PARIAH - Court looms : Melbourne Indymedia

Court looms
(NT 'Parliament invasion' case)

http://www.country-liberal-party.com/NAP/pages/Articles_11.htm#article2

(20 Nov, 2003)

Usual Police harassment

NT Police woke me this morning with a summonses to attend Scott's trial as a witness. This followed my lodging an amended appeal yesterday.

Such tit for tat harassment by Police is a common ploy in the Northern territory.

We were not called as witnesses at Scott's last appearance although summonsed to appear.

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

Amended appeal

I've not bothered with this case until recently, as other concerns and committments have been absorbing my attention. I assure you, having to become a Constitutional lawyer in four days, really is the least of my problems :-)

Besides which, prison (facing four months) is an ongoing threat to any effective activist in a corrupt Police State. We've been facing prison sentences since PARIAH began in 1998.

So I only lodged this ammended appeal yesterday (19 November, 2003). The hearing begins on the 24th November.

Essentially the Legislative Assembly and the Magistrates Court are in constitutional conflict - - and the latter have no right to treat Constitutional matters in a manner akin to a traffic fine. The other points are fairly self-evident.

http://www.country-liberal-party.com/pages/Amended-appeal.htm

The absurdity of the 'traffic fine' scenario was apparent to me in the Magistrates Court, but frankly given the Police harassment, hostile media and the comments by the Attorney General, Peter Toyne, it seemed best to go through with the charade and appeal when the political environment was a little less biased against us.

A jury trial would have been a suicide-circus in that period, when we were still receiving fresh Police charges (up to 30 at a time) and dealing with myriad other charges. I still have 'assault' and 'hinder police' to face in January.

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

NT Chief Minister Clare Martin has not helped this appeal by congratulating the Court on their bid to incarcerate political activists.

Clare - "While I am on my feet, I say very categorically that I welcome the very decisive sentencing that happened to those members of NAP who invaded this parliament the May before last."

"It is a very serious offence to invade parliament, and I welcome the very strong decision from the Magistrates Court." - (Hansard Question Transcript - 18/06/2003)

http://notes.nt.gov.au/lant/hansard/hansard9.nsf/0/233666E4E16147CB69256D9D0022E458?opendocument

Where was Clare's outrage when Police "unlawfully" (NT Ombudsman's decision) assaulted and strip searched activists at the first Smoke-in?

http://www.country-liberal-party.com/NAP/pages/Articles_1.htm

Racist and corrupt

During the court case, I described the Northern Territory as a "racist and corrupt cesspool".

The lies (perjury?) from Attorney General Peter Toyne, the 'three monkeys' performance by former (sacked) Police Minister Syd Sterling and Clare Martin's double act with the Prosecutor later, made me feel guilty of understatement.

As for Marion Scrymgour, Chairperson of the NT Labor government's substance abuse committee, I'm still coming to terms with that disappointing betrayal of trust.

http://www.country-liberal-party.com/pages/Do-as-I-say.htm

The Chief Minister and John Ah Kit have both made public statements that lend credibility to my assessment of the Northern Territory.

From Clare we learn that the Public service is corrupt.

http://country-liberal-party.com/pages/NT-Labor-prison-policy-a.htm

From Community Development Minister John Ah Kit we discover "...it (is) time for indigenous communities to stop turning a blind eye to the rot that lies within many of their organisations.

"Good governance is something in very short supply," Mr Ah Kit said.

"We all know of instances of indigenous organisations being run as personal or family empires at the expense of the wider community.

"We all know the stories of fraud and corruption -- of stores being ripped off by managers who all too often have bribed key Aboriginal locals to consolidate their thievery and skulduggery.

"There is no point in pretending that this has not been widespread for many, many years."

Also attending was ATSIC NT Commissioner Kim Hill who was scathing in his criticisms of the current governance arrangements for indigenous Australians.

He said the failure of indigenous people to obtain good governance was because they were the victims of a system with "too much bureaucracy". (NT News, 09 nov '03)

And a corrupt bureaucracy as Clare points out.

John Ah Kit's ability to remain morally unscathed as he transcended the generic corruption he describes, is made heroic, by it's sheer implausibility.

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

It seems the only people who face criminal charges in this racist and corrupt Police state are the people protesting against racism and corruption.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Much gratitude to Daniel Taylor, a student at law, who has assisted us, whilst doing shift work and helping with the Letty Scott case -- amongst others.

http://darwinevo.tripod.com/pages/Issue_Two/pages/Evo2-page_1.htm

+++++++++++++++++++++++

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

Amendment of Appeal (19 November, 2003)

IN THE MATTER OF a conviction (or order or adjudication) made on the 5th day of June, 2003 by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction of Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia on the hearing of a certain information (or complaint) wherein PAUL FRANCIS TUDOR-STACK of Darwin, was the informant (complainant) and MICHAEL PAUL LAMBE the Defendant.

TO: Mr Wallace SM a Stipendiary Magistrate for the Northern Territory of Australia and to the Clerk of the aforementioned complainant.

TAKE NOTICE that MICHAEL PAUL LAMBE of ----------------- intends to institute and duly prosecute an appeal AND HEARBY APPEALS to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia against a certain conviction (sentence, or order of adjudication) made on the aforementioned date by the said Stipendiary Magistrate, sitting as a Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin in the Northern Territory.

Whereby you convicted and sentenced the defendant on one count of 'intentionally disturbing the Legislative Assembly' while it was in session on Tuesday, 14 May, 2002, contrary to section 61(a) of the Northern Territory Criminal Code to 16 months imprisonment, suspended to four months.

AND TAKE NOTICE that the appellant intends to institute and duly prosecute the appeal at the sittings of that Supreme Court which will be in accordance with the rules of that Supreme Court if practicable commence at Darwin on a day which is the first day after the expiration of 21 days from the service of this notice on which sittings of that Supreme Court for hearing appeals under the Justices Act have been set down to commence.

AND TAKE NOTICE that the grounds for the appeal are

1. The Magistrates Court had no jurisdiction to try this case.

a) there has been no definitive declaration by the Legislative Assembly in accordance with s.5 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act 1992.

b) It is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Assembly to state if an offence has occurred and especially to prosecute in the Legislative Assembly sitting in its judicial role under ss. 5,25, and 26 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act 1992.

c.) The constitutional requirement of the separation of powers applies to the exercise of the powers of the house of representatives and exercise of similar powers vested in the legislative assembly by s.12 of the northern territory (self-government) act, as enacted under the legislative assembly (powers and privileges) act. There is a constitutional requirement that the judiciary does not have power to declare whether legislative assembly has been improperly interfered with or to punish persons for their exercising of their right to freedom of expression within the legislative assembly.

Only one of the branches of Government has jurisdiction over the Act in question, and in this case clearly it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly, and in fact, there can be no offence without a vote under s.5 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act 1992.

2. The Defendants who were unrepresented were not adequately advised of their rights.

a) The hostile media campaign (epitomized by Attorney General Peter Toyne's public remarks on the court case) made an unbiased jury trial seem unlikely to Defendants.

b) The Defendants were emotionally and physically exhausted by the government and Police campaign mounted against them. We were dealing with a statistically improbable number of other cases and legal matters at the time.

3. The politicization of the trial was evident. Particularly during the sentencing/press conference finale. Political bias.

a) The Magistrate and Public Prosecutor seemed bound by a need to exonerate Superintendent Bert Hofer, who I witnessed assault a defenseless female in parliament.

http://www.country-liberal-party.com/NAP/pages/Superintendent-Hofer-NT-Police.htm

b) I absolutely refute all of Magistrate Wallace's comments to the assembled press (during sentencing) about this assault.

c) I will rely on the (Police doctored) video tape and the transcript to demonstrate why.

d) The Court was used at times by the Prosecutor to help Police gain evidence in matters unrelated to the alleged offence for overtly political reasons.

e) Evidence was withheld and tampered with.

f) Cross examination and evidential criteria were grossly prejudicial to the Defendants.

4.) The Defendant does not believe the Constitution has been correctly interpreted in light of Mabo and other changes in Australia's social and legal framework since its inception.

5.) The Defendant believes a Parliament that presides over a racist and corrupt state has less rights under the Constitution than those people that protest said racism and corruption.

6 . The sentencing was manifestly excessive and ignored the circumstances of the Defendants. Namely…

a. The stressful political situation and economic disadvantages of the Defendants.

b. Their political motivation. This is the criminalisation of political protest.

c. The enormous amount of evidence revealing a campaign by NT government and Police to marginalize and destroy NAP (Network Against Prohibition) and PARIAH People Against Racism In Aboriginal Homelands. Conceded by the Magistrate.

7. Evidence of 'selective prosecution' on political grounds -- some examples being the refusal of Police to even investigate complaints made by the Defendants assaulted in Parliament. Despite the best efforts of Magistrate Wallace to whitewash these assaults to the Press they remain a demonstrative reality. The complaint I made against Prosecutor Paul Frances Tudor-Stack has also 'vanished'. Magistrate Wallace defended Mr Tudor-Stack's bigoted remarks, despite having little knowledge of the circumstances.

a) Attempts to bring NT Attorney General Peter Toyne's comments on the trial -- which I believe amount to Contempt of Court -- to the attention of the court have yet to meet with success.

http://www.country-liberal-party.com/NAP/pages/Articles_27.htm

mick lambe - Dated 19th day of November, 2003

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

End Klandatory Sentencing

Solidarity and thanks to the crew :-)

---

SolidaRATy with all Pariah's and I even extend that to facing assault and hinder charges in Jan meself!

It is in my local news that a Wombat forest activist who had several charges whittled down to one, finally lost that one and was fined 100$
The department of 'Sustainability and the Environment" (see new book by Don Watson - 'death sentence')
appealed for costs of 6,700$!

The magistrate Ann someone, cut 3,700$ off so forest protestor Angela ****** copped a 3,100% fine in all.

The law in all her majesty rolls on.

Mick I was meaning to write, you can defend yrself and win, remember Angela Davis did this in the early seventies. It is their chosen terrain but we can still fight on it and we can still win. Chance favours the prepared mind so break a leg old son. Worst come's to the worst we can form some Robin Hood type mob's A? You never never know if you never ever have a go.

I agree with pr, mick. you CAN win. after the wallabies last Saturday night, I will never say ‘never’ about anything ever again. now for england.

To a host of 'Australian' registrars

You can email these people to express your concern.

MDoogan@hcourt.gov.au, lHoward@hcourt.gov.au, crogers@hcourt.gov.au, bwickham@hcourt.gov.au
CC: pariahnt@yahoo.com, AO'Rourke@hcourt.gov.au, aorourke@hcourt.gov.au, rmusolin@hcourt.gov.au, mgrey@hcourt.gov.au

Dear Ms/Sir I have attempted to lodge a s.40(2) application to have my case moved into the High Court twice in the past 5 days.

As is my right under s.40(2) of the Judiciary Act.

I will attempt to do so again in the Darwin SC at 9-00am 24th November.

My information is that the SC is an "agent" for the High Court in such matters.

As I face 16 months (suspended to 4) imprisonment this reluctance to accept my application is threatening my freedom.

I request that you advise the Darwin SC that even the Northern Territory is bound by s.40(2) of the Judiciary Act.

Ironically I am facing imprisonment for protesting the abuse of human rights in the NT.

mick lambe

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

My legal advisor states...

Dear Registrars,

I am outraged that your employees at the Registry office in Darwin are denying the Constitutional and Legislative Rights of Michael Lambe, an activist against racism in the Northern Territory.

The apparent ignorance of your staff there puts my friend at risk of being sent to jail next week for mere protest, simply because of apparent ignorance of the law at the Darwin Registry of the High Court. My friends appeal involves matters of Federal Jurisdiction and he wishes to lodge a Judiciary Act s.40(2) application to remove the matter into the High Court before judgment.

An s.40 application can be made - "at any stage of the proceedings before final judgement" - yet my friend has been told that the Registry of the High Court of Australia will not file a s.40(2) application but will instead wait for a post decision s.35AA appeal.

By denying my friend his right to bring a s.40(2) application to the High Court, the Registry's inaction mean that my friend may actually be sent to jail without having the matters heard and determined by the High Court in accordance with his rights under s.40(2) of the Judiciary Act. In ignorance of the law, the Registry staff have told my friend Mick that s.40(2) applications are highly unusual and will not therefore be accepted.

The Registry has ignorantly and unlawfully advised that they will only accept applications made under s.35AA of the Judiciary Act for special leave to appeal, which of necessity means after judgement, by which time my friend may be languishing in the Darwin Prison on a 16 month sentence for mere protest.

Michael Lambe in Darwin has on two ocassions last week attempted to file an application under s.40(2) of the Judiciary Act into the High Court at Darwin and on both occassions been refused on the grounds that it is "highly unusual".

Mick Lambe has been sentenced to 16 months imprisonment for allegedly "disturbing the assembly", under s.61 of the criminal code and his sentence is due to begin next week, immediately after the Supreme Court appeal. The Appeal raises several Federal jurisdiction matters - is that the Legislative Assembly has no power under s.12 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act to grant power to a Court to vest jurisdiction over conduct within the Legislative Assembly.

Instead that power by s.12 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, and by the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Priveleges) Act 1992 (NT) - jurisdiction over conduct in the Legislative Assembly, and the power to declare any conduct to be a crime against the Assembly by improper interference with the duties of the Assembly, and to sentence any person to a term of imprisonment is vested exclusively in the Legislative Assembly. s.61 of the Criminal Code of the Northern Territory which purports to vest concurrent jurisdiction into the Courts over conduct within the Legislative Assembly, is ultra vires of the Commonwealth Constitution - ultra vires of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, and in conflict with the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Priveleges) Act 1992, which is a constitutional law of the
Territory.

S.12 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act grants the Constitutional powers and priveleges of the House of Representatives to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. This matter therefore arises under and involves the interpretation of the Constitution.

Thus the matter is a Federal Jurisdiction matter as it involves matters arising under and involving the interpretation of Commonwealth Laws and also the Federal Constitution.

I am outraged that the High Court does not train its staff to know the law and to respect the rights of citizens in the Northern Territory to bring actions in the High Court in accordance with their Constitutional and Judiciary Act rights, in the original jurisdiction of this High Court rather than its appelant jurisdiction and I expect you to take action to remedy the situation.

As Mr Lambe's appeal is being heard on Monday, I also expect you to contact the Supreme Court which is hearing the matter to ensure that the Court is informed that the High Court will be hearing the s.40(2 application by Mr Lambe.

Yours Sincerly
Daniel Taylor

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

Solidarity

Email and complain here (Case starts Mon morning 24th)

MDoogan@hcourt.gov.au, lHoward@hcourt.gov.au, crogers@hcourt.gov.au, bwickham@hcourt.gov.au
CC: pariahnt@yahoo.com, AO'Rourke@hcourt.gov.au, aorourke@hcourt.gov.au, rmusolin@hcourt.gov.au, mgrey@hcourt.gov.au

pariahmob

Dear Danny,
Thankyou for your letter concerning your ‘friend’ , Mr Mick Lambe. I note that you refer to Mr Lambe as a friend, rather than as a client. Not a terribly big deal, I admit, but indicative perhaps of a personal involvement which may militate against objectivity in your role as Mr Lambe’s legal practitioner. Your poor punctuation and grammar, again while being no big issues in themselves, also reflects poorly on your ability to advocate effectively for this simple wretch.
I understand your angst at what you consider ignorance of the law by Registry staff. Ignorance of the law, as you would know (being a lawyer, and all – wink wink) is no excuse for breaking it. In fact, Danny, being a lawyer I’m sure you would advise your clients not to break the law anytime, whether through ignorance or self importance.
It is not the alleged ignorance of Registry staff, however, which puts Mr Lambe at risk of imprisonment; it is his own actions in deliberately breaking the law which have resulted in his conviction and the unfortunate predicament in which he, and you, find yourselves.
Danny, please forgive my frankness. But if it comes down to a contest between staff at the High Court of Australia and your good self as far as legal knowledge is concerned, I think you know which way the mop is going to flop.
Just a quick bit of final advice. Mr Lambe appears to be extremely keen to involve himself within the legal system and is demanding that his alleged rights under the law be respected by others. He seems to be oblivious to his own obligations under the law; to wit (you’d be familiar with that term, being a lawyer and all Danny – nudge nudge) NOT BREAKING IT, even if he disagrees with it. You may care to remind him that if it is OK for him to willingly break a law that he deems unjust, perhaps the Registry staff are as equally entitled to do the same. Now THAT’s an interesting concept, isn’t it Danny?
You write that your friend has been sentenced to 16 months imprisonment for ‘allegedly’ disturbing the assembly. Er, Danny, as you would know, the term ‘allegedly’ applies prior to a finding of guilt. For example, if two young Aboriginal men get pissed, steal another person’s car and get caught by the police, it is reported as an ‘allegedly’ stolen car. This is because the snivelling thieves have yet to be convicted of being snivelling thieves. (Of course the owner may have some valid argument with this particular adjective as he or she is forced to make alternative travel arrangements). But I digress. Mr Lambe has been convicted. There is nothing ‘alleged’ about his conduct. It has been proved in court. I really shouldn’t have to be giving another lawyer a lesson in first year law, Danny.
As for Monday’s appeal, Danny, well just let’s see how it plays out, shall we?
All the very best to you and your ‘client’.

etc...

No one charged and the assaults in Parliament against protesters not even investigated as per standard police protocol. Admitted by police under cross examination.

We have a right to protest being bashed unlawfully by Police in the middle of Darwin and the undemocratic campaign to destroy us -- that Parliament endorse.

http://www.country-liberal-party.com/NAP/pages/Articles_1.htm#art1

I've worn eight years of criminal endeavour by the NT Police force, while watching the armed vigilantes, home invaders, thieves and other criminals (often racists) they sponsor, either walk free in court or remain uncharged.

http://www.country-liberal-party.com/pages/incarc_p6.htm

I note you skipped those bits just as the Magistrate did.

So tell us about the Law. Tell us about justice in the Northern Territory.

http://country-liberal-party.com/pages/Manslaughter.htm

I could use a laugh.

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

Please keep sending emails - trolls obviously don't want you to :-)

mick

solidarity

Corrected emails

MDoogan@hcourt.gov.au, lHoward@hcourt.gov.au, crogers@hcourt.gov.au, bwickham@hcourt.gov.au,
AO'Rourke@hcourt.gov.au, aorourke@hcourt.gov.au, rmusolin@hcourt.gov.au, mgrey@hcourt.gov.au

Justice for the NT Parliament 5

is that Nigel (alleged editor) wrote the comment
"[NOTE: This "letter" is not genuine, it is a troll - Ed (Nigel)] "

Like errh der Fred!