Advice offered by John Grey:
Dear Covid 19 Litigants:
On the 1st July 2023 The National Anti- Corruption Act 2022 is said to apply to: the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar of the federal courts and High Court (judges of the federal courts and High Court are not within jurisdiction). This is misleading and I can allege a corrupt interpretation of the National Anti- Corruption Act 2022. S 8 says: Exemptions:
(c) A Justice of the High Court and a judge of a court created by the Parliament;
(d) a judge of a court of a State or Territory.
Bearing in mind the definition of Appeal in S 2 Judiciary Act 1903: The High Court case of R v Davison [1954] HCA 46 and Kable V Director of Public Prosecutions of New South Wales [1996] HCA 24 the word Judge (capital ‘J’) and judges are not the same word.
A court created by the Parliament includes the High Court of Parliament delegated power under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 from the High Court of Parliament in the United Kingdom. It is constituted as is the House of Commons by judges elected by the body politic, 236 in number. (Each of their electorates or State is a department which they are mandated to report corruption from under the National Anti- Corruption Act 2022.) (For the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 see second reading speech by Joseph Chamberlain dated 15th May 1900. House of Commons Hansard)
The Parliament and twelve judges in a jury are equally privileged when within their respective offices, A Judge or Justice is not granted privilege. S 79 Constitution prohibits it. (The Australian Common Law much loved by your legal advisers hs largely been made by Judges in Court, not judges in court as defined in the National Anti- Corruption Act 2022.)
On the 1st July 2023 the National Anti- Corruption Act 2022 comes into force. In its Section 8, it exactly reproduces S 79 Constitution, in that it does not apply to A Court with a Judge as defined in S 2 Judiciary Act 1903. The National Anti-Corruption Act 2022 finally will correct an Error of Law enacted in both 1966 in S 30 (3) Bankruptcy Act 1966, S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, and the Family Law Act 1975, making all Judges in Court except those in the High Court subject to the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Commissioner. That is all Judges except the Justices of the High Court who are arguably the most corrupt of all, having since 1952 and the High Court Rules 1952 relied upon Order 58 Rule 4 Subrule 3 to illegally and corruptly vest judicial power in a Deputy Registrar to pervert the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth, a crime attracting ten years imprisonment as an offence against S 43 Crimes Act 1914. Rule 6.07 1,2 and 3 High Court Rules 2004 continue that crime by authorising an ex-parte application to a Justice.
High Court Judges Sitting 2023
What you have done is virtually ensure that a large number of Federal Court of Australia Judges must be removed for not obeying S 79 Constitution, and failing to abide their Oath of Office to serve the Crown.
Since Prime Minister Albanese swore allegiance to King Charles III at Westminster Abbey, he should insist that all the members of Parliament and other judges do the same and reproduce the Statute 1 Will and Mary (Coronation Oath) 1688 (C 6) and make a copy available to them. This is actually probably mandatory to ensure the judges of the Parliament of the Commonwealth are aware of their overarching obligations.
At long last the deliberations of the High Court (when properly constituted) and their precedents will have to be accepted and applied by the Federal Court of Australia and through them the High Court. At long last the Separation of Powers will be available in Australia, and the cartel that is the legal profession curbed. Corrupt conduct by Judges even of the High Court can be tried on indictment if the endemic corruption in the Federal Court of Australia is corrected.
Congratulations on bringing these nasty people to justice.
The word Judge is not the same as judges.
Until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise prescribes the same number of judges as required by S 80 Constitution should apply to s 79 Constitution and in all matters involving Australians. A Justice of the High Court does not become one of the judges of S 79 Constitution until at least three sit together so the granting of immunity to them MUST be read out of the National Anti- Corruption Act 2022 by Reference to S 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1900.
I suspect Almighty God to whom they, the Parliament of the Commonwealth, like the Congress of the United States of America, pray each day they sit, had a hand in sponsoring this legislation, and it is divinely inspired to correct wokeness generally.
This Act when properly applied will allow the Blessings of Almighty God we humbly rely upon in our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 to flow to the people. Unless you ask for a jury trial you have very little chance of a good win.
Pick up your Holy Bible, go to Luke 12 verses 10 to 12. The only unforgivable sin in the whole of Christian culture, is blasphemy. To sit without a jury is blasphemy, because it separates you from the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit so how can you get a blessing from Almighty God. By Paragraph 2 of the Statute 1 Will and Mary (Coronation Oath) 1688 (C 6) even the King or Queen cannot consent to condemning you to aiding and abetting the commission of that mortal sin.
From verse Luke 12 verse 12 you ought to say, “I want a jury please.” Elsewhere it says: “Ask and you will receive.” and from the Lord’s prayer they say in the Parliament of the Commonwealth, that ‘Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven for Thine is the kingdom, the Power and the Glory forever and ever Amen”. If it was not for the sinners in the Federal Court of Australia the Covid 19 pandemic would never have happened.
John Grey
National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022
Division 1—Corrupt conduct and corruption issues
8 Meaning of corrupt conduct
(1) Each of the following is corrupt conduct:
(a) any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly:
(i) the honest or impartial exercise of any public official’s powers as a public official; or
(ii) the honest or impartial performance of any public official’s functions or duties as a public official;
(b) any conduct of a public official that constitutes or involves a breach of public trust;
(c) any conduct of a public official that constitutes, involves or is engaged in for the purpose of abuse of the person’s office as a public official;
(d) any conduct of a public official, or former public official, that constitutes or involves the misuse of information or documents acquired in the person’s capacity as a public official.
(2) However, paragraph (1)(a) does not apply in relation to conduct of the following:
(a) the Governor‑General;
(b) a Deputy Governor‑General;
(c) a Justice of the High Court or a judge of a court created by the Parliament;
(d) a judge of a court of a State or Territory;
(e) a member of a Royal Commission;
(f) the Inspector, or a person assisting the Inspector.
