breathalyzer?

I've spent a lot of time in court over the years for various reasons.
Especially magistrates court
It always concerned me how one person could wield such power over another and had so little time to do so.
I also pondered how a person could emotionally detach themselves when making decisions on someones future ie 'spent convictions'

Lucky it wasn't 40 years ago. He would have been taken out the back and sorted out right proper.
If he had a gripe with procedures it would have been far better to take it up through the proper channels, not turn the magistrates court into a circus, which is what he did.
I mean really, what on earth did he expect to achieve?

The fact is, there are so many people breaking minor laws in this country they cannot all be taken before a judge. Most offences are of a routine nature and can be dealt with by almost any competent person who can look up precedent penalties and apply them.
In fact the magistrate doesn't even do that. The bench clerk usually does and just gives the magistrate a list with the minimum and maximum penalties for each offence.
I know that they sometimes get it wrong but then the easiest way to avoid being on the receiving end of a bad call is to not break the law to begin with.

The odd thing is, often people who do things which are wrong and totally unfair to the community or the victim, suddenly when it comes to them being dealt with in court, they are hugely interested in everyhting being done right and fairly.
No sympathy at all from me on this one.
I think the cops were unbelievably restrained.
I bet the guy with the camera was peeved about that.

And while I am on the subject I wonder if 'aus concerned people' are going to appeal the Mabo decision.

I fully support the principals of native title and the legislation that created them, don't get me wrong, but I belive the instrument that started the creation of the legislation was wrong. Basically the decision was right but the process wrong.

Mabo won on the pricipal of Terra Nullis not applying because his people were, and had been living on the island for a long time, so Terra Nullis, or 'null land' didn't apply.

The definition of Terra Nullis is not whether somebody lives there or not, but whether the land is divided into parcels (and specifically fenced, or marked with walls, stones, posts or other placed structures) and individual or corporate ownership assigned, claimed and recorded.

I belive the Australia High Court missinterpreted Terra Nullis. It decided that (correctly in my opinion) the original peoples had been living there continuosuly and owned the land. I am not saying I don't think they did, I am saying the Terra Nullis bit is wrong and that was the point that was argued and judgement on made.

Now, an appeal would not be in the public interest, in that it wouldn't change Native Title, that is governed not by the high court decision but by legislation, and another appeal would create unwanted negative issues on all sides of politics.

So, I can't decide in my mind what should be done. The outcome and subsequent events of the decision are correct in my opinion, native title should occur; but I believe the court's decision was technically wrong, so should be appealed, or the principal of the rule of law cannot be upheld.

And, as the original post video is demonstrating, the long held and hard won rights and laws of the common people must be upheld or the princiapls of democracy fall.

If the laws are wrong then Parliment (and the Queen) must change them. It is not for private companies, citizens, police, or courts to apply them as they see fit.

shark said...

if you look carefully in the background you can see chemtrails

Best comment on "Shooting the breeze" for yonks.
Go to the top of the class, shark

I just want to know were the "HIDDEN"? camera was

ginger pom said...

Doctor

The post says more about you than it does about anything else.

You've posted badly shot camcorded footage of a court room from a man shouting and scared. He has a camcorder, the ability to put titles on footage and access to the internet. Because of this, you have believed him and posted here with the title "australian constitutional crisis" without any support information eg a link to his website, a reference to the laws he's quoting etc

You identify with him and therefore believe whatever it is that he's saying without any need to corroborate it

GP, what makes you think that it wasn't footage that 'the Doctor' actually shot himself? We probably know what he sounds like now.

Desolved? Why can't conspiracy theorists use a spell check every now and then?

Carantoc said...


And - another thing - as an englishman and a freeman, if I practise archery for 40 hours a week I am allow to kill a welshman.

Yep - current english law allows me to kill welshmen.

Being Welsh, thats a worry

I wouldn't worry Relli. You are protected by West Australian law not English law....umm hmmmmm.
Would you be interested in a kevlar jacket?

And all in the name of democracy

But remember -

No democracy has become democratic by democratic means

Every democracy has become democratic by the minority within forcing democracy on the majority, or by outside influences imposing democracy on others.

(Some say not all democracies - what about things like the local CWA, the local gardening club and the such like - yes, but you are a member of those organisations by choice not by default, and you are free to live outside of them without reprisal. Every nation / state / country democracy forced its inhabitants / members / persons within its borders to be democratic whether they wanted it or not)

Was wondering if it is illegal to record court proceedings also? Kinda a biggy compared to a stoopid constitutional loophole.

Thought the copper was very reasonable until his patience was exausted. He would have copped the phone book treatment for sure in years past.

Isn't it law that Welshmen must develop man-boobs by middle age or be used as an archery target? Sounds ok to me.

Well, that's 9:51 of my life I'm not getting back. Gee thanks!

Never having been arrested I can't be sure. But isn't "reading the rights" an american thing?

The silliest bit of all of this: if he were actually convinced he was right, let the court procedings run, then appeal and have the whole thing thrown out later. What he did is much mroe likely to lead him to inadvertantly breaking some other law and landing himself in real trouble. Do you think any future magistrate trying him for contempt or whatever is going to have much sympathy?

so basically what we saw was a man standing up and using his own power of free will to acknowledge and state his lawful god given rights to his claim and ask the magistrate to verify her own authority under law, where by the magistrate showed her authoritive status by immediately buckling and running for cover when the ruse of her illigetimacy became exposed.

then officer plod with his/her shiny badge came in, to only do his/her job (protect the illegality of the system) and then even ignorant as he/she can not seem to validate the injustice of the process with which the freeman is submitted after the magistrate has fled her (own) chambers (then cowers behind a closed door and peers through the window).

yes we have rights and yes we must know what we are being arrested for before being able to be arrested. the land of the free is being eroded away so subtley yet quickly that those with eyes to see would seriously question if we ever were (free).

here's a thing.... YOU prove I'm wrong

theDoctor said...



here's a thing.... YOU prove I'm wrong

look mate, you might be right, just back it up with a reference thats legit and save us all the trouble, & you might actually gain yourself some respect.

its quite easy.