Blog – Pine Gap (Photo credit: mikecrissflick)

More significant are Snowden’s telling observations on how the NSA functions within the intelligence-sharing alliance America has with the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, known as the “Five Eyes” alliance.

All four of those countries share the same head of state—Queen Elizabeth, who holds massive, undemocratic “reserve” powers over each of them, especially their military / intelligence structures.

(For instance, in 1977 South Australia’s Police Commissioner Harold Salisbury refused to disclose to the state’s Premier, Don Dunstan, the community-monitoring, i.e. spying, activities of the police force’s intelligence-gathering division called Special Branch, which was also the force’s liaison to ASIO. Salisbury insisted he was not accountable to the democratically-elected government, but only to the Queen and the wider intelligence community. Dunstan sacked Salisbury, and a subsequent Royal Commission found in Dunstan’s favour, but the fact remains that in this and other instances, the intelligence agencies regarded themselves as above the authority of the elected government, accountable only to the Crown.)

The 8 July Sydney Morning Herald reported the relevant parts of the latest Snowden revelations, which show that the most egregious incidents of spying on citizens occur in the UK:

Eye death

Eye death (Photo credit: @Doug88888)

“Mr Snowden said that the other partners in the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence alliance of the US, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand ‘sometimes go even further than the [National Security Agency] people themselves.’

“He highlighted the British Government Communications Headquarters ‘Tempora’ program as an example: ‘Tempora is the first “I save everything” approach (“full take”) in the intelligence world. It sucks in all data, no matter what it is, and which rights are violated by it. … Right now, the system is capable of saving three days’ worth of traffic, but that will be optimised. Three days may perhaps not sound like a lot, but it’s not just about connection metadata. “Full take” means that the system saves everything. If you send a data packet and if makes its way through the UK, we will get it. If you download anything, and the server is in the UK, then we get it.’

President Barack Obama signs the executive ord...

President Barack Obama signs the executive order establishing the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Mr Snowden also argued that the ‘Five eyes’ partnerships are organised so that authorities in each country can ‘insulate their political leaders from the backlash’ when it became public ‘how grievously they’re violating global privacy’.”

Luxembourgian-registered NATO E-3 AWACS flying...

Luxembourgian-registered NATO E-3 AWACS flying with three American Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter aircraft in a NATO exercise (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The question must be asked, who is running this spy ring? Are the four British Commonwealth nations part of the NSA’s ring, or is the NSA part of the British Crown’s intelligence network? History shows that when it comes to secretive government and espionage, Britain is the master, and the U.S. is the apprentice.

Coming Referendum Fails Constitutional Rules

Queensland Government Treasury Buildings, Quee...

Queensland Government Treasury Buildings, Queen Street, Brisbane, ca.1907 (Photo credit: State Library of Queensland, Australia)

The coming referendum has failed the Constitutional Rules, and the State Governments and Federal Parliament have already not adhered to its conventions.  The Australian Constitution has been changed illegally over a hundred times without Referendum by various governments who just ignore it’s directions in how government should be run.  For instance, the Gonski plan for Education is an utter farce as the Federal Government has no rights to impose a national curriculum on States.  It sounds good in theory, however a National curriculum sets the boundaries for what can be taught in schools that are funded by the government.

The subject of history is particularly problematic, given that lies told often enough, become truth, and our young are led astray, as their whole world view becomes skewed.  Take for example the fact that schools used to teach that Australia was “settled”, but now the High Court has declared in a historic decision, that Australia was not settled, but was rather “invaded”. Simple enough declaration, but this hidden history also hid the genocide that was carried out in the name of the imperialist seeking Crown.

Another problem in our schools is that schooling is focused on “industry” which is short-lived, especially technology.   A classical education teaches literature (not English), classical art and music and critical thinking by using logic among other subjects.  There consists a communist conspiracy to dumb down our children which started after WWII, picking up the pace as each decade progressed.

In essence, the Gonski Funding plan is a red herring because improving education starts with what is considered “education” not the funding of such.  Children could receive as good an education in a park, but its nice to have a roof incase it rains, and technology as an aid to learning.  To read a free e-book called the ‘Dumbing Down of America’ by Charlotte Iserbyt, see the link in the side bar under Free E-books.

However, back to the Referendum, below is a copy of a letter I received which was sent to Senator Smith by Mr G. (Gerrit) H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., where he asks why they are even bothering to ask people?  It is of course another trick question, which is to allow bigger government which means more and more and more taxes, until Australians wake up enough to march in the streets.

Break your trance, wake up and smell the tyranny.

_________________________________________________________________________

Email sent to:  senator.smith@aph.gov.au

Dear Senator Smith,

I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST, and have grave concerns about the coming referendum (re s96), and the misleading details provided about it.

As a retired Professional Advocate I view that any debate about the legal consequences of a s96 amendment must be FAIR and PROPER.

In my view, to amend s96 would be dissasterous. I would undermine the very principles embedded in the constitution.

 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.- When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much care has not been exercised.  END QUOTE

.Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE:  Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.  END QUOTE

.I would also urge you to pursdue the s101 Inter-State Commission, which the Framers of the Constitution held should always be in place. It means that the Inter-State Commission and not a political minded government would be dealing with funding to what may be in the interest of each State,

.Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE:  Mr. WISE.If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each state might say-“We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools,” and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it.  END QUOTE

This too indicates that Education is a State matter and Commonwealth fuinding cannot be used to interfere and undermine State authority as to education as now is being done.

The (federal) constitution, in which the States in s106 are created, has a principle of separation of powers between the legislators, the executive and the judiciary. Municipal councils clearly have no such doctrine within themselves.

The Framers of the Constitution referred to the “State Government” as being the “Local Government“, and the “Federal Government” being the “central government”. It begs the question; How can “municipal councils” be a “local government” when the State Governments, that is constitutionally, already are their “local governments”?

Also, if “municipal councils” are corporations in some States and in NSW and Queensland now (since 2012) part of the Crown, then how can one elect councils for a State Department, as councils are once they become part of the Crown?

Also, consider the wage and other cost explosions once councillors take the position that they are entitled as Members of Parliament(s), for the same remunerations, perks, etc?

As you are a Senator to represent State interest, I look forwards to hear from you.

This email is very limited in context because it may turn you off if I sent a large volume, but my blog http://www.scrib.com/inspectorrikati has numnerous documents regarding constitutional issues.

For the record, I defeated on 19 July 2006, in the County Court of Victoria, the Commonwealth as to compulsory voting as the Framers of the Constitution held that registration and compulsory voting legislative powers should not be given to the Commonwealth.

 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people’s Constitution, not a lawyers’ Constitution.END QUOTE

Lawyers tend to misinterpret what the true meaning and application of the constitution is about.

Gerrit

Mr G. (Gerrit) H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Blog (constitutional issues) http://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Website: http://www.schorel-hlavka.com