08 October 2018
American Judiciary & Australian Truth
[Errol Louis: Belligerence is no barrier to a Supreme Court appointment] CNN viewer comment on Justice Brett Kavanaugh. So what have we learnt about American Sovereignty through this issue?
[ Retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens has said Brett Kavanaugh should not be confirmed by senators.
The 98-year-old, who was appointed to the US’s highest court under the presidency of Gerald Ford in 1975 and served on the bench until 2010, has previously praised Mr Kavanaugh and one of his rulings.
But, Mr Stevens said his opinion on the judge had changed after his infamous performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which he gave evidence on sexual assault allegations that have dogged him during the nomination process.
Mr Stevens also said Mr Kavanaugh would be unable to perform his job effectively due to his potential political biases. ] Independent (UK)
Retired citizens and retired judges are also governors of their respective home environments. I believe that my Truth was identified with by Sir Anthony Mason, a law expert – who was then Chancellor of the University of NSW. The Chancellor initiated an inquiry which upheld the disorder of the Administration/Executive. The fact that the Chancellor initiated an inquiry confirmed to me that I was being supported by the True powers of the University. My credentials could be worked out from the reference in Appendix 1 by the Dean of Medicine. This is fairly close to Truth that I identify with about myself. But the outcome delivered by Central Administrators was far from my Truth. To are true investor – it was about their disorderly Administration.
How did the merit based certificate get overridden by criminal charges against me when I sought to share the my wisdom with the rest of the University through Central Administrators? The verdict delivered by the Judiciary failed to uphold the Truth. One could therefore conclude that one does not need to be Truthful to become a member of the active judicial leadership.
Retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens identified with the Truth of Brett Kavanaugh by mentally taking the position of Judge – and following the process:
[But, Mr Stevens said his opinion on the judge had changed after his infamous performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which he gave evidence on sexual assault allegations that have dogged him during the nomination process]
If this Judicial leader is able to participate in this process at the age of 98, then his brain is in good order – often due to adherence to Truth which is the residual value to most of us who are indirect participants in global and national issues. Our Truth brings us the rewards needed by us.
Due processes are often our inner guides. When they have been consistently practiced by an institution/environment – they override any damage to governance due to untrue judgments. I believe that I earned through the painful judicial processes – the blessings of many law experts. The law is also the Trunk of due processes. Mr Kavanaugh need not be Truthful to be part of Judicial leadership that is active in allocating rights and wrong. Our Australian parallel close to personalities with whom I had the common experience is as follows:
Earlier this year, the Australian reported as follows through its article headed ‘Federal Circuit Court in controversy over Sandy Street’
[Judge Street’s decision drew disapproval from the Federal Court last month in a case involving a Tamil asylum-seeker whose brother and sister had disappeared in 2009 and are still missing. The Immigration Assessment Authority, which reviewed the man’s claim, had accepted he had been threatened “with the same fate” as his siblings if he continued to complain about their disappearance.
Justice John Griffiths found a “constructive failure” by Judge Street to exercise his jurisdiction, saying he “never grappled directly with important elements of the appellant’s primary claim”, and his reasons — also delivered ex tempore — amounted “to little more than assertions or conclusions”.
It is proper to acknowledge that the Federal Circuit Court of Australia’s migration jurisdiction is a high volume and challenging jurisdiction,” Justice Griffiths said in his February 6 judgment.
“Equally, however, it must be recognised that that court is exercising an important judicial review jurisdiction and litigants are entitled to expect that the well-established features of the judicial process will be provided. Those features include not only the requirements of procedural fairness but also that the court will provide adequate reasons for its decision and properly address fundamental aspects of the parties’ respective cases.”
Justice Griffiths returned the matter to the Federal Circuit Court for rehearing by a different judge because the “absoluteness” of Judge Street’s findings or “more accurately, assertions” gave rise to “considerations of apprehended bias” in the mind of the reasonable observer.]
The emphasis here is lack of Due Process in reasoning from claim to judgment. But one lawyer Dr Griffiths – who appeared for the then Prime Minister John Howard, and later for Ms Milena Jurasek damaged the trunk administrative route – recorded as follows in my book Naan Australian (chapter 28):
[When we returned after lunch break - Justice Gyles asked me the final question ‘According to you – was the discrimination conscious or subconscious’ I said ‘subconscious’. Then Dr. John Griffith – Milena’s barrister – jumped up and said that his client was young and her career would be damaged through an adverse finding! Justice Gyles also dismissed my complaint as lacking in substance! With that Justice Gyles dismissed my expectations of merit based hearing and judgment.] Appendix 2 has extended version.
As per my search – the above lawyer is now Federal Court Judge and seems to be the one to criticize Judge Street – known as the descendant of Judicial Royal family in Australia. Dr Griffiths as an individual is pretty good and respectable – to my mind. But as part of the Judiciary – he was also infected by the virus of disorder. If they do not ‘win’ they cannot get to the top. To win, one has to bury one’s Truth. He sowed disorder as lawyer and he reaped disorder as parent of judiciary. As per the fundamentals of justice cases like mine that are heard in detail cannot be dismissed as lacking in substance. One who so dismisses inherits disorder in the Trunk of Judicial Administration. Hence the dismissals of refugee applications which in turn rob Australian judges of the opportunity to participate in global order in refugee issues. The true applicant on the other hand would be taken to the environment where s/he would feel free to exercise her/his sovereignty.
Judge Street is bound to be intolerant of foreigners because he is free to practice royalty in Australian Judicial circles driven by subjective power.
Interestingly, UNSW student, Kamer Nizamdeen who has now been charged with Terrorism related accusations, was part of the UNSW-NSW Government project described as follows:
[They recommended the development of a phone app to provide international students with guidelines and advice about things such as, how to acquire adequate accommodation, using public transport, gaining employment and financial management. Students Jingwen Hu, Kamer Nizamdeen, Feliksianus Robby Gunawan and Ritwick Priyadarshi, presented their project at NSW Parliament House on June 16.]
If they had learnt the Truth about this migrant worker at the UNSW – that would have protected Kamer from becoming the victim of bipolar disorder of these mentally ill institutions.
Just punishment for an individual without remorse – is higher than one with remorse. This applies to institutions also when they give preference to Maya / Imaginary structures over Truth.
Appendix 1 – My Credentials as per Beneficiaries
[‘In her role Ms Paramasivam was charged with responsibility from the Financial Services Department for managing the interfaces between the Faculty Office and the centralized systems of accounting, financial reporting and purchasing. In addition, she was asked by me to manage the communications and activities related to finances between this office and the multiple schools and research institutions affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine. …..Ms Paramasivam has an excellent repertoire of management accounting skills. She came to UNSW with considerable experience in the hospital / health sector in Sydney as well as a number of private sector enterprises. In the space of several months she developed a new approach to budgeting for the Faculty of Medicine. She developed all the spreadsheet support for this purpose and spent a considerable amount of time working with administrative officers and senior academic staff in the Schools in developing the procedures for supporting the detailed content within the budgets. She has an excellent orientation towards client service. Her focus was on development of an activity based budgeting system which began to move us away from an inappropriate emphasis on cash management to a modified accrual system.
Ms Paramasivam quickly engendered the confidence and support of many of the administrative officers and academic leadership in this Faculty. She was always sensitive to their situations in matters related to administration and management of finances. She always indicated a preference to deliver strong client service by regularly visiting the Schools and affiliated organizations. She demonstrated patience in working with them to help them understand the rationale behind new systems and approaches to managing finances. In her dealings with centralized agencies in the organization she was always forthright and determined in her quest to improve service and improve systems used to support resource management in the faculty. She achieved remarkable success in a short period of time with the University.’]
[Judges who take only parts of my history deliver judgments that are misleading. In my complaint – against Ms Milena Jurasek, (Appendix 14, item 2 ) the legal team hired by Ms Jurasek’s employer grilled me with questions about my performance. I successfully defeated them. Then I questioned Ms Jurasek who was my supervisor in that casual job. Their defence was based on the claim that my performance was not satisfactory. During cross examination I asked Ms Jurasek whether she would confirm that she signed my weekly time sheets? Ms Jurasek said ‘yes’. Then I asked Ms Jurasek whether it is mandatory for officers to verify whether they have received the goods and services before certifying for payment. At that point – Dr. Griffiths who had unsuccessfully cross-examined / grilled me on the basis that my performance was not satisfactory – objected to my line of questioning. Then Justice Gyles who was hearing the case said he would allow the questioning because he could see value in it. Justice Gyles was still new to the Judge’s system and hence his mind was still more active in its discriminative thinking, than were the minds of most other judges who heard my matters. Ms Jurasek said ‘yes’ that it was necessary to verify performance before certifying time-sheets. Then Ms Jurasek said words to the effect ‘Gaja if you had gone along with me I would have continued with your services’. Justice Gyles was also to hear my complaint against Professor Alice Tay – the President of the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission which complaint included the President’s ruling on my complaint against Milena. At this point, Justice Gyles said that he would arrange for someone else to hear the complaint against Professor Tay. Justice Madgwick was assigned to hear that matter – but as usual – there was no affidavit by Professor Tay about her use of Discretionary powers and therefore – there was no room for Truth in that Court. Milena was holding lesser position and hence was facilitated to provide an Affidavit. The Defendants in the latest Defamation case – who hold lesser positions than Milena – were facilitated to ‘escape’ providing Affidavits or direct evidence as witnesses – in which capacity they are compelled to speak the Truth. All they had to do was pay and escape – thus bringing shame to us – their sponsors and therefore their damaging their dignity as Australians.
When we returned after lunch break - Justice Gyles asked me the final question ‘According to you – was the discrimination conscious or subconscious’ I said ‘subconscious’. Then Dr. John Griffith – Milena’s barrister – jumped up and said that his client was young and her career would be damaged through an adverse finding! Justice Gyles also dismissed my complaint as lacking in substance! With that Justice Gyles dismissed my expectations of merit based hearing and judgment. ]
Post a Comment