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.

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.

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.

Court Action Challenges Local Government Constitutionality

Ratepayers Victoria Inc

Improving Governance & Community Centricity in Local Government

 Ratepayers Victoria Inc

Validity or invalidity of municipal councils

 The first of Ratepayers Victoria Inc [RVI] subcommittees has been formed to investigate the validity or invalidity of municipal councils as ‘local government’ in Australia, with a special focus in Victoria. The subcommittee is set up to enable information sharing and RVI will give project support to Peter Olney in developing the class action case. Execution of the class action will be a separate (non-RVI) activity – to be decided by individuals and/or other ratepayer groups with Peter.

Coat of arms of the Commonwealth of Australia ...

Coat of arms of the Commonwealth of Australia on the façade of the Old Parliament House, Canberra (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Peter Olney, an independent advocate, has been researching the case and is developing a class action* challenge to refute the validity of Victorian councils as a third tier of government per se able to charge “rates”. Readers can get information that is more legally technical from Peter Olney

Channel 7 has picked up this information and interviewed the recently re-formed Monash Ratepayers Inc., and Ratepayers Victoria – (To see the Channel 7 Today Tonight program go to Ratepayers Victoria web site )

Disclaimer: Ratepayers Victoria Inc. advises readers that the association does not hold any legal or financial liability for the discretionary decisions a reader makes because of being informed by Peter Olney’s research findings, conclusions and recommendations. Our role is to facilitate project management support to enable knowledge acquisition and information sharing to the best of our understanding. The information provided is not meant to give legal advice, and readers should seek their own legal sources if they wish to pursue their interests into becoming class action plaintiffs in the future.

 Background Introduction

Australia’s Constitution is based on the Westminster model of responsible government. The sovereign head of state is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 provides for the correct title for the constitutional Queen in the Commonwealth of Australia. However, federal Parliament gave the Queen the title “Queen of Australia.” in 1973. By doing so the Queen was displaced from being the constitutional Queen. To be effective it requires the referendum approval of the people, and that has not happened. Hence, open debate exists to this day about whether any laws passed through federal and/or States’ parliaments are legal or not.

Chapter VIII, section 128 of the Australian Constitution requires that any constitutional amendment – including anything in out our constitutional setup – be approved by a referendum.

Therefore, since the State Governor is representing the Queen of Australia there is no possibility at law for an Act of the State Parliament to have validity unless referendum approval of the people is obtained to provide for the “Queen of Australia”, permitting  approval of its Bills with appropriate Royal Assent. Such approval has not yet been obtained, therefore, it is argued that no law after 1973 has constitutional validity in this State and/or country.

Further, at law State Parliaments have no power to alter British Imperial law with their own legislation frameworks – the Victorian State Constitution is an Imperial Act of 1855 of colonial origin. This implies that the Victorian Constitution Act 1975, which seeks to establish a new state constitution without referendum of the Victorian people, cannot be deemed as lawful.

Further, the delegated power given to the Victorian Parliament in 1855 by the Imperial Parliament does not provide the right in law to re-delegate its power to a lower level of   government. Constitutionally, there is no provision for a third tier of government for municipal councils without the referendum approval of the people.

 Questioning the constitutional legality of local councils as “local government”:

The setup and extent of council operations has been vexed since 1921, and before.

Constitutionally, the Victorian Government cannot cause the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic) to be held as law since the people of the nation specifically refused the third tier of government in 1988. At law, what is specifically refused is with-held. Hence, there is no power under the overarching law of the land to establish or continue municipal councils as “government”, able to charge tax and not comply with other constitutional conditions of tax collection and use management.

Municipal councils in Australia, acting as “local GOVERNMENT”, are constitutionally invalid. There is ground at law to understand these entities as bodies corporate.

Other Authority Evidence

I

Parliament House, Canberra: the seat of the Pa...

Parliament House, Canberra: the seat of the Parliament of Australia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

n 2009, the High Court of Australia (the Pape case) determined there was no basis in the constitution for the Commonwealth to supply direct grants to municipal councils.

The High Court’s Pape case concluded the “government departments and agencies cannot assume section 81 (of the Commonwealth Constitution Act) will authorise the spending of money on whatever activities or objectives the government likes. Agencies should take prudent steps when formulating spending programs to ensure that Commonwealth spending does not exceed the limits set out in the decision.” (Clayton UTZ, 2009).

What this means is “Pape is a reminder to government departments and agencies to think carefully about their spending programs. Programs cannot be formulated on the assumption that section 81 will authorise the spending of money on whatever activities or objectives the government likes. A valid appropriation will not authorise the spending of money – whether that spending involves activities on the part of Commonwealth officers or agencies or simply involves a payment to third parties. For many Commonwealth officers and agencies, Pape will not have much of an impact. For others, prudent steps should be taken when formulating spending programs to ensure that Commonwealth spending does not exceed the limits set out in the decision.” (Clayton UTZ, 2009).

In 2010, the Australian Government’s Attorney General replied to a letter inquiring about the 1988 referendum and confirmed local municipal councils are not recognised in the Commonwealth constitution as ‘local government’.

The media also disclosed that “Documents obtained by The Australian under Freedom of Information laws show the government reviewed its funding arrangements after the Pape decision in the High Court and Cabinet discussed the risk to regional development programs” (The Australian, 2011).

In 2011, the federal government asked an independent expert panel to consider various issues around the constitutional settings for “local government”.  In December 2011 a final report by the expert panel recommended (The Australian, 2011):

1.Giving power to the Commonwealth to provide direct grants to local government without the intermediation of the states;

2.Support for a democratic basis of local government in Australia, hence requiring a future referendum on the matter.

Presently (12 Aug 2012), the Australian Government has yet to decide if or when this matter is to be passed through legislation in Parliament. The anticipation is that the legislation referendum matter will be addressed in time for the next federal election.

Other authority/evidence of the non-government status of Councils – see Strathfield Council’s website and the 2011 local government recognition expert panel’s fact-sheet.

RVI respects the ideas offered by the panel and council, but does not agree with them.

 No Referendum & Legal Cases

The expert panel’s final report also concluded that a majority of the submissions from private citizens did not support recognition of the local government. The key reasons are because of perceived:

■ineffectiveness;

■inefficiencies;

■abuse of bureaucratic power, and

■‘corruption’ of local government.

Those who supported the recognition of local government were citizens with an association with ‘local government’ at municipal council  level.

A council representative from South Australia stated that a major barrier to recognising local councils is educating the community on why the change is needed (the Sydney Morning Herald, 2011).

On the contrary, a growing segment of the local community is becoming very aware of the matters. Several ratepayers challenge their councils in court, with the validity of their authority to impose decisions and actions on the local community – especially when they are perceived to be related to increasing matters of abuse of bureaucratic power that undermines the civil rights of ratepayers.

The list of known (as at August 2012), legal cases includes:

1.Western Australia: $27m in Council Rates “illegal” – The Western Australian Government ”has taken legal action against 22 councils after an audit found they had illegally levied more than $27 million in rates on 10,000 properties this year.” This legal case implies that Councils cannot simply raise differential rates in WA without formal ministerial approval.

2.Queensland: there are two known Bruce Jeffree vs Gold Coast City cases:

■The first relates to Bruce Jeffree challenging the Gold Coast Council that rates, aka property taxes, imposed on him are unlawful and unenforceable and thereby request all such charges to be refunded in full to him as a ratepayer (see Bruce Jeffree Appeal to District Court, Bruce Jeffree Affidavit, Bruce Jeffree outline of argument);

■The second relates to the legal battle over light rail funding –  Ratepayer Bruce Jeffree alleges government funding for the Gold Coast light rail funding is unconstitutional, hence the Gold Coast Council has no jurisdiction to collect money (disguised as rate charges) from Gold Coast ratepayers to pay $120 million for a project that benefits the state of Queensland as a whole (The Courier-Mail, 8 Aug 2012)

3.Victoria: Touvanna vs Melton Shire Council case – a Rockbank ratepayer refused to pay Melton Shire Council after it rezoned a 12ha property and increased rates by 160% (The Herald Sun, 2012)  – also see Touvanna Vs Melton Shire – Address to Magistrate Court.

4.Victoria: Pakvakis (State of Victoria & Banyule Council) V Gerrit Schorel Hlavka. Gerrit is challenging the unconstitutional status of the Local Government Act in Victoria.

(If readers know of new case developments, please provide information for public sharing on this website).

 The Solution Challenges

The impacts of this Local Government unconstitutional issue is summarized in this document – the summary of council and rates issues.  The fix is not easy.

Changing the Australian Constitution is not just allowing a referendum (voting by the people) to come first and then cascading top-down changes in legislation frameworks. There are associated operating consequences which may impact government’s power levels, efficacy and performance (The Australian, 2011).

Whether the people will support the recognition of Local Government is another issue. Many ratepayers are getting increasingly dissatisfied with the performance of their local councils, especially growing concerns of ineffectiveness, inefficiencies, abuse of bureaucratic power and ‘corruption’ of local government. Problems with on-going annual rate rises above CPI ; no hedging of growing “defined benefits” superannuation liability payouts; varying rate valuations within and across cities; lack of transparency and early community engagement in budget decision making; inappropriate developments; lack of open community engagement in public meetings, etc, ratepayers want reforms for the better in municipal service management and new community centered and efficient operating models of service provisioning.

It is not surprising that the growing legal court cases challenging the “government” powers and functions of councils is on the increase and the cause driver is growing community dissatisfaction.

Reforms will not be easy – click here to read more.

New Ramifications

The opened can of worms challenges the existing relationship between ratepayers and municipal councils. The unconstitutional status of ‘local government’ also shifts the operating model of councils to respect that they are set up as a body corporate. It is fine that a council also acts as sub-agent for the State, but, overall, councils should be subject to various state and national corporation laws.

 Transaction Relationships

Councils must be service providers to property owners as the consumers. They can do so through mutually agreed contracts with services for a fair price. In this contract based setting, councils become their State or Territory Governments’ outsourced entities to service local communities. Constitutionally, the full cost of delegated/outsourced work to councils should be funded by the respective State or Territory Governments. Practice is otherwise – the functions of Councils have evolved to a situation where they continue to receive (partial?) State funds and increase asserting their (invalid) government status to raise additional revenue by charging property owners (unlawful and unenforceable) local taxes (ie., rates).

What this means in lay terms is because local councils are constitutionally invalid as a government under the Commonwealth of Australia’s Constitution Act, they:

1.Cannot lawfully charge rates. Fees and other charges as revenue sources are suitable to the function of a body corporate for each service provided.

2.Cannot assume they are an official tier of government.  Councillors may represent their local communities and advocate to higher levels of government, and manage council operations in the interests of their communities.

 Operating as a Body Corporate, or Outsource Entity.

For Victorian councils, property owners have perceived that many of their councils are operating inefficiently beyond their means and not in the real interests of property owners. In order to operate as a body corporate or outsource organisation, councils will have to reform to improve their current work culture and operations to become community centered and responsible, be transparent and accountable in their decision-making and address the performance reporting and fraud management deficiencies identified by the Victorian Auditor General.

 Operating as a State Government Agency

Changing each State government Act to recognise municipal councils as financial and active government agencies requires change to the Commonwealth Constitution Act, which requires Royal Assent from the constitutional Crown of the United Kingdom. It is not a simple matter to change either a State constitution, or the Commonwealth Constitution, as publicly communicated by some local government peak bodies such as the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) (Channel Seven, 12 Aug 2012).

 At Risk of Constitutional Law Disaster

As more property owners (and the WA State government) go to court to challenge their councils’ constitutional authority in charging and/or increasing rates, imposing local law penalties, etc, the matter at hand can result in councils running out of revenue and put the municipal service delivery systems into chaos across States across cities.

These potential consequences are not desired and hence there is an immediate need to bring together governments and property owner representatives to work out a careful and appropriate solution, choosing options most suited to each state’s environment.

To help resolve the matter in a democratic and transparent manner Ratepayers Victoria  calls for the formation of a national peak body of property owners to assist in the issues. This will be a priority task for Ratepayers Victoria into the immediate future.

 Impact on Property Owners

Because there is growing authority/evidence that local councils are not constitutionally valid, a growing number of ratepayers are either:

■Advising their Councils that they are paying rates under duress

■Advising their Councils that they are not paying their rates until the matter is resolved

■Advising their Councils that they are paying last year’s rate amount under duress and not paying any additional rate increase.

Next Step

If readers express interest in the class action, they will need to notify their council that they are aware of the current invalid “government” status of their council. Explain that there is no constitutional authority to impose or enforce property taxes (ie., rates) on ratepayers, in order to qualify for a class action claim. A template letter for notifying your Council is disclosed here – you need to complete your personal details and delete the 2 options not preferred.

If you are interested in joining the class action and get email updates from Peter, please contact him via this email and he is also available to talk to interested readers – (03) 9874 0784.

Monthly project updates will be disclosed as sub-pages under this page.

*Additional Notes

For readers who are not familiar with or understand what a class action is, we have listed several resources to fast track your understanding:

1.Clayton UTZ: Class Actions in Australia – An Overview

2.MonashUniversity: An empirical study of Australia’s class action regimes (2010)

3.Global Class Action Exchange

4.The Adverse Costs involved

5.Smart Money’s Mum & Dad take to class action – how to join

6.Litigation Funding guidelines

7.Class Action Fact Sheet

Understanding Australia’s legal frameworks also would help. Here are some references to help your understanding:

1.RMIT’s Introduction to legal research

2.The Rule of Law means no one, even governments, can be above the Law of the Land. More legal technicalities about the Rule of Law, and about your sovereign right to act in relation to the invalid constitutional status of your council, and, to support the stand that they have no legal power to impose and enforce taxes on you … then contact RVI now.

Proudly powered by WordPress

Link to be added soon.