CALLING ALL PATRIOTS TO TRAVEL TO HERBERTON IN FAR NORTH QLD – urgent unlawful State Government seizure of house and land. David Walter needs 1000 able men prepared to help prevent the unlawful seizure of his property by Queensland Inc.
Buses will be organised to depart from Cairns on a daily basis. Those travelling by car can go to Atherton then Herberton and on to Watsonville. Please email email@example.com for a detailed road map and more instructions.
from Robert J Lee in Brisbane
It is with great anger Cairns News has to put out a call for all patriots to help stop whistleblower David Walter from being tossed out of his home at any time from today.
He has already been visited by the thought police, no doubt at the request of dodgy judges and their even dodgier receivers, to ‘assess’ his mental state.
David Walter (above), is a retired police prosecutor and has spent the last decade and a lot of his own money exposing the corporatisation of every ‘government’ and every government department in Australia. Each one including the courts has its own ABN number because its sole purpose is to act as a political party corporation to earn income. He says the Queen (Crown) was removed from Queensland in 1991 by the Labor Party.
“The Supreme Court of Queensland not being of the Commonwealth being an entity or Trading entity known as Great Bigfoot and Mena Collection has no authority of the Crown, it is a Statutory Corporation ( no people no equity)registered in United States of America and held to Civil law of that Nation,” he said.
He has assisted dozens of hapless landowners who have been tossed off their land in a concerted corporate land grab assisted by the State and Federal Government and their compliant judges sitting in corporate courts.
A Supreme Court judge ordered Walter be evicted because of alleged, accumulated unpaid court costs from the corporate courts of Queensland Inc.
This judge, according to David Walter, knew she was contravening the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia Act 1900 by saddling him with unpaid Local Government rates bills and court costs for cases WHICH HE DID NOT ATTEND.
He was made a party to the court actions brought against the State Government and shire councils by various plaintiffs across the state arguing against rates levies and unlawful fines for alleged illegal ‘tree clearing,’ some cases going back many years.
It seems the only ground on which to base this callous action was that Walter had prepared the legal argument. He says in many cases plaintiffs used only a part of his or in many cases their own arguments after talking to him on the phone.
On most occasions he did not attend any of the courts, particularly in Mackay where the City Council has prosecuted him for costs.
He said he was 1000 klm away when the court action occurred.
Walter says the costs being heaped upon him by the courts is unprecedented, and is a reflection of the extremely poor performance of the legal fraternity and the extent to which it has been corrupted.
He said the Law Society and Bar Association disliked him so much they sought an order from a compliant judge to prevent him from entering any Queensland courthouse, event to defend himself against this spurious action, with an immediate two year jail term hanging over his head.
If Queensland Inc is allowed to get away with this outrageous asset stripping of a whistleblower, the people of this State are doomed to another generation of slavery and fascism by political party corporations. The Crown has long been dispossessed. Just ask former Labor Premier Peter Beattie, who orchestrated the terrible Constitutional mess this State is now in.
(for a list of all corporate judicial officers, Mackay Regional Council councillors, their legal representatives and receivers involved in this unprecedented case contact firstname.lastname@example.org ) David Walter can be contacted on 07 40963009
Court Restores India’s Ban on Gay Sex
Published: December 11, 2013 New York Times
NEW DELHI — Gay sex became illegal again in India Wednesday after the Indian Supreme Court ruled that a colonial-era law banning gay sex should not have been struck down.
Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
The ruling reverses a landmark judgment by a lower court, which in 2009 decided that an 1861 law that forbids “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with man, woman or animal” was unconstitutional. The 19th century law, passed by the British, makes gay sex punishable by 10 years in prison. Only Parliament can change that law, the Supreme Court ruled.
There is almost no chance that Parliament will act where the Supreme Court did not, advocates and opponents of the law agreed. And with the Bharatiya Janata Party, a conservative Hindu nationalist group, appearing in ascendancy before national elections in the spring, the prospects of any legislative change happening for years is highly unlikely, analysts said.
Anjali Gopalan, founder of a charity that sued to overturn the 1861 law, said she was “shocked” by the ruling.
“This is taking many, many steps back. The Supreme Court has not just let down the L.G.B.T. community,” Ms. Gopalan said, referring to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders, “but the constitution of India.”
S.Q.R. Ilyas, a member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which had filed a petition in the case asking that the lower court ruling be reversed, praised Wednesday’s ruling.
“These relationships are unethical as well as unnatural,” Dr. Ilyas said. “They create problems in society, both moral and social. This is a sin as far as Islam is concerned.”
India has a rich history of eunuchs and transgender people who serve critical roles in important social functions and whose blessings are eagerly sought. Transgender people often approach cars sitting at traffic lights here and ask for money, and many Indians – fearing a powerful curse if they refuse – hand over small bills.
Despite this history, Indians are in the main deeply conservative about issues of sexuality and personal morality. Surveys show wide disapproval of homosexuality, and Indians on average still have few sexual partners throughout their lives.
The pressure to marry, have children and conform to traditional notions of family and caste can be overwhelming in many communities. Indian weddings are famously raucous and communal affairs. So gays are often forced to live double lives.
Asian nations typically take a more restrictive view toward gay sex than western countries. In China, gay sex is not explicitly outlawed but people can get arrested under ill-defined laws like licentiousness.
The law banning gay sex is rarely enforced in India, but the police sometimes use it to bully and intimidate gays. In rare cases, health charities that hand out condoms to gays to help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS have had their work interrupted because such efforts are technically illegal under the law.
But inspired by gay rights efforts elsewhere, activists in India have in recent years sought to assert their rights, holding gay rights marches and pushing for greater legal rights and recognition.
As part of this effort, the Naz Foundation, a gay-rights advocacy group, filed suit in 2001 challenging the 1861 law, known here as Section 377. After years of wrangling, the group won a remarkable victory in 2009 when the Delhi High Court ruled that the law violated constitutional guarantees for equality, privacy and freedom of expression.
India’s judges have a long history of judicial activism that would be all but unimaginable in the United States. In recent years, judges required Delhi’s auto-rickshaws to convert to natural gas to help cut down on pollution, shuttered much of the country’s iron ore mining industry to cut down on corruption, and ruled that politicians facing criminal charges cannot seek re-election. Indeed, India’s Supreme Court and Parliament have openly battled for decades, with Parliament passing multiple constitutional amendments to respond to various Supreme Court rulings.
But legalizing gay sex was one step too far for India’s top judges, and in a rare instance of judicial modesty they deferred the matter to India’s legislators.
India’s central government had offered conflicting arguments during the many years of wrangling around the case. But Indira Jaisigh, an Additional Solicitor General of India, said in a televised interview that she was surprised the court decided to punt on the underlying legal case.
“They have never been deterred by the argument that the government, the legislature or the executive has not done this or that on other policy matters,” she said ruefully. The government has often unsuccessfully argued to the Supreme Court that it should defer to Parliament in important matters. “Why only when it is the question of human rights?”
Malavika Vyawahare contributed reporting.