20170614-Blogger Charged With Contempt

Page 1
1
2
3 We all have different manner of expressions but can it be deemed CONTEMPT OF COURT?
4
5 The earlier 11-6-2017 version omitted my comments.
6
7
8
9
10 Corrupt Judges
11 People
12 Mineral Health <csgroups@iprimus.com.au>
13
14 Today at 12:19
15 To
16 Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka
17 Hide
18 Photos
19 outside_fed_court_2.jpg
20 Untitled1.3.jpeg
21 donation-11.jpg
22 Download All
23 Attachments
24 ATT01995.htm
25 Download All
26 Message body
27
28
29 ----- Original Message -----
30 From: john soulman
31 To: undisclosed-recipients:
32 Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 8:59 AM
33 Subject: Corrupt Judges
34
35 Blogger charged with contempt

36 ordered to serve Attorney-Generals with
37 Notice of a Constitutional Matter
38 https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2017/06/11/blogger-charged-with-contempt-ordered-to-serve-
39 attorney-generals-with-notice-of-a-constitutional-matter/
- 14-6-2017 (corrected) Page 1

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 The pursuit of me by the Supreme Court of NSW for contempt has stepped up a notch with the
2 court ordering me to serve all Australian Attorney-Generals with a Notice of a Constitutional Matter
3 pursuant to section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903.
4 This article is an update as to where the proceedings are at and also to drive home that the
5 suppression orders put on the matter should never have been issued.
6 I was charged for contempt for allegedly calling a Justice Clifton Hoeben a paedophile and
7 Registrar Christopher Bradford a paedophile and a bribe taker in court on the 3rd of February 2017.
8 I have pleaded not guilty and deny the allegations against me.
9 I have used numerous precedents in my defence but the main one is Lange v ABC 1997 (HCA).
10 (Click here to read more) The bottom line to the Lange v ABC High Court of Australia precedent is
11 that laws that infringe on political communication are invalid. Political communication includes
12 political corruption and also includes communication regarding government employees and judges
13 are government employees.
14 The prosecution in effect argued in court that judges are above the law and what is said in court is
15 not covered by the freedom of political communication as per Lange v ABC 1997 (HCA).
16 Put simply my defence is: 1. I didnt say what they claim. 2. What I did say is protected by the
17 implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution. and 3. Even if I did say
18 what they claim I would also be protected by the implied freedom of political communication in the
19 Australian constitution.
20 The hearing for contempt was heard on the 4th of May and with further time allowed to file and
21 serve further written submissions the matter has dragged on until this point. Now I have served the
22 Attorney-Generals it could possibly be drawn out another month or two depending on a number of
23 variables. (Click here to read my further submissions) and (Click here to read the further
24 submissions of prosecution)
25 I regard this as a positive step whether or not the Attorney-Generals intervene as it shows that there
26 should never have been a suppression order given it is now confirmed there is a political argument
27 to be had and laws that infringe on political communication are invalid.
28 Background
29 I have written about this a number of times and if you are new to this story you can read the
30 background by clicking on the below links to previous articles:
31 Chief Justice Bathurst has journalist charged with contempt for accusing him of corruption
32 5/2/2017
33 Free speech and political speech is being suppressed in Australia by the NSW Supreme Court
34 8/4/2017
35
36 The above photo was taken in 2008 and is on the front of my book Love Letter from the Bar
37 Table. Justice Michael Moore was made aware of the photo as I filed it as part of an affidavit. He
38 never charged me with contempt or even threatened to. So why am I now being charged for saying
39 that Registrar Christopher Bradford takes bribes?
40 Neither Clifton Hoeben or Registrar Christopher Bradford have filed an affidavit in the case nor
41 have they denied the allegations that they say I made. They have also not charged me or complained
Page 3
1 about the allegations I made against them in an article last year titled Paedophile priest gets 3
2 months jail for raping 3 boys by NSW Supreme Courts Justice Hoeben even though I wrote to
3 them and let them know I would be publishing the allegations. So I take it they confirm that the
4 allegations in the article is true and correct.
5 JUDICIARY ACT 1903 SECT 78B Notice to Attorneys-General (Click here to read more)
6 The below quote is on the Australian Government Solicitors website and explains how a Notice of
7 a Constitutional matter works:
8 The Australian Government can become involved in constitutional litigation in either of 2 ways.
9 First, the Government may be a party in its own right, where proceedings have been commenced by
10 or against it. Second, the Commonwealth Attorney-General has a right to intervene on behalf of the
11 Government in cases raising constitutional issues.
12 The Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) requires parties in such cases to give the Attorney-General notice of
13 the constitutional issues (under section 78B) to allow a decision to be made on intervention by each
14 Attorney-General (under section 78A).
15 In relation to possible interventions, AGSs role includes considering notices given under the
16 Judiciary Act and, in consultation with the Commonwealth Solicitor-General and other interested
17 agencies, advising the AGD on whether the Attorney-General should intervene. This year AGS
18 reviewed 259 notices given under s 78B of cases raising constitutional law issues.
19 The Attorney-General intervened under s 78A at the hearing of 9 cases in the High Court and 1
20 case in each of the Family Court, Victorian Supreme Court and Western Australian Court of
21 Appeal and was a respondent to an appeal to the High Court where he had intervened in the court
22 below.
23 AGS also advises the Australian Government on all submissions on constitutional law issues that
24 are put to courts on behalf of Commonwealth agencies. This is to ensure that these submissions are
25 accurate and apply Commonwealth constitutional policy consistently. (Click here to read more)
26 Responses from the Attorney-Generals

27 Justice Helen Wilson issued orders giving me until the 7th of June to serve the State and Federal
28 Attorney-Generals the section 78B Notice of a Constitutional Matter. (Click here to see the Notice
29 of a constitutional Matter that I sent to the A-Gs) The Federal Government have responded as per
30 the below letter:
31
32 .
33 And the Queensland government responded saying that they will not intervene at the moment but if
34 it gets to the High Court of Australia they will reconsider intervening. (Click here to read the QLD
35 Governments letter)
36 At this point the other States and Territories have not made a decision about intervening.
37 Issues raised by the Notice of a Constitutional Matter

38 The constitutional questions raised in my case and my viewpoints are:
39 1. Is what is said in court protected by the freedom of communication on matters of government and
40 politics as per Lange v ABC (1997) HCA?
Page 4
1 A. Yes. As per Lange v ABC (1997) HCA and Nationwide News Pty. Limited v. Wills [1992] HCA
2 46; (1992) etc.
3 2. Is criticism and/or allegations of corruption against Judicial officers protected by the freedom of
4 communication on matters of government and politics as per Lange v ABC (1997) HCA?
5 A. Yes. As per Lange v ABC (1997) HCA, Nationwide News Pty. Limited v. Wills [1992] HCA
6 46; (1992), Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 182 and Coleman v Power [2004]
7 HCA 39; 220 etc.
8 3. Are suppression orders issued by a court invalid if they infringe on the freedom of
9 communication on matters of government and politics as per Lange v ABC (1997)?
10 A. Yes. As per Lange v ABC (1997) HCA, John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v the Attorney
11 General for New South Wales [2000] NSWCA 198 and Nationwide News Pty. Limited v.
12 Wills [1992] HCA 46; (1992) etc.
13 4. Are proceedings for contempt invalid if they infringe on the freedom of communication on
14 matters of government and politics as per Lange v ABC (1997)?
15 A. Yes. As per Lange v ABC (1997) HCA, John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v the Attorney
16 General for New South Wales [2000] NSWCA 198 and Nationwide News Pty. Limited v.
17 Wills [1992] HCA 46; (1992) etc.
18 Confirmation that there should have never been a suppression order on the matter
19 The High Court of Australia has handed down numerous precedents making it very clear that any
20 laws that infringe on political communication are invalid.
21 So the question that needs to asked when deciding if there should or shouldnt be suppression
22 orders on this matter are: Is what is being argued in the case a political issue? The answer is
23 blatantly yes because the court has ordered me to serve all the Attorney-Generals with the section
24 78B Notice of a Constitutional Matter and any argument regarding the constitution is political. And
25 the prosecution agreed that I should serve the notice so they are not disputing it is a political matter.
26 The suppression orders say I cant repeat what I said in court and I cant name the judges and
27 registrar which I have done in this article and the previous articles and that has resulted in another
28 charge for contempt. Yep, another contempt charge for me breaching a suppression order that
29 should not have been issued because it infringes my freedom of political communication which for
30 example is doing nothing more than letting the followers and readers of this website know about the
31 corruption that is happening in court.
32 Why the Attorney-Generals should intervene

33 All the Attorney-Generals should intervene given it is a case involving judges of a court prosecuting
34 their own case and putting a suppression order on it to protect their names and trying to conceal
35 what happened which is a national scandal. What the judges dont like is me calling them out for
36 being the criminals they are. And they are too scared to sue me for defamation because they would
37 lose or even if they won their reputations would be destroyed as the public would see that they are
38 not fit to be a judges.
39 The Attorney-Generals should also intervene because new media like this website and social media
40 are not scared of reporting judicial corruption as the old media are so the judges are trying to
41 intimidate new media in an attempt to conceal judicial corruption. This has to be stopped.

Page 5
1 Ultimately this case needs to end up in the High Court to give it a final resolution because it has the
2 potential to have a far-reaching impact. If judicial corruption and what is said in court is determined
3 to be outside the protection of the implied freedom of political communication in the constitution
4 then who and what else is also outside the law?
5 Please use the Twitter, Facebook and email etc. buttons below and help promote this post.
6 Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep
7 publishing. If you would like to support the continuance of this site, please click on the button
8 below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options. (Click here to go
9 to the Donations page)
10 If you would like to follow this website, you can by email notification at the top right of this page
11 and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article.
12 Thank you for your support.
13
14 22 Comments on Blogger charged with contempt ordered to serve Attorney-
15 Generals with Notice of a Constitutional Matter
16 1.
17 Ken.T. June 11, 2017 at 1:39 am #
18 Hang in there. I think they are looking for a hole in the ropes to get through.
19
20 2.
21 bobrafto June 11, 2017 at 4:14 am #
22 May justice prevail!
23
24 3.
25 melbaver June 11, 2017 at 8:12 am #
26 You would expect the highest courts of the land to be able to spell the big and important
27 words. It is either Prothonotary, or Protonotarynot natory.
28 protonotary (also prothonotary)
29 n noun (plural protonotaries) chiefly historical a chief clerk in some law courts, originally in
30 the Byzantine court.
31 ORIGIN
32 Middle English: via medieval Latin from late Greek protonotarios, from protos first +
33 notarios notary.
34 Byzantine indeed!!!
35 o
36 David Livingstone June 11, 2017 at 8:55 am #

Page 6
1 Their law degrees are from Trump U.

2

4 Think not. Trump has the best lawyers money can buy. Bond maybe?
5 4.
6 allan moore June 11, 2017 at 9:07 am #
7 Im of the opinion it stinks of obscene abuse of power and desperate moves to silence the
8 potential exposure of the obvious abuse of power, let alone the underlying implications of
9 the case, We see taxpayers money poured into all sorts of Government investigations, kick
10 started by the media or sometimes,what is rare these days, an honorable politician with
11 morales. Where is the media ? where are the honourable politicians ? Where is the
12 Government support for Whistleblowers with accusations of such magnitude ? Where is the
13 NSW Police investigation and support for a whistleblower with accusations of such
14 magnitude?
15 They are all conspicuous in their absence, quite a frightening scenario for all decent people
16 this country.
17 o
18 Vinny June 12, 2017 at 4:47 pm #

19 I the last two years I have written three times to the media in an attempt to publicise
20 Shanes struggle against corruption. Needless to say not one of my letters was
21 printed. Does it not make one wonder if the mainstream media condones corruption?
22
23 5.
25 We had such a leader for but a short period of time. Shot vdown by the very left leaning
26 softie Turncoat.
27 o
28 allan moore June 11, 2017 at 5:41 pm #

29 Spot on mate
30 6.
31 JC June 11, 2017 at 10:51 am #
32 Im predicting that this case will elevate to become a national issue and will drive public
33 debate on the role and breadth of the media, particularly the addition of new media, as we
34 see every 15 years or so. This case has the potential to produce an election issue of serious
35 importance, particularly given the free speach issues currently being discussed. Cant wait.
36 JC
37 o

Page 7

2 How would you suggest we can see this become a national issue? lets get the ball
3 rolling!! fellow followers
4
5 JC June 13, 2017 at 10:32 am #

6 Most likely by doing what Mr. Dowling has done in the first place with this
7 blog site grass roots.
8 o

10 Just had a thought ya all, i am going to my NSW local MP and Federal MP and ask
11 both to enquire as to why this whistleblower has not, and is not being supported,
12 given the magnitude of the accusations, and the blatant abuse of power being
13 exercised in this case, i will post their written response.
14 7.
15 Ross Cameron June 11, 2017 at 10:53 am #
16 Wish I had known of this years ago when the Qld Supreme Court judges were doing their
17 will on me. Pity most of them died before retribution.
18
19 8.
20 Jonde June 11, 2017 at 11:11 am #
21 When I saw the Protho in the word prothonotary the first thought I had was, What does
22 Protho in Arkansas, USA have in conjunction with the Attorney General and Mr S.D.
23 As the case progresses I hope that the those holding the Damocles swords over the Boss Roo
24 are forced to drop them on their own heads.
25 9.
26 Vasant Wagh June 11, 2017 at 11:42 am #
27 Judicial corruption is like a cancer. When detected it must be treated. This means the people
28 of this good country must say enough is enough. If I take my matters to the court or the
29 tribunal I need to see independence, impartiality, fairness, morals and ethics and not the
30 legal jargon. If I am taken to the court by others the same rules apply.
31 The ordinary people must have confidence in the legal system and also in those who make
32 the appointments of judges and the tribunal members.
33 Our country is perceived as becoming more and more corrupt every year. How many people
34 in the positions of power, trust and authority will be ready to put their hand up to accept
35 some responsibility for that perception?

Page 8
1 Truth has unlimited powers. The nationwide alert for the corruption eradication is warranted
2 so that we have a decent democracy in our country. Your efforts to speak out about your
3 experiences need national recognition and not harassment and intimidation is my view.
4 10.
5 Brett June 11, 2017 at 12:28 pm #
6 Covering Clause 5 of the Constitution states the laws of the Constitution are binding on
7 everyone including Judges. Im not sure where in the history of the Judicial System that a
8 man defending himself in a court over a Constitutional matter must lawfully obtain
9 permission from the Attorney General for any court to lawfully hear a Constititional
10 argument raised by a defendant. The framers of the Constitution worded it so that all courts
11 could hear constitutional matters but we know the High Court has the final interpretation if
12 it gets that far. I want to know how and where in our history did the Attorney General usurp
13 a subjects constitutional right, to be able to raise a Constitutional argument in any court
14 where that court under the law must uphold the Constitution. One would have thought that
15 usurping a mans constitutional right to raise a Constitutional issue in any court and it being
16 referred to the A General first for permission, would have required a referendum some
17 where along the line
18
19 o
20 Shane Dowling June 11, 2017 at 12:58 pm #

21 I didnt need permission to run a constitutional defence. The reason that there is a
22 law making it compulsory to notify the Attorney-Generals is to make sure courts do
23 not start ignoring or interpreting the constitution to suit themselves which they are
24 attempting to do in my matter.
25
26 Brett June 11, 2017 at 1:11 pm #

27 I guess my point is that when you want to mount a constitutional argument,
28 you have to fill out a form and if you dont, the court wont allow you to bring
29 it up which is a breach of ones common law and Constitutional rights as all
30 courts are obligated to hear a Constitutional argument but somewhere along
31 the line, court rules have usurped our constitutional right to have the matter
32 heard without filling out a form.
33
34 Shane Dowling June 11, 2017 at 1:15 pm #

35 Ive already run the constitutional argument in court. There was nothing
36 stopping me from doing so and I didnt need permission from anyone. The
37 reason you need the notify the Attorney-Generals is to stop dodgy
38 interpretations of the constitution and make sure the constitution is not
39 ignored.
40 11.
41 Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. June 11, 2017 at 11:00 pm #
Page 9
1 I am about as outspoken as possible in my writings but so far they (the courts) failed to get
2 me for speaking out because our constitution provides for our rights. Obviously, you need to
3 be reasonable in how you comment.
4 I will quote a 2014 correspondence and you may elect to use this material or not.
5 Mr Tony Abbott PM 22-12-2014
6 C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
7 Cc: Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
8 Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
9 Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
10 Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
11 David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
12 George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
13 Jessdica Marszalek Jessica.marszalek@news.com.au
14 Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
15 Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
16 Ref; 20141222-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM-Re defe4cts HCA
17 decision Monis&Droudis
18 Tony,
19 As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my first concern always is if any legislation/treaty is within
20 the true meaning and application of the constitution.
21 I refer to Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013,
22 S172/2012 & S179/2012, which I view exposes how judges of the High Court of Australia
23 fail to understand and comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution.
24 Having read through the entire reason of judgments it seems that most judges rely upon:
25 (at 2) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013,
26 S172/2012 & S179/2012,
27 QUOTE
28 The Australian Constitution limits the power of parliaments to impose burdens on freedom
29 of communication on government and political matters. No Australian parliament can
30 validly enact a law which effectively burdens freedom of communication about those
31 matters unless the law is reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a
32 manner compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of
33 [government in Australia.
34 END QUOTE
36 S172/2012 & S179/2012,
37 QUOTE
38 The term implied freedom of communication concerning government and political matters
39 has been well established in Australian constitutional discourse since the implication was
40 first posited in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills and in Australian Capital Television Pty
41 Ltd v The Commonwealth . However, as Dawson J said in Levy v Victoria :
42 QUOTE
43 (at 102-103) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013,
44 S172/2012 & S179/2012,
45 QUOTE
46 Applicable principles
47 102 The Constitution provides for a system of representative and responsible government.
48 Sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution provide that the two Houses of the Parliament must be
Page 10
1 directly chosen by the people. Section 64 requires that no Minister of State hold office
2 for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the
3 House of Representatives. Those who are elected as members of the Parliament and those
4 who are appointed as Ministers of State are necessarily accountable to the people referred
5 to in ss 7 and 24. Additionally, s 128 provides that the Constitution shall not be altered
6 except in the manner provided in that section; in particular, only if in a majority of the
7 States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the
8 electors voting also approve the proposed law. As the whole Court said in Lange , it
9 follows from these and other provisions that [f]reedom of communication on matters of
10 government and politics is an indispensable incident of that system of representative
11 government which the Constitution creates.
12 103 Because freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an
13 indispensable incident of the constitutionally prescribed system of government, that freedom
14 cannot be curtailed by the exercise of legislative or executive power and the common law
15 cannot be inconsistent with it. But the freedom is not absolute and it follows that the limit on
16 legislative power is also not absolute.
17 QUOTE
19 S172/2012 & S179/2012,
20 QUOTE
21 In the setting of the Australian Constitution, a system of representative government is the
22 constitutional imperative upon which the implied freedom is founded.
23 END QUOTE
24 We then have to consider also:
25 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann;
26 Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
27 QUOTE
28 Constitutional interpretation
29 The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
30 intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or
31 expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who
32 made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers
33 can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in which they
34 used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at Fordham University
35 in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
36 We must begin, in my view, by asking what on the best evidence available the authors
37 of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive
38 interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It
39 means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event someone, or a social
40 group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a particular way on a particular
41 occasion.
42 END QUOTE
43 .
44 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
45 National Australasian Convention)
46 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
47 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations
48 to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
49 END QUOTE
Page 11
1 And not to overlook:

2 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. CARRUTHERS:
5 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
6 understand.
7 END QUOTE
8 .
9 Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
10 QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
11 That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position
12 which Mr. Barton has described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the
13 common law of England. This Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be
14 handed over not to a Convention similar to this, not to a small select body of legislators, but
15 to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or rejection. It is the whole body of the
16 people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and it is the whole body of
17 the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to understand clearly
18 everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole time of
19 the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this
20 Constitution is commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions,
21 which may or may not be appreciated by the people.
22 END QUOTE
23 .
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a peoples Constitution, not a lawyers Constitution.
28 END QUOTE
29 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
30 the National Australasian Convention)
31 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
32 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
33 Constitution,
34 END QUOTE
35 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
36 QUOTE
37 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by
38 the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect,
39 because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details
40 of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of
41 Australians.
42 END QUOTE
43 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
45 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
46 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
47 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
48 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-
Page 12
1 of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace
2 and unite.
3 END QUOTE
4 And
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
8 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
9 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of
10 nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this
11 question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great
12 Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be
13 given by the people of Australia to themselves.
14 END QUOTE
15 It therefore must be clear that political liberty including FREEDOM OF
16 SPEECH/COMMUNICATION is recognized in the constitution and is embedded as a legal
17 principle in the Constitution. This, even so judges of the High Court of Australia held that
18 this freedom of communication was not recognized until 1989.
19 .
20 The High Court of Australia also addressed that s 471.12 was dealing with government
21 postal services and like services (meaning private services) however none of the judges
22 raised the fact that the Post and Telegraph Act 1901 was in fact enacted at a time when the
23 Commonwealth of Australia had sole operations of postal services. In fact the Framers of
24 the Constitution rejected to have the American system where it was in private hands.
26 S172/2012 & S179/2012,
27 QUOTE
28 The earliest form of federal legislative regulation of the sending of certain kinds of offensive
29 matter by post went beyond prohibiting the sending of indecent or obscene material. Section
30 107(c) of the Post and Telegraph Act 1901 (Cth), which commenced operation on 1
31 December 1901, made it an offence to knowingly send, or attempt to send, by post any
32 postal article which has thereon or therein or on the envelope or cover thereof any words
33 marks or designs of an indecent obscene blasphemous libellous or grossly offensive
34 character (emphasis added).
35 END QUOTE
36 The court referred to past Authorities of the High Court of Australia this even so they relied
37 upon assumptions of judges as at that time the Hansard Debates were not permitted to be
38 used, whereas now they are. As such the past Authorities to some degree are outdates.
39 Again:
40 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
42 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
43 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
44 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
45 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-
46 of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace
47 and unite.
48 END QUOTE

Page 13
1 Therefore any political communication is enshrined in the constitution as a legal principle

2 but also subject to peace, order and good government. In that regard I view that political
3 communication is limited to peace, order and good government. This means that in my
4 view s471.12 Criminal Code (Cth) is well within the ambit because it pursues
5 (At 4) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013,
6 S172/2012 & S179/2012,
7 END QUOTE
8 4 Mr Monis was charged on indictment in the District Court of New South Wales on 12
9 April 2011 with 13 offences against s 471.12 of the Code. Ms Droudis was charged on the
10 same indictment with eight counts alleging that she aided and abetted the commission of
11 offences against s 471.12 by Mr Monis. A typical count against Mr Monis alleged that he:
12 On about 27 November 2007 at Sydney, New South Wales, used a postal service, namely
13 Australia Post, in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the
14 circumstances, offensive by sending a letter dated 25 November 2007 addressed to Mr John
15 Worsley, the father of Private Luke Worsley, an Australian Defence Force Soldier killed in
16 action on 23 November 2007 Contrary to section 471.12 of the Criminal Code 1995.
17 1 Section 471.12 of the Code provides:
18 A person is guilty of an offence if:
19 (a) the person uses a postal or similar service; and
20 (b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a
21 communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the
22 circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.
23 Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
24 5 The letters that were the subject of the charges were described by Bathurst CJ in the Court
25 of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales as at one level critical of the involvement of
26 the Australian Military in Afghanistan but also as referring to the deceased soldiers in a
27 denigrating and derogatory fashion.
28 END QUOTE
29 While it may be accepted, as some judges indicated, that political communication may at
30 times be offensive to some and not to others pending once views, in this case I view the
31 writings to the relatives of the deceased was beyond what ought to be deemed political
32 communication. To dress up denigrating and derogative statements regarding soldiers
33 who already are dead in my view cannot be held to promote political communication.
35 S172/2012 & S179/2012,
36 QUOTE
37 There are various ways of describing the communications which found the alleged offences
38 in this case. To say that they are letters addressed to the parents and relatives of deceased
39 soldiers killed in active service in Afghanistan that reflect on the service of those deceased
40 soldiers in that conflict is one way of
41 putting the matter. Another approach is to concentrate on the actual language of the
42 communications, unmediated by bland summary. That approach is not inimical to the rights
43 and interests of the appellants in their criminal trials. One of the communications, for
44 example, is couched in unctuous expressions of regret for the difficult time through which
45 the parents are passing, condolences for the loss of your son and statements like May
46 God grant you patience and guide us all to the right path. But it calls the son a murderer of
47 civilians. It expresses sympathy to his parents, but not to him. It compares the son to a pig
48 and to a dirty animal. It calls the sons body contaminated. It refers to it as the dirty body
49 of a pig. It describes Hitler as not inferior to the son in moral merit.
50 239 For most children, the death of a parent is a sad event. For most parents, the death of a
Page 14
1 child is worse. That is because many parents die when elderly, or at a great age when death
2 comes as a blessed release. Parents of that kind have lived a full lifespan. But it is different
3 when children die in their parents lifetime. The natural order of events is reversed. The
4 children have not fought their fight to finality. They have not run their full race.
5 END QUOTE
6 I myself at one stage considered to write to relatives of soldiers who had died in Iraq as to
7 that they should sue the responsible Minister for the unconstitutional invasion but held this
8 would be beyond the realm of political communication and so decided against it.
9 .
11 QUOTE
12 Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member
13 is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out
14 that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had
15 another motive.
16 END QUOTE
17 As such, the motive of the legislation, if intended to restrain ordinary political
18 communication it would be ULTRA VIRES but where it seeks to pursue peace, order and
19 good government such as to avoid people to be placed in danger of harm when receiving
20 mail articles such as the once complained about then I view the legislation cannot be
21 deemed to be in conflict with the constitution.
22 In my view the 3 judges (CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ.) who held the convictions
23 should stand were correct in their analysis that the purpose of the legislation was to protect
24 the community (individually or together) from unsolicited material that would be an
25 invasion to their privacy as the letters were written.
28 QUOTE
29 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page
30 2092] Higgins) may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the
31 practice of the High Court, when declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a
32 declaration applied only to the part which trespassed beyond the limits of the Constitution. If
33 that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the interpretation of the whole of
34 the Constitution.
35 END QUOTE
36 Therefore legislation that may be offensive to constitutional enshrined principles only must
37 be held in valid for so far it conflicts with the constitution and no further.
38 Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
39 QUOTE
40 In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual
41 injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not
42 illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.
43 END QUOTE
44 In my view Mon is and Droudis may be considered to have CONSPIRED in their letter
45 writings to cause undue harm to those receiving them.

Page 15
1 In my view the fact that s471.12 also applies to like services including those in private
2 control, itself ought to underline that it was not intended and shouldnt be considered to be a
3 restriction upon government services, but was of a general issue.
4 It is of grave concern to me that none of the judges seemed to understand/comprehend that
5 political communication was enshrined in the constitution not because they held so since
6 1989 but because it is part of political liberty, being it that there are always qualifications
7 to rights that those rights must be exercised in a responsible manner. In my view the
8 writings of the letters were exceeding the rights of political communication! The same can
9 be stated as to religious liberty that it cannot protect so to say religious fanatics who by
10 their conduct of other citizens of their constitutional rights!
11 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
13 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
14 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that
15 people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day
16 the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the
17 commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its
18 very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is
19 secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is
20 secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I
21 venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a
22 people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we
23 contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the
24 citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of
25 interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of
26 the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to
27 consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which
28 none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our
29 work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the
30 critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them.
31 Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive
32 which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
33 therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary,
34 which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions
35 which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal
36 for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not
37 provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the
38 will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution
39 shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court
40 appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a
41 perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is
42 appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution,
43 for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those
44 who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-
45 shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve.
46 What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any
47 Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you
48 may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
49 guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the
50 highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that
Page 16
1 Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards,
2 and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from
3 dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having
4 provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
5 END QUOTE
6 And let us not overlook the following embedded legal principle:
7 Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
9 QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:
10 Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time
11 some secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular
12 occasion when possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public
13 question. There have been no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most
14 perfect freedom to express their opinions in public, and through their representatives in
15 parliament, on any public question of importance. There has never been any occasion when
16 such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this country, and so free and liberal
17 are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested by any mortal upon this
18 continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary, we all feel proud
19 of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed in any
20 state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
21 END QUOTE
22 Again It is a freedom not surpassed in any state in the world, not even in the boasted
23 republic of America. This in my view means that the Framers of the Constitution well
24 aware of the Amendments to the US constitution such as the right to bear arms and Freedom
25 of Speech embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) the
26 same legal principles!
27 Also some case law:
28 Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
29 QUOTE
30 The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable
31 right of everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
32 END QUOTE
33 No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:
34 LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO
35 (1936) A.C. 332, at 335
36 QUOTE
37 But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of
38 justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the
39 ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat
40 of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to err
41 therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to
42 those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of
43 criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they
44 are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and
45 respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary man
46 END QUOTE
47 .
48 The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or
Page 17
1 acts:
2 THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVENING
3 NEWS (1880) N.S.W. LR 211 AT 239.:
4 QUOTE
5 The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be
6 disputed. Our practice of sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions
7 as we do, always in the broad light of day, would be shown of some of its value if the public
8 opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be rigidly suppressed. We claim no
9 immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
10 END QUOTE
11 .
12 As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
13 (a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368
14 (b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
15 (c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
16 (d) SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31
17 .
18 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
19 LEWIS v. JUDGE OGDEN [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682
20 Contempt of Court (Vict.)
21 QUOTE
22 11. However, mere discourtesy falls well short of insulting conduct, let alone wilfully
23 insulting conduct which is the hallmark of contempt
24 END QUOTE
28 QUOTE
29 16. The appellants address continued with three examples in which it was suggested that
30 the judge had intervened to diminish the effect of points sought to be made by the appellant
31 in his cross-examination of Crown witnesses his Honour had described one point as
32 pedantic and that he had attempted to rescue witnesses from predicaments presented by
33 their evidence. The evidence on which these criticisms of the judge were based was not
34 before us. Consequently we are unable to determine whether the criticisms were well or ill-
35 founded. (at p691)
36 20namely that his Honours attitude to Pauls case was adverse and unfair in the sense of
37 being one-sided, we do not consider that the learned judge could have been satisfied
38 beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants comments amounted to an insult. The
39 appellants conduct was extremely discourteous, perhaps offensive, and deserving of rebuke
40 by his Honour, but in our view it could not be said to constitute contempt.
41 END QUOTE
45 QUOTE
46 21. In conclusion three comments should be made.
47 The first is to recall that the contempt power is exercised to vindicate the integrity of the
48 court and of its proceedings; it is rarely, if ever, exercised to vindicate the personal dignity
Page 18
1 of a judge (Ex parte Fernandez (1861) 30 LJCP 321, at p 332 ; Reg. v. Castro; Skipworths
2 Case (1873) LR 9 QB 219, at p 232 ; Bellanto (1962) 63 SR (NSW), at pp 200, 202 ).
3 The second is that the summary power of punishing for contempt should be used sparingly
4 and only in serious cases (Shamdasani (1945) AC, at p 270 ; Izuora v. The Queen (1953)
5 AC 327, at p 336 ).
6 The final comment is that the charge of contempt should specify the nature of the contempt,
7 i.e., that it consists of a wilful insult to the judge, and identify the alleged insult. (at p693)
8 22. In the result we would allow the appeal. (at p693)
9 ORDER
10 Appeal allowed.
11 END QUOTE
12 Your comment is awaiting moderation.
13 12.
14 Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. June 11, 2017 at 11:15 pm #
15 (clarification) Shane from the wording Also some case law this was not part of the 2014
16 correspondence but was added so you may like to consider it to use in your case.
17 Your comment is awaiting moderation.
18 13.
19 Michaela Banerji June 12, 2017 at 9:22 am #
20 I have a matter in the HCA as a self-represented litigant, but it was summarily dismissed
21 with jurisdictional error and I have sought leave to appeal. I want to believe in the integrity
22 of the justice system, but too much happens to not be sceptical.
23 14.
24 Fred Cuijpers June 12, 2017 at 1:46 pm #
25 Im with others on this!
26 Dont rely on any assistance from W.A Attorney General on the Rule of Law Consecutive
27 Attorney Generals here engaged in Perverting the course of Justice with Judges, Lawyers
28 and Ombudsman Field to continue to deny me Justice in Appeal.
29 There is only one thing worse than a dirty criminal. i.e a dirty criminals with there snouts in
30 the public purse. Therefore you are within your rights to expose them to have them resign or
31 dismissed as unfit to serve the public.
32 Where there is no rule of law a Pol Pot regime exists.
33
34
35
36
37


20170614-Blogger Charged With Contempt

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20170614-Blogger Charged With Contempt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

35 Blogger charged with contempt

- 14-6-2017 (corrected) Page 1

26 Responses from the Attorney-Generals

37 Issues raised by the Notice of a Constitutional Matter

32 Why the Attorney-Generals should intervene

- 14-6-2017 (corrected) Page 4

36 David Livingstone June 11, 2017 at 8:55 am #

- 14-6-2017 (corrected) Page 5

1 Their law degrees are from Trump U.

3 melbaver June 11, 2017 at 10:27 am #

18 Vinny June 12, 2017 at 4:47 pm #

28 allan moore June 11, 2017 at 5:41 pm #

- 14-6-2017 (corrected) Page 6

1 allan moore June 11, 2017 at 5:51 pm #

5 JC June 13, 2017 at 10:32 am #

9 allan moore June 11, 2017 at 6:14 pm #

- 14-6-2017 (corrected) Page 7

20 Shane Dowling June 11, 2017 at 12:58 pm #

26 Brett June 11, 2017 at 1:11 pm #

34 Shane Dowling June 11, 2017 at 1:15 pm #

1 And not to overlook:

- 14-6-2017 (corrected) Page 12

1 Therefore any political communication is enshrined in the constitution as a legal principle

- 14-6-2017 (corrected) Page 14

- 14-6-2017 (corrected) Page 18

You might also like