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.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.

Political Journalist Renounces Australian Citizen-Ship

This article appeared in the Guardian on 26 August 2014.  It’s interesting for many reasons, not least is the fact that this former political toe-the-line journalist has seen the light so to speak, he has jumped off the citizen-ship and reverted to his traditional tribal name, and is now standing for truth, instead of being part of the political circus we see reported in the mainstream media.  To read the article click here.




Jesuit Old Boys now our new Leaders

The story in The Australian on September 14th, 2013, confirms that in Australia our two-party preferred system is a two headed serpent with the same agenda, or as either previous leader would say, the faceless men run this country.

Gough Whitlam and Margaret Whitlam at the apol...

Gough Whitlam and Margaret Whitlam at the apology to the Stolen Generations, Parliament House, Canberra. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On one side we have the Labor movement which has been taken over by the International Labor movement which is run by the Fabian Socialists of which Gough Whitlam was known as Fabius Maximus.

The way private schools are run compared with the public school system is testament to the fact that there is an agenda afoot to dumb down the population.  Of all the schools in the country, and students attending those schools, what are the statistics of all our leaders coming from those private schools?

English: Joe Hockey at the official opening of...

English: Joe Hockey at the official opening of his campaign office for the seat of North Sydney at the Australian federal election 2007. Image cropped to protect the privacy of others in the original image. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The statistics are so small as to be fuel for any conspiracy theorist to argue that the facts speak for themselves.  It is no theory, there is a blatant agenda to keep the rest of the population dumbed down, propagandized with false history texts and entertainment.  The differences between the way these private schools are run are profound.  The Jesuit saying give me a boy and I’ll give you a man.  

English: Senator Barnaby Joyce being interview...

English: Senator Barnaby Joyce being interviewed by local media. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Another old French proverb is:
When two Jesuits meet, the devil is always there to make a threesome. 

AUSTRALIA has just four schools under the care of the Jesuits: St Ignatius, Riverview, and St Aloysius in Sydney; Xavier in Melbourne; and St Ignatius, Athelstone, in Adelaide. Yet in the present parliament, the prime minister-elect, Tony Abbott, and the leader-in-waiting of the Nationals and hence the deputy prime minister-in-waiting, Barnaby Joyce, are Riverview old boys.

The next treasurer, Joe Hockey, is an old Aloysian, and the future leader of government business and education minister, Christopher Pyne, is an old boy of Athelstone. The new Nationals member for Lyne, David Gillespie, is also an old Riverview boy, a classmate of Abbott.

English: en:Christopher Pyne Taken with my own...

English: en:Christopher Pyne Taken with my own camera, cropped from a larger photo. My own work. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


The Roman Catholic Jesuit Order, which also arrogantly calls itself the “Society of Jesus”, is little known, much less understood, today. And yet, not very long ago, this organisation was so well known, that “Jesuitical” was a most derogatory term; the Order was outlawed from almost every Roman Catholic nation; and it was feared and loathed by the inhabitants of all enlightened nations.

Why was this the case? What vile doctrines did the members of this Order hold, and what evil deeds had they committed, to cause such universal reactions against them? And furthermore: the Jesuits are still here; they are still going strong; they have not altered their doctrines, nor repented of their wicked deeds – in fact, they continue to perpetrate them; they remain what they have ever been – the “secret army of the Papacy”, ruthlessly dedicated to the advancement of the Roman Catholic religion, the domination of the world, and the total destruction of Protestantism! They are the most dangerous Order of priests within the Roman Catholic religion, and indeed, the most dangerous organization of men the world has ever known.  To read more about the Jesuit Brotherhood click here.

– See read the article from The Australian click here.

English: Opposition Leader Tony Abbott address...

English: Opposition Leader Tony Abbott addresses a forum to discuss the Government’s recently-proposed carbon tax at Customs House, Brisbane, Australia on July 14 2011 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



Excerpt from a Post by Shane Dowling of Kangaroo Court

English: Tony Abbott in 2010.

English: Tony Abbott in 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Prime Minister Tony Abbott gave a personal reference in court for the former priest Father John Nester in a child sex abuse case in 1997. Father Nester was later struck off as a clergy by the Vatican. Add this to Tony Abbott’s and the Liberal Party’s extremely close relationship with Cardinal George Pell who has admitted the church covered up sexual abuse and there is a major problem brewing in relation to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

To read the full article click here.

No Justice in Australia Confirmation by University Law School

The University of Sydney logo

The University of Sydney logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I was told via the grapevine that a first year law student at the Sydney Law School, University of Sydney,  that the students should not bother thinking about Justice, but that the courts were looking for a doctrine of completeness.

This is absolutely amazing that a university would admit there there is no justice in Australia.

Queensland University of Technology

Queensland University of Technology (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Certainly when I went to QUT Law School, Dr Elizabeth Dickson, a Senior Lecturer, did admit to me when I asked her an innocent enough question about where would it indicate on a published decision whether or not there was a jury, she proudly said with derision that “… we don’t have juries in Queensland“.

There are no juries, except in big criminal cases, which are really just for show to try to dupe the public into believing that we still have justice here in Australia.

What does the word “completeness” mean in relation to the law?  Well, the word is not in the 1st Edition of Blacks Law Dictionary, and it’s not in Butterworths Australian Law Dictionary.  My case (which you can read more about here), and my friends case were dealt with in line with the doctrine of “completeness”.

English: to illustrate law of system completeness

The word COMPLETENESS is a nasty word and when you read the meaning below, you’ll understand the dire implications on the false belief we have in democracy, and is confirmation that Australian courts are communist in nature and function.

Under Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, when part of a writing or recorded statement is introduced, an adverse party may require introduction of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with the writing or recorded statement originally introduced. This additional evidence is called explanatory evidence, and its purpose is to qualify, explain or put in context the original piece of introduced evidence.  The explanatory writing does not have to be part of same writing or recording. Additionally, even otherwise inadmissible evidence, such as hearsay, can be admissible under this rule if it is necessary to correct any confusion or wrongful impression created by the admission of the original evidence.

Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Medical, Financial, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, 0.01 sec. See: conclusion, entirety, fait accompli, finality

Doctrine of Optional Completeness is an evidentiary rule providing that when a party introduces part of writing or an utterance at trial, the opposing party may require that the remainder of the passage be read to establish the full context. However no irrelevant utterances can be received under this rule. Further, the remainder of the utterance must explain the first part. In many jurisdictions, the rule applies to conversations, to an opponent’s admissions, to confessions, and to all other types of writings. However under federal law it is limited to writings or recorded statements.  The following is an example of a Federal Statute on the topic:  USCS Fed Rules Evid R 106: Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements.  When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.

Jul 30, 2006 – Introduction At some point in the introductory class in contract law, students are likely to encounter a very powerful idea–the distinction between  “default rules” and “mandatory rules.”  The basic distinction is easy to grasp.  Some rules of contract law supply default terms that are subject to contractual override; other rules of contract law are mandatory–they can’t be modified by the contract.  Lurking in the background of this distinction is a theoretical construct–the complete contract, an idealized contract that would include explicit terms covering every possible contingency.  Once you understand the distinction between default rules and mandatory rules, additional questions arise: as a matter of normative contract theory, which rules should be default rules and which rules should be mandatory?  And what normative principles should guide the design of default rules?

Here’s an example.  The Uniform Commercial Code (or UCC, the codified law of contract that applies to contracts between businesses as a matter of state law in the United States) creates a duty to act in good faith–this is a mandatory rule, because this duty cannot be disclaimed by a contractual provision.  The UCC also includes an implied “warranty of merchantability,” that attaches to contracts, but can be waived by agreement–this is a default rule.

Grasping this distinction is important for at least two reasons.  First, unless you know whether a given rule of contract law is a default rule or a mandatory rule, you don’t really know the law.  And it isn’t always clear whether a given rule is one or the other: the usual tip-off is language like, “unless the contract provides otherwise” or “absent an agreement to the contrary.”  Second, the distinction between default rules and mandatory rules is fundamental to the normative structure of contract law.  Learning contract is more than a matter of mastering the rules; mastering the arguments of principle and policy that can be used to argue for and against the rules is equally important.  But the arguments for default rules and the arguments for mandatory rules must be different–because these two kinds of rules have different functions.

Similarly, we can imagine a “complete code” that covers every possible action or inaction and specifies what legal consequences follow.  Given that actual codes are incomplete, we can look at the law of statutory interpretation as including a collection of “default rules” that allow courts to fill in the gaps.  Another example is provided by corporations law–once again, some of the rules are mandatory and others are merely defaults.

Once we understand the distinction between default rules and mandatory rules, we can then ask the question, “What normative principles should guide the design of default rules?”  Another interesting question is why the law provides default rules at all.  Why don’t we force the parties to reach complete agreements?

Now that we have the basic distinction between default and mandatory rules in mind, let’s discuss the related idea of a complete contract.  Once again, the core intuitive idea is relatively simple–a complete contract has provisions that cover “every contingency.”  In other words, a complete contract has no gaps.

Why did I put “every contingency” in scare quotes?  Because “every contingency” is an ambiguous way of formulating a fairly complex idea.  Economists tend to use the phrase “states of affairs” to express the idea of a contingency.  A “state of affairs” is simply a way that the world can be–a complete specification of the way things are.  Philosophers use different jargon–the phrase “possible world” expresses the same idea as “state of affairs.”

So a truly “complete” contract would be a contract that specified the duties and rights of the parties for all the future states of the world–or all the possible worlds that share the history of the actual world up to the point the contract is formed.  Once you think about it, it becomes clear that no actual contract could be complete.  There are infinitely many possible future states of the world–and a contract that covered all of them would have an infinite number of provisions, and hence the drafting of such a contract would never be complete–it would still be unfinished when the universe reached a state of complete entropy.So the notion of a complete contract is an idealization–not a practical option.  And once we see this point, another point becomes obvious.  Contract law cannot provide default rules to cover every possible contingency either.

Just as the idea of a default rule can be generalized beyond contract law, so can the idea of completeness.  One particularly important idealization is the idea of a “complete code”–a legal code that itself has provisions that cover every possible contingency.  The complete code will have default rules or mandatory rules that for every possible future state of affairs.

Legal Completeness is a property that declares enterprise policies to cover all scenarios included or suggested by the law. Completeness suggests that there are no scenarios covered by the law that cannot be implemented in the enterprise. In addition, it implies that all scenarios not allowed by the law are not allowed by the enterprise.  Enterprise policies are said to be legally complete if they contain no gaps in the legal sense. Completeness can be thought of in two ways: Some scholars make use of a concept of ‘obligational’ completeness such as Ayres and Gertner. According to this usage, a system or a contract is ‘obligationally’ complete if it specifies what each party is to do in every situation, even if this is not the optimal action to take under some circumstances. Others discuss ‘enforceability’ completeness in the sense that failing to specify key terms can lead a court to characterize a system as being too uncertain to enforce (May & Butcher v the King 1934), and hence a system may be complete with respect to enforceability. This leads to the following definition: enterprise regulations or requirements are legally complete if it specifies what each party is to do in each situation while covering all gaps in the legal sense

Jan 10, 2007 – Law of Completeness – definitions, examples and references from RealInnovation.com.

This law states that an autonomous technological system must include four minimally functioning principal parts: an engine, a transmission, a working means and a control means.

research.lawyers.com › Understand Your Legal IssueLegal Dictionary
A rule permitting a party to require introduction of the rest of or more of a document or recorded statement that is being used as evidence by the opposing party.  The rule of completeness applies when fairness demands consideration of the part of a document left out at the same time as the part that has been introduced.