Method to show need for Abolition of Judicial Immunity.

[russellm]

Inch by Inch, 'Judicial Immunity' is being eroded. I believe the rate of erosion is increasing. In my treatise here I am advising of a procedure that can, in restricted circumstance, make Courts of Law and Judges irrelevant, and which can spotlight the need for the Abolition of 'Judicial Immunity'.

Below is an example of an EXISTING SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE to Courts of Law, to 'punish criminals' and wrong doers in general, but it is not applicable in all circumstances. Where these particular circumstances exist, it is exceedingly successful. It is not only the publicity of the internet, but is an advance on that publicity, and has that publicity as a necessary element. This Alternative extends across jurisdictional boundaries, EXCLUDES LAWYERS [but not a superior knowledge of the 'law'] and is a creature in many ways, of the Internet. This is a boon for HONEST PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE COURTS OF LAW AND LAWYERS, IN GENERAL, ARE SO CORRUPT.

It involves others in 'power' making 'legal and effectively legally binding decisions'. Its effectiveness is increased as the 'criminal' or 'criminals' do not have to be given 'Due Process' and they do not even need to be given the corner stone of Natural Justice aka Procedural Fairness, of a Right to be Heard.

Decisions are made. These decisions have a legal import. Hence there are 'Legal Decision Makers'. Unlike the situation with Judges in Courts of Law, these 'Decision Makers' do not have 'Judicial Immunity'. 'Judicial Immunity' means that judges can make incompetent or even knowing wrong decisions for corrupt purposes and they still have 'Judicial Immunity". In the US Jail4Judges and FloridaJail4Judges are fighting, and have been fighting against Judicial Immunity for many years. The progress is occurring through a greater understanding of the existence of 'Judicial Immunity' and the costs it imposes upon society.

The subject of this dissertation is not an alternative to, nor superior to, abolition of Judicial Immunity, but it is available here and now, but it is not available in all circumstances. Abolition of Judicial Immunity, is the 'final goal'; the 'end game'. Additionally what this 'Method', the subject of this treatise shows is the Need for the abolition of Judicial Immunity.

The 'Decision Makers' in this 'Method' are Company Directors. Across all Jurisdictions, the duties of Company directors, arise from Common Law and [or In Civil jurisdictions, only] Government Regulation. With the might of companies increasing, and the fact that they are operating across jurisdictional boundaries, so the extent of these onerous duties is increasing. The other aspect involved is that of FINANCIAL MARKETS, and public listing of the company's equity. Increasingly financial markets are becoming global. The PRIME CONSIDERATION of DIRECTORS of PUBLIC COMPANIES and participants investing their own money, or answerable for the investment of the money of others, is SELF INTEREST. This is missing from courts of law, due to the existence of 'Judicial Immunity'.

This STRATEGY involves the criminal or wrong doer, dealing with a company, not necessarily a public company, but a company who has one or more directors who are also directors of a Public company with its shares traded on a Public market somewhere, anywhere. If a criminal is so dealing, the company is either or both, supporting a criminal and gaining a benefit from a criminal or wrong doer. The onerous duties of directors means that they must not gain benefit from crime or assist crime, and THEY HAVE A DUTY TO INVESTIGATE, even if not put on notice. What is more, they have the resources to investigate.

Seven Network Limited Board of Directors have decided that the Seven Network should never again telecast 'Animal Rescue' as it was promoting a group of organizations, amongst whom were many criminal organizations.

We, at the HaigReport/BEWARErspca Internet Group of Websites are totally independent of the SEVEN Network Limited; [or to the mathematicians amongst you, maybe even INVERSELY DEPENDENT, eh Kerry and the 'No Funsie Munsie'?]. They would definitely not make a decision to support us. Still, Seven has AXED the gaumless fiction 'Animal Rescue'. This was not done lightly as 'Animal Rescue' was a financial windfall for Seven. Clearly, the rspca was prepared to contribute as it gave that criminal organization great PR converted immediately to a financial windfall by way of donations, and creating a major false impression in the population of Australia. As well, "Co-operating with criminals and representatives of criminal organizations, can be viewed as 'CONSPIRACY'. The corrupt multi-millions of dollars that the rspca make annually by stealing and selling all manner of animals, plus assisting other criminals in their pursuits, pales into insignificance against the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, associated with the SEVEN Network Limited and KKR who funded the 'partial buyout' of the operations of the Seven Network.

Animal rescue was the frontline promotion of rspca in Australia. We have been instrumental in having the Seven Network Limited AXE that show because it was promoting the corruption of the rspca. We had to bring it to the notice of the Directors of Seven Network Limited. Directors are not courts of law and do not need to see proof to the criminal onus of 'beyond reasonable doubt', before they act. THEY CANNOT SAY 'SHOW ME THE FINDINGS OF A COURT OR INQUIRY'. They are required to inquire themselves. They have a highly responsible and onerous duty. They have a duty to inquire even if not put on notice. They do not owe Natural Justice aka Due Process to the likes of rspca. Hence, they do not need to hear the 'rspca side'. If Directors knowingly permit their company to assist or promote crime or criminal organizations or gain benefit from crime or criminal organizations, those directors can be PERSONALLY LIABLE. As well, the company can be liable to disgorge the 'profits' it has made from crime. For a public company, such a revelation would cause such a drop in share price, that the company could fail. The destruction could extend to other companies which have common directors. The revelation would be a scandal, of mammoth proportions.

The decision was a unilateral decision of Seven Network Limited board. The directors did not, and did not need to, consult with the rspca or the production company 'Beyond International Group' nor its Producers David Galloway or Brad Lyons who preceded Lisa Fitzpatrick now Seven Network's program development head.

No rspca would dare sue, as then all the crime that has been occurring in the rspca, and there is plenty, would be aired. We name here all individuals whose names appear on websites associated with 'Animal Rescue' or its production or production company. Google will index all these as keywords.

Still, the various State DPIs continue to support the rspca.

We claim full credit for this development. This show Animal Rescue has been for some time promoting the rspca in Australia as though it is a good and caring organization. The reality is diametrically opposed. In fact, as we can show and have repeatedly, the rspca in Australia is a collection of many corrupt organizations.