Ludlam and the Greens asked to clarify Senate Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System, the Role of Judges and Access to Justice
(Submission) also seeks that the Parliament strengthen the legal intruments that have served to strengthen western democracy and John Howard's Australian way of life, nanmely Mandamus and Habeas Corpeus, the rule of law. Should that way of life be under the White Australia policy then the Australian Parliament must clarify that ! A judicial void is now created by the appointment of Chief Justice French, and the decisions of Hayne, Gummow and Crennan JJ.
(Submission) also seeks that the Parliament strengthen the legal intruments that have served to strengthen western democracy and John Howard's Australian way of life, nanmely Mandamus and Habeas Corpeus, the rule of law. Should that way of life be under the White Australia policy then the Australian Parliament must clarify that ! A judicial void is now created by the appointment of Chief Justice French, and the decisions of Hayne, Gummow and Crennan JJ.
Scott Ludlam’s Office
GPO Box B58, Perth WA 6838
Level 38, Perth CPO, Exchange Plaza Building, 2 The Esplanade, Perth WA 6000
Ph: 08 9225 5799 | Fax: 08 9225 5599
Canberra Office, Parliament House
Ph: 02 6277 3467 | Fax: 02 6277 5821
senator.ludlam (at) aph.gov.au | www.scottludlam.org.au
Media enquiries: Robert Simms - 0417 174 302
Dear Senator Scott Ludlam,
It was my understanding that yourself and the Greens fought hard to have the following inserted into The Senate Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System, the Role of Judges and Access to Justice
o. other matters relating and incidental thereto.
Can you tell the Australia people why it is that the enquiry has now been separated into two enquiries, and for the above point of reference to be removed?
A cynical person might consider that the decision to split into two as a response to my earlier submission earlier in March, and the senate committee was targetting individuals or individual groups ! which is against discrimination and human rights commonwealth laws HROEA1986(Cth) and RDA1975 (Cth).
I put it to yourself and the Greens and the Australian People that the Australian Judges are the impediment to Access to Justice, and that the two enquiries are and should be linked. I ask that you make sure my submission to both enquiries be heard as a collective submission linking and making the association between the judiciary and access to justice, both physical access and access to justice in implementation of australian laws
It is imperative that Australian people be aware that International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has been ratified and enacted into law under HREOA1986. President John von Doussa and the legal Profession, including many judges, Chief Justice French and Hayne, Gummow and Crennan JJ (High Court), have been trying to coverup judicial corruption of their mates,in perverting HREOA1986, in maintaining a White Australia Policy. I have witnessed North J (Federal Court) pass judgment on people who could hardly speak English.
These have been detailed in my submission on 24th March to the senate committee, and as a member of the committee I hope you will have received it by now; I will attach the coversheet.
"To distrust the judiciary," said Honoré de Balzac, "marks the beginning of the end of society."
The price of Freedom and Democracy is still vigilance, or else the cost might be nazism and totalitarianism:
It would seem that the position of Chief Justice French (High Court) is untenable; the appointment of French J was dubious and smells of the Executive trying to influence the Judiciary by doing its Chief Justice favours.
I attach also a Motion for the Writ of Mandamus and for Warrant for Arrest of Senior Member John Handley, Counsel Tim de Uray, and lawyer Paul Mentor of Sparke Helmore in VID 91 of 2009, for perverting justice and fabricating evidence; each of these crimes carry a penalty of 5 year imprisonment under the Criminal Act and Criminal Code Act. What do you think chances of success with other judges covering up for their mates?
The submission covers these paraphrased issues
* The whole of the Australian legal fraternity have tried to conceal the enactment of ICCPR under HREOA1986; they have done it in many ways to maintain the White Australia Policy;
* The legal fraternity have done it through Legal Aid by refusing to provide written legal arguments and fraudulently refuse cases that should be heard in court in the interest of the public; The Senate is now asked to pass legislations to compel legal aid centres to provide written legal opinions and legislations to support their legal advice; Ms Zhang did not receive any whatsoever;
* The legal fraternity have done it through the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and its President John von Doussa, in refusing to investigate human rights violations, and refusing to report human rights violations by the Commonwealth to Parliament, and making false reports to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and other International bodies. The Senate is now urged to investigate the actions of HREOC and president John von Doussa regarding All persons making this submission and others;
* The independence of the Judiciary can only be maintained when justice IS seen to be done; it is not enough that justice is done, justice MUST be seen to be done! There are Acts of Parliament and High Court rulings that require judges to provide legislations for their rulings and decisions; Ms Zhang has not been provided with such legislations, grandmother Tran had not been given her rights. Judges are using their henchmen like the police and registrars and prothonotaries to prevent access to the legal process and courts, sometimes fatally in Aborigines cases. How can the Senate provide for the independence of the Judiciary and at the same time ensuring that the laws and constitution of the Commonwealth are complied with?
* A Writ of Mandamus was sought for perverting justice and fabricating documents against Federal Court Judge French & ors JJ; each crime carries a penalty of 5 years imprisonment. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and all the Attorneys Generals including McClelland were notified of a Notice of a Constitutional Matter in conjunction with the Writ of Mandamus; Kevin Rudd and Parliament promptly appointed French J as not only a High Court Judge BUT the Chief Justice of the High Court. How can Australians feel that their High Court is not being influenced by the Executive Branch having appointed a judge with a pending case of contempt for the rule of law, perverting justice and fabricating documents; the Chief Justice French would be indebted to the Prime Minister for installing him in order to influence cases against the chief justice himself! How can Ms Hilda Zhang be sure that the judge is not influenced by corporate interests in abuse of discretionary powers and depriving her of employment when all Australian laws point to unfair dismissal as admitted to by the judge? Judges have denied grandmother Tran the opportunity to die with dignity covering up for corruption and racism;
* It would seem that the position of Chief Justice is untenable; the appointment of French J was dubious and smells of the Executive trying to influence the Judiciary by doing its Chief Justice favours;
It also seeks that the Parliament strengthen the legal intruments that have served to strengthen western democracy and John Howard's Australian way of life, nanmely Mandamus and Habeas Corpeus, the rule of law. Should that way of life be under the White Australia policy then the Australian Parliament must clarify that ! A judicial void is now created by the appointment of Chief Justice French, and the decisions of Hayne, Gummow and Crennan JJ.
I urge you and the Senate to act urgently to clarify the situation.
sincerely
pham
kangaroocourtaustralia.com/
Administrator
---------------------------------
Dear Mr Pham,
The negotiating history of the process saw two rather discrete areas of concern, the judiciary (instigated by Senator Barnett) and access to justice (instigated by Senator Ludlam), brought together. Many stakeholders contacted us and the Secretary of the Committee to indicate that the terms of reference was too broad and unwieldy, recommending the maintenance of the themes but the dividing of the two areas. The number of persons that made this observation, and the honest reflection that the two themes had arisen separately and were artificially linked through the political negotiating process did not in any detract from the importance of the subjects, or the Committee’s eagerness to take on the issues.
So let me assure you that your submission had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the referrals being divided. Your human right to participate and make submissions to canvas your views are quite intact and in no way compromised. The substance of the inquiries is maintained, notwithstanding the dropping of the language, ‘other matters relating and incidental thereto’ language that was certainly not in the Greens proposal so I can’t explain what it means to you or the Australian people.
Best wishes
Felicity
Hill, Felicity (Sen S. Ludlam)
---------------------------------
Dear Senator Scott Ludlam and Felicity Hill,
Your use of the words "discrete" and "artificial" have me concerned, and seems to show a lack of willingness to understand or comprehend what my submissions and emails have been about. It would be in the interest of the public for the senate committee and senator ludlam to reveal the names and submissions of those who opposed the merging of the two enquiries, in this way the people who are making submissions can know what and how to make submissions.
To me and to most other reasonable Australians, these two areas of concern are intricately entwined: judiciary and access to justice. Someone in the Committee must have thought so for the Committee to have combined both enquiries from August 2008 to March 2009. So whats changed since March 2009 apart from my submission.
The deadline is 30 April, so i would ask Senator Ludlam and the Committee to release asap the submissions by the large number of people opposing the combining of the two enquiries and their written reasons why they opposed the combining of two intricately entwined and related issues of judiciary and access to justice. In this way, people who want to make submissions to the enquiries can know what to submit and how to submit.
If you release them as soon as possible, i can email the documents to those who wish to submit, and post them on my site. The integrity of the enquiries most definitely will hinge on what this opposition is to the combining of the two enquiries, and allowing the people of Australia to respond accordingly.
sincerely
pham
kangaroocourtaustralia.com/
Administrator
GPO Box B58, Perth WA 6838
Level 38, Perth CPO, Exchange Plaza Building, 2 The Esplanade, Perth WA 6000
Ph: 08 9225 5799 | Fax: 08 9225 5599
Canberra Office, Parliament House
Ph: 02 6277 3467 | Fax: 02 6277 5821
senator.ludlam (at) aph.gov.au | www.scottludlam.org.au
Media enquiries: Robert Simms - 0417 174 302
Dear Senator Scott Ludlam,
It was my understanding that yourself and the Greens fought hard to have the following inserted into The Senate Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System, the Role of Judges and Access to Justice
o. other matters relating and incidental thereto.
Can you tell the Australia people why it is that the enquiry has now been separated into two enquiries, and for the above point of reference to be removed?
A cynical person might consider that the decision to split into two as a response to my earlier submission earlier in March, and the senate committee was targetting individuals or individual groups ! which is against discrimination and human rights commonwealth laws HROEA1986(Cth) and RDA1975 (Cth).
I put it to yourself and the Greens and the Australian People that the Australian Judges are the impediment to Access to Justice, and that the two enquiries are and should be linked. I ask that you make sure my submission to both enquiries be heard as a collective submission linking and making the association between the judiciary and access to justice, both physical access and access to justice in implementation of australian laws
It is imperative that Australian people be aware that International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has been ratified and enacted into law under HREOA1986. President John von Doussa and the legal Profession, including many judges, Chief Justice French and Hayne, Gummow and Crennan JJ (High Court), have been trying to coverup judicial corruption of their mates,in perverting HREOA1986, in maintaining a White Australia Policy. I have witnessed North J (Federal Court) pass judgment on people who could hardly speak English.
These have been detailed in my submission on 24th March to the senate committee, and as a member of the committee I hope you will have received it by now; I will attach the coversheet.
"To distrust the judiciary," said Honoré de Balzac, "marks the beginning of the end of society."
The price of Freedom and Democracy is still vigilance, or else the cost might be nazism and totalitarianism:
It would seem that the position of Chief Justice French (High Court) is untenable; the appointment of French J was dubious and smells of the Executive trying to influence the Judiciary by doing its Chief Justice favours.
I attach also a Motion for the Writ of Mandamus and for Warrant for Arrest of Senior Member John Handley, Counsel Tim de Uray, and lawyer Paul Mentor of Sparke Helmore in VID 91 of 2009, for perverting justice and fabricating evidence; each of these crimes carry a penalty of 5 year imprisonment under the Criminal Act and Criminal Code Act. What do you think chances of success with other judges covering up for their mates?
The submission covers these paraphrased issues
* The whole of the Australian legal fraternity have tried to conceal the enactment of ICCPR under HREOA1986; they have done it in many ways to maintain the White Australia Policy;
* The legal fraternity have done it through Legal Aid by refusing to provide written legal arguments and fraudulently refuse cases that should be heard in court in the interest of the public; The Senate is now asked to pass legislations to compel legal aid centres to provide written legal opinions and legislations to support their legal advice; Ms Zhang did not receive any whatsoever;
* The legal fraternity have done it through the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and its President John von Doussa, in refusing to investigate human rights violations, and refusing to report human rights violations by the Commonwealth to Parliament, and making false reports to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and other International bodies. The Senate is now urged to investigate the actions of HREOC and president John von Doussa regarding All persons making this submission and others;
* The independence of the Judiciary can only be maintained when justice IS seen to be done; it is not enough that justice is done, justice MUST be seen to be done! There are Acts of Parliament and High Court rulings that require judges to provide legislations for their rulings and decisions; Ms Zhang has not been provided with such legislations, grandmother Tran had not been given her rights. Judges are using their henchmen like the police and registrars and prothonotaries to prevent access to the legal process and courts, sometimes fatally in Aborigines cases. How can the Senate provide for the independence of the Judiciary and at the same time ensuring that the laws and constitution of the Commonwealth are complied with?
* A Writ of Mandamus was sought for perverting justice and fabricating documents against Federal Court Judge French & ors JJ; each crime carries a penalty of 5 years imprisonment. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and all the Attorneys Generals including McClelland were notified of a Notice of a Constitutional Matter in conjunction with the Writ of Mandamus; Kevin Rudd and Parliament promptly appointed French J as not only a High Court Judge BUT the Chief Justice of the High Court. How can Australians feel that their High Court is not being influenced by the Executive Branch having appointed a judge with a pending case of contempt for the rule of law, perverting justice and fabricating documents; the Chief Justice French would be indebted to the Prime Minister for installing him in order to influence cases against the chief justice himself! How can Ms Hilda Zhang be sure that the judge is not influenced by corporate interests in abuse of discretionary powers and depriving her of employment when all Australian laws point to unfair dismissal as admitted to by the judge? Judges have denied grandmother Tran the opportunity to die with dignity covering up for corruption and racism;
* It would seem that the position of Chief Justice is untenable; the appointment of French J was dubious and smells of the Executive trying to influence the Judiciary by doing its Chief Justice favours;
It also seeks that the Parliament strengthen the legal intruments that have served to strengthen western democracy and John Howard's Australian way of life, nanmely Mandamus and Habeas Corpeus, the rule of law. Should that way of life be under the White Australia policy then the Australian Parliament must clarify that ! A judicial void is now created by the appointment of Chief Justice French, and the decisions of Hayne, Gummow and Crennan JJ.
I urge you and the Senate to act urgently to clarify the situation.
sincerely
pham
kangaroocourtaustralia.com/
Administrator
---------------------------------
Dear Mr Pham,
The negotiating history of the process saw two rather discrete areas of concern, the judiciary (instigated by Senator Barnett) and access to justice (instigated by Senator Ludlam), brought together. Many stakeholders contacted us and the Secretary of the Committee to indicate that the terms of reference was too broad and unwieldy, recommending the maintenance of the themes but the dividing of the two areas. The number of persons that made this observation, and the honest reflection that the two themes had arisen separately and were artificially linked through the political negotiating process did not in any detract from the importance of the subjects, or the Committee’s eagerness to take on the issues.
So let me assure you that your submission had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the referrals being divided. Your human right to participate and make submissions to canvas your views are quite intact and in no way compromised. The substance of the inquiries is maintained, notwithstanding the dropping of the language, ‘other matters relating and incidental thereto’ language that was certainly not in the Greens proposal so I can’t explain what it means to you or the Australian people.
Best wishes
Felicity
Hill, Felicity (Sen S. Ludlam)
---------------------------------
Dear Senator Scott Ludlam and Felicity Hill,
Your use of the words "discrete" and "artificial" have me concerned, and seems to show a lack of willingness to understand or comprehend what my submissions and emails have been about. It would be in the interest of the public for the senate committee and senator ludlam to reveal the names and submissions of those who opposed the merging of the two enquiries, in this way the people who are making submissions can know what and how to make submissions.
To me and to most other reasonable Australians, these two areas of concern are intricately entwined: judiciary and access to justice. Someone in the Committee must have thought so for the Committee to have combined both enquiries from August 2008 to March 2009. So whats changed since March 2009 apart from my submission.
The deadline is 30 April, so i would ask Senator Ludlam and the Committee to release asap the submissions by the large number of people opposing the combining of the two enquiries and their written reasons why they opposed the combining of two intricately entwined and related issues of judiciary and access to justice. In this way, people who want to make submissions to the enquiries can know what to submit and how to submit.
If you release them as soon as possible, i can email the documents to those who wish to submit, and post them on my site. The integrity of the enquiries most definitely will hinge on what this opposition is to the combining of the two enquiries, and allowing the people of Australia to respond accordingly.
sincerely
pham
kangaroocourtaustralia.com/
Administrator
e-mail:
Homepage:
