giovedì 18 agosto 2011

Australia. No Rights. No Justice

Dear Fellow Freedom Fighters,
JUSTICE DENIED - THROUGHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
The Australian Judiciary regard the Australian People as less than dirt ..... and their arrogance is blatant.
Below is a Court Transcript of NSW Supreme Court Judge Harrison refusing to allow me to prosecute the Daily Telegraph newspaper for Defamation. I filed a Notice of Motion late in October 2010, that had to be done under their regulations as a Notice of Motion in the case where the NSW Attorney General "succeeded" in having a NSW Supreme Court Judge (David Davies) declare me a "Vexatious Litigant" stripping me of my Human, Civil and Political Rights by depriving me of access to the Courts.
That Notice of Motion was asking permission to file a Statement of Claim for Defamation.
Apart from that, I filed a similar Notice of Motion asking for permission to prosecute a Police Officer for attempting to choke me in my own home, for stealing my video camera, unlawful arrest and trespass.... that was similarly refused by another NSW Supreme Court Judge (Elizabeth Fullerton) with the Sheriffs assaulting me, at the time, and throwing me into the street.
Similarly, I also filed, in the Court of Appeal, an Appeal against my conviction by NSW District Court Judge (Christopher Armitage) ...... and, there again, the NSW Attorney General was "successful" in having the Registrar stop the Appeal for proceeding on the grounds that I have to ask a NSW Supreme Court Judge for permission to Appeal.
Firstly, below is the transcript of Harrison J (which arrived by email just last week) - and secondly, below that I have included an excellent email sent by Ray Levick.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Chairman, Australian Common Law Party.

COPYRIGHT RESERVED

NOTE: Copyright in this transcript is reserved to the Crown. The reproduction, except under authority from the Crown, of the contents

of this transcript for any purpose other than the conduct of these proceedings is prohibited.

CDA:CAT

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMONLAW DIVISION

HARRISON J

WEDNESDAY 30 MARCH 2011

2010/00049922 - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NSW v JOHN WILSON

No appearance for the Plaintiff

Defendant appeared in person

HIS HONOUR: In this matter the application for leave to commence

proceedings is dismissed. I publish my reasons.

DEFENDANT: I challenge the jurisdiction of the Court. I challenge the

jurisdiction of the Court. I am a free man. I have the right to trial by jury.

HIS HONOUR: Jolly good. All right. Can you call the next matter please?

WILSON: I challenge the jurisdiction of the Court.

HIS HONOUR: I heard you.

DEFENDANT: And you're disregarding that. You're disregarding my legal rights. You're disregarding the legal procedures. It's a kangaroo Court.

HIS HONOUR: All right.

DEFENDANT: All right. You admit it's a kangaroo Court.

HIS HONOUR: That's your view. You have a good day Mr Wilson. All the best to you.

oOo

From: wayne levick

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:01 AM

To: John Wilson

Subject: Materials

Teaching the High Court Australia, the Rule of Law and basic Human Rights: when is Ignorance NOT an excuse?

The article demonstrates the stranglehold lawyers have on the media. We make Judges out of these people! No wonder the country is in a mess. Lawyers refuse to accept HREOA1986 as law, because it makes their monopoly profession, an illegal one, and without discrimination, anyone can be a lawyer/advocate.

Combine it with our Notice of a Constitutional Matter, Writ of Mandamus, Lets see if we cant celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the year that Australians get confirmation of their already passed and underused Bill of Rights.

On December the 9th 2008, the Sydney Morning Herald published the latest in about twenty two years of lawyer generated propaganda, against the Australian Bill of Rights. This is misleading and deceptive conduct, and the Newspaper should should be taken to the Federal Court of Australia, and fined heavily. Helen Irving is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney.

http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com/

http://iwitness.x24hr.com/kangaroo_court_australia/index.php?showtopic=11345

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), was enacted as a Federal Law, by the Labor Party with Liberal Party support as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 . Reading and understanding a Statute:

· The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is a Statute.

· The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 is a Statute.

· The Judiciary Act 1903 is a Statute.

· The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 is a Statute.

· The Trade Practices Act 1974 is a Statute.

· The Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) is a Statute

· The Privacy Act 1988 is a Statute

· The Evidence Act 1995, (Cth) is a Stautue.

Multiple Federal Court Judges and High Court Judges, including the Chief Justice of HIGH COURT AUSTRALIA, Robert Stenton French, have now called HREOA1986 as a general rule, or dismissed it outright, as an act of treason against the Australian people.

The First Statute on the list has two Supremacy Clauses:

S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 makes every Federal Law supreme and

S 109 makes them prevail,over all State Enactments.

The second says a Schedule is part of an Act ( Statute).

The Third says that the common law shall prevail, in S 80 Judiciary Act 1903.

The Fourth makes it a common law crime to disobey a Statute, by misleading and deceiving the good people of Australia, are criminals,

The Fifth refers to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights not just in its Dictionary, but in three offences in Schedule Section 3.

The Fourth specifically implements the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In the fifth, in Section 138 (3) (f) Evidence Act 1995, (Cth) , are told where to find the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The article demonstrates the stranglehold lawyers have on the media. We make Judges out of these people! No wonder the country is in a mess. Lawyers refuse to accept it as law, because it makes their monopoly profession, an illegal one, and without discrimination, anyone can be a lawyer/advocate.

Combine it with our Notice of a Constitutional Matter, Writ of Mandamus, Lets see if we cant celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the year that Australians get confirmation of their already passed and underused Bill of Rights

http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com

http://iwitness.x24hr.com/kangaroo_court_australia/index.php?showtopic=11345

Death of Mandamus: French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan JJ protecting and coverup conspiracy to pervert justice

http://iwitness.x24hr.com/kangaroo_court_australia/index.php?showtopic=11130

Invalid Australian Constitution empowers crooked (High Court) Judges to violate Common Law rights for ALL Australians

http://iwitness.x24hr.com/kangaroo_court_australia/index.php?showtopic=10581

The S&P Downgrade and the Bilderbergers: All Part of the Plan?

S&P AND THE BILDERBERGERS: ALL PART OF THE PLAN?

What just happened in the stock market? Last week, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose or fell by at least 400 points for four straight days, a stock market first.

The worst drop was on Monday, 8-8-11, when the Dow plunged 624 points. Monday was the first day of trading after US Treasury bonds were downgraded from AAA to AA+ by Standard and Poor’s.

But the roller coaster actually began on Tuesday, 8-2-11, the day after the last-minute deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling -- a deal that was supposed to avoid the downgrade that happened anyway five days later. The Dow changed directions for eight consecutive trading sessions after that, another first.

The volatility was unprecedented, leaving analysts at a loss to explain it. High frequency program trading no doubt added to the wild swings, but why the daily reversals? Why didn’t the market head down and just keep going, as it did in September 2008?

The plunge on 8-8-11 was the worst since 2008 and the sixth largest stock market crash ever. According to Der Spiegel, one of the most widely read periodicals in Europe:

Many economists have been pointing out that last week's panic resembled the fear that swept financial markets after the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers in September 2008.

Then as now, banks stopped lending each other money. Then as now, banks' cash deposits at the central bank doubled within days.

On Tuesday, August 9, however, the market gained more points from its low than it lost on Monday. Why? A tug of war seemed to be going on between two titanic forces, one bent on crashing the market, the other on propping it up.

The Dubious S&P Downgrade

Many commentators questioned the validity of the downgrade that threatened to collapse the market. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said in a statement:

"The Treasury Department revealed that S&P’s decision was initially based on a $2 trillion error in accounting. However, even after this enormous error was corrected, S&P went ahead with the downgrade. This suggests that S&P had made the decision to downgrade independent of the evidence. [Emphasis added.]

Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, was also skeptical, stating:

[E]verything I’ve heard about S&P’s demands suggests that it’s talking nonsense about the US fiscal situation. The agency has suggested that the downgrade depended on the size of agreed deficit reduction over the next decade, with $4 trillion apparently the magic number. Yet US solvency depends hardly at all on what happens in the near or even medium term: an extra trillion in debt adds only a fraction of a percent of GDP to future interest costs . . . .

In short, S&P is just making stuff up — and after the mortgage debacle, they really don’t have that right.

In an illuminating expose posted on Firedoglake on August 5, Jane Hamsher concluded:

It’s becoming more and more obvious that Standard and Poor’s has a political agenda riding on the notion that the US is at risk of default on its debt based on some arbitrary limit to the debt-to-GDP ratio. There is no sound basis for that limit, or for S&P’s insistence on at least a $4 trillion down payment on debt reduction, any more than there is for the crackpot notion that a non-crazy US can be forced to default on its debt. . . .

It’s time the media and Congress started asking Standard and Poors what their political agenda is and whom it serves.

Who Drove the S&P Agenda?

Jason Schwarz shed light on this question in an article on Seeking Alpha titled “The Rise of Financial Terrorism”. He wrote:

[A]fter the market close on Friday August 5th, we received word that S&P CEO Deven Sharma had taken control of the ratings agency and personally led the push for a U.S. downgrade. There is a lot of evidence that he has deliberately tried to trash the U.S. economy. Even after discovering that the S&P debt calculations were off by $2 trillion, Sharma made the decision to go ahead with the unethical downgrade. This is a guy who was a key contributor at the 2009 Bilderberg Summit that organized 120 of the world's richest men and women to push for an end to the dollar as the global reserve currency.

[T]hrough his writings on “competitive strategy” S&P CEO Sharma considers the United States the PROBLEM in today’s world, operating with what he implies is an unfair and reckless advantage. The brutal reality is that for "globalization" to succeed the United States must be torn asunder . . .

Also named by Schwarz as a suspect in the market manipulations was Michel Barnier, head of European Regulation. Barnier triggered an alarming 513-point drop in the Dow on August 4, when he blocked the plan of Hans Hoogervorst, newly appointed Chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board, to save Europe by adopting a new rule called IFRS 9. The rule would have eliminated mark-to-market accounting of sovereign debt from European bank balance sheets. Schwarz writes:

We all should be experts on the dangers of mark-to-market accounting after observing the U.S. banking crisis of 2008/2009 and the Great Depression in the 1930s. Mark-to-market was repealed at 8:45 a.m on April 2, 2009, which finally put a stop to the short term liquidity crisis and at the same time ushered in a stock market recovery. Banks no longer had to raise capital as long term stability was brought back to the system. The exact same scenario would have happened in 2011 Europe under Hoogervorst's plan. Without the threat of failure by those banks who hold high amounts of euro sovereign debt, investors would be free to move on from the European crisis and the stock market could resume its fundamental course.

Schwarz notes that Barnier, like Sharma, was a confirmed attendee at past Bilderberger conferences. What, then, is the agenda of the Bilderbergers?

The One World Company

Daniel Estulin, noted expert on the Bilderbergers, describes that secretive globalist group as “a medium of bringing together financial institutions which are the world’s most powerful and most predatory financial interests.” Writing in June 2011, he said:

Bilderberg isn’t a secret society. . . . It’s a meeting of people who represent a certain ideology. . . . Not OWG [One World Government] or NWO [New World Order] as too many people mistakenly believe. Rather, the ideology is of a ONE WORLD COMPANY LIMITED.

It seems the Bilderbergers are less interested in governing the world than in owning the world. The “world company” was a term first used at a Bilderberger meeting in Canada in 1968 by George Ball, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs and a managing director of banking giants Lehman Brothers and Kuhn Loeb. The world company was to be a new form of colonialism, in which global assets would be acquired by economic rather than military coercion. The company would extend across national boundaries, aggressively engaging in mergers and acquisitions until the assets of the world were subsumed under one privately-owned corporation, with nation-states subservient to a private international central banking system.

Estulin continues:

The idea behind each and every Bilderberg meeting is to create what they themselves call THE ARISTOCRACY OF PURPOSE between European and North American elites on the best way to manage the planet. In other words, the creation of a global network of giant cartels, more powerful than any nation on Earth, destined to control the necessities of life of the rest of humanity.

. . . This explains what George Ball . . . said back in 1968, at a Bilderberg meeting in Canada: “Where does one find a legitimate base for the power of corporate management to make decisions that can profoundly affect the economic life of nations to whose governments they have only limited responsibility?”

That base of power was found in the private global banking system. Estulin goes on:

The problem with today’s system is that the world is run by monetary systems, not by national credit systems. . . . [Y]ou don’t want a monetary system to run the world. You want sovereign nation-states to have their own credit systems, which is the system of their currency. . . . [T]he possibility of productive, non-inflationary credit creation by the state, which is firmly stated in the US Constitution, was excluded by Maastricht [the Treaty of the European Union] as a method of determining economic and financial policy.

The world company acquires assets by preventing governments from issuing their own currencies and credit. Money is created instead by banks as loans at interest. The debts inexorably grow, since more money is always owed back than was created in the original loans. (For more on this, see here.) If currencies are not allowed to expand to meet increased costs and growth, the inevitable result is a wave of bankruptcies, foreclosures, and sales of assets at firesale prices. Sales to whom? To the “world company.”

Battle of the Titans

If that was the plan behind the market assaults on August 4 and August 8, however, it evidently failed. What turned the market around, according to Der Spiegel, was the European Central Bank, which saved the day by embarking on a program of buying Spanish and Italian bonds. Sidestepping the Maastricht Treaty, the ECB said it would engage in the equivalent of “quantitative easing,” purchasing bonds with money created with accounting entries on its books. It had done this earlier with Greek and Irish sovereign debt but had resisted doing it with Spanish and Italian bonds, which were much larger obligations. On Tuesday, August 16, the ECB announced that it was engaging in a record $32 billion bond-buying spree in an attempt to appease the markets and save the Eurozone from collapse.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was also expected to come through with another round of quantitative easing, but his speech on August 9 made no mention of QE3. As blogger Jesse Livermore summarized the market’s response:

. . . [T]he markets sold off rather rapidly as no announcement was made about QE3. . . . It wasn’t until . . . the last 75 min of market activity [that] the DJIA gained 639 pts to close at a day high of 11,242. That begs the question, where did that injection of capital come from? The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets? Or did the “policy tools” to promote price stability by any chance include the next round of Quantitative Easing unannounced?

Was that QE3 Incognito, Ben?

Titanic Battle or Insider Trading?

There could be another explanation for the suspicious downgrade that was announced despite the fact that the government had just made major concessions to avoid default, and despite the embarrassing revelation that S&P’s figures were off by $2 trillion. On August 12, MSN.Money reported that the downgrade “wasn't much of a surprise”:

Wall Street had heard a rumor early on that the downgrade was coming. News sites reported the rumor all day.

Unless it was all a huge coincidence, it's likely that someone in the know leaked the information. The questions are who and whether the leak led to early insider trading.

The Daily Mail had the story of someone placing an $850 million bet in the futures market on the prospects of a US debt downgrade:

The latest bet was made on July 21 on trades of 5,370 ten-year Treasury futures and 3,100 Treasury bond futures, reported ETF Daily News.

Now the investor’s gamble seems to have paid off after Standard and Poor’s issued a credit rating downgrade from AAA to AA+ last Friday.

Whoever it is stands to earn a 1,000 per cent return on their money, with the expectation that interest rates will be going up after the downgrade.

The Securities Exchange Commission announced on August 8 that it is investigating the downgrade. According to the Financial Times, the move is part of a preliminary examination into potential insider trading.

Whatever was going on in the market in the first two weeks of August, it was unprecedented, unnatural, and bears close observation.




Daytime Robbery By Elites

The Nation / By Naomi Klein
Shock Doctrine in Practice: The Connection Between Nighttime Robbery In the Streets and Daytime Robbery By Elites
When you rob people of what little they have, in order to protect the interests of those who have more than anyone deserves, you should expect resistance.
August 17, 2011 | Photo Credit: AFP

The following article first appeared on the Web site of The Nation. For more great content from the Nation, sign up for its e-mail newsletters here.

I keep hearing comparisons between the London riots and riots in other European cities—window smashing in Athens or car bonfires in Paris. And there are parallels, to be sure: a spark set by police violence, a generation that feels forgotten.

But those events were marked by mass destruction; the looting was minor. There have, however, been other mass lootings in recent years, and perhaps we should talk about them too. There was Baghdad in the aftermath of the US invasion—a frenzy of arson and looting that emptied libraries and museums. The factories got hit too. In 2004 I visited one that used to make refrigerators. Its workers had stripped it of everything valuable, then torched it so thoroughly that the warehouse was a sculpture of buckled sheet metal.

Back then the people on cable news thought looting was highly political. They said this is what happens when a regime has no legitimacy in the eyes of the people. After watching for so long as Saddam and his sons helped themselves to whatever and whomever they wanted, many regular Iraqis felt they had earned the right to take a few things for themselves. But London isn’t Baghdad, and British Prime Minister David Cameron is hardly Saddam, so surely there is nothing to learn there.

How about a democratic example then? Argentina, circa 2001. The economy was in freefall and thousands of people living in rough neighborhoods (which had been thriving manufacturing zones before the neoliberal era) stormed foreign-owned superstores. They came out pushing shopping carts overflowing with the goods they could no longer afford—clothes, electronics, meat. The government called a “state of siege” to restore order; the people didn’t like that and overthrew the government.

Argentina’s mass looting was called El Saqueo—the sacking. That was politically significant because it was the very same word used to describe what that country’s elites had done by selling off the country’s national assets in flagrantly corrupt privatization deals, hiding their money offshore, then passing on the bill to the people with a brutal austerity package. Argentines understood that the saqueo of the shopping centers would not have happened without the bigger saqueo of the country, and that the real gangsters were the ones in charge.

But England is not Latin America, and its riots are not political, or so we keep hearing. They are just about lawless kids taking advantage of a situation to take what isn’t theirs. And British society, Cameron tells us, abhors that kind of behavior.This is said in all seriousness. As if the massive bank bailouts never happened, followed by the defiant record bonuses. Followed by the emergency G-8 and G-20 meetings, when the leaders decided, collectively, not to do anything to punish the bankers for any of this, nor to do anything serious to prevent a similar crisis from happening again. Instead they would all go home to their respective countries and force sacrifices on the most vulnerable. They would do this by firing public sector workers, scapegoating teachers, closing libraries, upping tuitions, rolling back union contracts, creating rush privatizations of public assets and decreasing pensions—mix the cocktail for where you live. And who is on television lecturing about the need to give up these “entitlements”? The bankers and hedge-fund managers, of course.

This is the global Saqueo, a time of great taking. Fueled by a pathological sense of entitlement, this looting has all been done with the lights left on, as if there was nothing at all to hide. There are some nagging fears, however. In early July, the Wall Street Journal, citing a new poll, reported that 94 percent of millionaires were afraid of "violence in the streets.” This, it turns out, was a reasonable fear.

Of course London’s riots weren’t a political protest. But the people committing nighttime robbery sure as hell know that their elites have been committing daytime robbery. Saqueos are contagious.

The Tories are right when they say the rioting is not about the cuts. But it has a great deal to do with what those cuts represent: being cut off. Locked away in a ballooning underclass with the few escape routes previously offered—a union job, a good affordable education—being rapidly sealed off. The cuts are a message. They are saying to whole sectors of society: you are stuck where you are, much like the migrants and refugees we turn away at our increasingly fortressed borders.

David Cameron’s response to the riots is to make this locking-out literal: evictions from public housing, threats to cut off communication tools and outrageous jail terms (five months to a woman for receiving a stolen pair of shorts). The message is once again being sent: disappear, and do it quietly.

At last year’s G-20 “austerity summit” in Toronto, the protests turned into riots and multiple cop cars burned. It was nothing by London 2011 standards, but it was still shocking to us Canadians. The big controversy then was that the government had spent $675 million on summit “security” (yet they still couldn’t seem to put out those fires). At the time, many of us pointed out that the pricey new arsenal that the police had acquired—water cannons, sound cannons, tear gas and rubber bullets—wasn’t just meant for the protesters in the streets. Its long-term use would be to discipline the poor, who in the new era of austerity would have dangerously little to lose.

This is what David Cameron got wrong: you can't cut police budgets at the same time as you cut everything else. Because when you rob people of what little they have, in order to protect the interests of those who have more than anyone deserves, you should expect resistance—whether organized protests or spontaneous looting.

And that’s not politics. It’s physics.

Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and syndicated columnist and the author of the international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (September 2007); an earlier international best-seller, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies; and the collection Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (2002). Read more at Naomiklein.org. You can follow her on Twitter @naomiaklein.