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.