Ballarat Country Court
Before HH Parsons,
Callover Court 5 Start 10.50
Present Mr. Weigal representing the Office of Public Prosecution (OPP)
Mr McDonald representing Himself
Plus Court observers
At the opening Mr Weigal:-
OPP. In this matter before Judge Chettle, raised the question of Jurisdiction. this preliminary issues needs to be dealt with.
McD. I have provided correspondence to Opp Mr. Weigal, I have asked the prosecution for determination on laws relating Aboriginal people.
HON.(HH Parson)Are you a Koorie?
McD. Yes
Hon. Where are you from? Language group?
McD Melbourne, Dja Dja Wrung
Hon. Wheres that area
McD. Ballarat, Bendigo I am the Chief Lore Officer
Hon. Representing in Native Title?
McD. No
Hon. Represented by Land Council
McD.It is based on (spelling) L O R E lore
Hon.I have know about this for 33 years
Hon. Charges (ref to OPP)
McD Couple of plants grams of
Hon. Mr. McDonald I have been involved is trials in Northern Territory, Queensland. Victoria for 33 years, Jurisdiction in each case unsuccessful..application to the Judge re this particular trial, need to make application...Judge will have no jurisdiction to hear..
McD Now I'm a bit confused
Hon.....
McD Laws in Victoria different to Northern Territory and New South Wales..
Hon. I understand that, I have acted here, Each group has appropriated principles,..You can tell the Judge what your particular laws ....All I am doing is ascertaining were ready for trial
McD. I am relying on documents from the Scrutiny of Acts and regulations Committee, need the Act, that gives the Victoria Government the power to make laws for Aboriginal people, the letter is from them dated 26th August 1996, states the Victorian Government has no power to make Laws, a copy is on file with ODP
Hon. Keep corresponding with Mr. Weigal, I can't order Mr Weigal to respond to you ....letters and if appropriate will respond. I will order the matter remain on the list. You will need to communicate with Mr. Weigal. But Don't be widly confident.
McD. A complicated matter
Hon. For 33 years involved, appeared for people regarding Native Title, in cases similar to yours and I am familiar with the law. Aboriginal people are jurisdictional. ...of course Mr. McDonald, have a go.
McD. The Law has to change, alcohol not the answer.
Hon. ...
McD. A peace drug
Hon. convince the police..
Finished at 10.58
Note taken from Court observer.
Note the amount of times that McD has asked that jurisdiction question to be clarified, first posted May 2008 at Marybrough Court, and see letter to Chief magistrate and the Attorney-General, Why can't Rob Hulls comment on the issue? find the answers in previous post(Not Compleated)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Update please.
Les, you can insist
women give evidence
in a women's jurisdiction
at 'native law'.
Australia's parliaments have struggled to recognise Aboriginal law.
The nation's Constitution provides for men's legislatures only, whereas Aborigines decide law by agreement between women’s and men’s business.
The provision of a women's legislature would achieve equal rights for both women and Aborigines.
Professor of Aboriginal Lore
Sir Les McDonald,
lore is an academic term.
the Court can take your title into account
should you offer character evidence
in support at your trial.
" Although the High Court’s Mabo decision (Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1992)) set aside the doctrine of terra nullius, it reaffirmed the legal theory that the Australian colonies were acquired by settlement and not by conquest or cession. Justice Brennan explained that the Mabo decision does not affect the legality of Australian sovereignty from the perspective of the Australian courts.
“The acquisition of a territory by a sovereign state for the first time is an act of state which cannot be challenged, controlled or interfered with by the courts of that state.”
Subsequent efforts before the High Court of Australia have failed to argue that remnants of Aboriginal sovereignty or customary Aboriginal law continue. The High Court has also rejected the argument that the application of Commonwealth or state laws to Aboriginal people requires their acceptance, adoption, request or consent (see Coe v Commonwealth (No. 2) (1993) and Walker v New South Wales (1995)).
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/hist/law/
an accused can only be tried at Aboriginal law in a jurisdiction in recognition of women's and men's jurisdictions.
a Court without a women's jurisdiction cannot fairly try an Aborigine.
the Court would be required to interpret legislation enacted by a women's legislature.
Court observer why should Attorney-General Rob Hulls comment on a jurisdictional matter the High Court has resolved cannot be remedied with a men's jurisdiction only?
Les, the Court treats LORE as fairytales.
which Aborigine women will support you and you will have your jurisdiction.
this is a joke right.
every prisoner who's ever been in gaol wished for trial by fairytale.
the application can only be accepted if there is a women's fairytale jurisdiction in support.
that's a different matter altogether, mr bob's ur uncle.
Post a Comment