---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Ranistan
Date: Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Subject: RE: lawyes mafia- fact or fiction ?
To: nnchin1
I have lodged in the ' Supreme Court ' the case against Bar Association of Queensland.( case no 928/13 )
Since that mafia organisation masquerading as a legitimate outfit is openly protecting antisocial, criminal conduct;
Since that mafia organisation masquerading as a legitimate outfit is openly protecting antisocial, criminal conduct;
shows contemptuous attitude and predatory means when dealing with other members of the community and
encouraging disrespect for the ' law ' - I am asking the court also :
- to declare Bar Association of Queensland as criminal organisation and to disband it,
- to declare those people as ' not fit and proper ' of holding any position in Queensland requiring trustworthiness
- to declare those people as ' not fit and proper ' of holding any position in Queensland requiring trustworthiness
and honesty and to issue the order prohibiting those people from applying or holding such positions in Queensland.
BAQ is registered as a commercial organisation - ABN 78 009 717 739 , therefore they should be subject to
the same laws as any other Australian company .
the same laws as any other Australian company .
The continuation of court proceedings......
Ms Atkinson as the Supreme Court judge choose to preside over the court hearing in her own case on 17.04.2013
Ms Atkinson as the Supreme Court judge choose to preside over the court hearing in her own case on 17.04.2013
That is a breach of the well-known legal canon 'Nemo iudex in causa sua' that means, literally, no-one should be
a judge in their own cause and which has been recognized and applied extensively in anglo and international law.
Since Queensland legal industry claims to be adherents of anglo law - lets see if Ms Atkinson judicial colleagues
choose to 'support' her or the very basic legal principle which is a part of 'natural justice' concept.
a judge in their own cause and which has been recognized and applied extensively in anglo and international law.
Since Queensland legal industry claims to be adherents of anglo law - lets see if Ms Atkinson judicial colleagues
choose to 'support' her or the very basic legal principle which is a part of 'natural justice' concept.
To make it even more interesting Ms Atkinson is the President of Queensland Branch of the International
Commission of Jurists therefore she should be aware of the international standards in such matters.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Commission of Jurists therefore she should be aware of the international standards in such matters.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AND
1. I am appealing the order of Judge Roslyn G Atkinson from 17.04.2013, of not disqualifying herself
from hearing of the case Markan v Bar Association of Queensland and given during the unlawful 'hearing'
in breach of internationally recognized legal principles.
2. The subject of my application to this Court relates to the issue of the lack of respect for the human rights
in Queensland and the issue of racist attitude, discrimination and vilification of people who are not lawyers
and not of anglo origin, and who represent themselves in courts.
3. All those issues and the attitude of Queensland judiciary to it is best evidenced by the fact that the person
against who a formal court application was made dared to come and preside over a court hearing as it was
normal and fair by any standards, including standards of anglo law which makes so many public claims
of being fair, just and the example for others to follow.
against who a formal court application was made dared to come and preside over a court hearing as it was
normal and fair by any standards, including standards of anglo law which makes so many public claims
of being fair, just and the example for others to follow.
4. However, in practice it says - we can ignore people who are not lawyers and not of anglo origin,
we can tramp over their human rights because we are the law unto ourselves and whatever we do
cannot be brought against us because we created a devise called 'immunity' for ourselves.
we can tramp over their human rights because we are the law unto ourselves and whatever we do
cannot be brought against us because we created a devise called 'immunity' for ourselves.
5. Such conduct shows dreadful attitude towards respect for human rights and the internationally recognized
legal principles among Queensland judiciary - ignoring, disrespecting, insulting, denigrating, demeaning,
sneering, belittling, mocking the very basic values.
legal principles among Queensland judiciary - ignoring, disrespecting, insulting, denigrating, demeaning,
sneering, belittling, mocking the very basic values.
6. Encouragement to such conduct seem to be emanating from the fact that in Queensland appointing a court
judge is a process shrouded in secrecy and practically judiciary became 'invitation only' very exclusive club
where members owe their loyalty to 'sponsors' and not to the society at large.
judge is a process shrouded in secrecy and practically judiciary became 'invitation only' very exclusive club
where members owe their loyalty to 'sponsors' and not to the society at large.
7. 'Immunity' combined with 'discretion'; lack of any criticism from within Legal Industry, intimidated by
the licensing system; absolute lack of community control over judges selection and conduct - created
the environment of arrogance and lawlessness.
the licensing system; absolute lack of community control over judges selection and conduct - created
the environment of arrogance and lawlessness.
8. The dogma of relying for the court decision on 'authorities' - previous cases, which are claimed to be
'similar'; elastic 'justifications' instead of common sense and objective, rational reasoning is the disgrace
of that pseudo 'justice system'.
'similar'; elastic 'justifications' instead of common sense and objective, rational reasoning is the disgrace
of that pseudo 'justice system'.
9. One of the last bastions of feudal concept of the world transposed from 16 century England to 21 century
Australia serves exclusively to protect privileges and benefits of the very narrow group of puppeteers at
the expense of 'les miserables' of this state.
Australia serves exclusively to protect privileges and benefits of the very narrow group of puppeteers at
the expense of 'les miserables' of this state.
10. Uncontrollable 'discretion' allows judges to make any judgment they want with the pretext of references to
selected 'authorities'- which is particularly effective to abuse and discriminate against non lawyers in courts
and people with non anglo background.
It became very safe operation due to 'shielding' among judiciary - higher courts just rubber stamp the abuse
provided by lower courts.
selected 'authorities'- which is particularly effective to abuse and discriminate against non lawyers in courts
and people with non anglo background.
It became very safe operation due to 'shielding' among judiciary - higher courts just rubber stamp the abuse
provided by lower courts.
11. The obvious evidence in this case is the use by Ms Atkinson the authority of 'GUIDE TO JUDICIAL
CONDUCT' and conveniently ignoring much more important and internationally accepted 'authorities'
mentioned in point 26 below.
CONDUCT' and conveniently ignoring much more important and internationally accepted 'authorities'
mentioned in point 26 below.
12. After I lodged my Claim against 'Bar Association of Queensland' ( original Claim on 04.02.2013 and then
revised Claim on 07.03.2013 ) Ms Philippides recused herself during the hearing on 14.03.2013.
Later, she informed me that the matter will be heard before Ms Atkinson.
revised Claim on 07.03.2013 ) Ms Philippides recused herself during the hearing on 14.03.2013.
Later, she informed me that the matter will be heard before Ms Atkinson.
13. On 18.03.2013 I lodged formal court application to Supreme Court to disqualify Ms Atkinson
from hearing this matter with expectation that it will be heard by an independent judge.
from hearing this matter with expectation that it will be heard by an independent judge.
14. Ms Roslyn G Atkinson, although knowing that what she does is WRONG, she choose to preside over
that court hearing (17.04.2013) where she was a judge in her own case and she did not express
any feeling of guilt or remorse.
that court hearing (17.04.2013) where she was a judge in her own case and she did not express
any feeling of guilt or remorse.
15. I am rejecting the motion of 'impartiality' which Ms Roslyn G Atkinson attributed to herself during
the hearing on17.04.2013 as unlawful and illegal.
the hearing on17.04.2013 as unlawful and illegal.
16. Such conduct is the abuse of internationally recognized legal standards preserved in Latin canon
'Nemo iudex in causa sua' that means, literally, no-one should be a judge in their own cause.
That was done in spite of Ms Roslyn G Atkinson being President of Queensland Branch of the International
Commission of Jurists, therefore being expected to be conscious and aware of the international standards.
'Nemo iudex in causa sua' that means, literally, no-one should be a judge in their own cause.
That was done in spite of Ms Roslyn G Atkinson being President of Queensland Branch of the International
Commission of Jurists, therefore being expected to be conscious and aware of the international standards.
17. Such conduct is also the abuse of Article 14 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights - which is included in federal legislation Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 - as Schedule 2.
Rights - which is included in federal legislation Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 - as Schedule 2.
18. Australia, on federal level, ratified The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1980.
That covenant, which Australia has voluntarily entered in, set out in clear terms Australia's international
human rights obligations.
That covenant, which Australia has voluntarily entered in, set out in clear terms Australia's international
human rights obligations.
19. Australia is bound to comply with their provisions and to implement them domestically. Ratification of
the covenant by the Australian Federal government encourages Australian courts ( including Queensland )
to take their provisions into account in their interpretations and judgments.
the covenant by the Australian Federal government encourages Australian courts ( including Queensland )
to take their provisions into account in their interpretations and judgments.
20. The entitlement to an impartial tribunal is one of the most important human rights and fundamental freedoms
recognized by international law.
The fact that in this corrupt and rotten, mafia infested State, there is officially sanctioned disgraceful
abuse and discrimination affecting 99% of Queenslanders, by the shameful lack of ANY FORMAL
LEGISLATION, has to be addressed.
recognized by international law.
The fact that in this corrupt and rotten, mafia infested State, there is officially sanctioned disgraceful
abuse and discrimination affecting 99% of Queenslanders, by the shameful lack of ANY FORMAL
LEGISLATION, has to be addressed.
21. The issue if such human rights are 'officially' recognized is irrelevant in the view that those rights exist
regardless and are NATURAL HUMAN RIGHTS as the natural composition of human beings themselves.
regardless and are NATURAL HUMAN RIGHTS as the natural composition of human beings themselves.
22. The fact that in November 1998 Queensland government formally rejected introducing of a Charter
of Rights ( seemingly after Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee recommended
against it !) indicates existence of powerful forces in Queensland determined to defeat any attempt
to recognize human rights for people in Queensland in spite of noises about 'democracy'.
( sinister role in that event was played by the Defendant in my original Claim application to the court -
'Bar Association of Queensland' )
of Rights ( seemingly after Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee recommended
against it !) indicates existence of powerful forces in Queensland determined to defeat any attempt
to recognize human rights for people in Queensland in spite of noises about 'democracy'.
( sinister role in that event was played by the Defendant in my original Claim application to the court -
'Bar Association of Queensland' )
23. That situation allows for widespread and systematic violations of human rights in Queensland by all elements
of 'government' and courts.
Such conduct can be only described as CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
of 'government' and courts.
Such conduct can be only described as CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
24. I am requesting the Court to determine if Ms Atkinson is attempting to pervert the Charter for Australian
Human Rights Commission Act 1986 ( Schedule 2 ) and I am requesting the Court to determine if
Ms Atkinson conduct constitutes the offence - 'an attempt to pervert course of justice'.
Human Rights Commission Act 1986 ( Schedule 2 ) and I am requesting the Court to determine if
Ms Atkinson conduct constitutes the offence - 'an attempt to pervert course of justice'.
25. I am rejecting Ms Atkinson 'justification' of her conduct that hearing her own case is apparently
'in accordance with the usual practice that prevails in that Court'( hearing transcripts p.2-24 ).
This appear to be the reference to - GUIDE TO JUDICIAL CONDUCT by The Council of
Chief Justices of Australia.
'in accordance with the usual practice that prevails in that Court'( hearing transcripts p.2-24 ).
This appear to be the reference to - GUIDE TO JUDICIAL CONDUCT by The Council of
Chief Justices of Australia.
26. I am rejecting existence of such 'practices' as unlawful and not in compliance with
- federal law (Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986-Schedule 2)
- federal law (Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986-Schedule 2)
- Article 14 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- THE BANGALORE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
- Latin canon 'Nemo iudex in causa sua'- which is the basic component of the
'natural justice' concept and is more widely respected than anglo 'law'
27. THE BANGALORE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
- 2.2. A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances
the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of
the judiciary.
the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of
the judiciary.
- 2.5. A judge shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any proceedings in which the judge
is unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that
the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially.
is unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that
the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially.
- 3.2. The behaviour and conduct of a judge must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of
the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.
the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.
28. The maxim 'Nemo iudex in causa sua' crystalized in British-tradition common law in the case
Frome United Breweries Co. v Bath, in which British's highest legal officer, called the "Lord Chancellor"
(LC), made a decision favourable to a canal company.
Frome United Breweries Co. v Bath, in which British's highest legal officer, called the "Lord Chancellor"
(LC), made a decision favourable to a canal company.
At the time, unbeknownst to the parties to the litigation, the LC was a shareholder in the canal company
and had not told the litigants. The LC's decision was set aside because of the nemo judex maxim.
"The maxim that no man is to be judge in his own case should be held sacred. And that is not
to be confined to a cause in which he is a party, but applies to a cause in which he has an interest....
and had not told the litigants. The LC's decision was set aside because of the nemo judex maxim.
"The maxim that no man is to be judge in his own case should be held sacred. And that is not
to be confined to a cause in which he is a party, but applies to a cause in which he has an interest....
"This will be a lesson to all ... tribunals to take care, not only that in their decrees they are not
influenced by their personal interests, but to avoid the appearance of labouring under such
an influence."
influenced by their personal interests, but to avoid the appearance of labouring under such
an influence."
29. I am emphasizing that Ms Atkinson has vital interest in the outcome of my case against 'Queensland
barristers', ( eg. see my Claim point 5 ) because granting me the requested relief would NEGATIVELY
affect her as well.
barristers', ( eg. see my Claim point 5 ) because granting me the requested relief would NEGATIVELY
affect her as well.
30. As the result of her decision/order from 17.04.2013 the scheduled hearing of the BAQ application
to dismiss my claim against them as without 'cause of action' took place on 24.04.2013.
The first part of that hearing was in effect the continuation of the hearing from 17.04.2013, therefore it
has to be raised in this appeal.
to dismiss my claim against them as without 'cause of action' took place on 24.04.2013.
The first part of that hearing was in effect the continuation of the hearing from 17.04.2013, therefore it
has to be raised in this appeal.
31. Ms Roslyn G Atkinson, during the court hearing on 24.04.2013, disregarded my request for THE STAY
OF PROCEEDINGS in spite of being informed that I lodged the application for the Appeal from her
previous decision in this matter and also I informed her that I asked the Court of Appeal for the Stay
of proceedings.
OF PROCEEDINGS in spite of being informed that I lodged the application for the Appeal from her
previous decision in this matter and also I informed her that I asked the Court of Appeal for the Stay
of proceedings.
By doing so she showed DISRESPECT to the legal system she is working for, the court procedures and
for her own senior judicial colleagues.
for her own senior judicial colleagues.
32. I am requesting the Court to determine if her conduct constitutes the offence - 'the indirect contempt
of court'. The fact that she has 'immunity' protecting her from punishment does not repudiate the fact
of committing a criminal offence.
of court'. The fact that she has 'immunity' protecting her from punishment does not repudiate the fact
of committing a criminal offence.
33. Another issue I want to raise in this court is the matter of bullying by judiciary of people who are not
lawyers and not of anglo origin, and who represent themselves in courts. Since bullying is an offence
when committed in schools, offices and factories why should it be tolerated in courts?
lawyers and not of anglo origin, and who represent themselves in courts. Since bullying is an offence
when committed in schools, offices and factories why should it be tolerated in courts?
34. As the judge Ms Atkinson did what she could to disturb my submission and create confusion
by interrupting, interjecting me every several seconds. Evidence is in the transcript of the hearing.
by interrupting, interjecting me every several seconds. Evidence is in the transcript of the hearing.
35. In case of self represented people this is a standard tactic used by judges to deprive a fair hearing
by making people feel intimidated, unsettled, speechless, overwhelmed.
by making people feel intimidated, unsettled, speechless, overwhelmed.
Combined with the policy of rejecting ALL arguments presented by self represented people it is intended
to deny any chance of success.
to deny any chance of success.
36. Clear collusion of judiciary with lawyers to protect their financial interests.
37. I am requesting he court to determine if her conduct during that hearing constitutes bullying and
intimidation as defined by law.
intimidation as defined by law.
38. Ms Atkinson is involved in the abuse of judicial discretion which has been exercised arbitrarily and
capriciously and in bad faith. The abuse resulted in a manifest injustice.
capriciously and in bad faith. The abuse resulted in a manifest injustice.
39. Ms Roslyn G Atkinson conduct brings the administration of justice in Queensland into disrepute and
has impact on the issue of integrity and respect for the law affecting Queensland legal system as the whole.
It is embarrassingly embarrassing that a Supreme Court judge would dare to act in such disgraceful manner.
has impact on the issue of integrity and respect for the law affecting Queensland legal system as the whole.
It is embarrassingly embarrassing that a Supreme Court judge would dare to act in such disgraceful manner.
40. Denial of a neutral, impartial arbiter to preside over the court hearing deprived me the access to justice,
deprived me of fair hearing, denied me recognition and equality before the law.
deprived me of fair hearing, denied me recognition and equality before the law.
41. I am demanding that my human rights are acknowledged and respected.
Particularly, the provisions of Article 14 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- 'All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge
against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and
public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.'
Particularly, the provisions of Article 14 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- 'All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge
against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and
public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.'
ORDERS SOUGHT -
42. I am requesting the Supreme Court to disqualify Ms. Atkinson to hear the case against ' Bar Association
of Queensland '.
of Queensland '.
43. I am requesting the Supreme Court to pronounce the hearing on 24.04.2013 in this matter ( 928/13 )
by Ms. Atkinson as null and void - not having any legal consequences, the verdict set aside and order
the new hearing.
by Ms. Atkinson as null and void - not having any legal consequences, the verdict set aside and order
the new hearing.
44. I am requesting the Supreme Court to select truly neutral, independent and impartial arbiter, conforming
to internationally recognized standards, to preside over the court hearing against 'Bar Association
of Queensland'.
to internationally recognized standards, to preside over the court hearing against 'Bar Association
of Queensland'.
PETER MARKAN
Information about my battle with the devilish forces in barbaric Queensland
( with the copies of relevant documents ) is on
( with the copies of relevant documents ) is on
and some others .
You are receiving this email as the person of public importance and the matters
this message refer to are not only personal but also public importance as well .
Respectfully
Peter Markan
.
This message is sent by
Peter Markan
64 Wishart Rd
Up . Mt Gravatt .
Qld . 4122 , Australia
petermarkan@
If this message was sent in error please
If this message was sent in error please
write word ' remove ' in email to
No comments:
Post a Comment