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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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.

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.

JFK Assassination – 50 Year Anniversary: The Truth Will Out

This is an article written by Kenn d’Oudney of www.democracydefined.org
T
his article is covered in full for public educational purposes and for the public restoration of the Jury Justice System.

Frame 150 from the Zapruder Film

Frame 150 from the Zapruder Film (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dear Members,
Greetings. We hope you are well.

JFK.
“The truth will out.”

Et tu, Brute,”* quoth Julius Cæsar to his associate Senator Brutus, as the last of the high-placed conspirators plunged a dagger into his torn body. One might well have said that to LBJ

*”And you too, Brutus?”

The 1963 coup d’état signals the ultimate overt takeover of Western government. The 22nd of November is the day the banks’ owners’ 1913 conspiracy came of age. Those who are aware of and unafraid to confront the evidence understand and do what they can to resist the treachery of modern politicians and judiciary. Subsequently, all our ‘politicians’ and ‘judges’ toe-the-line without hesitation or they are replaced.

All societies govern through their Justice System. The power to punish carries with it all power. Restoration re-establishes the Absolute Sovereignty of the People through their Courts of Justice backed by the police, prison service and Armed Services. That is why we advocate a mass educational campaign to emplace RESTORATION; the Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury being the only peaceful way known to humankind by which to hold wayward government to the will of the people.

The owned-and-controlled mainstream media show no inclination to publish the execrable truth as to how all the beneficent aspects of Western Civilisation are being destroyed to allow an utterly sanguivolent* clandestine world dictatorship to arise. The duty falls to ‘ordinary’ men and women, We the People, to take responsible actions to re-assert the just authority of the people over harmful misgovernment. This would include the forwarding of these selected serious videos and texts which expose the cover-up.

*Definition. sanguivolent, bloodthirsty.

Further to the videos recently circulated to you, here are others which need to be taken seriously. Understanding how the Zapruder film was re-made into a composite before its showing to the Warren Commission, and eventually the public, is helpful. To conceal the slowing and stopping of the car in the kill zone, by removal of tell-tale frames whilst the film was in possession of the FBI, contributes to establishing cover-up.

JFK’s Revenge part 1 – The Zapruder Film Was Altered
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA

The Muchmore Film Suggests Frames Were Removed from the Zapruder Film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrX8lsb2WTk

Please note that attorney Mark Lane’s first class, moving video, Two Men in Dallas has five parts.  Here is a recapitulation of various videos:

Is Fecit Cui Profuit:
He did the deed who profited by it.

Consider the imminent reduction of the oil depletion allowance (billions); the planned withdrawal of the military from Vietnam; the treasury (not Federal Reserve) printing of billions of interest-free cash for issue in 1964 (subsequently burned at LBJ’s order); the progressive takeover from the private banks and Fed of the issuance of credit (interest-free) and national currency (à la Lincoln and the ‘greenbacks’); the dissolution of the CIA; the advocated rapprochement with the USSR; consequent massive reduction of armaments and military expenditures; the investigation of LBJ for large-scale graft and possible involvement in Texas homicides by Attorney General Bobby Kennedy’s department… just for starters…

In case you have not yet seen them, I have listed for you some videos indispensable to the acquisition of an objective overview.

We have great respect for attorney Mark Lane’s painstaking, courageous expositions. He interviewed people whose eye-witness and other crucial testimony was excluded by the FBI (Hoover) from presentation to the Warren Commission.

Not that the commission was slow to invent false schemes of its own; viz. Gerald Ford ‘moved’ the middle-right back-wound ‘up’ to allow the small frontal throat-entry-wound to ‘become’ an ‘exit’ wound to explain away a shot he claimed to have been from behind and above (despite Parkland doctors’ designating it a small circular entry aperture “about the width of the end of a little finger”).

After the cadaver had left Parkland, the front throat wound was subsequently photographed much enlarged, presumably from a discreet, unadmitted intervention to locate, extract and conceal another bullet lodged internally, and to obscure it as having been another shot from the front (making at least four shots, with James Tague‘s pavement near miss). However, eyewitnesses at the hospital saw that the car had taken two more hits. The president’s brain was also removed at that undisclosed intervention (before the official post mortem; autopsy; see Hankey’s video and TMWKK), as witnessed by the Bethesda hospital porters when it arrived in Washington.

Another fiction was assistant counsel to the commission Arlen Specter’s impossible ‘single bullet theory’ which claimed to have struck first Kennedy from behind and exited his throat at the front, and then passed through the back/chest/rib, right wrist and finally lodged in the left thigh of Connolly, ‘apparently’ falling out onto the hospital trolley to be ‘found’ by a porter.

John Hankey spotted the Hoover-to-George Bush letter of reply and saw its incriminating significance. It was only released from secret FBI files around the turn of this century amongst hundreds of thousands of other pages of documents.

The coup d’état was complete and the instigators are still at it. Old they may be, but some of these military-industrial complex bank-owner-villains are active to this day. Their putrescent progeny are out of the same mould.

Also, LBJ’s mistress admits knowledge to his participation in the conspiracy; well worth a look.

Oswald’s girlfriend in Dallas’s fascinating account gives a rare view of the man.

CIA operative E. Howard Hunt (who participated in the CIA’s illegal but admitted 1954 overthrow of the elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán; was involved in the planning of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba; and was later one of the White House’s Watergate burglars), made a deathbed audio tape confession to his son stating his prior knowledge of the conspiracy, and describing as “maniacal” LBJ’s obsession with becoming president. After Hunt’s death, his sons Howard St. John and David released the tape and notes of their father’s confessions onto the Internet.

1. Rush to Judgement, attorney Mark Lane’s sobering investigation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnzpDZDnvNY

2. Two Men in Dallas. Mark Lane’s interview of fated Dallas witness, honest policeman Roger Craig – part one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyvRfeLDsB4
part two http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
Five essential Parts. Never forget: 1.) The Mauser — no Mannlicher Carcano was present in the TSBDepository; and 2.) The presence of Malcolm ‘Mac’ Wallace’s little-fingerprint in the TSBD sniper’s nest. Wallace was a released but previously convicted murderer of a golf-pro dating LBJ’s sister. The unfortunate man was disapproved of by LBJ.

3. The Men who Killed Kennedy Documentary, Oswald’s girlfriend’s account, part 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rluPItXdPA

4. In addition to part 8, the entire documentary, TMWKK, is recommended.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2agPurqFJk
Coroner and lifelong forensic scientist Howard Wecht’s professional assessments, and former senior secret service officer Prouty’s explanation about the desertion of duty, stand-down and complicity of secret service personnel present, are compelling. Much else of interest too.

5. JFK II – The Bush Connection Documentary by John Hankey http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyiAXy8L8-I

6. LBJ’s mistress nails him! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POmdd6HQsus

7. E.H. Hunt’s deathbed confessions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD4611qW6R8

Yours sincerely,
Kenn.

Kenn d’Oudney.
www.democracydefined.org

Better never to vote at all than vote for a person who does not make EQUAL JUSTICE the prime aim of government by RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL ADOPTION of Constitutional Legem Terræ Common Law Trial by Jury.”