Ferdinands v Minister for Defence is not about lack of discipline in the office of a Minister of the Crown, or jurisdictional error of the Minister of Defence, or freedom of information or the powers of ministerial direction it is about the intricate relationships of the character of men involved in the dispute and defence of the realm in the hands of the men and soldiers of the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Infantry; about men who can see treason and evil in all its forms and stamp it out, thus if there is no trust between the army and the parliament and its agents of the crown then there can be no crown.
The only thing that exists in law is reason and logic. There is no such thing as judicial reasoning or religious reasoning. One plus one is two. That is not owned by anyone. There is no judicial mathematics or religious mathematic all that exists is one plus one is two. If someone came along and said one plus one is three and this is judicial reasoning then that would be not just incorrect and wrong but illogical and chaotic. If someone came along and said one plus one is three and this is religious reasoning then that would be not just incorrect and wrong but illogical and chaotic.
This is the biggest fraud in Australian legal history. It involves many dubious legal practitioners, inefficient and ineffective Ministers of the Crown, recklessly indifferent Chiefs of Army and unconvincing superior military officers from the Department of Defence.
The courts have been hoodwinked. Cheating in the military justice system is rife. The plaintiff has suffered detriment, harm and damage and the Minister has the power to expose the truth and powers enabling him clear up all these matters without judicial intervention but yet after all his fraud he still comes to court. Why? The evidence is he controls the courts and the court outcomes. Anyone who attacks the Minister or the Department in court will lose because the courts are controlled by the Minister. The Minister is close with the courts and the courts are close with the federal government. The Minister has been untruthful about the Board of Inquiry process. The Minister has created a process that is essentially a cover up process ad seeks to shield the image and reputation of the Army first against all individuals and all claims thus those who bring their own brand of racism, fraud, dishonesty and corruption are out disciplined but their victims are isolated, ostracized, humiliated and forced out of the department by a series of false and misleading evidence. The cover up goes on day after day, week after week, year after year…and the cover up is easily dealt with because the victim’s claims are readily dismissed and the response by the department is that the investigators and legal practitioners have done a full investigation and there is no evidence. This is the big fat lie, this is the ultimate hoodwinking of the justice system this is duping the courts and the superior appellate courts.
In laymen’s terms this means that racism and fraud are quickly swept under the carpet and that network which exists continues to operate with impunity. This is systematic abuse of the legal process….the issuing of false summons, the fabrication of evidence, the convening of court rooms in fraud. TODAY, the High Court of Australia has convened n fraud because the Crown and the Minister know full well I am soldier first and was at my post doing my duty and no person ever invited me to a Friday night video party and drinking session and I did not attend any Friday night video party and drinking session ad I did not speak to any members of RAAOC or with the alleged victim nor did I see or touch the alleged victim thus fraud means a scheme so sophisticated that no one would suspect a plan and scam was being executed. The undetectable cover up continues because of traitors in the Army with weak courts and even weaker judicial officers.
The question, Is there diversity in appeals? Is answered by
Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955
Division 2—Determination of appeals
23 Quashing of conviction etc.
(1) Subject to subsection (5), where in an appeal it appears to the Tribunal:
(a) that the conviction or the prescribed acquittal is unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence;
(b) that, as a result of a wrong decision on a question of law, or of mixed law and fact, the conviction or the prescribed acquittal was wrong in law and that a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred;
(c) that there was a material irregularity in the course of the proceedings before the court martial or the Defence Force magistrate and that a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred; or
(d) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the conviction or the prescribed acquittal is unsafe or unsatisfactory; it shall allow the appeal and quash the conviction or the prescribed acquittal.
41 Person deemed to have been acquitted
For the purposes of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982: (a) where the Tribunal quashes a conviction of a service offence and does not order a new trial of the person for the offence, the person shall be deemed to have been acquitted of the offence; and (b) where the Tribunal quashes a prescribed acquittal of a person of a service offence and does not give a direction with respect to the person under subsection 23(4) or order a new trial of the person for the offence, the person shall be deemed to have been acquitted of the offence without qualification.
42 Defence of appeals
The Chief of the Defence Force or a service chief shall arrange the undertaking of the defence of an appeal under this Act.
Law is not and never has been a profession. It is a hobby and a past time that is carried out across many societies, communities, villages and countries of the world by elders and heads of the courts who are appointed either by the people or the parliament. No matter how many books are written on the subject, or how many judgments are delivered in the courts, or how many persons talk and practice law it is still an unprofessional body forever seeking and striking for greatness as a profession such as carpentry, butchering, engineering or mathematics. Those true professions rely only on facts whereas law has evolved to include many diverse opinions, circumstances, inferences and ideas arriving at entirely wrong or false conclusions.
In other words, law is a whole lot old mesh-mash and these mesh-mashed opinions sway over time and rule of a community or country and are created by opinionated persons who seek to create the future by reliving or fabricating the past.
Deceit is a global practice.
Deceit has spread rapidly throughout the world. In the new age of internet, technology and social media a rumour and a lie spread like wild fires across a dry barren bush. The expectations of any person in court are to get a balanced and fair hearing and the strictest rules of the court applied with high moral standards. But deceit seeks to grab power and money. Deceit will grab all the power and all the money using all the tools available to it and will do so illegally, unlawfully and wrongfully.
Deceit has no acceptance in a Christian culture, or a Democratic country or an impartial balanced court or tribunal.
Thus, disclosure breaks deceit. Disclosure is the individual’s right to seek out and access all materials and information, to gather and collate them, and then make sense and analyse them to the true meaning of the documents and the information presented. The ultimate purpose of disclosure is to set the face of the public record straight and where any man has been wrongly accused or victim of a smear campaign then he can produce documents to clear his name and remove any stain of a conviction against his name; a conviction obtained by fraud, sham or deceit.
No comments:
Post a Comment