Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

No-Justices Legal/Judicial/Political Views

Yes, the High Court granted Lawyers Immunity from tort (Common/Judges Law of suit) much to the disgust of most Australian's.

This was in about 2004 where Legal Counsel advised and convinced a male client to plead guilty to a rape he had not committed. He was later proven innocent.

This is one of the reasons the hanging ability was revoked from the administration of justice, innocent people were claimed guilty for convenience of the legal system and judges encouraged it, in my view.

That does not make the Legal Counsel Immune for criminal prosecution but try and cause such a prosecution to occur. You like I will be claimed by the Judiciary as the criminal, for seeking justice and the Law of Australia be upheld.

They will obstruct every Lawful and Proper application you make, then demand you seek their "Leave" to proceed on a course of justice created by a Law of the Commonwealth and the Constitution in defiance of s.43 of the Criminal Code, s.11 of the High Court Act and s.26 of the Family Law Act, and clause 5 of the Constitution.

This is soap boxing rather than the reality of; it is a statement of claim there is proper evidence to prove BEYOND DOUBT what I have just said and has been said by many before me is TRUE. Sought to be presented pursuant to s.24F of the Crimes Act 1914 but OBSTRUCTED from a proper hearing by an UNBIAS COURT.

At Common Law, were criminal proof by prosecution, guilt is proven; Immunity from tort is supposedly set aside. That is, where a person is proven guilty, they are also up for paying compensation to those harmed by their crimes.

COMMONWEALTH V MEWETT (1997) 191 CLR 471: established the Commonwealth liability for a lack of Duty of Care by any Official of the Commonwealth, of which Judges are, or to use the Criminal Code dictionary meaning "Commonwealth public official" (i)  a Commonwealth judicial officer.

My point is, if Immunity is given at Common/Judges Law to Legal Counsel for a lack of Duty of Care, the Commonwealth may be open to tort for the Judge granting Immunity to Counsel were the Counsel had demonstrated a lack of Duty of Care and the Judge aided and abetted this lack by granting Immunity. Yes, a bit technical but that is the LAW, just because the first party is granted Immunity, it does not mean the 2nd Party can be granted Immunity were Immunity has been denied in the past by the High Court.   
No Justice,
 Happy birthday, peace and Justice be your destiny :thumbs:

If people knew what i believed, and my views on the current world situation they might well think different of me..

 I had my eyes opened five years ago to a shocking plan that is not only well documented, it is REAL…. It is something i carry around with me every day, scary scary stuff….but…We all believe what we believe and it is those thoughts that push us forward personally….

sometimes though its best not to over complicate things, with what i know about what is going on in the world, i could do exactly that on here… and its hard not to… but i dont

Happy b/day for the other day and keep strong….


They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets