HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
That rotten, degenerated, corrupt feudal pseudo 'legal system' cannot be completely destroyed without exposing its main part 'high court' as being exactly the same as all other components.
I do not have any illusions that 'homo brutanicus' who form its image are any different than 'homo brutanicus' I encountered in lower parts of the system.
They are in the same category of being merely lawyers who through family/mafia connections and own slavishness got cushy jobs.
Lets do not forget that anglo 'legal' system was eg. chosen for Nuremberg trials as acknowledged of being the most perfidious and hideous and best adaptable to maintaining illusion of being 'fair' (for ‘general’ population) while allowing prosecution and judges (playing roles of ‘independent’ from each other) to manipulate the evidence, the way it was presented and the resulting 'judgements'.
Even Russian communist 'legal' system was not so repugnantly sophisticated in maintaining the deception of being ‘just’.
RE: BAQ - 1
Two separate applications with the same grounds.
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
First Appeal - B1- APPLICANT’S SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
First Appeal - B2- APPLICANT’S SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
13 May 2014 - HC judges reasons for dissmissal
RE: BAQ - 2
I brought in Supreme Court the issue of usage of so called ‘authorities’ in
anglo legal system
as the pretentious rubbish enabling ‘judges’ to ‘justify’ anything what they want.
I quoted in Court, as ‘legally recognisable basis’, EBNER and I gave judges the challenge to ask an average person what he/she thinks about them considering themselves to be ‘impartial’ when 2 of the 3 judges are current members of BAQ which, in this case, was the party ‘before the court’.
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 at  where it is said in relation to the selection of an arbiter in the court case -
"a judge is disqualified if a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide.”
Judges (Muirs) made highly offensive comments (to an average Australian person)
by formally and publicly declaring that such person is not able to be ‘a fair minded lay observer’ to make statements about judges. In his view it has to be a special (read – approved by him) person
‘The fair-minded lay observer would be taken to know or understand “the strong professional pressures on [judges] (reinforced by the facilities of appeal and review) to uphold traditions of integrity and impartiality” and would not be “unduly sensitive or suspicious”’.
Who in hell he thinks he is!
An average Australian person is good enough to be selected to a jury and decide the fate of another average Australian person.
Such average Australian is considered to be capable of understanding motives, moral and ethical issues, has sense of justice, be rational and logical ONLY when evaluating another ‘average Australian’.
He is considered to be able to understand the complexity of human nature, the depth of various emotions, particularly when dealing with ‘crimes of passion’, ONLY when evaluating another ‘average Australian’.
But, when it comes to looking at the conduct of an anglo ‘judge’ that ‘average Australian’ suddenly is not capable of utilizing of his/hers abilities.
It is disgusting to ALL reasonable people to be told by an unexceptional creature,
who happens to be just a lawyer, what they are capable to understand and what not.
According to Mr Muirs ‘a fair minded lay observer’ is not real – he is just an imaginary judge`s friend and only they themselves can understand each other.
This is the official ‘judgement’ therefore it became ‘law’ and will be used and quoted by other mongrels.
APPEAL - transcript of the court hearing - 18.02.2014
the official copy of the ‘judgement’ -
Whatever attitudes anglo judges had towards other people in the society (‘masters’ and ‘slaves’) 500 years ago is not appropriate now in 21st century Australia and those mongrels have to be told so.
Judges (and lawyers) are the main beneficiaries of the legal status quo therefore they are the biggest supporters of maintaining that degenerated, perfidious, rotten, corrupt, feudal, pseudo ‘legal system’ which has to be thrown to rubbish bin of history.
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL - B13 - lodged 12.03.2014
APPLICATION - B13 - Written Case - lodged 31.03.2014
RE: CMC - 1
CA 9591 of 2013, Peter Markan v Crime and Misconduct Commission
Margaret A McMurdo, Robert Gotterson, Philip Morrison acknowledged, accepted and admitted that they are illegitimate imposters.
With - No objections, NOT A SINGLE WORD OF PROTEST, no legal challenge
On 01.04.2014, by publishing ‘judgement’ in this matter, those 3 individuals, at the time - private citizens - choose to abuse their ability to access Supreme Court physical resources and they impersonated judicial officers – which, I am told, are the criminal offences under sections 96 and 97 of Criminal Code Act 1899 which is
THE LAW in Queensland.
Queensland Police Commissioner has been informed and asked to investigate and prosecute those criminal offenders, however due to Lawyers Mafia influence in Queensland and possible interference in the due process of law – the Appeal in High Court is lodged.
WHAT HAPPENED in Appeal Court
Transcripts of court hearing - 21 March 2014
Personal opinion of 'private citizens'
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL - B17 - lodged 07.04.2014
WRITTEN CASE FOR THE APPEAL - B17 - lodged 28.04.2014
RE: Queensland Police Service
CA 6892 of 2014, Peter Markan v Queensland Police Service
Looking at the statement in ‘reasons’(5) of those creatures from Supreme Court– ‘there is no legal entity known as the Queensland Police Service’ - the question has to be asked about the puprose of creating 'legal' fictions and fakes.
Court own resources quote several cases where ‘non-existent ‘‘Queensland Police Service’ has been actually a party in various court proceedings, eg.
Stallan v Queensland Police Service  QDC 392_QDC10-392
Barlow v Queensland Police Service  QDC 31_QDC14-031
Bismark v Queensland Police Service  QDC 152_QDC14-152
Gobus v Queensland Police Service  QCA 172_QCA13-172
To make ‘judges’ claim even more ridiculous that ‘non-existent defendant’ ‘in legal terms’ was actually acting as the applicant in several cases of their own, eg.
Queensland Police Service v Klupfel  QDC 210_QDC13-210
Queensland Police Service v Ntakarutimana  QDC 139_QDC12-139
Queensland Police Service v Terare  QCA 260_QCA14-260
Queensland Police Service v Tobane  QDC 222_QDC10-222
HC appeal application
HC appeal written case
What is the opinion of HIGH COURT judges regarding APARTHEID