Julia Gillard previously charged with treason

For for all of us that dont trust her heres another reason not to,

www.omegatimes.com...

the sooner she's out the better

reply to post by Trigger82


Lies.

You can't be charged with something, especially treason, and have it covered up.

You then wouldn't be able to run for prime minister a couple of years later.

reply to post by Trigger82


That's nothing compared to her affiliations to extremist groups in the 1980's.

Ms Gillard would be considered a "commie" by American standards.

blogs.news.com.au...

I am in no way any kind of fan of Andrew Bolt, but this speaks volumes of our farce of a PM.

Originally posted by Trigger82
For for all of us that dont trust her heres another reason not to,

www.omegatimes.com...

the sooner she's out the better

Except that they have no clue at all how the Australian legal system works, they mention pending Grand Jury hearings, not knowing Australia does not have "Grand juries"....

so anything on that site should not be considered truthful

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Trigger82

 

Lies.

You can't be charged with something, especially treason, and have it covered up.

You then wouldn't be able to run for prime minister a couple of years later.

Unless you had the support of all your peers in government positions of authority, ones who are also complicit in the crimes being commited...

Sort of like here in the USA where the president starts to ignore and usurp the congress and constitution and has the help of all his followers to aid in making it all happen...

The devil really is inside the machine right now... Practically every government playing ball with the globalists are doing things like this.. They deserve death.

reply to post by Chadwickus


This is some pretty random news and to be honest i don't quite trust the source so i am with you here Chad - although someone has put alot of effort into that article but i don't trust it. When i see it on ABC news then i will beleive it, our reporters and journo's are like vultures, they will find anything and present it. If the opposition knew anything about it they would also use it to thier advantage.

Unless there are all in on it!!!

Although i will say i think what she did to Rudd could be classed as treason or in pirate talk - Mutiny aarrrgh

Seriously though i was never happy with what happened to Rudd and i hope she gets booted in the next election - although i dont want Abbott as PM either....

This is why i dont bother to enrol to vote, no one worth voting for

reply to post by alienreality


Yes but this is someone being charged with treason.

Plus it's gone through (according to the source) the Melbourne magistrates court, yet it was never reported.

Anyone who falls for that is fool.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Plus it's gone through (according to the source) the Melbourne magistrates court, yet it was never reported.

Well, she has friends capable of overthrowing a Prime Minister, so anything's possible.

I'm sure her friends could keep it out of the MSM.

reply to post by Trigger82

In the period 15th December 2006 – 29th January 2007, 40 individuals were charged by Private Prosecution Right at the Melbourne Magistrates Court in Melbourne Victoria

from your own link

what do you think is the most important word in that quote ?

for me its " private " , as in private prosecution

ie - any numpty can attempt it

i am not implying that private prosecutions , per se are without merit - but the fact is that anyone can attempt to file one - so thier merit hingers on the sanity of the plaitniff

if you still think the " treason charge " has any merit - please explain why not a single opposition party / candidate has not used it to utterly destroy the election chances of those accused ?

I thought for a while that the forms were just made up.

Turns out there was a concerted effort to actually charge Gillard with treason.

It was attempted on Howard too.

There seems to be 2 different charges laid against Gillard, one in 2004 for Western Australia removing the UK's crown.

Then the second for an unlawful oath when sworn in as prime minister.

So yeah...






Some light reading for anyone wanting to try and piece all this together...

www.elijahschallenge.net...

reply to post by spoor


Explanation: REALLY! .... See here...

Grand juries are, today, virtually unknown outside the United States. England abandoned grand juries in 1933 and instead uses a committal procedure, as do all Australian jurisdictions. In Australia, the State of Victoria maintained, until 2009, provisions for a grand jury in the Crimes Act 1958 under section 354 Indictments, which had been used on rare occasions by individuals to bring other persons to court seeking them to be committed for trial on indictable offenses. New Zealand abolished the grand jury in 1961, and Canada finally ended the practice in 1984 when the Nova Scotia court system abolished it.[7] While all states in the U.S. currently have provisions for Grand Juries,[8] today approximately half of the states employ them[9] and only twenty-two require their use, to varying extents.[10] Most jurisdictions have abolished grand juries, replacing them with the preliminary hearing at which a judge hears evidence concerning the alleged offenses and makes a decision on whether the prosecution can proceed.

It has since been repealed BUT the web holds onto everthing ...

Go to WaybackMachine [wayback.archive.org]

Input this web addy [edited to remove www... bit that forces it to be a link]

.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s354.html

Then up the top of that page.. go back in time to at LEAST 2007 and then scroll down to see the redacted law.

And quoted here just in case they want to try scrub that ok!

Crimes Act 1958 - SECT 354
Indictments

354. Indictments



Upon the application of any person supported by an affidavit disclosing an
indictable offence and either that the same has been committed by some body
corporate or that a court has declined or refused to commit or hold to bail
the alleged offender or that no presentment was made against him at the court
at which the trial would in due course have taken place, or upon the
application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, it shall be lawful for the
Full Court to order the Juries Commissioner to summon a grand jury to appear
at a court to be holden at a time and place to be mentioned in the order; and
upon receipt of such order the Juries Commissioner shall summon not less than
twenty-three men to attend at such court at the time and place aforesaid to
inquire present do and execute all things which on the part of the Queen shall
then and there be commanded of them, and such men shall be taken from the jury
roll of the jury district in which such place is situate and at the time and
place aforesaid the sai d Juries Commissioner shall bring into court the said
order with the name, occupation and date of birth of every grand juror written
on a panel signed by him and sealed with his seal of office and shall deliver
the said panel to the proper officer of the said court, who shall in open
court call aloud the names of the grand jurors on the said panel one after
another, and the twenty-three men so first drawn and appearing or if
twenty-three men shall not appear such of them as do appear not being less
than twelve men shall be the grand jury and shall be sworn and act as such
accordingly:

Provided always that every such order shall be delivered to the Juries
Commissioner ten days before the day on which the indictment is intended to be
preferred.



* * * * *



* * * * *



* * * * *







(2) Discharge without prosecution

Edited to bold and underline for clarity. [my edits ok]

Personal Disclosure: Seems to OL that anything in your post ....

should not be considered truthful

I never really liked Julia Gillard from the start. I mean, you'd expect everyone to be cheering and clapping at the site of Australia's first female PM but I didn't hear any of that stuff, instead everyone starts calling her a backstabber which is true. Whether or not she committed that treason I don't think she is a trusty PM, but I don't really trust anyone in the Government...

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Trigger82

 

if you still think the " treason charge " has any merit - please explain why not a single opposition party / candidate has not used it to utterly destroy the election chances of those accused ?

Try the fact that there is no such thing as opposition,it is a myth so you can sleep at night.Good cop/bad cop.Right wing/left wing,pffff both wings are controlled by a central body with a single head are they not?Look at it this way,one supports the People and is Anti-capitialism.The other supports Capitialism and is Anti-people.The world is but a stage and life but an act.This is a false paradigm and niether can work,it is fundementally flawed and is meant to be!

Originally posted by Chadwickus
I thought for a while that the forms were just made up.

Turns out there was a concerted effort to actually charge Gillard with treason.

It was attempted on Howard too.

There seems to be 2 different charges laid against Gillard, one in 2004 for Western Australia removing the UK's crown.

Then the second for an unlawful oath when sworn in as prime minister.

So yeah...

Some light reading for anyone wanting to try and piece all this together...

www.elijahschallenge.net...

edit on 5/7/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

Just to clarify, does this mean you are possibly changing your view or previous stance?
Secondline.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Plus it's gone through (according to the source) the Melbourne magistrates court, yet it was never reported.

Well, she has friends capable of overthrowing a Prime Minister, so anything's possible.

I'm sure her friends could keep it out of the MSM.

Paul,

The people who overthrew Rudd and put her in his place were not her friends.

Look at who was involved and they are all from the far Right of the Labour Party. Gillard as we all know is from the far left. Graham Richardson being the mail leader of the coup.

Not to mention Mark Arbib's contact with the CIA......why did the CIA feel it needed to lend a hand in all this?

Regarding Treason, as much as I would love to see Gillard and Co charged with treason by definition treason under Australian law only covers various aspects of "knowingly assisting the enemy" and variations of that theme.

reply to post by 13th Zodiac


Ah no.