Forwarded from National Education Workers (Cole the Sociologist)
2️⃣SECTION 105 IN CONTEXT.
[30] Thus it has been held that the prohibition only applies when there is some connection in the publication or broadcast between identification of the child or young person on the one hand, and on the other pending, contemplated or completed proceedings, non-court proceedings or a relevant report: Secretary, Dept of Family and Community Services v Smith [2017] NSWSC 6 at [39]-[40] (Smith SC) per Brereton J; Secretary, Dept of Family and Community Services v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 597; [2017] NSWCA 206 (Smith CA) at [46]-[49] per Gleeson JA, for the Court.
There was a suggestion by the amici that this construction was wrong.
In my view the construction is plainly right.
[31] The prohibition does not apply to the publication or broadcasting of an “official report” of the proceedings of the Children’s Court: s 105(3)(a).
[34] ...it is notable that s 10(1) of the Act identifies certain responsibilities of the Secretary which exist in order to “ensure that a child or young person is able to participate in decisions made under or pursuant to this Act that have a significant impact on his or her life”.
[36] In summary, the section creates a strict liability offence prohibiting publication or broadcast (directed to the public or a section of the public in a form accessible in this State) of the name, picture or identifying information of a child or young person who is involved (or reasonably likely to be involved) in proceedings in the Children’s Court or in related dispute resolution procedures, or who is the subject of a relevant report related to their welfare, and where there is a connection in the publication or broadcast between the identification of the child and the relevant proceeding, procedure or report. The prohibition applies until the child or young person is 25 years old, unless they die first.
There are various ways that consent can be given to publication or broadcast, including by the person themselves from when they reach the age of 16.
"Strict liability offences allow for a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact" as at [64] (1).
[30] Thus it has been held that the prohibition only applies when there is some connection in the publication or broadcast between identification of the child or young person on the one hand, and on the other pending, contemplated or completed proceedings, non-court proceedings or a relevant report: Secretary, Dept of Family and Community Services v Smith [2017] NSWSC 6 at [39]-[40] (Smith SC) per Brereton J; Secretary, Dept of Family and Community Services v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 597; [2017] NSWCA 206 (Smith CA) at [46]-[49] per Gleeson JA, for the Court.
There was a suggestion by the amici that this construction was wrong.
In my view the construction is plainly right.
[31] The prohibition does not apply to the publication or broadcasting of an “official report” of the proceedings of the Children’s Court: s 105(3)(a).
[34] ...it is notable that s 10(1) of the Act identifies certain responsibilities of the Secretary which exist in order to “ensure that a child or young person is able to participate in decisions made under or pursuant to this Act that have a significant impact on his or her life”.
[36] In summary, the section creates a strict liability offence prohibiting publication or broadcast (directed to the public or a section of the public in a form accessible in this State) of the name, picture or identifying information of a child or young person who is involved (or reasonably likely to be involved) in proceedings in the Children’s Court or in related dispute resolution procedures, or who is the subject of a relevant report related to their welfare, and where there is a connection in the publication or broadcast between the identification of the child and the relevant proceeding, procedure or report. The prohibition applies until the child or young person is 25 years old, unless they die first.
There are various ways that consent can be given to publication or broadcast, including by the person themselves from when they reach the age of 16.
"Strict liability offences allow for a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact" as at [64] (1).
👍7
Forwarded from National Education Workers (Cole the Sociologist)
3️⃣RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO S.105
An effective burden.
[39] In Lange at 561 the Court said:
Similarly, those provisions which prescribe the system of responsible government necessarily imply a limitation on legislative and executive power
to deny the electors and their representatives information concerning the conduct of the executive branch of government throughout the life of a federal Parliament.
Moreover, the conduct of the executive branch is not confined to Ministers and the public service.
It includes the affairs of statutory authorities and public utilities which are obliged to report to the legislature or to a Minister who is responsible to the legislature.
[42] The appellants also raised an issue about persons wanting to protest the treatment of children who have been removed – such as, for example, raising concerns about the sexual abuse of foster children.
The amici noted that it is significant that s 105 extends to the indirect identification of children. They suggested that this meant that a parent of a removed child could not raise such a protest because to do so would be to identify their child. The appellants submitted that the section “effectively silenc[ed]” parents or caregivers of removed children.
That is an overstatement. In such cases it would be a question of fact whether or not the publication or broadcast identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the child or young person. It may be accepted that, at the least, the parent or caregiver concerned would have to be careful in how they articulated any such public criticism or discussion.
"Foster children" = THEIR (the parent's) CHILDREN!
⁉️"It would be a question of fact whether or not the publication or broadcast...[by] ...the parent or caregiver concerned...is likely to lead to the identification of the child or young person".
"The parent or caregiver concerned would have to be careful" indeed...
HOW IS A PARENT TO NOT IDENTIFY THE CHILD WHEN THAT 'CHILD' (OR YOUNG PERSON) IS THEIR OWN SON OR DAUGHTER?!!
[43] The appellants relied in the Court below on various affidavits illustrating the concerns that parents of removed children, or people who had been removed themselves, held about the State care system.
It is not necessary to address that material in any detail. Some of it was scurrilous.
⁉️ "It is not necessary to address that material in any detail" [43]
VS
“Ensure that a child or young person is able to participate in decisions made under or pursuant to this Act that have a significant impact on his or her life” [34].
[47] Taking account of the practical effects of the law means identifying the effects of the law, properly construed, in the real world of human action.
The burden on the freedom is justified
SUITABILITY.
[57] The amici accepted that s 105 was suitable to achieve the purpose in question. But they sought to argue that there was a broader purpose at play in the context of the Act, namely promoting the best interests of the child or young person. They submitted that it is not the case that protecting the identity of those involved was necessarily always in their best interests, for example, if they had been improperly removed or were being mistreated after removal. That argument characterises the purpose at too high a level of generality. The focus of the provision is more specific. If the argument is that the provision goes further than is necessary, that is really a necessity or balancing argument.
It does not mean that the provision is not a rational means of achieving the identified end.
An effective burden.
[39] In Lange at 561 the Court said:
Similarly, those provisions which prescribe the system of responsible government necessarily imply a limitation on legislative and executive power
to deny the electors and their representatives information concerning the conduct of the executive branch of government throughout the life of a federal Parliament.
Moreover, the conduct of the executive branch is not confined to Ministers and the public service.
It includes the affairs of statutory authorities and public utilities which are obliged to report to the legislature or to a Minister who is responsible to the legislature.
[42] The appellants also raised an issue about persons wanting to protest the treatment of children who have been removed – such as, for example, raising concerns about the sexual abuse of foster children.
The amici noted that it is significant that s 105 extends to the indirect identification of children. They suggested that this meant that a parent of a removed child could not raise such a protest because to do so would be to identify their child. The appellants submitted that the section “effectively silenc[ed]” parents or caregivers of removed children.
That is an overstatement. In such cases it would be a question of fact whether or not the publication or broadcast identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the child or young person. It may be accepted that, at the least, the parent or caregiver concerned would have to be careful in how they articulated any such public criticism or discussion.
"Foster children" = THEIR (the parent's) CHILDREN!
⁉️"It would be a question of fact whether or not the publication or broadcast...[by] ...the parent or caregiver concerned...is likely to lead to the identification of the child or young person".
"The parent or caregiver concerned would have to be careful" indeed...
HOW IS A PARENT TO NOT IDENTIFY THE CHILD WHEN THAT 'CHILD' (OR YOUNG PERSON) IS THEIR OWN SON OR DAUGHTER?!!
[43] The appellants relied in the Court below on various affidavits illustrating the concerns that parents of removed children, or people who had been removed themselves, held about the State care system.
It is not necessary to address that material in any detail. Some of it was scurrilous.
⁉️ "It is not necessary to address that material in any detail" [43]
VS
“Ensure that a child or young person is able to participate in decisions made under or pursuant to this Act that have a significant impact on his or her life” [34].
[47] Taking account of the practical effects of the law means identifying the effects of the law, properly construed, in the real world of human action.
The burden on the freedom is justified
SUITABILITY.
[57] The amici accepted that s 105 was suitable to achieve the purpose in question. But they sought to argue that there was a broader purpose at play in the context of the Act, namely promoting the best interests of the child or young person. They submitted that it is not the case that protecting the identity of those involved was necessarily always in their best interests, for example, if they had been improperly removed or were being mistreated after removal. That argument characterises the purpose at too high a level of generality. The focus of the provision is more specific. If the argument is that the provision goes further than is necessary, that is really a necessity or balancing argument.
It does not mean that the provision is not a rational means of achieving the identified end.
👍6
Forwarded from National Education Workers (Cole the Sociologist)
4️⃣NECESSITY.
[60] The amici submitted it would be sufficient for the Children’s Court to be able to make suppression and non-publication orders on an ad hoc basis pursuant to the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). To the extent that did not cover all possibilities, they said, a narrower version of s 105 could have been enacted. The appellants made similar arguments.
[65] The amici also suggested that it would be possible to create a “public interest” defence to s 105. The primary judge apprehended that the appellants made a similar type of argument below to the effect that persons who wished to identify children for the purposes of criticising the statutory system, and its implementation, should be permitted to do so. As his Honour observed at [109], in rejecting that argument, a regime based upon motivations would inevitably involve contestable subjective characterisations. As for both arguments, they would involve identification of a child or a young person in connection with the child welfare system based on another person’s own motivation or assessment of the public interest. That motivation or assessment would only then be assessed on an ex post facto basis by a court. The court might find that there was good justification, but it might not. By then the harm would have been done. Such a scheme would not achieve the protective purpose of the provision to the same extent.
[66] In sum, neither the amici nor the appellants have identified any obvious, compelling and less burdensome alternatives to s 105 which achieve its purpose to the same extent.
[71] Even so, there is a burden on the freedom. That not insignificant but limited burden is readily justified. Why should the important privacy interests of the vulnerable child or young person be overridden by the desire of a critic to use their case as an example?
The fact that the critic thinks themselves justified, and may even be the parent who has lost responsibility for their child, does not mean that there is no legitimate interest in protecting the privacy of the child in question.
If the protected child or young person thinks it is in their own interest for publication or broadcast to occur, they can consent to that from when they are 16.
⁉️UNTIL THEN THEY MAY REMAIN IN THE CUSTODY OF A PAEDOPHILE⁉️
Prior to that time the Children’s Court can be asked to consent. In this context it is certainly not the case that “the benefit sought to be achieved by the law is manifestly outweighed by its adverse effect on the implied freedom”: cf Comcare v Banerji (2019) 267 CLR 373; [2019] HCA 23 at [38].
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
🔥
[60] The amici submitted it would be sufficient for the Children’s Court to be able to make suppression and non-publication orders on an ad hoc basis pursuant to the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). To the extent that did not cover all possibilities, they said, a narrower version of s 105 could have been enacted. The appellants made similar arguments.
[65] The amici also suggested that it would be possible to create a “public interest” defence to s 105. The primary judge apprehended that the appellants made a similar type of argument below to the effect that persons who wished to identify children for the purposes of criticising the statutory system, and its implementation, should be permitted to do so. As his Honour observed at [109], in rejecting that argument, a regime based upon motivations would inevitably involve contestable subjective characterisations. As for both arguments, they would involve identification of a child or a young person in connection with the child welfare system based on another person’s own motivation or assessment of the public interest. That motivation or assessment would only then be assessed on an ex post facto basis by a court. The court might find that there was good justification, but it might not. By then the harm would have been done. Such a scheme would not achieve the protective purpose of the provision to the same extent.
[66] In sum, neither the amici nor the appellants have identified any obvious, compelling and less burdensome alternatives to s 105 which achieve its purpose to the same extent.
[71] Even so, there is a burden on the freedom. That not insignificant but limited burden is readily justified. Why should the important privacy interests of the vulnerable child or young person be overridden by the desire of a critic to use their case as an example?
The fact that the critic thinks themselves justified, and may even be the parent who has lost responsibility for their child, does not mean that there is no legitimate interest in protecting the privacy of the child in question.
If the protected child or young person thinks it is in their own interest for publication or broadcast to occur, they can consent to that from when they are 16.
⁉️UNTIL THEN THEY MAY REMAIN IN THE CUSTODY OF A PAEDOPHILE⁉️
Prior to that time the Children’s Court can be asked to consent. In this context it is certainly not the case that “the benefit sought to be achieved by the law is manifestly outweighed by its adverse effect on the implied freedom”: cf Comcare v Banerji (2019) 267 CLR 373; [2019] HCA 23 at [38].
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
🔥
👍6
Forwarded from Daily Bible Devotionals
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍31🙏5👏1
Bombshell as two Aussies WIN their Supreme Court case over Covid fines - and it means as many as 45,000 penalties could be struck down
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11479153/Redfern-Legal-Centre-WIN-Covid-fines-Supreme-Court-case-45-000-penalties-struck-down.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11479153/Redfern-Legal-Centre-WIN-Covid-fines-Supreme-Court-case-45-000-penalties-struck-down.html
Mail Online
Bombshell as two Aussies WIN their Supreme Court case over Covid fines - and it means as many as 45,000 penalties could be struck…
Fines worth millions of dollars for Covid public health order breaches could be overturned following a landmark test case in the New South Wales Supreme Court.
❤57👍21👏7🙏4
"After digging deeper into the cesspool, which means ‘follow the money’, I found Bill Gates has invested FORTY MILLION DOLLARS into Scytl software which is used in the finalising of an election here in Australia.(Queensland)"
https://cairnsnews.org/2022/11/30/remote-connection-software-installed-on-election-management-systems/
https://cairnsnews.org/2022/11/30/remote-connection-software-installed-on-election-management-systems/
www.cairnsnews.org
Remote connection software installed on election management systems - www.cairnsnews.org
Letter to the Editor The United States top voting machine maker has admitted in a letter to a federal lawmaker that the company installed remote-access software on election-management systems it sold over a period of six years, raising questions about the…
🤬43🤮17👍9🙏1
Forwarded from John F. Kennedy Jr.
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬29🔥3🤮2
You have to ask yourself what it really going on with these people and have they all been jabbed?
All these headlines from articles came across my path in one night 🙀 I know they're not in Australia however you will see the same thing happening here too soon enough, if not already.
I guess this is just the beginning of seeing this happen more regularly.
It might be someone you know, a loved one, a friend, a colleague or your favourite sportsman or sportswoman.
Apart from the first on shown on 28 Oct, all the others are in the last week...
28 October 2022 - Nikolas Mushegian, an early developer of MakerDAO, washed ashore on a Puerto Rican beach after an apparent drowning, just hours after tweeting about an alleged murder plot to take his life.
23 Nov 2022 - Captain of American Eagle Flight Dies From Suspected Heart Attack Just After Takeoff From Chicago O'Hare
27 Nov 2022 - Kullander is the second young crypto whiz to shock the industry with his death in recent weeks. Died suddenly in his sleep.
28 Nov 2022 - Okla. Red Dirt country musician unexpectedly dies hours after his wedding, community heartbroken.
28 Nov 2022 - Flight Attendant from Gulf Air Dies On Plane From Heart Attack.
28 Nov 2022 - Penn Hills paramedic dies after crashing ambulance, suffering medical emergency.
29 Nov 2022 - What Virginia Rep. Donald McEachin's death means for the new Congress.
All these headlines from articles came across my path in one night 🙀 I know they're not in Australia however you will see the same thing happening here too soon enough, if not already.
I guess this is just the beginning of seeing this happen more regularly.
It might be someone you know, a loved one, a friend, a colleague or your favourite sportsman or sportswoman.
Apart from the first on shown on 28 Oct, all the others are in the last week...
28 October 2022 - Nikolas Mushegian, an early developer of MakerDAO, washed ashore on a Puerto Rican beach after an apparent drowning, just hours after tweeting about an alleged murder plot to take his life.
23 Nov 2022 - Captain of American Eagle Flight Dies From Suspected Heart Attack Just After Takeoff From Chicago O'Hare
27 Nov 2022 - Kullander is the second young crypto whiz to shock the industry with his death in recent weeks. Died suddenly in his sleep.
28 Nov 2022 - Okla. Red Dirt country musician unexpectedly dies hours after his wedding, community heartbroken.
28 Nov 2022 - Flight Attendant from Gulf Air Dies On Plane From Heart Attack.
28 Nov 2022 - Penn Hills paramedic dies after crashing ambulance, suffering medical emergency.
29 Nov 2022 - What Virginia Rep. Donald McEachin's death means for the new Congress.
👍40😢2
Forwarded from Cole the Sociologist
INSPECTOR_GENERAL_OF_INTELLIGENCE_AND_SECURITY_AND_OTHER_LEGISLATION.pdf
638 KB
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY AND OTHER
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MODERNISATION) BILL 2022.
Human rights implications
4. The Bill’s amendments would engage the following human rights contained in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):
• the prohibition on interference with privacy under article 17.
• the right to freedom of expression under article 19.
• the right to minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings under article 14(3)
Prohibition on Interference with Privacy.
Some of the Bill’s measures engage the prohibition on interference with privacy in
article 17 of the ICCPR, which provides:
(1) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and
reputation.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or
attacks.
9. Schedule 1, item 131 (which would insert section 32AE into the IGIS Act) would provide
an authorisation for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act), which would
permit agencies (specifically the Australian Federal Police) to share personal information
with the IGIS, engaging the right to privacy.
10. Schedule 1, item 131 (which would insert section 32AF into the IGIS Act) would allow
the IGIS to share information with other integrity bodies, and creates safeguards for
information sharing. This may involve the transfer of personal information to an entity
that it was not originally disclosed to, engaging the right to privacy.
The right against self-incrimination.
21. Some of the proposed measures engage the right not to incriminate oneself, which is
enshrined in article 14(3)(g) of the ICCPR, which states:
(3) In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be
entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.
22. This right is embedded in Australian common law and protects a person from being
compelled to disclose information or documents that would incriminate themselves.
Right to freedom of expression.
31. Some items in the Bill would engage the right to freedom of expression, set out in article
19(2) of the ICCPR:
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include
freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other
media of his choice.
33. Under article 19(3) freedom of expression may be limited as provided for by law and
when necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public
order, or public health or morals. Limitations must be prescribed by legislation, necessary
to achieve the desired purpose and proportionate to the need on which the limitation is predicated.
👁
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
🔥
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MODERNISATION) BILL 2022.
Human rights implications
4. The Bill’s amendments would engage the following human rights contained in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):
• the prohibition on interference with privacy under article 17.
• the right to freedom of expression under article 19.
• the right to minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings under article 14(3)
Prohibition on Interference with Privacy.
Some of the Bill’s measures engage the prohibition on interference with privacy in
article 17 of the ICCPR, which provides:
(1) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and
reputation.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or
attacks.
9. Schedule 1, item 131 (which would insert section 32AE into the IGIS Act) would provide
an authorisation for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act), which would
permit agencies (specifically the Australian Federal Police) to share personal information
with the IGIS, engaging the right to privacy.
10. Schedule 1, item 131 (which would insert section 32AF into the IGIS Act) would allow
the IGIS to share information with other integrity bodies, and creates safeguards for
information sharing. This may involve the transfer of personal information to an entity
that it was not originally disclosed to, engaging the right to privacy.
The right against self-incrimination.
21. Some of the proposed measures engage the right not to incriminate oneself, which is
enshrined in article 14(3)(g) of the ICCPR, which states:
(3) In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be
entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.
22. This right is embedded in Australian common law and protects a person from being
compelled to disclose information or documents that would incriminate themselves.
Right to freedom of expression.
31. Some items in the Bill would engage the right to freedom of expression, set out in article
19(2) of the ICCPR:
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include
freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other
media of his choice.
33. Under article 19(3) freedom of expression may be limited as provided for by law and
when necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public
order, or public health or morals. Limitations must be prescribed by legislation, necessary
to achieve the desired purpose and proportionate to the need on which the limitation is predicated.
👁
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
🔥
👍31❤2🤔1
MEANWHILE IN CANADA.
We may, often, measure & conpare what occurs here with Canada.
Just ask the First Peoples ('Orignals') of both lands..
In the post below we may find comparison with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (A.B.C).
See: Frontier Wars (Australia).
See also: Amanda Nettleback
See also: White blindfold/black armband
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
🔥
We may, often, measure & conpare what occurs here with Canada.
Just ask the First Peoples ('Orignals') of both lands..
In the post below we may find comparison with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (A.B.C).
See: Frontier Wars (Australia).
See also: Amanda Nettleback
See also: White blindfold/black armband
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
🔥
👍13
CBC fails to mention RCMP officers celebrating violence in leaked text messages.. No no. To CBC these are GOOD cops.
The RCMP officers who have sympathy for peaceful protesters however *cue spooky music* must have their lives and careers ruined.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7kcAFDXB9c
The RCMP officers who have sympathy for peaceful protesters however *cue spooky music* must have their lives and careers ruined.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7kcAFDXB9c
YouTube
CBC has become an authoritarian mouth piece
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is turning a new leaf this week going past propaganda and just straight up demanding mindless obedience from all law enforcement officials less suffer the risk of getting your bank account frozen.
Thanks for watching…
Thanks for watching…
👍14
Forwarded from Dirt Road Discussions
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
We went from global mass formation psychosis to Great Awakening worldwide.
The boomerang is moving in our favor.
The boomerang is moving in our favor.
👍76❤15👏5😁2
Don't ignore the signs and follow your intuition more...
Your prayers are answered you just need to follow the signs given to you.
https://youtu.be/7WiWM1Vz8dg
Your prayers are answered you just need to follow the signs given to you.
https://youtu.be/7WiWM1Vz8dg
YouTube
YOUR PRAYERS ARE ANSWERED, BUT ARE YOU LISTENING? (follow the signs)
⭐Millionaire Nick Breau's FREE E-course :
👉http://nickbreau.com/mycecourse/
⭐To join the collective :
👉http://nickbreau.com/mycinvite/
*note* (both links above are affiliate links to Nick's course which i receive a small commision)
🎰 SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHANNEL…
👉http://nickbreau.com/mycecourse/
⭐To join the collective :
👉http://nickbreau.com/mycinvite/
*note* (both links above are affiliate links to Nick's course which i receive a small commision)
🎰 SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHANNEL…
👍21
This is interesting.....Politicians breaking oath??? Who would have thought?
Do you think any of our politicians have broken their oath?
Did they even take the right oath?
This article from the U.S.....made me think...could this have happened in Oz?
Currently, there are two lawsuits identical to each other in the US.
The first One, filed by Loy Brunson is still held up in the Utah Federal Court.
The second one, filed by Raland J. Brunson has made it to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS),
Docket #22-380, where 9 Justices in conference will vote (only 4 needed) to move to a hearing.
THE LAWSUIT
Both lawsuits include defendants Pres. Biden, Harris, former V.P. Pence and 385 members of congress for breaking their oath of office by voting AGAINST the proposition (that came from members of congress) to investigate the claims that there were enemies of the constitution who successfully rigged the election.
BOTH LAWSUITS ARE ABOUT THE DEFENDANTS BREAKING THEIR OATH OF OFFICE
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
THE QUESTION
How can you support, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign, and domestic? Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don't believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can't. Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims come from? 100 members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully rigged the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit about a rigged election? No, it's about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES.
THE RELIEF THAT LOY AND RALAND ARE SEEKING
That defendants be permanently removed from office, and not allowed to hold a public office again.
To read more about this click here 👉 http://ralandbrunson.com/History/History.html
Do you think any of our politicians have broken their oath?
Did they even take the right oath?
This article from the U.S.....made me think...could this have happened in Oz?
Currently, there are two lawsuits identical to each other in the US.
The first One, filed by Loy Brunson is still held up in the Utah Federal Court.
The second one, filed by Raland J. Brunson has made it to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS),
Docket #22-380, where 9 Justices in conference will vote (only 4 needed) to move to a hearing.
THE LAWSUIT
Both lawsuits include defendants Pres. Biden, Harris, former V.P. Pence and 385 members of congress for breaking their oath of office by voting AGAINST the proposition (that came from members of congress) to investigate the claims that there were enemies of the constitution who successfully rigged the election.
BOTH LAWSUITS ARE ABOUT THE DEFENDANTS BREAKING THEIR OATH OF OFFICE
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
THE QUESTION
How can you support, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign, and domestic? Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don't believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can't. Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims come from? 100 members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully rigged the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit about a rigged election? No, it's about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES.
THE RELIEF THAT LOY AND RALAND ARE SEEKING
That defendants be permanently removed from office, and not allowed to hold a public office again.
To read more about this click here 👉 http://ralandbrunson.com/History/History.html
Ralandbrunson
Brunson Bros. drain the swamp
Supreme Court Lawsuit Docket #22-380 Brunson fires Biden, Harris, and Members of Congress
👍52
Forwarded from DidYouKnow.Ink
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Western media have been using CGI technology to sell the narrative to their audiences that Russia is targeting civilian residential areas. This is not the case as we can see.
@HATSTRUTH 🎩
@HATSTRUTH 🎩
👍58🤬17