[LINK] madness - or un-australian behaviour

[Adam Todd]

At 10:23 PM 28/08/2006, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
>Deus Ex Machina wrote:
>>Brenda Aynsley [bpa at iss.net.au] wrote:
>>
>>>see http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1725902.htm
>>>
>>>I admit my ignorance of this but am appalled that jack thomas (jihad 
>>>jack) has been put under curfew from midnight to 5a.m. under a control 
>>>order provided for by the terrorism provisions.
>>
>>I am appaled that you want to side with a self confessed terrorist
>
>How do we know that anything Jack Thomas has said has anything to do with 
>the truth? We do know that some of what he has said was said under extreme 
>duress, but that's about all. Not only that, but a jury found him not 
>guilty even with the statements obtained illegally.
>
>I'm all in favour of punishing convicted terrorists and criminals, but I 
>was under the impression the only way someone could be convicted is after 
>due legal process.

You think?  With all the criminal charges I've faced over the years, 
fortunately all dismissed, I begin to wonder what the "Due Legal Process" 
was the end result of first deciding if there was any basis for it to be 
commenced!

I've just spent this month in Criminal Court defending my wife and myself 
against a dozen charges exceeding $1 million in penalties for not doing 
something we didn't do.

Yes read that again:  Charged with NOT DOING SOMETHING we did NOT DO.

That's the actual charge.

Is that baloney or what?

>It's the same with David Hicks. If he is what is claimed then it should be 
>pretty easy to prove in a court of law.

Yes but the US system isn't about proving things in court, it's about 
punishing people.

Remember, you are guilty until proven innocent.  Get yourself a copy of 
Arron Russo's "America from Freedom to Fascism" and be appalled at the truth.


>It is far more disturbing to me that bad laws are passed,

You mean laws like "You are guilty of the offence even if you can't 
actually commit the offence or it's impossible to commit."

>due process is  not followed,

You mean like dismissing proceedings that have already been heard before 
and decided?

Or in the case of the State, manipulating the court system but NOT TURNING 
UP on to court on 21 August after being served on 3 August (where only 5 
days service is required) because in doing so they would jeopardies their 
hearing on 24 August in a lower court, then turning up on 28 August after 
being served only on 24 August (less than five days) and saying that they 
have no instructions from half the defendants and some are employees who 
are seeking Crown representation.

Then, the idiots put foot in mouth and said that the proceeding was 
incorrectly commenced by summons, even though on the previous occasion the 
Registrar read the section of the ACT - the LAW - the words passed by 
parliament that the CROWN SOLICITOR is suppose to KNOW BY HEART - that I 
was right in commencing by summons.

Then they sort to have it dismissed, on oral application because it was 
incorrectly commenced.  Even though the law says "If a proceeding is 
commenced by summons the court may order that it is in fact a Statement of 
Claim" or vice versa.

Worst off, saying they need FOUR WEEKS to consider their position, even 
though between 3 August and 28 August near four weeks has passed!

I'll remember that next time I'm facing the State.  Don't turn up on first 
callup, turn up on second callup and say you need four weeks to review the 
claim.

Then they tried to say that this was the same as another proceeding, even 
though is't different people, on different dates, for different things!

Ahhh well.

I think Government needs to seriously look at itself and the silly laws 
it's passing, and to stop trying to make Government untouchable and 
unaccountable in law.

Why can't the Government face the fact that it's not above the law!

>politicians interfere with the law

They make the law, they don't interfere with it.

>where they should not and incompetent commentators make illogical and 
>incorrect statements than someone who has not been proven guilty is 
>allowed to live a life free of unwarranted harassment.

They also make laws saying that "if an officer acts in good faith, then 
they are not liable for any wrong doing."

Sounds more like a socialist Government runs this country than a democratic.