Chief Justice Robert French-High Court of Australia

Emory University School of Law and The Halle Institute of Emory University present Robert Shenton French, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. January 20, 2011

[@FuNkYyBoY]

Thoroughly enjoyed French CJ's (former) speech, especially the humour on Pape "the man who bites the hand that feeds him", when he opposed the GFC stimulus package !! lol

[@stevenjohnston6221]

Compliance with tyranny will lead to slavery and death.rezistance to tyranny leads to liberty and freedom.LEST WE FORGET.

[@jacaranda4u]

In reference to the statement made at 1:00:06 about a man who is said to have been biting the hand that was trying to feed him, there is evidence that some outrageous miscarriages of justice committed by substituting the real issue at point that is brought before a court of law for adjudication, with a secondary side issue that is NOT PERTINENT to the initial issue at point, often require the victims to bite (as a natural reflex reaction) the hand that spoon-feeds him (or her) simply because the food that is being spoon-fed back to the said victims in small amounts is the same food that was initially stolen from them (the victims) in bulk form.

[@Qwest17]

109 Inconsistency of law When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. So no changes were need to the Constitution Chapter VIII-Alteration of the Constitution This means that the 1986 Australia Act was not needed and is invalid as it was not put to the people for referendum. 128 Mode of altering the Constitution

[@thelastaustralian7583]

Gday Lee

[@Qwest17]

@@thelastaustralian7583 G’day mate, Slowly but surely the criminals will soon be coming undone

[@thelastaustralian7583]

@@Qwest17 GDay Lee , most of mine are deleted good to get connection. Keep away from EMF have y Digger Blood ?

[@Qwest17]

@@thelastaustralian7583 Our Constitution Under Section 76 Page 791 of the Annotated Constitution of The Australian Commonwealth Quick & Garran Clearly staes that; "Everybody in Australia is subjected to the authority of the Federal Constitution And must obey it." "That every court of competent jurisdiction has the right to declare a law of the Commonwealth or State is invalid by transgressing the Constitution." "Neither the Federal nor the State Government are sovereign bodies." They are legislatives with limited powers, any law which they attempt to pass in excess of those powers is no law at all, it is simply a nullity entitled to no obedience."

[@thelastaustralian7583]

@@Qwest17 Well done for clearing the path ; )...both Pops served ,... Jacka's Mob (best Mate) and the other was Sgt to the head Rat in Tobruk in 41. Father intel signals .

[@queenofclubs]

I just want to keep listening to Chief Justice French. He is so interesting.

[@deepakpatil3510]

Comments by Sidhesh Patil - Thanks for pointing out that the Tasmanian Attorney-General 'drafted' the Constitution of Australia based on the U.S Constitution. I reckon it is about time we get another Tasmanian, perhaps this time from ALRC to 'copy & paste' the U.S Bill of rights too!

[@mitchellfraser9405]

A most brilliant mind.

[@johndardy2052]

Fantastic judge. An asset lost to mandatory retirement.

[@Football__Junkie]

Does he talk about the vibe of the thing?

[@robertwells9850]

Great talk ta. Though, Our Original Constitution is the only legal law in Australia with all modification being viewed as treason by all Citizens without a referendum to grant changes by this required legal act? All Citizens not sworn in under the original Constitution guidelines & oath to hold any government office are sitting illegally today in 2020 going by this? These Government Corporations have been set up illegal under our Constitution with out an referendums in these matters by this? You can state what occurred but it dose not make it illegal until the Citizens vote on these criminal acts set up out side of our constitution if I'm hearing this right?

[@sidheshpatil7120]

Baseball hat for someone who is not into baseball?! What about croissant instead?

[@InJusticeAustralia]

😂😂🤣🤣👍🇦🇺

[@wunderbar46]

Instead of payment of the traditional royalties earned in 1984 in exchange for his creation of the original artistic work for the film “Crocodile Dundee”, a miscarriage of justice committed by the Federal Court of Australia (in V-682/01) has forced the true author of Australia’s highest grossing film to become a recipient of social security benefits for the rest of his life. This miscarriage of justice has taken place because the Federal Court judge assigned to the IP dispute relevant to this film, was devoid of any aptitude for understanding the logic of computer science. The judge was not even aware that the efficacious method known as computer “heuristics” (which was recently improved with the introduction of “extrapolation of polynomials from their values” to the algorithms of computer algebra) could in fact have been used effectively to disclose the true identity of authors of all “orphaned works”.

[@incomearner2]

The computer heuristics used in search engines (like e.g. Google) is able to isolate (with 100% accuracy) ONE ONLY probability among an unlimited number of probabilities, through an elimination process. It is widely known that search engines require an average of 4 to 5 key words typed in their search boxes to isolate the one only EXACT result whenever a search is conducted on the Internet. There were 96 sets of key words inserted into the story line of the original artistic work for the film “Crocodile Dundee” during its creation by its true author … Any person who is free of any mental impairment would be able to conclude that 96 sets of key words would certainly have been an “overkill” if computer heuristics had been used to identify the true author of this so-called “orphaned” original artistic work.

[@shirleymcfarlane124]

The Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia earns an annual salary of $ 486,000.00 - A Federal Court judge earns an annual salary of $ 360,000.00 - How could judges earning these lucrative annual salaries possibly rely on the litigants who bring their cases before the courts of law for adjudication, to inform them (judges) the appropriate methods of assessment that are needed to address the complex technical issues that are sometimes contained in exceptional cases brought before these courts (by the litigants) in order to resolve them (cases) with fairness. What happened to the principle of equal pay for equal work?

[@incomearner2]

How could people who are known to have a below average level of technical knowledge (and very often also intelligence) possibly self appoint themselves as judges whose responsibility is to decide the fate of people who possess a much higher level of technical knowledge (and very often also intelligence) than these judges.

[@jacaranda4u]

To earn an income equivalent to $ 486,000.00 a year in the form of a dividend paid by a bank one needs to invest 12 M. dollars at a 4% interest rate - To earn an income equivalent to $ 360,000.00 a year in the form of a dividend paid by a bank one needs to invest 9 M. dollars at a 4% interest rate.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

The comments at 1.01.30 about not having different rules in states when operating in an international market are just pure rubbish. It is a result of an introverted understanding that is derived from a continuing power grab that for more power for the Federal government which has been a process that has occurred for many years. It ignores the fact that industries are hampered by Federal laws and Federal taxes which area to satisfy a one size fits all idea themselves which suppress the rights of states. An example is the agreement that income taxes be handed over to the Federal authority to fight ww2. It puts a monopoly in the hands of the federal government. A very significant recent agreement in tax matters when the GST was introduced was the elimination of stamp duty in the states but no action by the Federal government was taken to oversee this because it only acts in it's own interest. The reason for this is if the federal government stepped in and enforced the agreement it would have to compensate the states for the loss of stamp duty revenue. The Federal court is about monopoly power for a centalist government and not about justice for the commonwealth of states which was the original agreement.

[@danieladamplatt8484]

Thanks online live Olympic high courts 2024/2025💳

[@neilt8859]

Your initial comment; Australia does not have a bill of rights! What a load of rubbish. Just what Uni did you attend old chap - Try the Bill of Rights 1689. As the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution is an Act of the UK, we also inherited such annoying legal documents like the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta. What do you do for a living again? PS And what day do you celebrate the Commonwealth of Australia's independence?

[@joeegavin]

+neil taylor Good on ya neil!

[@halcncod]

ur a fuckin moron

[@ryanthedevilschild]

mate you should prob check out the Australia Act [1986]

[@neilt8859]

So ... That would be the act of British parliament enacted into the colony of Australia? Follow the bread crumbs.....

[@iamzoeg]

What are you on?? Australia does not have a bill of rights, period.