TOOLS THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN USE TO DENY YOU A ‘FAIR GO’ IN THE COURTS

Taking the state or commonwealth cartel that calls itself a government to court? Maybe they are charging you with some type of breach of legislation, maybe you are appealing a breach of the law in an inferior court, but, either way, you are there and, like Brian Shaw, a couple of years ago in the County Court, you have all your facts, laws, acts, state acts, court decisions and everything you need organised and ready to wear.
So, after utilising your strong logic and appropriate lawful instruments to reach a stage where any reasonable observer will be persuaded to formulate a view in accordance with your tabled views in the court, why, did that strange human appear on the opposite side of the bar table after a recess? And, why did s/he inform you and the court that they were now representing BOTH parties? And, why did s/he hand a note to the business employee/agent acting as a Judge? why was that note not handed to you? why did this stranger announce that she was dropping the case and why did the business employee/agent acting as a Judge immediately dismiss the case?
The answer lies in The Judiciary Act, 1903, in an a section that was introduced by Labor, and assented to on December 11th, 1992 in the “Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act (No.3), and, further, was repealed and substituted by the Liberal Party on March 31st, 1999 via the “Judiciary Amendment Act 1999”.
The answer lies in S. 55F and it reads like this:

    55F Attorney-General’s lawyer may act for more than one party
    An Attorney-General’s lawyer may act in a matter for 2 or more parties who have conflicting     interests in the matter if to do so has been approved by the Attorney-General:
    (a) by way of approval in relation to the particular matter; or
    (b) by way of written arrangements covering the circumstances in which an Attorney-General’s lawyer may so act.

There is no choice element present, but, it has to be a fraudulent section, because, how can you be forced into a contract?

Not that helps you much when all of your efforts end up so callously dismissed, especially if you are in the High Court.
So, what do you think about this, and where do you think the remedy to this lies?
I would love to see some of you respond with your ideas in the comment thread below.

VICTORIAN DPP TO BE CHARGED WITH PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE OVER CHARGE AGAINST JULIA GILLARD.

UPDATE 29-10-10 Media Alert Adelaide businessman Graham Daniels, has charged the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions Jeremy Rapke QC, with perverting the course of justice after the Office of Public Prosecutions dismissed Mr Daniels’ charge against Prime Minister Julia Gillard under provisions of the Crimes Act relating to taking an unlawful oath to commit treason. On July 29th, 2010, in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, Mr Daniels filed a charge against Ms Gillard of breaching Section 316 (2)(a)(vii) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) during the month of June 2010. Mr Daniels, of Adelaide, is an international business consultant and part owner with his father Peter J. Daniels, of Australia’s only bullion bank. The Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions wrote to Mr Daniels on July 30, informing him that the DPP had taken over the conduct of the proceedings and withdrawn them. The treason-related charge against Ms Gillard was not the first. On January 29th, 2007, Victorian farmer Brian Shaw charged Ms Gillard, then his local Federal Member, of concealing an alleged act of treason by the Parliament of Western Australia. Mr Shaw’s allegations of treason against the WA Parliament were subsequently dismissed by the WA Supreme Court and Mr Shaw declared a vexatious litigant. Mr Shaw denies he is a vexatious litigant and continues to hold public meetings across Australia alleging subversion of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. Numerous other public figures have been charged in the past few years by Mr Shaw for alleged treasonous acts against the Commonwealth of Australia including misprision of treason and being attainted of treason, that is, acts associated with concealing treason. Jeremy Rapke, QC, Director of Public Prosecutions Victoria, threw out Mr Daniels’ action, so Mr Daniels has decided to charge Mr Rapke. The charge is: The accused at the Melbourne Magistrates Court on 30 July 2010 did use unlawful authority to take over and supress an indictable offence filed against Julia Gillard (The Accused) by Graham Daniels (The Informant). The unlawful authority occurs in the fact that the purported power came from the Public Prosecutions Act 1994 Victoria, an Act that has removed Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second from such Act at Section 51.3 of such Act. By such unlawful conduct the accused did attempt to pervert the Course of Justice. Time: October 25, 2010 from 9:30am to 1pm Location: Melbourne Magistrates Court Street: 233 William Street City/Town: Melbourne Website or Map: Event Type: court More details here: http://www.elijahschallenge.net/legal.htm WHY HAVE JULIA GILLARD AND OTHERS BEEN CHARGED WITH COMMITTING TREASON? http://www.larryhannigan.com/treason.htm http://www.cleanairandwater.net In knowing that acts of treason have occurred, yet concealing that knowledge: 1. They breached their oath of allegiance concerning the people of Australia 2. They broke existing law in order to enable substitution of another law, when... 3. No permission or referendum was sought to alter or substitute another law. Three examples of these actions: * The Australia Act 1986 (No referendum held) * In Western Australia in 2004 the Crown and Oath of Allegiance was removed , but no referendum was held. * In Victoria the Oath of Allegiance was removed from the Legal Practice Act in 2000 without referendum

CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES ACT 2005 - SECT 603

Amendment of Children and Young Persons Act 1989

603. Amendment of Children and Young Persons Act 1989

(1) In section 143 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 for "child"

 (wherever occurring) substitute "person".

Why do they want to redefine 'child' as a 'person'? 

Why not leave the definition of child as what it currently is? 

Do you, or anybody you know, struggle to define what a child is?

What is a 'person'?

Why hide an ambiguous meaning of a easily defined word such as child?

What is this about?   

(2) In section 148 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 for-  

(a) "child" (wherever occurring) substitute "person"; and  

(b) in subsection (3)(b)(ii) for "child's" substitute "person's".  

(3) In section 160(3)(f) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 omit "other".

(4) In section 184(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1989-     

(a)  in paragraph (a) omit "or revoking";     

(b)  for paragraph (c) substitute-  

"(c) an order revoking the youth attendance order and imposing any sentencing order

 that the Court thinks just but must not make an order for the person to be kept in

 custody for a period longer than the period of the breached youth attendance order.".  

(5) In section 185(5) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1989-     

(a)  in paragraph (d) omit ", or revoking the youth attendance order";     

(b)  for paragraph (f) substitute-  

"(f) an order revoking the youth attendance order and imposing any sentencing order 

that the Court thinks just but must not make an order for the person to be kept in 

custody for a period longer than the period of the breached youth attendance order.".