GETTING CLEAR THOUGHTS FROM JUST GROUNDS PEOPLE

GETTING CLEAR THOUGHTS

Inbox

x

Jim MacLeod	6:37 PM (18 hours ago)
to Alyn, chas, me

Hi Alyn Chas and Nicholas

The simpler the better – but because old history has a precedent it seems to own the current NOW and the future

It is within these parameters that we are being manipulated and confounded and indeed there are seriously mischievous

Individuals more than inclined to be dastardly in delivering detours and derailments – vigilance and clarification WITHOUT having to wade through

Reams of jargon legalese and the attendant BS is paramount – once we have a few good minds up and running and communicating in that kind of modus operandi

It seems that the conversation we want will evolve and the results sorely needed will come into view and step-by step possibility to closure….maybe….

2013 is upon us and the higher consciousness needs to be further expanded

All good thoughts welcome

Cheers

MacLeod (J

From: chas x [mailto:nwn.webmaster@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 31 December 2012 12:15 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: [SPAM] To Distrust the Judiciary means the beginning of the end of Society

Dear David and Friends,

I dont disagree that what your grievances "may" be valid, (I dont have the time to peruse them, There are for the moment IRRELEVANT); "court of competent jurisdiction declares it invalid and illegal" that is the first thing you have to achieve !!! Its QUITE obvious and common sense !! once you find "court of competent jurisdiction", everything else falls in place.

SO assume the system is "valid" and attack the bad apple judges (you are dealing with humans, they are all abusing the system) and then use their own system against them IF what you say is "just".

Or You can still apply section 75 of the Constitution and use your own arguments; I keep saying, "put your money where your mouth is". Section 75 bypasses their BS regarding Leave to Appeal (plus you need to mention at the top of the doc that they are prepared for publication of the internet or the documents wont get published).

I cannot say it often enough, "court of competent jurisdiction" is the first step you have to achieve. Assume that it is, and challenge the integrity of the "human" components, ie the judges and lawyers.

There is enough in the legislations to change the system from "within"; they are NOT going to tear down their own  system.

C

PS. the Peter Slipper case, the judge threw it out based on his interpretation of the plaintiffs' (political) motives, rather than the merits of the case. If I were the plaintiffs were would accuse the judge of discrimination right away. But the lawyers would be too scared for their jobs to attack the judges directly.

Robbie Thorpe and I will attack the Supreme Court, VCAT Presidents and members directly USING their own system. SO should everyone else, using the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act. Once that's achieved, THEN and ONLY then can you point to other discrepencies in their system.

Otherwise you are just pissing into the wind; at least make sure piss doesnt land on you BUT on them.

If anyone wants the attachments, I can forward them, BUT i dont intend to read them, unless someone can simplify the arguments into 1 or 2 sentences.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David
Date: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 10:23 AM
Subject: RE: DEMOCRACY DEFINED.
To: chas x <nwn.webmaster@gmail.com>

Hi Charlie.

Thanks for this.  Ken d’Oudney has done well and I have viewed his work about a year or two ago. 

If you require certain stuff, please just ask, as I have got some stuff from Elijah’s challenge website of Brian, Basic Fraud website, CLRG website and other affiliates, plus my own research.  Doc 50 is what Brian obtained from Vic Parliament.  UK Coat of arms is from Austilli historical section.  My letter from VEC.  The proclamation which is rubbish of Henry Winneke states under the Queen of Australia.  You will notice Vic Gov Gazette for Vic Const 1975 states under the Queen of Australia.   Please view the Royal Styles Act 1973 and when you get into the discover democracy site, click onto the link and it will show you that Queen Liz has sighted the inferred act, but no signature on the last page and under the Schedule it will show “Queen of Australia”.  Look at the 1953 Royal Styles act only sighted and in the Schedule look at the correct wording.  Then have a look at Lyall Sempf’s letters about Royal Styles Act 1973 and Ian Henke’s letters and others that you can get from Basic Fraud website as well to which I have sent you. 

See how you go Charlie.

From: chas x [mailto:nwn.webmaster@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, 30 December 2012 10:08 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Fwd: To Jim from Kenn d'Oudney, DEMOCRACY DEFINED.

Dear ALL,

Wishing all a happy start of the new year, there work to be done.

Magna Carta

Clauses still in force

The clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta still on statute are:

·         Clause 1, the freedom of the English Church

·         Clause 9 (clause 13 in the 1215 charter), the "ancient liberties" of the City of London

·         Clause 29 (clause 39 in the 1215 charter), a right to due process

·                                         

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#Clauses_still_in_force

I would like to be part of what you people are doing but I keep asking for the legal arguments so I can copy and use, but I keep getting BS !!! Only one person was using their system to hurt them, but he proved to be flaky, and got to big for his own boots, and was having "entitlement" delusions.

Look at the clause 29 of the Magna Carta.....thats the only one we can use...its in the Human Righs and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, Discrimination Acts, Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act, the Judicial Review Act.

This process will have to go to the United Nations Human Rights bodies, and I pissed them off a bit, but make no mistake they are not on your or my side either.

But to make a change in people, you have to convince them there needs to be a change: people hate changes.

But dont cite some ancient Roman terms, like maximus, and minimus, they give you NO cause for legal action: there is plenty of clause in the aforementioned acts to diminish the legal standing of judiciary, otherwise there is no need for a jury.

 G Luck and cheers....

Remember "to Distrust the Judiciary means the beginning of the end of society" Honore de balzac.....The Mayans were right, keep repeating that and get everyone to repeat it..Put it LARGE on your front page. Only need one judge to fall and its a domino effect, Kirby has started it, he's the fool that called the Emperor has No Clothes....Us other fools just need to repeat and keep repeating.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David
Date: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:46 PM
Subject: RE: Our new list of presiding lawyers in Victoria
To: chas x <nwn.webmaster@gmail.com>

Yes you are correct Charlie, but I like to know when these crims commenced and who is behind the charade as when charges come and I hope you will be apart of it, they cannot run as no appointment is valid under the 1975 Vic Const created just like Henry Winneke the Governor all under the Queen of Australia which is a Fraud.  Once a court of competent jurisdiction declares it invalid and illegal, then further charges will be laid.

Kind regards and all the best for 2013

David

From: chas x [mailto:nwn.webmaster@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 29 December 2012 6:38 PM
To: David
Subject: Re: Our new list of presiding lawyers in Victoria

Why?

You can expect anyone of them to screw you over to further their careers.

They are there to protect their mates, in particular, even if they screw their own system.

So any time you can use their system to belittle them in the public eye, the more you weaken them.

Kirby already called the "emperor has no clothes", all we to do is make the sledge bigger.

C