The decision handed down this morning in the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, New South Wales Underwood v Gaudron  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: