Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Peter Markan Has Lodged An Application In The Queensland ' Supreme Court 'Against The Bar Association of Queensland. Case No: 928/13 .Judge In Conflict Of Interest.

Peter Markan Has Lodged An Application In The Queensland ' Supreme Court 'Against The Bar Association of Queensland. Case No: 928/13 .Judge In Conflict Of Interest.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,025 |Likes:
Published by Love For Life
I have lodged in the ' Supreme Court ' the case against Bar Association of Queensland.( case no 928/13) .Since that mafia organisation masquerading as a legitimate outfit is openly protecting antisocial, criminal conduct; shows contemptuous attitude and predatory means when dealing with other members of the community and encouraging disrespect for the ' law ' - I am asking the court also :

- to declare Bar Association of Queensland as criminal organisation and to disband it,

- to declare those people as 'not fit and proper ' of holding any position in Queensland requiring trustworthiness and honesty and to issue the order prohibiting those people from applying or holding such positions in Queensland .

BAQ is registered as a commercial organisation - ABN 78 009 717 739 , therefore they should be subject to the same laws as any other Australian company .

05.03.2013 - BAQ applied to court ' to have the claim struck ' as disclosing ' no reasonable cause of action '.

14.03.2013 the judge Ms Philippides declared at the start of the hearing that she is a ' judicial member ' of ' Bar Association of Queensland ' and therefore, due to the conflict of interest, she is disqualifying herself from hearing the case .

Ms Roslyn G Atkinson volunteered to be an ' impartial arbiter ' as she is not a ' judicial member ' of ' BAQ ' .

Ms Atkinson is known to me : www.petermarkan.org/l_mafiosos.html ; www.petermarkan.org/l_sacredcow.html

and I lodged formal application to court to disqualify her .

04.04.2013 - To reduce public awareness the matter has not been listed neither on official court web list, newspaper nor even in court itself . Quite quickly Mr De Jersey determined that it will be up to Ms Atkinson
to decide if she wants to disqualify herself during the next court hearing RUN BY HER - to consider my application to disqualify her .

No , this is not a joke - this is how this rotten and corrupt anglo system operates.

Since my formal court application is clearly directed against her she will be playing both roles - the defendant and the judge ! The show will be on 17 or 18 of April. (not in kindergarten but SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND)

See more info here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8392
I have lodged in the ' Supreme Court ' the case against Bar Association of Queensland.( case no 928/13) .Since that mafia organisation masquerading as a legitimate outfit is openly protecting antisocial, criminal conduct; shows contemptuous attitude and predatory means when dealing with other members of the community and encouraging disrespect for the ' law ' - I am asking the court also :

- to declare Bar Association of Queensland as criminal organisation and to disband it,

- to declare those people as 'not fit and proper ' of holding any position in Queensland requiring trustworthiness and honesty and to issue the order prohibiting those people from applying or holding such positions in Queensland .

BAQ is registered as a commercial organisation - ABN 78 009 717 739 , therefore they should be subject to the same laws as any other Australian company .

05.03.2013 - BAQ applied to court ' to have the claim struck ' as disclosing ' no reasonable cause of action '.

14.03.2013 the judge Ms Philippides declared at the start of the hearing that she is a ' judicial member ' of ' Bar Association of Queensland ' and therefore, due to the conflict of interest, she is disqualifying herself from hearing the case .

Ms Roslyn G Atkinson volunteered to be an ' impartial arbiter ' as she is not a ' judicial member ' of ' BAQ ' .

Ms Atkinson is known to me : www.petermarkan.org/l_mafiosos.html ; www.petermarkan.org/l_sacredcow.html

and I lodged formal application to court to disqualify her .

04.04.2013 - To reduce public awareness the matter has not been listed neither on official court web list, newspaper nor even in court itself . Quite quickly Mr De Jersey determined that it will be up to Ms Atkinson
to decide if she wants to disqualify herself during the next court hearing RUN BY HER - to consider my application to disqualify her .

No , this is not a joke - this is how this rotten and corrupt anglo system operates.

Since my formal court application is clearly directed against her she will be playing both roles - the defendant and the judge ! The show will be on 17 or 18 of April. (not in kindergarten but SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND)

See more info here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8392

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Love For Life on Apr 08, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Registry : Brisbane Number : 928/13Plaintiff :Peter MarkanDefendant :Bar Association of Queensland
 
APPLICATION
TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff is applying to the Court for the following order re :Selection of neutral , independent and impartial arbiter to preside over the courthearing in this case .
1.On 14.03.2013 The Plaintiff has been informed that Ms. Roslyn G Atkinsonvolunteered to preside over this hearing . The Plaintiff rejects the motion of ‘ impartiality ‘ attributed to Ms. Atkinson and requests the Supreme Courtmanagement to disqualify Ms. Atkinson and to choose truly
neutral , independentand impartial arbiter .
2.Facts against Ms. Atkinson suitability to preside over this case :- she was formally associated with BAQ for several years ( since 1987 to 1998 ) ;- professionally and likely socially she has been associated with BAQ people for over 20 years ;- in a case of ending her judicial career there is very high likehood of her going back to that organisation ;- this is a court case against people called ‘barristers’ and she remains to be ‘barrister’therefore she is a party in those proceedings and in reality she would be a judge inher own case ;- there is theoretical possibility of rather adverse judgement against BAQ and she has personal interest in the outcome ;- her pre-judicial performance in various organisations puts doubt in her commitmentto the protection of human rights , which is one of core issues in this case ;- she is a barrister who , to protect interests and hegemony of BAQ in legal industry,infiltrated and paralysed workings of following organisations :
- Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (1994–1997)- Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal - Member (1992–1994) andPresident (1994–1997)- Queensland Law Reform Commission - Commissioner (1990–1994) andDeputy Chair, (1994–1996)
- during her tenure in those organizations ( 7 years ) , clearly being in position of 
i
nfluence and ability to initiate positive change – she choose to maintain or increasethe level of corruption , rottenness and cronyism .- that indicates extremely strong possibility of her bias in favour of BAQ , apart fromthe conflict of interest .APPLICATION Name: Peter MarkanFiled on Behalf of the Plaintiff Form 9, Version 1Address:Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999Rule 31Phone :Email : justiceaction@gmx.com1
 
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
3.I am aware of the lack of specific laws in Queensland when it comes to respect for human rights of ordinary Queensland citizens ( Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 – beinguseless propaganda exercise ) – simply there is no formal legislation to recognize or guarantee human rights in spite of propaganda noises implying that Queenslandsomehow is a civilized place.4.On federal level Australia ratified the
The International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights in 1980
 – but in Queensland it is not officially acknowledged and the best description of this situation I found in statements that it is up to individual judgesto recognize the existence of the Covenants provisions . In practice it means a judgedoing a favour to a person to acknowledge rights which are universally accepted ashuman`s basic rights almost everywhere in the world .5.In those over 30 years since ratification there have been few legislations to safeguard judicial and barristers immunities and privileges and protection by law for people inthe legal industry ( police , lawyers , judges ) .But somehow 99% of people in Queensland are forgotten when it comes toacknowledging their basic rights and giving them protection by the law .That is also in spite of existence of quite a few organisations created by lawyers and barristers seemingly concerned about human rights and civil liberties – in far , far away countries . But being blind to what is happening under their noses .6.I am not asking for a favour – 
I am demanding
that my human rights areacknowledged and respected . In this case the applicable right is that guaranteed tomost human beings in civilized countries outside of Queensland – that is the provisions of 
Article 14
of 
The International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights -
“ All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In thedetermination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in asuit at law,
everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent,independent and impartial tribunal established by law
.”7.The entitlement to an impartial tribunal is one of the most important human rights andfundamental freedoms recognised by international law . The fact that in this corruptand rotten State , there is officially sanctioned disgraceful abuse and discriminationaffecting 99% of Queenslanders can be almost entirely blamed on the people who arethe other party in this court .8.Bar Association of Queensland
-
through their undeniable and undue influence in legalindustry , government and legislature has been opposing any laws which wouldsafeguard human rights or offer real protection by law to 99% of Queenslandersas such laws are seen as the threat to their abusive conduct .9.Denial of a neutral arbiter to preside over the court hearing would deprive me theaccess to justice , would deprive me of fair hearing – and those are other important basic human rights . The issue if such rights are ‘officially’ recognized is irrelevant inthe view that those rights exist regardless and are NATURAL HUMAN RIGHTSas the natural composition of human beings themselves .APPLICATION Name: Peter MarkanFiled on Behalf of the Plaintiff Form 9, Version 1Address:Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999Rule 31Phone :Email : justiceaction@gmx.com2
 
10.The test for determining whether a judge should disqualify himself or herself byreason of apprehended bias is “whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonablyapprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to theresolution of the question the judge is required to decide”:Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 at [11], affirmed in Ebner v Official Trusteein Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; applied in Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 282 ALR 685; distinguished in British American Tobacco AustraliaServices Ltd v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 283; see also Slavin v Owners CorporationStrata Plan 16857[2006]NSWCA 71 and Barakat v Goritsas (No 2)[2012]NSWCA 36.
SELECTION OF IMPARTIAL ARBITER CONSIDERATIONS
11.Ms Philippides declared at the start of the hearing that she is a ' judicial member ' o' Bar Association of Queensland ' and therefore , due to the conflict of interest , she isdisqualifying herself from hearing the case .12.Due to peculiar arrangements in Queensland , when it comes to the selection of  judges , only people connected with ' Bar Association of Queensland ' are beingconsidered in the most secretive and un-democratic manner disregarding all potentialcandidates from other sections of the society .13.This case shows the need to accepting other people to judiciary ( apart from BAQ ) ,the people who could not be affiliated in any way with a party before the court andwould represent society standards on a much wider scale than currently possible .The need for fair and honest people not to be required to join that mafia organization( BAQ ) in order to be considered for the selection of the position of the judge inQueensland .14.Supreme Court of Queensland is a body created to provide the access to justice , ‘ fair trial ‘ and impartial , competent tribunal for ALL people in Queensland .
I am requesting you to provide them to me
.This application will be heard by the Court at Brisbane
.
on: 04.04.2013 at 10 am.Filed in the Brisbane Registry on 18.03.2013Registrar:
………………………………………………….
If you wish to oppose this application or to argue that any different order should be made, youmust appear before the Court in person or by your lawyer and you shall be heard. If you donot appear at the hearing the orders sought may be made without further notice to you.THE APPLICANT ESTIMATES THE HEARING SHOULD BE ALLOCATED 0.5 H
OUR 
APPLICATION Name: Peter MarkanFiled on Behalf of the Plaintiff Form 9, Version 1Address:Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999Rule 31Phone :Email : justiceaction@gmx.com3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->