• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
Page 12-11-2011 Ref: 
Julia gillard PM & others – Re judicial payments ISPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the COSTITUTIO-DVDA 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data
DVD 
ISB 978-0-9803712-6-0
 
PLEASE OTE
: Until our websiteHttp://www.office-of-the-guardian.comhas been set up to operate the websiteHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comwill be the alternative website for contact details.help@office-of-the-guardian.com 
FREE DOWLOADIG
of documents fromhttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati 
Julia Gillard PM
2-11-2011C/oR.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au 5
Cc;R. McClelland Attorney-General
 R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au 
Tony Abbott
 Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au 
George Brandis
MP (Shadow Attorney-General)senator.brandis@aph.gov.au 10
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
,
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
®Email:mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com
 
Ref:
Remuneration of judicial officers, etc
 15Julia,I write to you in view of the article that was published and reproduced below regarding payments of remuneration to Federal Magistrates.
.
20As I indicated in my “
111018-Quentin Bryce Governor-General & others
” correspondence(reproduced below) the constitution requires that the payment of judges must be set by theParliament. The Remuneration Tribunal as such can only recommend but cannot determine theamount payable as it must be the parliament who ultimately decides to accept, reject or modifythe recommended payment to any judicial officer.25
.
QUOTE
CONSTITUTION
 
72 Judges’ appointment, tenure, and remuneration
The Justices of the High Court
and of the other courts created by the Parliament
:(i) shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council;
30
(ii) shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from bothHouses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of provedmisbehaviour or incapacity;(iii) shall receive such remuneration
as the Parliament may fix
; but the remuneration shall not bediminished during their continuance in office.
35
END QUOTE
CONSTITUTION And;QUOTE CONSTITUTION
A reference in this section to the appointment of a Justice of the High Court or of a court created by the Parliament shall be
40
read as including a reference to the appointment of a personwho holds office as a Justice of the High Courtor of a courtcreated by the Parliamentto another office of Justice of thesame court having a different status or designation.
 END QUOTE CONSTITUTION45
 
 
Page 22-11-2011 Ref: 
Julia gillard PM & others – Re judicial payments ISPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the COSTITUTIO-DVDA 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data
DVD 
ISB 978-0-9803712-6-0
 
PLEASE OTE
: Until our websiteHttp://www.office-of-the-guardian.comhas been set up to operate the websiteHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comwill be the alternative website for contact details.help@office-of-the-guardian.com 
FREE DOWLOADIG
of documents fromhttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati 
As I recall it the High Court of Australia in regard of a Family Law case ruled that FederalMagistrates are Chapter III judges (where the party sought to have the High Court of Australiadeclaring that Federal Magistrates were not constitutionally validly appointed). On this basis it ismy view that then the Commonwealth Parliament can appoint Magistrates (different “status or designation”) and by this is entitled to “
fix
” the level of payment it deems is appropriate for each5and every “status or designation”.
.
At the time of federation the Framers of the Constitution pursued a clear independence of thefederal judiciary and indicated that no federal judge should be able to expect any favours fromthe Government of the Day, while in office.10
.
Hansard
1-2-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
(
Official Record of the Debates of theational Australasian Convention
),
 
QUOTE
Mr. OCOER 
(New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the
15
administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should bebeyond the possibility of suspicion;
 END QUOTE
.
It must therefore be very clear that any federal judicial officer, being it titled magistrate, judge or 20otherwise or whatever federal Court cannot be made depending upon whatever the Governmentof the Day may provide as payment and hence it is the Commonwealth Parliament that requiresto “
fix
” the “remuneration”
18028622-Sturgeon-v-Los-Angeles
-Ruling- that provides that allowances are part of a judge25salary. (10-10-2008) Then at point 10;
QUOTE
However, these defects are relative minor compared with the absence in Lockeyer-Isenberg of anystandard of inherent safeguard by which future increases or decreases in judicial benefits would beregulated. The fact the county itself has elected to tie its benefits to the benefits it provides other
30
salaried employed is not a substitute for a legislative mandate that it do so.
END QUOTE
 
.
Therefore, any judicial officer of a federal court, being it a Federal Magistrates Court or other Federal Court would be unlawfully receiving monies if it was not a “
remuneration
” as “
fixed
”35 by the Federal Parliament.
.
Because s72 specifically allows the Commonwealth Parliament to not only create other Federalcourts but also to determine the “
status or designation
” of judicial officers to such court as has been created then the constitution clearly indicates that there is an implied difference in40remuneration pending the persons “status or designation”.In my view the constitution doesn’t allow a reduction in remuneration but would allow anincrease in remuneration while a judicial officer serves in a court. This avoids in that regard the
 Sturgeon-v-Los-Angeles
issue where increases were not permitted during time of service.
.
45As such, I view that where a judicial officer, so to say, gets promoted over time then this judicialofficer can legitimately be provided with an increase of “remuneration” appropriately fixed bythe Parliament for this particular position.In my view the issue of retirement package for magistrates should be no different then what isordinary applicable to other employees, this, as after all the Remuneration Tribunal does ordinary50recommend “remuneration” compared to what is applicable in the private employment sector.
 
 
Page 32-11-2011 Ref: 
Julia gillard PM & others – Re judicial payments ISPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the COSTITUTIO-DVDA 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data
DVD 
ISB 978-0-9803712-6-0
 
PLEASE OTE
: Until our websiteHttp://www.office-of-the-guardian.comhas been set up to operate the websiteHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comwill be the alternative website for contact details.help@office-of-the-guardian.com 
FREE DOWLOADIG
of documents fromhttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati 
One cannot have that the Commonwealth requires superannuation payments by the private sector to be part of employment and deny this to be applicable to Federal Magistrates..I understand that for example there is a rating in regard of the County Court of Victoria as to itsso to say hit and misses in convictions, and I view this would not be appropriate to set any5remuneration or other payment associated with a scoring of conviction, or otherwise.In my view the Federal Parliament must determine what each class of judicial officer shall be paid as “remuneration” and must reflect in this what is ordinary applicable within the privatesector.
.
10In my view judges of the High Court of Australia should be divided in two classes, one beingordinary jurisdiction and appeallated jurisdiction (from State Courts) and another class involving judges who are competent dealing with constitutional issues.
QUOTE McHUGH J Essenberg v The Queen B55-1999
15
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it issaid, some authorities could legislate to have everyblue-eyed babykilled if it wanted to.
 END QUOTE
.
Just consider if one change the subject matter to:20
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it issaid, some authorities could legislate to have everylawyerkilled if it wanted to.
 
Then consider the following:25
HASARD
17-3-1898
 
Constitution Convention Debates
(
Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention
)QUOTE 
Mr. CLARK 
.-
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties
which every individual
citizen
is entitled to
30
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. END QUOTE
 
.
HASARD
18-2-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
(
Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention
)
35
QUOTE 
Mr. ISAACS
.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution
 
, END QUOTE
 
.
HASARD
27-1-1898
 
Constitution Convention Debates
 
40
QUOTE 
Mr. BARTO
.-
Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crownin prosecuting criminals are. 
END QUOTE
 
.
45In my view McHugh J seemed to me not to have the competence of a judicial officer dealingwith constitutional matters, and there is more of the same from him.As it appears to me any lawyer can be appointed as a judge of the High Court of Australiaregardless if totally incompetent to adjudicate in constitutional matters and I view this should bechanged so that a criteria must be to have had a proper training in constitutional issues before a50 judge can adjudicate in constitutional issues. Basically the court should exist of a constitutional bench and an ordinary bench. A judicial officer who had completed a special training inconstitutional matters then could serve on either bench, whereas a so to say no hoper inconstitutional matters would not be entitled to cause havoc with the kind of nonsense that I viewMcHugh J stated.55
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...