Ross Bradley, we decided to test your assertion of the power of the Pope, So here is the Popes law in action in the Supreme Court Victoria. I, Kevin Kelly, am the Applicant in this matter and I make this affidavit from my own knowledge unless otherwise stated. 1. On the 14th January 2015, Mr Rod Ratcliffe and Mr Draper gave me improper “legal” advice that was both incorrect and fraudulent, in order to refuse my proper filings of my matter in the Supreme Court Victoria. 2. I feel discriminated against and vilified that I was not able to file my documents in the proper manner and to have my matter heard in a properly constituted Supreme Court of Victoria; denied proper access to the legal system, and effective lawful remedy. 3. It is an attack on my children as individual living flesh and blood child persons, and a part of a Race. 4. I and my children are living flesh and blood persons, and the personal harm that I believe that the living persons are being subjected to is unconscionable. 5. The recent law – being a first-handed down by Pope Francis of the Holy SEE, is as follows: 6. Certainly when considering the following well researched opinion of the Pope’s Law, in that; 7. “On September 1, 2013, all the judges, lawyers, police, government officials, and those posing as government officials, and all officers of corporate franchises and entities organized under the auspices of the United States and its STATE franchises, become fully, personally, and commercially liable for their actions and omissions against the living beneficiaries of the public trusts.” 8. Full details pertaining to the Pope’s aforementioned law: canonlawcentre/2013/07/11/motu-proprio-on-the-jurisdiction-of-the-juridical-authorities-of-vatican-city-state-in-criminal-matters/ >> 1. Legal Precendence under Common Law is set by the Motu Proprio On The Jurisdiction Of The Juridical Authorities Of Vatican City State In Criminal Matters, on matters of genocide and apartheid. 2. Legal Precendence under Common Law is also set by Bell J in Tomasevic v Travaglini [2007] VSC 337, regarding the unrepresented litigant. 3. Any judicial or extrajudicial decision unofficially and illegally made under the Color of Law, contrary to those decisions amounts to an abuse of the Rule of Law, and the principles of the Magna Carta, and fair hearing and equality before the law. 4. Pretended laws, some amounting to mere court rules, are used under the Color of Law. 5. Or as a Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia once put it: A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all . . . it is invalid ab initio. 6. An abuse of discretion, where discretion has been used arbitrarily and capriciously or where discretion has been used in bad faith in order to discriminate, directly and or indirectly. 7. In such instances the abuse amounts, in effect, to no discretion: when the abuse is clear or results in a manifest injustice, when an official refuses to act when he has a duty to act and refuses to do so. 8. In such instances, s36 and s33 of the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006 (VIC), are now activated and exercised, and I would like this matter referred up to the Court of Appeal for an official determination of the question of law of whether the conducts of the Prothonotary violate the principle of fair hearing and equality before the law, and the Right of the Child, under the color of law, and an abuse of discretion. https://scribd/doc/252669502/Aboriginal-Man-uses-Popes-Law-to-prosecute-Judicial-Corruption-at-Supreme-Court-Victoria-VCAT-Victoria-Police
Posted on: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 02:10:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015