Buried under the mountain of legal pretences

Common belief has that in Court a person is innocent until proven guilty .Less known fact is that in Queensland legal system the prosecution can throw at the accused person , with impunity , any lie they think may stick ( adversary system ) and it is the job of the accused ( or his lawyer ) to prove that a lie is the lie .
Even the fact of being in the dock is prejudicial because due to the influence of the propaganda popular belief is that the police and prosecution would not charge not guilty person and members of the jury go with the flow as well , not to mention the fact of the manipulation of the court process by a trial judge , creating distractions and confusion .

In the court the most blatant lies were thrown at me ( I point some of them in ISSUE 3 ) , again possibly with the encouragement of police and prosecution themselves , who are only interested in improving the statistics of ' solving the crimes ' and having ' the successful prosecution ' .

Since in this legal system nobody is concerned about the truth but only about rubbery ' evidence '
a determined and experienced liar has a distinct advantage .
If you have lots of money for the top silk or are lucky enough to find an honest and decent lawyer you may get away . Otherwise , the system is in place to destroy you while maintaining the pretences of the ' rule of law ' and ' fair trial ' .

As a non lawyer and a lonely fighter for justice I am being ignored by court system :

- presumption is that a non lawyer is not capable of comprehending and articulating a legal issue ,

- accepting a legal argument from a non lawyer could be seen as a ' dangerous precedent ' among lawyers ,

- desire exists to preserve the monopoly rights of lawyers and to suppress and destroy
' competition '

- need exists to protect the income of lawyers by not giving any chance of success to a self represented person

Being aware of that outlook at my situation I wonder if ever there was a case of a self represented person having his arguments accepted by Australian courts .

In trying to bring issues , ' omitted ' by my treacherous legal representation , to the HC judges attention I have been faced with red tape farce which is supposed to exist only in other allegedly corrupt legal system .

That treatment included :

- changing rules previously approved as acceptable , to create confusion and to justify rejection of documents as supposedly not conforming to the requirements;

- rejection of application with a pretext of not fulfilling unreasonable and unrealistic requirements ( personal delivery of documents to Registry – while aware that the applicant is in prison ) ;

- providing incorrect information and wrong templates of legal documents ;

- refusal to provide information or clarify the issues ;

- lying in the official correspondence from the High Court ;

- not acknowledging own mistakes .

There is the officially sanctioned shameful discrimination and prejudice against people daring to represent themselves in courts .

Self represented people in Australia do not have the same rights as the people who can afford to hire a good lawyer – High Court rule 41.10.5 - they have to go through the filtering and censoring process before being allowed to reach the High Court appeal procedure .
By contrast , people with money who can afford to hire a good lawyer , go directly to the High Court formal proceedings .
Therefore , the preferential treatment is given to people with money resulting in unequal justice for the citizens of the same country , because it depends on financial circumstances .

Awarding one group of citizens certain legal rights and disallowing the same rights to others is also a clear violation of Human Rights Declaration , articles 2 and 7 – and that is also overlooked by Australian legal industry because it happens in Australia and not in China , Russia , Burma or Iran.

HC rule 41.10.5

Where an unrepresented applicant has filled a written case
any two Justices may ,without requiring any party to the proceedings
in the court below to respond to the applicant`s written case ,
determine that the application should be dismissed and direct
the Registrar to draw up , sign and seal an order dismissing the application .

Such situation is tolerated by the same people who are so eager to patronise and lecture those in other jurisdictions about ' justice ' , ' rule of law ' ,' fairness ' , ' integrity ' and ' honesty ' .
In reality , when it comes to Australian citizens facing Australian legal system , there is blatant disregard for procedural fairness , there is abuse of legal process , violations of principles of natural justice and contempt for the equality before the law .

After several months of haggling I was allowed to present my written application to the panel of two judges acting as censors , who dismissed it as not valid for the HC to consider .

I have great respect for the High Court as the highest legal institution in this country , however few statements in relation to my application necessitate response .
Some of the HC judges reasoning was that few issues I am raising were not presented to the Supreme Court Appeal judges by my legal representation , therefore the HC judges cannot look at them .

That is in spite of the fact that in my application I indicated to judges that some issues were not raised by my legal representation for the Supreme Court appeal . I indicated to them that it was beyond my control and against my specific instructions to the lawyer in writing .

The judges chose to comment on one of issues saying that the selection as the trial judge of the person who was involved in my prosecution as the director of Qld DPP was OK .
By making an assumption that the judge was not personally involved instead of verifying the facts they erred :

- by stressing ( the assumption ) that the trial judge was not personally involved , they imply that ' if ' the trial judge ' was ' personally ' involved that would be unacceptable/unlawful
( and how do they know that she was not ! ).

- The level of trial judge personal involvement in my prosecution , while the director of Queensland DPP , can only be established by the enquiry or investigation and not the conjecture.

- in the view of commonly held belief ( supported by statements by politicians , persons of influence , lawyers and judges themselves ) of the idea that the Australian judiciary is independent , that there is demarcation , very strict separation between the judiciary and other powers of the state to preserve the independence of the judiciary – the fact of the association of the member of judiciary with the persecuting section of the state machinery , in relation to the same matter , obliterates the motion of the independence of judiciary .

- The judges view seems to be in conflict with the independence of judiciary implied in the Australian constitution

. - AND - Universal Declaration of Human Rights - article 10 - ' Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair trial and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal …. '

There are some very limited statements concerning the other issues raised by me relating to the conduct of the trial judge during the trial and to the issue of DPP using the fabricated evidence to secure conviction .
I brought before the judges the fact of Queensland DPP personnel committing the criminal offence and ignoring that issue can be read as giving green light to the criminal elements within Qld DPP
and saying to them – ' you boys and girls can do whatever you like , any lie and any perfidy is acceptable ' . So much for the claimed and professed ' ethics ', ' integrity ' and ' rule of law ' .

If it happened in any other non anglo country lawyers and judges here would be jumping up and down full of indignation at the blatant abuse of the fair trial principle .

Exercise in hypocrisy

I brought the omission of that issue for the appeal , by my treacherous legal representation , to the attention of Legal Services Commissioner and then in the Supreme Court of Queensland trying to overturn his decision not to investigate lawyer Peter Russo.

Memorable for me was statement in Court by the barrister A. Horneman-Wren , representing the Commissioner , who commented of that matter saying words to the effect
' what lawyer would bring such issue in court ' ?! ( Markan v Briton – 20.11.2009 )

- Is it ' professional courtesy ' of not bringing such issues in courts ?

- Is it an appalling concept that Qld DPP would be suspected of such conduct ?

- Is it a ' code of silence ' ?

The issue of the trial judge denying me the submission , to examine the accuser in court by the doctor to determine the truth behind his statements , was rejected as not valid as well .

Those 2 HC judges concluded that the trial judge had the right to exercise her discretion .
However , as the result of that trial judge ' discretion ' the prosecution avoided having their witness being exposed as liar , shown as committing perjury and discredited in front of jury and I lost the opportunity to show that I was not the person who attacked first .

The accuser was granted the privilege to lie .

So where is my right to fair trial and the right to defend myself effectively in court against false accusations ? Isn`t it the human rights abuse by depriving me the right to a ' fair trial ' ?

How can the truth be shown in courts if the trial judge ( a person who just few months before was herself a director of Queensland DPP ) is openly protecting the prosecution case against me ? For mere mortals it would be called ' aiding and abetting ' .

It is a vicious circle and I feel like I am being held by a perfidious monster in a nightmarish dream:

- Qld police and DPP ' framed ' me into patently false criminal charge

- Trial judge blatantly protects the prosecution case against me and the prosecution witness from being shown as a liar in court .

- Lawyers , specifically asked to bring that issue before the appeal judges attention treacherously avoid doing that .

- The appeal judges obviously cannot discuss issues which were not brought before them .

- High Court judges are not interested in the case of the mockery of justice .

- In this purposefully paralysed system there is no other avenue of redress

Although I understand that HC judges main interest is the judgement itself looking at the application of law , they are also the highest legal authority in this country , people to whom everybody looks up when the matters of not only the law but also JUSTICE are concerned . ( They are called Justices , aren`t they ? )

What has been done to me by all elements of the legal system is not ' just ' .

I believe that miscarriage of justice had happened by my persecution in the situation when I was lawfully defending myself against an armed attacker .

Outcome of the trial and the conviction was also the result of me being incompetent own counsel , overwhelmed by the lack of knowledge of legal procedures , manipulation and mental distress due to personal involvement .
However , those facts are completely disregarded in Courts where only ' points of law ' have legitimacy .

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~