I Lost My Win Television Court Case!!!!

[|-|ercules]

To: George <George...@justice.qld.gov.au>
Cc: letters@time.com, news@theregister.co.uk, president@whitehouse.org, kerrianne@nine.com.au,
10news@ten.com.au,today@nine.com.au, aca@nine.com.au, david@nautilusinvestigations.com.au,
mjones@bennettphilp.com.au, marshalls@winqld.com.au, rocknews@winqld.com.au, newsdesk@theage.com.au,
subscriber.benefits@theage.com.au, news@nine.com.au, 60minutesmail@nine.com.au



So DEFAULT judgement means who defaults turning up to the default judgement?

Not who defaults lodging a defense within 30 days?

How can a Request For DEFAULT Judgement be ruled in favor of the DEFENDANT?

What a circus! No wonder everyone says to get a lawyer when the court
process is a sham.

Graham Cooper
BInfTech University Of Queensland 1991
Grad. Dip. Ed. (Secondary) Curtin University 2000



POSTED TO NEWSGROUPS:
misc.legal,aus.legal,aus.politics,aus.religion.christian,aus.legal
aus.tv,aus.cars,aus.general,aus.comms,aus.motorcycles
aus.jokes,aus.computers,aus.photo,aus.culture.true-blue,aus.electronics
aus.aviation,aus.flame,aus.sport.rugby-league,aus.science,aus.sport,aussie-rules

- Hide quoted text -



On 10/28/10, Graham Cooper <grahamcooper7@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi George,

well that's disappointing

You wouldn't let me subpoena the main exhibit until a hearing date was set.

Then you require me to defend myself in court without the evidence -
the defamatory Win News story on me.

Then based on a technicality on court forms you decide in Wins favor, that's
it!

Utterly ridiculous!

I'll be adding this continuation to the fiasco at AustralianPolice.com
and BennettPhilp.com (currently
www.hercshome.com/old/bennettphilp-com slow propagation with the
domain) and soon Australia.com, Police.com and CourierMail.com and
others.


Graham
--
www.CamGirls.com | www.CamAffiliate.com


On 10/28/10, George <George...@justice.qld.gov.au> wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper,

Thank you for your email to Deputy Registrar Pollock regarding costs on
the final order of your District Court Action. Deputy Registrar Pollock
has requested that I reply to you on her behalf. As there was no
appearance by you on the 15th October, 2010 His Honour Judge Robertson
made the following order:-

"I order that the claim and statement of claim filed on 19th April, 2010
be struck out and I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on
the indemnity basis".

This means in relation to the costs ordered, that it is a matter for the
defendant if they want to pursue you for those costs.

I trust this information assists you.


George
District Court, Maroochydore

--
A population that tolerates the incarceration, sedation and persecution of people
who proclaim the government is abusing individuals, has no right to freedom.

 

[The Man From Havana]

On Oct 29, 8:57 am, "|-|




You're a fucking idiot. Put a gun to your head.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/10/2010 8:57 AM, |-|ercules wrote:

Thank you for your email to Deputy Registrar Pollock regarding costs on
the final order of your District Court Action. Deputy Registrar Pollock
has requested that I reply to you on her behalf. As there was no
appearance by you on the 15th October, 2010 His Honour Judge Robertson
made the following order:-

"I order that the claim and statement of claim filed on 19th April, 2010
be struck out and I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on
the indemnity basis".

This means in relation to the costs ordered, that it is a matter for the
defendant if they want to pursue you for those costs.

I trust this information assists you.


George
District Court, Maroochydore

Why didn't you show up at the hearing?

Sylvia.

 

[|-|ercules]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...

On 29/10/2010 8:57 AM, |-|ercules wrote:

Thank you for your email to Deputy Registrar Pollock regarding costs on
the final order of your District Court Action. Deputy Registrar Pollock
has requested that I reply to you on her behalf. As there was no
appearance by you on the 15th October, 2010 His Honour Judge Robertson
made the following order:-

"I order that the claim and statement of claim filed on 19th April, 2010
be struck out and I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on
the indemnity basis".

This means in relation to the costs ordered, that it is a matter for the
defendant if they want to pursue you for those costs.

I trust this information assists you.


George
District Court, Maroochydore


Why didn't you show up at the hearing?

It was (supposed to be) a default judgement.

If they had a hearing date set I could have issued a subpoena for the evidence.

There was a policeman at the court room door and my memory flashed back to
being held down and stripped and probed multiple times... so I fled!


Herc

 

[|-|ercules]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote...

On 29/10/2010 1:25 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
On 29/10/2010 8:57 AM, |-|ercules wrote:

Thank you for your email to Deputy Registrar Pollock regarding costs on
the final order of your District Court Action. Deputy Registrar Pollock
has requested that I reply to you on her behalf. As there was no
appearance by you on the 15th October, 2010 His Honour Judge Robertson
made the following order:-

"I order that the claim and statement of claim filed on 19th April, 2010
be struck out and I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on
the indemnity basis".

This means in relation to the costs ordered, that it is a matter for the
defendant if they want to pursue you for those costs.

I trust this information assists you.


George
District Court, Maroochydore


Why didn't you show up at the hearing?

It was (supposed to be) a default judgement.

You're still meant to show up.


If they had a hearing date set

There was a hearing date set - to hear your application for a default judgement.

I could have issued a subpoena for the evidence.

There was a policeman at the court room door and my memory flashed back to
being held down and stripped and probed multiple times... so I fled!

If you can show that you were there, but failed to appear because of a sudden psychiatric problem you might get the dismissal
reversed.

But on the whole, I think the present outcome is the best for you, even if you don't realise it. With luck they won't persue you
for their costs, and if they do, they'll be limited in extent.

Had the matter proceeded to a full hearing, the costs against you when you inevitably lost would have been considerable.

Sylvia.

I'm not going to lose. My main goal was to start legal action before the 1 year limit.

Now I can wait for my resources to build up for another 12 - 24 months.

If I win the paranormal prize the defamation will then be worth millions.

Herc

 

[|-|ercules]

"The Man From Havana" <thehouseoftrolls@gmail.com> wrote
On Oct 29, 2:14 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote...
On 29/10/2010 1:25 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
On 29/10/2010 8:57 AM, |-|ercules wrote:

Thank you for your email to Deputy Registrar Pollock regarding costs on
the final order of your District Court Action. Deputy Registrar Pollock
has requested that I reply to you on her behalf. As there was no
appearance by you on the 15th October, 2010 His Honour Judge Robertson
made the following order:-

"I order that the claim and statement of claim filed on 19th April, 2010
be struck out and I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on
the indemnity basis".

This means in relation to the costs ordered, that it is a matter for the
defendant if they want to pursue you for those costs.

I trust this information assists you.

George
District Court, Maroochydore

Why didn't you show up at the hearing?

It was (supposed to be) a default judgement.

You're still meant to show up.

If they had a hearing date set

There was a hearing date set - to hear your application for a default judgement.

I could have issued a subpoena for the evidence.

There was a policeman at the court room door and my memory flashed back to
being held down and stripped and probed multiple times... so I fled!

If you can show that you were there, but failed to appear because of a sudden psychiatric problem you might get the dismissal
reversed.

But on the whole, I think the present outcome is the best for you, even if you don't realise it. With luck they won't persue you
for their costs, and if they do, they'll be limited in extent.

Had the matter proceeded to a full hearing, the costs against you when you inevitably lost would have been considerable.

Sylvia.

I'm not going to lose. My main goal was to start legal action before the 1 year limit.

Now I can wait for my resources to build up for another 12 - 24 months.

If I win the paranormal prize the defamation will then be worth millions.

Herc- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Put a gun to your head you fat clown.

------------------------------------

In 5 years from now there will be no court system.

An Artificial Intelligence will just read your mind and sentence the few people who continue to commit crimes even though punishment
is unavoidable.

I've already coded the judgement routine for The Man from Havana....

<?php

echo "DEATH";

?>

Herc

 

[|-|ercules]

Thanks for the useful post!

uh the first bit..


Herc



"Kangaroo Court Australia" <nwn.webmaster@gmail.com> wrote
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39901741/Complaint-of-Unlawful-Discrimination-by-Australian-Judiciary

"Specific demands are:

1. Amending the Constitution.
2. Separation of powers.
3. Legislative democracy.
4. An independent judiciary.
5. Public control of public servants.
6. Guarantee of human rights.
7. Election of public officials.
8. Rural–urban equality.
9. Freedom of association.
10. Freedom of assembly.
11. Freedom of expression.
12. Freedom of religion.
13. Civic education.
14. Protection of private property.
15. Financial and tax reform.
16. Social security.
17. Protection of the environment.
18. A federated republic.
19. Truth in reconciliation."

LODGMENT OF COMPLAINT: Further Complaint of Unlawful Racial
Discrimination, Human Rights Violations, Genocide against the
Commonwealth and Australia Judiciary and High Court Australia

Director, Complaint Handling

Australian Human Rights Commission

GPO Box 5218

SYDNEY NSW 2001

RE: Complaint of Unlawful Racial Discrimination by the
Australian Judiciary (State and Federal) and High Court Australia, the
Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the
Attorneys General (State and Federal), the Australian Human Rights
(and Equal Opportunity) Commission and the Australian Federal Police

Complaint of unlawful sex discrimination against the
Australian Judiciary

Complaint of breaches of Human Rights by the
aforementioned by the Commonwealth and its agencies

1. Further to the complaint on 1 October, 2010;

2. The Genocide Centre has received an email from Rebecca Gieng
presumably acting general supervisor, when the initial complaint
addressed the Director;

3. This document is taken to be lodgment of complaint, by the
Indigenous and Origines Genocide Centre; the Commission should have
courtesy to address its Director;

4. Ms Gieng indicated that “Commission can only terminate
complaints if they are lodged and accepted by the Commission”;
lodgment is taken to be a given;

5. The Genocide Centre would like to know where in the Human
Rights (and Equal Opportunity) Commission Act 1986, does it allow the
Human Rights Commission to “accept” or not accept a complaint;

6. If the Commission is too incompetent to deal with complaint,
then they should terminate the complaint immediately, so it can be
heard in the Federal Court;

7. Is it the intention of the Commission to pervert the Human
Rights Commission Act 1986?

8. This document covers unlawful racial and sex discrimination,
plus Human Rights violations by the Commonwealth and its judiciary;
both violations are related and essentially the same, both are covered
by ICCPR and ICERD, and protected under the Human Rights (and Equal
Opportunity) Commission Act 1986, RDA 1975, SDA 1992, inter alia;

9. In addition to the complaint, the question(s) to the
commission is simple: Can the Australian judiciary violate Australian
laws, including the Australian Constitution, international laws, ICERD
and ICCPR, inter alia, in exercise of “their judicial powers”;

10. Whether they are “seen to hold immunity” is irrelevant to whether
they are given immunity by any written laws;

11. Whether the Commonwealth and Attorneys General, including the
Federal, and Rob Hulls of Victoria, can use incompetent Human Rights
Commission and Court Registrars, including Rosemary Mussolino (High
Court), Joe Salemantico (sp? Victorian Supreme Court) to violate
ICCPR’s articles on access to courts and justice system;

12. In 2008 or thereabouts, the High Court Justice Michael Kirby did
opine that the High Court of Australia presided over by the Chief
Justice Robert French did make judicial decisions to deprive
Indigenous and Origines people access to the laws and courts based on
their “Aboriginality” [sic].

13. Justice Michael Kirby had written extensive United Nations papers
on judicial corruption.

14. In 2009, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs deprived the Indigenous and Origines peoples,
and immigrants access to the Australian Constitution by refusing to
consider submissions to Inquiries regarding the access to law and the
role of judges;

15. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
and its chairs Senators Barnett and Crossin, indicated that it was
lawful to defame the good name of Indigenous and Origines peoples, and
Immigrants without the right to reply through legal process, nor the
parliamentary process;

16. The Commonwealth has defamed the name of Indigenous and Origines
peoples, accusing them of actions and deeds that are valid and lawful
under their own laws and customs, without having made proper Treaty
arrangements;

17. The Commonwealth had deprived the Indigenous and Origines peoples
of access to the Commonwealth laws and courts by depriving them of the
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), in full and unconditionally, in
comparison to other races;

18. The Commonwealth had deprived the Indigenous and Origines peoples
of access to International treaties ICERD and ICCPR, inter alia, in
comparison to other races;

19. The Commonwealth has engaged in Genocide against the Indigenous
and Origines peoples with the intention of wiping out their culture
and laws in part or in full; without having made proper Treaty
arrangements;

20. In M142/2007 Pham vs French & ors, Hayne J deprived Pham of
access to the law and courts by unlawfully modifying court papers and
content;

21. In VID91/2009, Middleton J opined that it was lawful for the
Commonwealth to disregard the Constitution, the Evidence Act, inter
alia, and for the Commonwealth and Judiciary to fabricate material
evidence and facts;

22. The President of the Human Rights (and Equal Opportunity)
Commission John von Doussa, another former federal court judge,
refused to terminate complaints of unlawful racial discrimination so
it can be heard in the Federal Courts, perverting the HREOCA 1986
(Cth) PO46; lodgement cannot be argued, and the Commission has no
power of non-acceptance;

23. The Australian Human Rights Commission continue to refuse to
terminate complaints so they can be heard in the Federal Court, and
continuing to pervert the Human Rights Act 1986;

24. In January 2010, a Commonwealth of Australia was put on Notice
regarding judicial corruption and perversion of justice: the Australia
Federal Police has refused to investigate judicial corruption by John
Handley (Administrative Appeals Tribunal), Paul Mentor (Sparke
Helmore), Tim de Uray (AGS), inter alia, for fabricating material
evidence and documents;

25. French, Hayne, Middleton, North, JJ, inter alia, indicated that
the sworn statements of the Australian man of Asian background was
less valid that hearsay evidence from the Commonwealth;

26. The Chief Justices High Court, Federal Court and AAT, continue to
re-run dishonorable justices include North J and Handley, without
regards for apprehended bias against immigrants, Indigenous and
Origines peoples, with the intention to pervert justice and the rule
of law; in conjunction with the Attorneys General, acting in bad
faith;

27. Gummow and Crennan JJ indicated that an Australian man of Asian
background cannot be properly heard in the High Court Australia, by
refusing oral representation;

28. The Queensland magistrate Michael O'Driscoll indicated that
calling someone “nigger and sandnigger”: "The words used were crude,
unattractive and direct but were not offensive to a reasonable
person,";

29. Christie Turner, 28, told Southport Magistrates Court she was
deeply offended when she read the one-page fax which called on the
Labor Party to tighten immigration laws against "niggers" and
"sandnigger terrorists" and Muslim women with circumcised genitals.

30. In other words, if you are a black person or woman, you are NOT
reasonable;

31. The Queensland magistrate Michael O'Driscoll may have been living
under his little rock, but “ignorance is not an excuse” for not
knowing civil rights in America where black people were lynched, nor
genocide of Indigenous and Origines people in Australia;

32. What the Mulheron case indicates is large open display of
unlawful racial discrimination right under the nose of the Australian
Human Rights Commission;

33. The Monash Legal Service in Melbourne has published reports of
Victorian Police targeting African Youth, right under the nose of the
Australian Human Rights Commission;

34. The Australian Judiciary refusing to answer questions of law by
PHAM and John Wilson; their refusal to answer questions of laws,
invalidates such laws;

35. The Australian Human Rights Commission is now asked to
investigate unlawful racial discrimination, sex discrimination and
human rights violation by the Commonwealth and the Australian
Judiciary, Federal and state police;

36. The Commission is now asked if there are exemptions in the ICERD
and ICCPR for the Commonwealth and/or Judiciary to continue violation
of International Laws and treaties, and their acts of genocide,
conspiracy to pervert justice, conspiracy to cause injury and death to
Indigenous and Origines peoples and other Australians.

Signed:

Charles PHAM

Friday, October 08, 2010

for

Indigenous & Origines Genocide Centre

Director: Robbie THORPE

Special Counsel: Charles PHAM

PO BOX 1007

Springvale

VIC 3171

=================================

Dear Charles

I refer to your recent email to the Commission.

You state that you have been discriminated against by various
organisations, including courts, the Attorney General, the Commission
and the Australian Federal Police.

I have read your email, but it is unclear what your allegations relate
to. If you feel that you have been discriminated against because of
your sex, age, race or disability, it is open for you to lodge a
complaint. Please note that the Commission can only terminate
complaints if they are lodged and accepted by the Commission.

I should also note however, that the Commission is limited in the
matters that we can consider against the Courts. The Commission's
complaint handling process does not extend to considering claims
against Judges or Magistrates when they are exercising their judicial
power as they are seen to hold immunity.

Should you have any further queries, please advise by return email.

Regards,

Rebecca Gieng
A/g Supervisor
Complaint Information Service

Australian Human Rights Commission

Level 8 Piccadilly Tower, 133 Castlereagh St, Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
T 1300 656 419 F +61 2 9284 9611
E complaintsi...@humanrights.gov.au W www.humanrights.gov.au

Human rights: NOone, NOwhere, everyday

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39901741/Complaint-of-Unlawful-Discrimination-by-Australian-Judiciary

 

[The Man From Havana]

On Oct 29, 2:14 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote...
On 29/10/2010 1:25 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid>  wrote ...
On 29/10/2010 8:57 AM, |-|ercules wrote:

Thank you for your email to Deputy Registrar Pollock regarding costs on
the final order of your District Court Action. Deputy Registrar Pollock
has requested that I reply to you on her behalf. As there was no
appearance by you on the 15th October, 2010 His Honour Judge Robertson
made the following order:-

"I order that the claim and statement of claim filed on 19th April, 2010
be struck out and I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on
the indemnity basis".

This means in relation to the costs ordered, that it is a matter for the
defendant if they want to pursue you for those costs.

I trust this information assists you.

George
District Court, Maroochydore

Why didn't you show up at the hearing?

It was (supposed to be) a default judgement.

You're still meant to show up.

If they had a hearing date set

There was a hearing date set - to hear your application for a default judgement.

I could have issued a subpoena for the evidence.

There was a policeman at the court room door and my memory flashed back to
being held down and stripped and probed multiple times... so I fled!

If you can show that you were there, but failed to appear because of a sudden psychiatric problem you might get the dismissal
reversed.

But on the whole, I think the present outcome is the best for you, even if you don't realise it. With luck they won't persue you
for their costs, and if they do, they'll be limited in extent.

Had the matter proceeded to a full hearing, the costs against you when you inevitably lost would have been considerable.

Sylvia.

I'm not going to lose.  My main goal was to start legal action before the 1 year limit.

Now I can wait for my resources to build up for another 12 - 24 months.

If I win the paranormal prize the defamation will then be worth millions.

Herc- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Put a gun to your head you fat clown.

 

[Coach]

On Oct 29, 2:10 pm, The Man From Havana <thehouseoftro...@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Oct 29, 2:14 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:



"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote...
On 29/10/2010 1:25 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid>  wrote ...
On 29/10/2010 8:57 AM, |-|ercules wrote:

Thank you for your email to Deputy Registrar Pollock regarding costs on
the final order of your District Court Action. Deputy Registrar Pollock
has requested that I reply to you on her behalf. As there was no
appearance by you on the 15th October, 2010 His Honour Judge Robertson
made the following order:-

"I order that the claim and statement of claim filed on 19th April, 2010
be struck out and I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on
the indemnity basis".

This means in relation to the costs ordered, that it is a matter for the
defendant if they want to pursue you for those costs.

I trust this information assists you.

George
District Court, Maroochydore

Why didn't you show up at the hearing?

It was (supposed to be) a default judgement.

You're still meant to show up.

If they had a hearing date set

There was a hearing date set - to hear your application for a default judgement.

I could have issued a subpoena for the evidence.

There was a policeman at the court room door and my memory flashed back to
being held down and stripped and probed multiple times... so I fled!

If you can show that you were there, but failed to appear because of a sudden psychiatric problem you might get the dismissal
reversed.

But on the whole, I think the present outcome is the best for you, even if you don't realise it. With luck they won't persue you
for their costs, and if they do, they'll be limited in extent.

Had the matter proceeded to a full hearing, the costs against you when you inevitably lost would have been considerable.

Sylvia.

I'm not going to lose.  My main goal was to start legal action before the 1 year limit.

Now I can wait for my resources to build up for another 12 - 24 months.

If I win the paranormal prize the defamation will then be worth millions.

Herc- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Put a gun to your head you fat clown.

Lovely! Hopefully you will never develop a mental illness and have
some moron make suggestions like that.

 

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

On Oct 29, 1:06 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"The Man From Havana" <thehouseoftro...@gmail.com> wrote
On Oct 29, 2:14 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:





"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote...
On 29/10/2010 1:25 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
On 29/10/2010 8:57 AM, |-|ercules wrote:

Thank you for your email to Deputy Registrar Pollock regarding costs on
the final order of your District Court Action. Deputy Registrar Pollock
has requested that I reply to you on her behalf. As there was no
appearance by you on the 15th October, 2010 His Honour Judge Robertson
made the following order:-

"I order that the claim and statement of claim filed on 19th April, 2010
be struck out and I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on
the indemnity basis".

This means in relation to the costs ordered, that it is a matter for the
defendant if they want to pursue you for those costs.

I trust this information assists you.

George
District Court, Maroochydore

Why didn't you show up at the hearing?

It was (supposed to be) a default judgement.

You're still meant to show up.

If they had a hearing date set

There was a hearing date set - to hear your application for a default judgement.

I could have issued a subpoena for the evidence.

There was a policeman at the court room door and my memory flashed back to
being held down and stripped and probed multiple times... so I fled!

If you can show that you were there, but failed to appear because of a sudden psychiatric problem you might get the dismissal
reversed.

But on the whole, I think the present outcome is the best for you, even if you don't realise it. With luck they won't persue you
for their costs, and if they do, they'll be limited in extent.

Had the matter proceeded to a full hearing, the costs against you when you inevitably lost would have been considerable.

Sylvia.

I'm not going to lose. My main goal was to start legal action before the 1 year limit.

Now I can wait for my resources to build up for another 12 - 24 months.

If I win the paranormal prize the defamation will then be worth millions.

Herc- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Put a gun to your head you fat clown.

------------------------------------

In 5 years from now there will be no court system.

An Artificial Intelligence will just read your mind and sentence the few people who continue to commit crimes even though punishment
is unavoidable.

I've already coded the judgement routine for The Man from Havana....

?php

echo "DEATH";

?

Herc

Crikey Herc, even I know that much about PHP programming. It's right
in chapter 1 of the manual...

<?php

echo "Hello World!";

?>

 

[Kangaroo Court Australia]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39901741/Complaint-of-Unlawful-Discrimination-by-Australian-Judiciary

"Specific demands are:

1. Amending the Constitution.
2. Separation of powers.
3. Legislative democracy.
4. An independent judiciary.
5. Public control of public servants.
6. Guarantee of human rights.
7. Election of public officials.
8. Rural–urban equality.
9. Freedom of association.
10. Freedom of assembly.
11. Freedom of expression.
12. Freedom of religion.
13. Civic education.
14. Protection of private property.
15. Financial and tax reform.
16. Social security.
17. Protection of the environment.
18. A federated republic.
19. Truth in reconciliation."

LODGMENT OF COMPLAINT: Further Complaint of Unlawful Racial
Discrimination, Human Rights Violations, Genocide against the
Commonwealth and Australia Judiciary and High Court Australia

Director, Complaint Handling

Australian Human Rights Commission

GPO Box 5218

SYDNEY NSW 2001

RE: Complaint of Unlawful Racial Discrimination by the
Australian Judiciary (State and Federal) and High Court Australia, the
Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the
Attorneys General (State and Federal), the Australian Human Rights
(and Equal Opportunity) Commission and the Australian Federal Police

Complaint of unlawful sex discrimination against the
Australian Judiciary

Complaint of breaches of Human Rights by the
aforementioned by the Commonwealth and its agencies

1. Further to the complaint on 1 October, 2010;

2. The Genocide Centre has received an email from Rebecca Gieng
presumably acting general supervisor, when the initial complaint
addressed the Director;

3. This document is taken to be lodgment of complaint, by the
Indigenous and Origines Genocide Centre; the Commission should have
courtesy to address its Director;

4. Ms Gieng indicated that “Commission can only terminate
complaints if they are lodged and accepted by the Commission”;
lodgment is taken to be a given;

5. The Genocide Centre would like to know where in the Human
Rights (and Equal Opportunity) Commission Act 1986, does it allow the
Human Rights Commission to “accept” or not accept a complaint;

6. If the Commission is too incompetent to deal with complaint,
then they should terminate the complaint immediately, so it can be
heard in the Federal Court;

7. Is it the intention of the Commission to pervert the Human
Rights Commission Act 1986?

8. This document covers unlawful racial and sex discrimination,
plus Human Rights violations by the Commonwealth and its judiciary;
both violations are related and essentially the same, both are covered
by ICCPR and ICERD, and protected under the Human Rights (and Equal
Opportunity) Commission Act 1986, RDA 1975, SDA 1992, inter alia;

9. In addition to the complaint, the question(s) to the
commission is simple: Can the Australian judiciary violate Australian
laws, including the Australian Constitution, international laws, ICERD
and ICCPR, inter alia, in exercise of “their judicial powers”;

10. Whether they are “seen to hold immunity” is irrelevant to whether
they are given immunity by any written laws;

11. Whether the Commonwealth and Attorneys General, including the
Federal, and Rob Hulls of Victoria, can use incompetent Human Rights
Commission and Court Registrars, including Rosemary Mussolino (High
Court), Joe Salemantico (sp? Victorian Supreme Court) to violate
ICCPR’s articles on access to courts and justice system;

12. In 2008 or thereabouts, the High Court Justice Michael Kirby did
opine that the High Court of Australia presided over by the Chief
Justice Robert French did make judicial decisions to deprive
Indigenous and Origines people access to the laws and courts based on
their “Aboriginality” [sic].

13. Justice Michael Kirby had written extensive United Nations papers
on judicial corruption.

14. In 2009, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs deprived the Indigenous and Origines peoples,
and immigrants access to the Australian Constitution by refusing to
consider submissions to Inquiries regarding the access to law and the
role of judges;

15. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
and its chairs Senators Barnett and Crossin, indicated that it was
lawful to defame the good name of Indigenous and Origines peoples, and
Immigrants without the right to reply through legal process, nor the
parliamentary process;

16. The Commonwealth has defamed the name of Indigenous and Origines
peoples, accusing them of actions and deeds that are valid and lawful
under their own laws and customs, without having made proper Treaty
arrangements;

17. The Commonwealth had deprived the Indigenous and Origines peoples
of access to the Commonwealth laws and courts by depriving them of the
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), in full and unconditionally, in
comparison to other races;

18. The Commonwealth had deprived the Indigenous and Origines peoples
of access to International treaties ICERD and ICCPR, inter alia, in
comparison to other races;

19. The Commonwealth has engaged in Genocide against the Indigenous
and Origines peoples with the intention of wiping out their culture
and laws in part or in full; without having made proper Treaty
arrangements;

20. In M142/2007 Pham vs French & ors, Hayne J deprived Pham of
access to the law and courts by unlawfully modifying court papers and
content;

21. In VID91/2009, Middleton J opined that it was lawful for the
Commonwealth to disregard the Constitution, the Evidence Act, inter
alia, and for the Commonwealth and Judiciary to fabricate material
evidence and facts;

22. The President of the Human Rights (and Equal Opportunity)
Commission John von Doussa, another former federal court judge,
refused to terminate complaints of unlawful racial discrimination so
it can be heard in the Federal Courts, perverting the HREOCA 1986
(Cth) PO46; lodgement cannot be argued, and the Commission has no
power of non-acceptance;

23. The Australian Human Rights Commission continue to refuse to
terminate complaints so they can be heard in the Federal Court, and
continuing to pervert the Human Rights Act 1986;

24. In January 2010, a Commonwealth of Australia was put on Notice
regarding judicial corruption and perversion of justice: the Australia
Federal Police has refused to investigate judicial corruption by John
Handley (Administrative Appeals Tribunal), Paul Mentor (Sparke
Helmore), Tim de Uray (AGS), inter alia, for fabricating material
evidence and documents;

25. French, Hayne, Middleton, North, JJ, inter alia, indicated that
the sworn statements of the Australian man of Asian background was
less valid that hearsay evidence from the Commonwealth;

26. The Chief Justices High Court, Federal Court and AAT, continue to
re-run dishonorable justices include North J and Handley, without
regards for apprehended bias against immigrants, Indigenous and
Origines peoples, with the intention to pervert justice and the rule
of law; in conjunction with the Attorneys General, acting in bad
faith;

27. Gummow and Crennan JJ indicated that an Australian man of Asian
background cannot be properly heard in the High Court Australia, by
refusing oral representation;

28. The Queensland magistrate Michael O'Driscoll indicated that
calling someone “nigger and sandnigger”: "The words used were crude,
unattractive and direct but were not offensive to a reasonable
person,";

29. Christie Turner, 28, told Southport Magistrates Court she was
deeply offended when she read the one-page fax which called on the
Labor Party to tighten immigration laws against "niggers" and
"sandnigger terrorists" and Muslim women with circumcised genitals.

30. In other words, if you are a black person or woman, you are NOT
reasonable;

31. The Queensland magistrate Michael O'Driscoll may have been living
under his little rock, but “ignorance is not an excuse” for not
knowing civil rights in America where black people were lynched, nor
genocide of Indigenous and Origines people in Australia;

32. What the Mulheron case indicates is large open display of
unlawful racial discrimination right under the nose of the Australian
Human Rights Commission;

33. The Monash Legal Service in Melbourne has published reports of
Victorian Police targeting African Youth, right under the nose of the
Australian Human Rights Commission;

34. The Australian Judiciary refusing to answer questions of law by
PHAM and John Wilson; their refusal to answer questions of laws,
invalidates such laws;

35. The Australian Human Rights Commission is now asked to
investigate unlawful racial discrimination, sex discrimination and
human rights violation by the Commonwealth and the Australian
Judiciary, Federal and state police;

36. The Commission is now asked if there are exemptions in the ICERD
and ICCPR for the Commonwealth and/or Judiciary to continue violation
of International Laws and treaties, and their acts of genocide,
conspiracy to pervert justice, conspiracy to cause injury and death to
Indigenous and Origines peoples and other Australians.

Signed:

Charles PHAM

Friday, October 08, 2010

for

Indigenous & Origines Genocide Centre

Director: Robbie THORPE

Special Counsel: Charles PHAM

PO BOX 1007

Springvale

VIC 3171

================================
Dear Charles

I refer to your recent email to the Commission.

You state that you have been discriminated against by various
organisations, including courts, the Attorney General, the Commission
and the Australian Federal Police.

I have read your email, but it is unclear what your allegations relate
to. If you feel that you have been discriminated against because of
your sex, age, race or disability, it is open for you to lodge a
complaint. Please note that the Commission can only terminate
complaints if they are lodged and accepted by the Commission.

I should also note however, that the Commission is limited in the
matters that we can consider against the Courts. The Commission's
complaint handling process does not extend to considering claims
against Judges or Magistrates when they are exercising their judicial
power as they are seen to hold immunity.

Should you have any further queries, please advise by return email.

Regards,

Rebecca Gieng
A/g Supervisor
Complaint Information Service

Australian Human Rights Commission

Level 8 Piccadilly Tower, 133 Castlereagh St, Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
T 1300 656 419 F +61 2 9284 9611
E complaintsi...@humanrights.gov.au W www.humanrights.gov.au

Human rights: NOone, NOwhere, everyday

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39901741/Complaint-of-Unlawful-Discrimination-by-Australian-Judiciary

 

[Kangaroo Court Australia]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39901741/Complaint-of-Unlawful-Discrimination-by-Australian-Judiciary

"Specific demands are:

1. Amending the Constitution.
2. Separation of powers.
3. Legislative democracy.
4. An independent judiciary.
5. Public control of public servants.
6. Guarantee of human rights.
7. Election of public officials.
8. Rural–urban equality.
9. Freedom of association.
10. Freedom of assembly.
11. Freedom of expression.
12. Freedom of religion.
13. Civic education.
14. Protection of private property.
15. Financial and tax reform.
16. Social security.
17. Protection of the environment.
18. A federated republic.
19. Truth in reconciliation."

LODGMENT OF COMPLAINT: Further Complaint of Unlawful Racial
Discrimination, Human Rights Violations, Genocide against the
Commonwealth and Australia Judiciary and High Court Australia

Director, Complaint Handling

Australian Human Rights Commission

GPO Box 5218

SYDNEY NSW 2001

RE: Complaint of Unlawful Racial Discrimination by the
Australian Judiciary (State and Federal) and High Court Australia, the
Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the
Attorneys General (State and Federal), the Australian Human Rights
(and Equal Opportunity) Commission and the Australian Federal Police

Complaint of unlawful sex discrimination against the
Australian Judiciary

Complaint of breaches of Human Rights by the
aforementioned by the Commonwealth and its agencies

1. Further to the complaint on 1 October, 2010;

2. The Genocide Centre has received an email from Rebecca Gieng
presumably acting general supervisor, when the initial complaint
addressed the Director;

3. This document is taken to be lodgment of complaint, by the
Indigenous and Origines Genocide Centre; the Commission should have
courtesy to address its Director;

4. Ms Gieng indicated that “Commission can only terminate
complaints if they are lodged and accepted by the Commission”;
lodgment is taken to be a given;

5. The Genocide Centre would like to know where in the Human
Rights (and Equal Opportunity) Commission Act 1986, does it allow the
Human Rights Commission to “accept” or not accept a complaint;

6. If the Commission is too incompetent to deal with complaint,
then they should terminate the complaint immediately, so it can be
heard in the Federal Court;

7. Is it the intention of the Commission to pervert the Human
Rights Commission Act 1986?

8. This document covers unlawful racial and sex discrimination,
plus Human Rights violations by the Commonwealth and its judiciary;
both violations are related and essentially the same, both are covered
by ICCPR and ICERD, and protected under the Human Rights (and Equal
Opportunity) Commission Act 1986, RDA 1975, SDA 1992, inter alia;

9. In addition to the complaint, the question(s) to the
commission is simple: Can the Australian judiciary violate Australian
laws, including the Australian Constitution, international laws, ICERD
and ICCPR, inter alia, in exercise of “their judicial powers”;

10. Whether they are “seen to hold immunity” is irrelevant to whether
they are given immunity by any written laws;

11. Whether the Commonwealth and Attorneys General, including the
Federal, and Rob Hulls of Victoria, can use incompetent Human Rights
Commission and Court Registrars, including Rosemary Mussolino (High
Court), Joe Salemantico (sp? Victorian Supreme Court) to violate
ICCPR’s articles on access to courts and justice system;

12. In 2008 or thereabouts, the High Court Justice Michael Kirby did
opine that the High Court of Australia presided over by the Chief
Justice Robert French did make judicial decisions to deprive
Indigenous and Origines people access to the laws and courts based on
their “Aboriginality” [sic].

13. Justice Michael Kirby had written extensive United Nations papers
on judicial corruption.

14. In 2009, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs deprived the Indigenous and Origines peoples,
and immigrants access to the Australian Constitution by refusing to
consider submissions to Inquiries regarding the access to law and the
role of judges;

15. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
and its chairs Senators Barnett and Crossin, indicated that it was
lawful to defame the good name of Indigenous and Origines peoples, and
Immigrants without the right to reply through legal process, nor the
parliamentary process;

16. The Commonwealth has defamed the name of Indigenous and Origines
peoples, accusing them of actions and deeds that are valid and lawful
under their own laws and customs, without having made proper Treaty
arrangements;

17. The Commonwealth had deprived the Indigenous and Origines peoples
of access to the Commonwealth laws and courts by depriving them of the
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), in full and unconditionally, in
comparison to other races;

18. The Commonwealth had deprived the Indigenous and Origines peoples
of access to International treaties ICERD and ICCPR, inter alia, in
comparison to other races;

19. The Commonwealth has engaged in Genocide against the Indigenous
and Origines peoples with the intention of wiping out their culture
and laws in part or in full; without having made proper Treaty
arrangements;

20. In M142/2007 Pham vs French & ors, Hayne J deprived Pham of
access to the law and courts by unlawfully modifying court papers and
content;

21. In VID91/2009, Middleton J opined that it was lawful for the
Commonwealth to disregard the Constitution, the Evidence Act, inter
alia, and for the Commonwealth and Judiciary to fabricate material
evidence and facts;

22. The President of the Human Rights (and Equal Opportunity)
Commission John von Doussa, another former federal court judge,
refused to terminate complaints of unlawful racial discrimination so
it can be heard in the Federal Courts, perverting the HREOCA 1986
(Cth) PO46; lodgement cannot be argued, and the Commission has no
power of non-acceptance;

23. The Australian Human Rights Commission continue to refuse to
terminate complaints so they can be heard in the Federal Court, and
continuing to pervert the Human Rights Act 1986;

24. In January 2010, a Commonwealth of Australia was put on Notice
regarding judicial corruption and perversion of justice: the Australia
Federal Police has refused to investigate judicial corruption by John
Handley (Administrative Appeals Tribunal), Paul Mentor (Sparke
Helmore), Tim de Uray (AGS), inter alia, for fabricating material
evidence and documents;

25. French, Hayne, Middleton, North, JJ, inter alia, indicated that
the sworn statements of the Australian man of Asian background was
less valid that hearsay evidence from the Commonwealth;

26. The Chief Justices High Court, Federal Court and AAT, continue to
re-run dishonorable justices include North J and Handley, without
regards for apprehended bias against immigrants, Indigenous and
Origines peoples, with the intention to pervert justice and the rule
of law; in conjunction with the Attorneys General, acting in bad
faith;

27. Gummow and Crennan JJ indicated that an Australian man of Asian
background cannot be properly heard in the High Court Australia, by
refusing oral representation;

28. The Queensland magistrate Michael O'Driscoll indicated that
calling someone “nigger and sandnigger”: "The words used were crude,
unattractive and direct but were not offensive to a reasonable
person,";

29. Christie Turner, 28, told Southport Magistrates Court she was
deeply offended when she read the one-page fax which called on the
Labor Party to tighten immigration laws against "niggers" and
"sandnigger terrorists" and Muslim women with circumcised genitals.

30. In other words, if you are a black person or woman, you are NOT
reasonable;

31. The Queensland magistrate Michael O'Driscoll may have been living
under his little rock, but “ignorance is not an excuse” for not
knowing civil rights in America where black people were lynched, nor
genocide of Indigenous and Origines people in Australia;

32. What the Mulheron case indicates is large open display of
unlawful racial discrimination right under the nose of the Australian
Human Rights Commission;

33. The Monash Legal Service in Melbourne has published reports of
Victorian Police targeting African Youth, right under the nose of the
Australian Human Rights Commission;

34. The Australian Judiciary refusing to answer questions of law by
PHAM and John Wilson; their refusal to answer questions of laws,
invalidates such laws;

35. The Australian Human Rights Commission is now asked to
investigate unlawful racial discrimination, sex discrimination and
human rights violation by the Commonwealth and the Australian
Judiciary, Federal and state police;

36. The Commission is now asked if there are exemptions in the ICERD
and ICCPR for the Commonwealth and/or Judiciary to continue violation
of International Laws and treaties, and their acts of genocide,
conspiracy to pervert justice, conspiracy to cause injury and death to
Indigenous and Origines peoples and other Australians.

Signed:

Charles PHAM

Friday, October 08, 2010

for

Indigenous & Origines Genocide Centre

Director: Robbie THORPE

Special Counsel: Charles PHAM

PO BOX 1007

Springvale

VIC 3171

================================
Dear Charles

I refer to your recent email to the Commission.

You state that you have been discriminated against by various
organisations, including courts, the Attorney General, the Commission
and the Australian Federal Police.

I have read your email, but it is unclear what your allegations relate
to. If you feel that you have been discriminated against because of
your sex, age, race or disability, it is open for you to lodge a
complaint. Please note that the Commission can only terminate
complaints if they are lodged and accepted by the Commission.

I should also note however, that the Commission is limited in the
matters that we can consider against the Courts. The Commission's
complaint handling process does not extend to considering claims
against Judges or Magistrates when they are exercising their judicial
power as they are seen to hold immunity.

Should you have any further queries, please advise by return email.

Regards,

Rebecca Gieng
A/g Supervisor
Complaint Information Service

Australian Human Rights Commission

Level 8 Piccadilly Tower, 133 Castlereagh St, Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
T 1300 656 419 F +61 2 9284 9611
E complaintsi...@humanrights.gov.au W www.humanrights.gov.au

Human rights: NOone, NOwhere, everyday

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39901741/Complaint-of-Unlawful-Discrimination-by-Australian-Judiciary

 

[Bill Graham]

"|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8iv33eFje7U1@mid.individual.net...

"The Man From Havana" <thehouseoftrolls@gmail.com> wrote
On Oct 29, 2:14 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote...
On 29/10/2010 1:25 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
On 29/10/2010 8:57 AM, |-|ercules wrote:

Thank you for your email to Deputy Registrar Pollock regarding
costs on
the final order of your District Court Action. Deputy Registrar
Pollock
has requested that I reply to you on her behalf. As there was no
appearance by you on the 15th October, 2010 His Honour Judge
Robertson
made the following order:-

"I order that the claim and statement of claim filed on 19th
April, 2010
be struck out and I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's
costs on
the indemnity basis".

This means in relation to the costs ordered, that it is a matter
for the
defendant if they want to pursue you for those costs.

I trust this information assists you.

George
District Court, Maroochydore

Why didn't you show up at the hearing?

It was (supposed to be) a default judgement.

You're still meant to show up.

If they had a hearing date set

There was a hearing date set - to hear your application for a default
judgement.

I could have issued a subpoena for the evidence.

There was a policeman at the court room door and my memory flashed
back to
being held down and stripped and probed multiple times... so I fled!

If you can show that you were there, but failed to appear because of a
sudden psychiatric problem you might get the dismissal
reversed.

But on the whole, I think the present outcome is the best for you, even
if you don't realise it. With luck they won't persue you
for their costs, and if they do, they'll be limited in extent.

Had the matter proceeded to a full hearing, the costs against you when
you inevitably lost would have been considerable.

Sylvia.

I'm not going to lose. My main goal was to start legal action before the
1 year limit.

Now I can wait for my resources to build up for another 12 - 24 months.

If I win the paranormal prize the defamation will then be worth millions.

Herc- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Put a gun to your head you fat clown.

------------------------------------

In 5 years from now there will be no court system.

An Artificial Intelligence will just read your mind and sentence the few
people who continue to commit crimes even though punishment is
unavoidable.

I've already coded the judgement routine for The Man from Havana....

?php

echo "DEATH";

?

Herc

You must be under 30. Take it from me, (I am 75) it will be 50 years from
now, and not 5. One of the things I have noticed about young people is that
they always underestimate the time it takes society to develop and adapt a
radically new device by a factor of (usually) ten.

 

[Polly the Parrott]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:25:52 +1000, "|-|ercules"
<radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:

There was a policeman at the court room door and my memory flashed back to
being held down and stripped and probed multiple times... so I fled!

Normally you enjoy that sort of thing.

 

[SG1]

"Polly the Parrott" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:rcjmc6tb6erf4u15l9a9gkmt5losfraik6@4ax.com...

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:25:52 +1000, "|-|ercules"
radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:

There was a policeman at the court room door and my memory flashed back to
being held down and stripped and probed multiple times... so I fled!

Normally you enjoy that sort of thing.

Ah Polly, woman of few (but true) words.............

 

[son of a bitch]

On 2010/10/29 13:15, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 29/10/2010 8:57 AM, |-|ercules wrote:

Thank you for your email to Deputy Registrar Pollock regarding costs on
the final order of your District Court Action. Deputy Registrar Pollock
has requested that I reply to you on her behalf. As there was no
appearance by you on the 15th October, 2010 His Honour Judge Robertson
made the following order:-

"I order that the claim and statement of claim filed on 19th April,
2010
be struck out and I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on
the indemnity basis".

This means in relation to the costs ordered, that it is a matter for
the
defendant if they want to pursue you for those costs.

I trust this information assists you.


George
District Court, Maroochydore


Why didn't you show up at the hearing?

Sylvia.

Too busy downloading Porn....

 

[|-|ercules]

"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote ...

"|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8iv33eFje7U1@mid.individual.net...
"The Man From Havana" <thehouseoftrolls@gmail.com> wrote
On Oct 29, 2:14 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote...
On 29/10/2010 1:25 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
"Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
On 29/10/2010 8:57 AM, |-|ercules wrote:

Thank you for your email to Deputy Registrar Pollock regarding costs on
the final order of your District Court Action. Deputy Registrar Pollock
has requested that I reply to you on her behalf. As there was no
appearance by you on the 15th October, 2010 His Honour Judge Robertson
made the following order:-

"I order that the claim and statement of claim filed on 19th April, 2010
be struck out and I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on
the indemnity basis".

This means in relation to the costs ordered, that it is a matter for the
defendant if they want to pursue you for those costs.

I trust this information assists you.

George
District Court, Maroochydore

Why didn't you show up at the hearing?

It was (supposed to be) a default judgement.

You're still meant to show up.

If they had a hearing date set

There was a hearing date set - to hear your application for a default judgement.

I could have issued a subpoena for the evidence.

There was a policeman at the court room door and my memory flashed back to
being held down and stripped and probed multiple times... so I fled!

If you can show that you were there, but failed to appear because of a sudden psychiatric problem you might get the dismissal
reversed.

But on the whole, I think the present outcome is the best for you, even if you don't realise it. With luck they won't persue
you
for their costs, and if they do, they'll be limited in extent.

Had the matter proceeded to a full hearing, the costs against you when you inevitably lost would have been considerable.

Sylvia.

I'm not going to lose. My main goal was to start legal action before the 1 year limit.

Now I can wait for my resources to build up for another 12 - 24 months.

If I win the paranormal prize the defamation will then be worth millions.

Herc- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Put a gun to your head you fat clown.

------------------------------------

In 5 years from now there will be no court system.

An Artificial Intelligence will just read your mind and sentence the few people who continue to commit crimes even though
punishment is unavoidable.

I've already coded the judgement routine for The Man from Havana....

?php

echo "DEATH";

?

Herc


You must be under 30. Take it from me, (I am 75) it will be 50 years from now, and not 5. One of the things I have noticed about
young people is that they always underestimate the time it takes society to develop and adapt a radically new device by a factor
of (usually) ten.

Yes, but nowhere near 50 years. USA secret service has been reading minds inside
houses from helicopters for 20 years. Plus they *implant* any idea in 1/10th second,
your subconcious can outline a whole 5 paragraph story in sped_up_phonetics
in a quarter second and they can hear the whole story half a minute before you
get to thinking or saying the end of it!

Your voicebox never stops, thoughts are just 1/100,000th the volume of speech.

Bogus NASA experiments detect 16 thought words with a microphone strapped to the throat.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4795-nasa-develops-mindreading-system.html

REMOTE LASER to Sonics and Sonics to RADAR are 1,000 times the clarity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the AI, I played a practical joke on the Adult Webmaster Forum
Go F. Yourself! GFY.com

They were discussing robots taking over all the jobs and I said...

SEE HOW CLOSE THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS GETTING..


Person: PICK UP A BIG RED BLOCK.
Computer: OK. (does it)
Person: GRASP THE PYRAMID.
Computer: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHICH PYRAMID YOU MEAN.
Person: FIND A BLOCK WHICH IS TALLER THAN THE ONE YOU ARE HOLDING AND PUT IT INTO THE BOX.
Computer: BY "IT", I ASSUME YOU MEAN THE BLOCK WHICH IS TALLER THAN THE ONE I AM HOLDING.
Computer: OK. (does it)
Person: WHAT DOES THE BOX CONTAIN?
Computer: THE BLUE PYRAMID AND THE BLUE BLOCK.
Person: WHAT IS THE PYRAMID SUPPORTED BY?
Computer: THE BOX.
Person: HOW MANY BLOCKS ARE NOT IN THE BOX?
Computer: FOUR OF THEM.
Person: IS AT LEAST ONE OF THEM NARROWER THAN THE ONE WHICH I TOLD YOU TO PICK UP?
Computer: YES, THE RED CUBE.
Person: IS IT SUPPORTED?
Computer: YES, BY THE TABLE.
Person: CAN THE TABLE PICK UP BLOCKS?
Computer: NO.
Person: CAN A PYRAMID BE SUPPORTED BY A BLOCK?
Computer: YES.
Person: CAN A PYRAMID SUPPORT A PYRAMID?
Computer: I DON'T KNOW.
Person: STACK UP TWO PYRAMIDS.
Computer: I CAN'T.
Person: WILL YOU PLEASE STACK UP BOTH OF THE RED BLOCKS AND EITHER A GREEN CUBE OR A PYRAMID?
Computer: OK. (does it)
Person: WHICH CUBE IS SITTING ON THE TABLE?
Computer: THE LARGE GREEN ONE WHICH SUPPORTS THE RED PYRAMID.
Person: IS THERE A LARGE BLOCK BEHIND A PYRAMID?
Computer: YES, THREE OF THEM: A LARGE RED ONE, A LARGE GREEN CUBE, AND THE BLUE ONE.
Person: PUT A SMALL ONE ONTO THE GREEN CUBE WHICH SUPPORTS A PYRAMID.
Computer: OK. (does it)
Person: PUT THE LITTLEST PYRAMID ON TOP OF IT.
Computer: OK. (does it)
Person: DOES THE SHORTEST THING THE TALLEST PYRAMID'S SUPPORT SUPPORTS SUPPORT ANYTHING GREEN?
Computer: YES, THE GREEN PYRAMID.
Person: WHAT COLOR IS IT?
Computer: BY "IT", I ASSUME YOU MEAN THE SHORTEST THING THE TALLEST PYRAMID'S SUPPORT SUPPORTS.
Computer: RED
Person: HOW MANY THINGS ARE ON TOP OF GREEN CUBES?
Computer: I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "ON TOP OF "IN THE PHRASE "ON TOP OF GREEN CUBES " .
DO YOU MEAN:
1 - DIRECTLY ON THE SURFACE
2 - ANWHERE ON TOP OF ?
Person: 2
Computer: THREE OF THEM.
Person: HAD YOU TOUCHED ANY PYRAMID BEFORE YOU PUT THE GREEN ONE ON THE LITTLE CUBE?
Computer: YES, THE GREEN ONE.
Person: WHEN DID YOU PICK IT UP?
Computer: WHILE I WAS STACKING UP THE RED CUBE, A LARGE RED BLOCK AND A LARGE GREEN CUBE.
Person: WHY?
Computer: TO GET RID OF IT.
Person: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
Computer: TO CLEAN OFF THE RED CUBE.
Person: WHY DID YOU CLEAR OFF THAT CUBE?
Computer: TO PUT IT ON A LARGE GREEN CUBE.
Person: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
Computer: TO STACK UP THE RED CUBE , A LARGE RED BLOCK AND A LARGE GREEN CUBE.
Person: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
Computer: BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO.
Person: HOW DID YOU DO IT?
Computer: BY PUTTING A LARGE RED BLOCK....



Of course this was a breakthrough in talking computers, in 1971!!!


I have his book on the thesis and will be extending it to more general domains
than blocks world!

If you think his thesis was impressive, so did God, his name is WINoGRAD.


Herc