English: The entrance to the Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point campus ( this photograph was taken by Figaro ) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Helen Underwood (Margaret Helen Gaudron) is bringing a case against her sister, Mary Gaudron in the probate court. The death, Accident and hospitalization of her mother was kept from Helen by her sister Mary Gaudron. Her brother knew but was disinherited from the will.
Ashamed of her heritage, former High Court Judge Mary Genevieve Gaudron has kept the dark family secret of her aboriginality hidden from public scrutiny, disowning her own bloodline and lineage, she disowned her part aboriginal siblings. Should Mary Gaudron, retired High Court Judge have recused herself from hearing the Mabo case, due to any interest or bias in the case?
The Mabo case itself is interesting because for all the who-ha in the media, the case did little for aboriginal rights. The case of Mabo was also very interesting because it set a precedent and was intimately tied to the environment, as it was discussing the ownership and rights to land.
Queensland University of Technology (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Mabo case decisions were made between 1982 and 1992. Was the Mabo decision affected by the Club of Rome‘s Earth Charter, and was Mary Gaudron’s decision in any way influenced by this Charter?
Mark McMurtrie on said:
http://renaissancelearningfoundation.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/breaking-news-retired-high-court-judge-mary-gaudron-implicated-in-fraud-case/comment-page-1/#comment-129
It is not improper to suggest that ALL of those who sat the bench on the Mabo case should have recused themselves due to self interest in the form of financial joinder to the Crown – which was, after all, a party to the proceedings in various forms and guises.
There is also the fraud of Native Title which then flowed from those cases, and the fact the Crowns minions have secreted the rights of the Tribes to establish their own separate sovereign States and establish their own political and other structures – protected by International law.
The High Court has demonstrated, and this matter now further exacerbates the evidence of corruption on the bench in respect of the Crowns lack of jurisdiction over Tribal peoples. Not to mention the severe harassment of the people and their families who are standing up to the Crown on these matters by the Crowns’ police and other agents – contrary to UN resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 Oct 1970…..to which the Corporate State of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and its’ States are bound.