Star Chamber and its breath of autocracy : Terra Nullius Legacies and the surety bond.
In this matter before E2 Court : An accused individual required to proceed without benefit of his chosen counsel.
To be a good steward, we must pause and witness creation; and, then to be thankful.
There occurs a rising stench when the Court becomes irresolute.
And, let us not ever to become slow in demanding upon our judiciary that it sits at the pleasure of the Public Interest.
Our success as a social enterprise is rooted upon respect.
Integrity, consistency and the absence of bias are to be at the root of a successful Court.
Therefore, when the convened court of a military occupier pronounces that a question of the jurisdiction to decide a matter of jurisdiction has been demanded to be abandoned by an Upper Court due to its determination that such questions are an inconvenient expense of resources to this Court; and, there are not to be found any new lines of legal question on these issues of jurisdiction in the future; then, the Public Interest becomes paramount.
It would seem inconceivable to a legal mind that there has become in a common law system a time when all questions have been asked upon a particular subject of jurisdiction.
It is as though we have arrived at the edge of the known universe.
And, in this particular case at law - a criminal charge upon a traditional indigenous aboriginal; who is a perpetual ward of the Crown and, who has been denied competent legal counsel by the state [again, remembering that this charge issue is held before a hostile military court created by a foreign power invading in the absence of license from the UN Security Council] - the charged individual may qualify as a prisoner of war [undeclared but evident by actions of the foreign power].
This case at hand involves factors of international law, fundamental human rights, indigenous Peoples and Child Rights - and, it continues to raise the specter of ethnic cleansing [see history of British East India Company at India].
And, it begs to have the Airey v. Ireland decision regarding state funded competent legal counsel to attend on behalf of the accused.
This case is now adjourned until January 2012. But, additional charges were laid against this individual - which come before this Court in October and November - again, without the defendant having benefit of counsel [note : his chosen counsel was denied by the court - although having appeared and represented others in Canada on similar issues of questions of jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction : Agecoutay and Seymour].
The interim period will see a complaint filed with three human rights commissions : Inter-American Commission on Human Rights IACHR [note: Lawyers Rights Watch Canada amicus curae brief supporting the Hulquminum Treaty Group v. Canada]; the Euopean Court of Human Rights ECHR [note Airey v. Ireland]; and, the UN Human Rights Commission UNHRC. In addition, an information will be filed with the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court ICC [the accused in all three aboriginal cases here are persons who are victims of Indian Residential and Day Schools abuse during this reign and oath of Elizabeth II : Saxe-Coburg und Gotha: Hapsburg Empire].
This jurisdiction question is a global human rights issue. It is further critical to examine its integrity due to rising international awareness of basic Peoples rights as to be protected by an honourable judiciary.
Salus Populi Eis Suprema Lex ; The Right Of The People Is The Supreme Law.
____________________________________________
References
Section One : MONARCHY TO REPUBLIC
- ICE : The Canada New Charter
