Qld Supreme Court – a dodgy, shabby, dysfunctional backyard operation
This courageous appellant, Peter Markan in the Brisbane Supreme Court tells the Judges just how it is!
APPELLANT: By being present in this court I’m presenting a very basic question.
Is Queensland legal system as represented here by you – dodgy, shabby, dysfunctional
backyard operation, or legitimate system which complies with Australian and international laws,
rules, standards and obligations?
I am raising that question in relation to my application in this court and that question relates to :
– the issue of lack of respect for human rights in Queensland,
– racist attitude, discrimination and vilification of people who are not lawyers and represent themselves
– denial of a protection by law to such people by a rotten and corrupt legal system,
– treatment of such people by pubic institutions and courts as second class citizens,
– creation of totalitarian regime consisting of lawyers who infested various democratic institutions
and are controlling Australian society, a self-professed master breed,
– and also enacting of concealed dictatorship when an opinion of an unelected individual is claimed
to be binding to 22 million people of Australia.
I want to raise some procedural issue. I believe you are Mr Fraser, aren’t you?
HOLMES JA: That is Justice Fraser. I’m Justice Holmes and this is Justice Jackson.
APPELLANT: Probably from the start I want to point out that I will be referring to you with respect – – –
FRASER JA: I’m sorry, I missed that.
FRASER JA: I just missed what you said there, I’m sorry.
APPELLANT: I said that I will be referring to you with respect, but I will not be using feudal titles.
I will be referring to you as a “Mr Fraser”.
HOLMES JA: Well, I don’t know that there’s much need for you to refer to any of us, Mr Markan,
because you are supposed to be making the points which would advance your appeal.
HOLMES JA: So it’s not a conversation and I have to say so far you don’t seem to have turned to your appeal.
It would be helpful if you would do that.
APPELLANT: Yes. Before I go there, I want to ask you a question, Mr Fraser.
HOLMES JA: Mr Markan – – –
APPELLANT: Do you acknowledge and pay respect to traditional owners and custodians of this land?
HOLMES JA: Mr Markan, the court won’t be answering questions. You must understand by now that
the function of this bench is to hear your appeal and decide whether it should be allowed. It is not to engage
in a dialogue with you.
APPELLANT: I disagree with you because I came here as a part of court and this place is a symbolic court.
I introduced myself, that person next to me introduced himself, and I know nothing about you. I would like to
point out that the situation now is different than 200 years ago. Certain changes have been done in legal field and
in this case I want to refer to Mabo case, which acknowledged that this land does not belong to white invaders,
but this land belongs to people who lived here, apparently, for 40,000 years. And I attended public ceremonies
and people from government and also elected people from the Parliament, whenever they start public appearance
they always acknowledge traditional owners and custodian of this land, and it looks to me that you are the only
branch of so-called government – you are the only people who are ignoring and disrespecting traditional owners
of this land.
HOLMES JA: Mr Markan, I’m prepared to allow some latitude because you’re unrepresented, but this is not
an occasion for you to express your views about things in general. You must argue your appeal, or we won’t
continue to listen. It’s as simple as that.
APPELLANT: If I can put it this way, that nobody forces you to come here and listen to what I’m going to say.
I have right to say whatever I want because this is my case and I am representing my case.
HOLMES JA: Mr Markan, that’s really not correct.
APPELLANT: If you don’t like listening to what I’m saying there’s the door.
HOLMES JA: That’s really not correct. You have a right to come here and say things that are relevant to
your appeal. We will listen to those. We are under no obligation to listen to your views in general. You should
understand that. And we won’t sit here for any other purpose than to hear your appeal because it’s a waste of
our time and a waste of your time. So if you would, please confine yourself to the subject matter of your appeal.
APPELLANT: Yes. So I take it that you are refusing to acknowledge traditional owners and custodians
of this land. Is that correct?
APPELLANT: Well, firstly, I want to identify your role in this court. I’m prepared to make my submission in
this court to legitimate people who are representing legitimate authority, and so far you’ve failed to identify yourself
as legitimate authority.
APPELLANT: Okay. If I can remind you of one little fact from last year when your current boss, Mr Carmody,
was selected to judiciary. Some of you were making comments, public comments, that Mr Carmody was selected
in dodgy circumstances. I want to point out that you, Mr Fraser, were selected in dodgy circumstances, you,
Ms Holmes, were selected in dodgy circumstances and, Mr Jackson, you were selected in dodgy circumstances.
You are not different or your selection is not any different than selection of Mr Carmody.
You are all dodgy brothers.
APPELLANT: Well, I understand your point of view. You are putting your head in the sand pretending that
you don’t see what’s really happening around the world. And this is a typical attitude of you as judges because
you are isolated from the rest of the society, and that that’s point I’ve been bringing for the last couple of years.
But you people have to change and you have to change that rotten, corrupt system.
HOLMES JA: All right. Mr Markan, I’m going to adjourn for a couple of minutes. I want you while we’re adjourned
to think about whether you want to argue this appeal or not because you’re not doing so.
You’re attacking us. That doesn’t trouble me greatly, I must say, but it’s a waste of time because it’s irrelevant.
So think while we’re adjourned about whether you want to continue in this fashion, or whether you seriously think
you have an appeal to argue. Adjourn, please.
ADJOURNED [10.24 am]
RESUMED [10.30 am]
HOLMES JA: Mr Markan, this is your opportunity to make submissions pertinent to your appeal.
APPLICANT: I came to this court respecting court as an institution. And I’m here with respect to
the court as an institution in our society. However, since you are, for me, strangers, I cannot address you.
Therefore, I’m in position only to represent my case in court as an institution. In a sense, you are a public gallery.
If you wish, you can listen to it. This is what I’m going to do. The merits of the case are following.
And another issue I want to mention, because in the case in court, lawyers for Queensland Police were claiming
that they were not aware of those documents and letters I sent to Queensland Police. Now, a few months later,
obviously, they have to be aware of the issues I raised with them. And so far I didn’t get any information about them
investigating known criminals. And I identified those criminals then. I identified criminal act committed by them.
And just as a refresher, I want to mention that I asked three people about evidence of their judicial qualifications.
They failed to do so. Therefore, in this court as an institution, I declared them to be kangaroo court.
And they accepted that. They accepted that they are kangaroo court. There was no protest of any kind.
So at that point of time, I was the only legitimate authority in this court and I had right to declare them
Later on, when they published some documents, obviously they were impersonating judicial officers because they are –
they didn’t have any right to be judges after being declared a kangaroo court. They pretended. Therefore, I’m
a little bit surprised that Queensland Police so far failed to investigate that matter. I didn’t get even one piece of paper
about their attitude towards people like you committing criminal act. If I’m driving a car and don’t have a seatbelt or
other stupid things, I’m branded as another criminal. Brought over here, have to work for one or two weeks to pay off
the fine and so on. But when it comes to people like you, well, you are part of lawyers mafias, I guess.
They are a part of another mafia. And one part of mafia is supporting another part of mafia. They are lenient towards
you and in turn you are lenient towards them. And that’s corrupted use of a system.
HOLMES JA: Mr Markan, there’s a limit to how much of this we’re going to listen to, because you must be aware,
what you’re saying is contemptuous of the court.
HOLMES JA: In any event, it is diverging somewhat telling us that we’re the mafia and so on. It’s diverging
somewhat from your points of your appeal.
APPLICANT: Actually, it’s not, because it’s closely related to my case with Queensland Police. If you look back
at the documents, I was accusing them – the court documents – of being lenient towards people like you. And this is
my mission over here, that you have two sets of – two groups of people who are supporting each other against
the rest of the society. And I am representing 99 per cent of the society. And I don’t have any protection by
so-called laws created by you or people like you, which are basically bulldust created to terrorise the rest
of the society and benefit people like you.
And I had a similar case not so long ago when I raised another very famous Latin phrase or issue, which is ‘nemo
iudex in causa sua’. Again, my pronunciation probably is not correct, but it means no one should be a judge in their
own case. And in this court I had a few cases when judges were acting on their own behalf – when judges, people
like you, were pretending that they can be absolutely impartial in the matters relating to that. And, again, it’s a question
of your attitude towards laws, attitude towards respect for the laws, but whenever convenient, you are accepting this
‘nunc pro tunc’, but you are rejecting ‘nemo iudex in causa sua’. Now, for those reasons which I mentioned above,
the court hearing which I had against Queensland Police was in breach of existing laws – was in breach of due process
And, again, I want to refer to some well-known legal statutes, ‘observance of due process of law, statute 1368’,
which is still valid Queensland law under existing legislation and also ‘liberty of subject’, which says that none shall be
condemned without due process of law. And by having my claim against the police rejected unjustly, I’ve been
deprived due process of law.
Posted on June 11, 2015, in agenda21, Corporate Government, Corporate policy, Courts, General, Police, Queensland Politics and tagged discrimination, human rights, Justice Holmes, peter markan, Qld supreme court. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.