[jondoe]

[edit by moderator: This thread has been split from the constitutional challenge thread as it is such a big topic of its own. For background info please check the original thread by niall.]

=========================================================================

lightning, on Jul 15 2009, 08:53 AM, said:

As the docs are currently before the court the media issue is a bit touchy, contempt of court rules being what they are. So at present we are playing safe and just waiting quietly for the courts response.
When/if we get the "removal" into the high court(which we believe we will) then we will be able to mention the "nature" of the case but not the detail.

If you want more information on how to help the cause it can be found at http://www.cannabisf.../constitutional
Thanks for the interest
will update again once we have heard from the HCA

Lightning, Sadly it may be a lot further than you think, how do you know you have got there ?

When are you before the High Court of Australia ?

When are you before the Justices employed in the Office of the Registry of the High Court of Australia conducting the BUSINESS of the OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY ABN 69445188965.

Do you have the rubber stamp for the HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA OFFICE SEAL on your originating or initiating documents or have you got the rubber stamp that identifies the design of the SEAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ?

Then again do you have the documents sealed with the embossed red label, embossed with the design of the seal set out in the alleged rules ?

Does the High Court of Australia even exist ?

I know there is an alleged Act of the Commonwealth Parliament, the High Court of Australia Act 1979, but did it ever receive Royal Assent issued, signed and sealed by the Governor-General for and on behalf of the Queen of Australia.

You will never know and they will never provide a copy of this official Government Instrument either, Rudds office claims it secret mens business.

Just be very carefull with your money because that all they are interested in, its simply just another BUSINESS.

[jondoe]

niall, on Aug 13 2009, 06:58 PM, said:

Quick update - documents were filed with the High Court 8 weeks ago today. Vic OPP requested the case in County Court be pushed back 3 months around 2 weeks ago, which the Judge granted with quite a smile in the direction of the accused :-)

niall, that's the smile of we will teach you a lesson.

You referred to this individual sitting on the bench as a Judge, that is a TITLE given to an individual and it is provided by way of a Commission issued by the Governor in the States.

Or was this individual a judge, any individual whi has been given the jurisdiction to referee a matter in dispute, he may not really be a Judge.

This word has two very specific meanings, one meaning when it connences with the capital letter J and the other meaning when it is written all in lower case letters.

Do a word search in the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, you will find the word Judge referred to about two hundred time and then in section 24 and 29 you will find the word in lower case letters and there is a specific reason for this.

If you claim you have your documents FILLed what rubber stamp do you have on your documents ?

You are on a road to nowhere.

[Alice]

jondoe, on Aug 17 2009, 10:27 PM, said:

You are on a road to nowhere.

Mrs. Rabbit: What did your father tell you this morning?
Thumper: [clears throat] If you can't say something nice... don't say nothing at all.

[jondoe]

Alice, on Aug 18 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

Mrs. Rabbit: What did your father tell you this morning?
Thumper: [clears throat] If you can't say something nice... don't say nothing at all.

Alice in wonderland,

He died long ago and I will say what ever I like in order to shock these victims into realising how gullible they realy are.

I did ask on two occasions what rubber stamp he had on his process of which he has alleged to have Filed in the High Court.
Thers is a selection of three or four STAMPS they use but there is only one SEAL OF THE HIGH OF AUSTRALIA.

The High Court of Australia that we beleived the Parliament has provided, for us to deal with Constitutional matters, is not being provided but they are providing an alternative court in which the same judges do adjudiciate on the matter in dispute.

Problem is that there are no rules for this alternative dispute resolution process and you are destined to fail if your honestly beleive that the not so honourable Justices, judges of their high-court are going to ignore govt policy on this matter being determined.

You should give serious attention as to why I have used the words "judges" and "court" without the capital letter J & C in those two words.

The members of the legal profession who write the statutes have very specific reasons for the way they use these two words.

Attached File(s)

•  The_SEAL_of_the_High_Court_of_Australia.jpg (31.13K)
  Number of downloads: 5
•  High_Court_of_Australia_STAMP.jpg (13.57K)
  Number of downloads: 2

[niall]

jondoe: interesting questions and implications. I will get lightning to read and respond himself.

[chaosmagick]

John I understand the points you are trying to make although it all seem a bit to much on the conspriacy side of things for my liking the high court is established under Section 71 of the Australian Coinstitution

the 1979 High Court act pertains to the following areas

the qualifications for, and method of appointment of, the Justices;
the administration of the Court's affairs under the Act, including the appointment, functions and powers of certain Court officers;
High Court Registry and procedure;
methods of funding and control of the Court's finances; and
reporting and accountability arrangements.

From my understanding this was given Royal ascent around April 1980

I have to wonder about the true nature of your intentions as your only posts seem to be aimed at attacking lightning and nialls efforts to bring about legal change I personally think it would be better to clarify issues with ligtning via private pm and seeing if your knowledge can contribute to their fight for law reform rather then just shoioting down their hard work on a public forum just a thought

[niall]

As neoshaman points out, these arguments are really something of another topic or another case, legitimacy of the Australian Government, Treaty of Versailles etc.

But jondoe, the paperwork is stamped with the seal of the High Court registry. The current application is for removal to the High Court from County Court Victoria, and this has been with the High Court now for almost 9 weeks. If they were going to throw it back they probably would have done so by now, so we are all assuming that they are reading and considering this carefully. Hopefully they will just issue a decision and it will all be over, or perhaps accept the removal and call in lightning and littlbit for oral arguments etc.

[jondoe]

niall, on Aug 19 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

As neoshaman points out, these arguments are really something of another topic or another case, legitimacy of the Australian Government, Treaty of Versailles etc.

But jondoe, the paperwork is stamped with the seal of the High Court registry. The current application is for removal to the High Court from County Court Victoria, and this has been with the High Court now for almost 9 weeks. If they were going to throw it back they probably would have done so by now, so we are all assuming that they are reading and considering this carefully. Hopefully they will just issue a decision and it will all be over, or perhaps accept the removal and call in lightning and littlbit for oral arguments etc.

Is the Application being heard by the High Court of Australia ?

What does the Rules of "Court" or "court " or the High Court of Australia Act 1979 provide for when an initiating or originating process is being filed and issued from the Registry of the "Court", or from the "court"

As for the High Court of Australia Act 1979 ever receiving Royal Assent, well it depends what you consider authenticates the documents as being an Instrument having some Royal effect. This is one document we have not yet obtained but I dont expect it to be any different to the Royal Assent for the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, its not very Royal at all and who did sign it ? The Queensland Royal Assents are done much better, they are better forgeries its a the same scamm in all States.

The Governor-General is alleged to represent the Queen of Australia, Title created in 1973, and one would expect that the Seal for the QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA would be displayed on the face of the documents to authenticate it and the signature.
You believe what ever you like and see what happens in the court when you have a single judge sitting at the bench adjudicating on this matter.

Attached File(s)

•  FEDERAL_Court_ASSENT.pdf (577.21K)
  Number of downloads: 2
•  Queen_of_Aust.jpg (74.72K)
  Number of downloads: 0

[jondoe]

jondoe, on Aug 20 2009, 01:33 AM, said:

Is the Application being heard by the High Court of Australia ?

What does the Rules of "Court" or "court " or the High Court of Australia Act 1979 provide for when an initiating or originating process is being filed and issued from the Registry of the "Court", or from the "court"

As for the High Court of Australia Act 1979 ever receiving Royal Assent, well it depends what you consider authenticates the documents as being an Instrument having some Royal effect. This is one document we have not yet obtained but I dont expect it to be any different to the Royal Assent for the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, its not very Royal at all and who did sign it ? The Queensland Royal Assents are done much better, they are better forgeries its a the same scamm in all States.

The Governor-General is alleged to represent the Queen of Australia, Title created in 1973, and one would expect that the Seal for the QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA would be displayed on the face of the documents to authenticate it and the signature.
You believe what ever you like and see what happens in the court when you have a single judge sitting at the bench adjudicating on this matter.

It appears that the PDF file is a dud so I have posted jpg files.

(As neoshaman points out, these arguments are really something of another topic or another case, legitimacy of the Australian Government, Treaty of Versailles etc.)

If you wish to make the claim about the Australian Government that is entirely up to you but I do think you should have referred to the Commonwealth of Australia as they are two entilely different entities.
Both are registered a corporate entities and I was advised of that by the Kevin Rudd's office in Canberra.

Attached File(s)

•  Royal_Assent_Judiciary_Act.jpg (74.49K)
  Number of downloads: 6

[jondoe]

[quote name='jondoe' date='Aug 20 2009, 02:32 PM' post='228399']

Attached File(s)

•  Royal_Assent_Aust_Act.jpg (89.49K)
  Number of downloads: 5

This post has been edited by jondoe: 20 August 2009 - 02:43 PM

[chaosmagick]

Maybe John it would be an idea to start another thread with the ideas you are putting forward I think its a topic that many members here including myself would be quite intrested in discussing/ debating , however I don't think your idea s are getting the attention that is warranted to them at the moment IMO because they are being seen as attacking a lot of hard work that has been undertaken by lightning and niall personally I think it is great that these guys are trying an approach not tested before in order to try and bring some sanity to Australian cannabis laws and stop normal law abiding citizens being prosecuted for use of a plant which has been proven to have an extremely high medicinal value. Yopu may be right that they will achieve very little but you may also be wrong and they may achieve even more then any of us here hope for , whatever the outcome I think we all have to admire these two for what they are trying to achieve and we will never know the potenial of this approach if they just simply give up and walk away as you seem to be suggesting

[jondoe]

It has become very obvious that all have missied my point, if the are no Australian cannabis laws and only policy set out by the Members of the Parliament that most of you would vote for and this policy is their terms and condition of a contract, how do you vary or object to the terms and conditions of the contract (policy) not by going down the road of having the matter in dispute in a court that is not created under the Australian law, the policy under which the courts operate is also terms and condition of a contract as the High Court is also a registered Business with its own ABN registration, so why do you beleive you are going to be heard in the High Court of Australia, it does not exist if the process is not SEALED with the SEAL of the Court, you are simply paying a fee to a registered business to adjuciate on a matter in dispute.
It is a commercial world we live in and everything is dealt with under the laws of contract, not under the illusion of laws with force that you have all appear to be willingly accepting.

I have attempted again to upload the not so Royal Assent for The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 but it may not be to clear as I have had to reduce the size of the file. If these Instruments were being issued for and on behalf of the Sovereign, Queen of Australia, where is the SEAL she provided for this purpose.

Attached File(s)

•  Royal_Assent_Fed_Crt_1976.jpg (174.31K)
  Number of downloads: 9

[Huichol_Eyebrow]

jondoe I believe you could help these people with a more proficient modus.

[niall]

Snip as the thread has been split, cheers Torsten.

This post has been edited by niall: 24 August 2009 - 05:06 PM

[jondoe]

Why the capital letter on one word and not the other ?

( NOT Judge only judge from a lower court NOT Court)

High Court Act of Australia 1979.
7 Qualification of Justices
A person shall not be appointed as a Justice unless:
(a) he or she is or has been a Judge of a court created by the Parliament or of a court of a State or Territory; or
( he or she has been enrolled as a barrister or solicitor, as a barrister and solicitor, or as a legal practitioner, of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory for not less than 5 years.

All the States and the Federal Court of Australia have an alternative dispte resolution process they surrepticiously provide so that you dont have you matter in dispute actually heard by the statutory Court. In this alternative court, there are no Rules of Court or any Rule of Law, only decisions based on Government Public Policy. This is the BUSINESS of the court.

When are you before a Court or a court ? or a judge, Judge or a Justice ?

This post has been edited by jondoe: 24 August 2009 - 05:37 PM

[t st tantra]

from the above it would appear all state courts apart from High and Supreme Courts are in fact courts not Courts?

can legal presidents be set in courts as well as Courts?is that part of what its about?

t s t .

[jondoe]

t st tantra, on Aug 25 2009, 07:28 AM, said:

from the above it would appear all state courts apart from High and Supreme Courts are in fact courts not Courts?

can legal presidents be set in courts as well as Courts?is that part of what its about?

t s t .

All State Supreme courts would be the same. Queensland only uses the red embossed SEAL in accordence with the sec 190 of the 1995 Act and Rule 968, 969 of the Supreme Crt UCPR, on the Certificate to Practice issued to lawyers or if you have property to divy up after you die, Probate. kevin Rudds daughter gotthe correct SEAL but if its an ORDER OF POSSESSION for your family home, you will get the Supreme Court Office STAMP and not the SEAL.

This arguement about the High Court presidents has been put before a Federal court of Australia in Sydney and the Applicant claimed that, as the hearing was conducted in a High court of Australia with the implied consent of both parties, as they did have legal represenation, and it was not a court under the SEAL of the High Court of Australia, it was a matter that was privately dealt by a High court with seven Justices sitting as judges (not Judges) and that the reasons fro the decision did not apply to the Applicant as the common law of Aust if he objected to the reasons given.

The particular matter was the so called High Court of Australia hearing between Anthony Ian Luton -v- Gillian Gladys Lessles and the Child Support Registrar and if the PDF file works, you wont find the SEAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA or even the STAMP that identifies the design of the seal, on the documents obtained from the Registry in Sydney. They have used every other official looking STAMP and even the LS stamp on the pages provided but there is no SEAL.

The case in Sydney is still ongoing and the trial of the Claim against the Commonwealth and the CSA started a week or two ago so I should be careful what I say as it may have a detrimental effect on his chances even thow I have predicted that they will not let him expose the scams conducted by the CSA and Child Support Registrar and a particular gay judge. This matter started in Feb 2008 and there has been sixteen hearings and it will continue in some form or another regardless of the decision in this tral of the Claim. File number is No: (P)NSD204/2008 so down load some of the orders and you will see where the Registrar went to the judge or Justice to ask if he should seal the documents with the seal of the court as the Applicant demanded. He still got the STAMP but at least it is the design that was provided by the Attorney-General in 1976 but it is not a label affixed and embossed with the design. The Registrar has admitted that the STAMP was not the SEAL as the seal was a lot bigger than the stamp. I dont beleive that the Fed Crt of Aust SEAL has ever seen the light of day or evr used, maybe international documents.

The High Court of Australia may be able to create the common law for the country but I dont beleive that a High court can create any thing other than a fraud on the people who go to these grubs thinking they are going to get a fair hearing, it wont happen.

Attached File(s)

•  Luton_v_Lessles.pdf (562.24K)
  Number of downloads: 3
•  Rudds_Daughter_Supreme_Court_SEAL.jpg (21.77K)
  Number of downloads: 2
•  The_SEAL_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Queensland.jpg (32.87K)
  Number of downloads: 1
•  Pretend_Supreme_Crt_seal.jpg (52.27K)
  Number of downloads: 1