Mangled Thoughts

Who, late in life, moved to Oz and, but for a brief interlude as a farmer, continued what he enjoyed immensely, flying combat planes and serving as a Doctor in the airforces RAF and RAAF.

Squadron Leader Ron Wambeek
(Filed: 28/07/2005)

Squadron Leader Ron Wambeek, who has died aged 82, won a DFC as a fighter pilot in the Second World War and later became Flying Principal Medical Officer at the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine at Farnborough.
Telegraph

Correct, absolutely correct, is David Flint, with a comment in his article on High Court succession,

This is because the essence of our remarkably successful constitution is that the best guarantee of freedom lies in the common law and representative, responsible government.

The job is to appoint a Judge to the High Court on both counts, the nominee is stiff incommon law, throughly grounded in it, and won’t brook compromising common law, even from politicians. That, unfortunately, is not something all the parties in Palriament are keen on. Costello himslef, is fond of substituting regulation for the rule of common law. the explanation is straightforward, the advance of common law and the pollies’ liking for largescale theft (taxation) and extortion is unlawful. It is pointed, in common law, cases, as commercial cases amplify, entials hammering out of language, except language hammering fials somewhat when the substance of a case is subject to some bloody decree issued by some bloody commie tier of govt., and that is when Judges fudge language, they have to fudge because, if they were consistent and stiff in common law, much of govt. `regulation’ would fail, would have to be rescinded for , effectively what it is, lawlessness, most of it is unlawful. That is a dilemma for those judges who are otherwise throughly learned in common law and proud to serve its advance.

That contradiction is germane to why new appointees in lower courts are in increasing numbers totally ignorant of common law, whose notion of law is indebted to the totalitarian speculations seminally put by Hobbes and Comtes. The other source of those absolutist notions of law is the relaity, the history of `government’ in Europe is one of absoutist govt. throught to today, underpinning why the absolutist pseudo-philosophies of law were promoted, they gave specious jsutification for absolutism. The same holds in Oz, from the major parties at that. The great danger comes form the lawyers themsleves.

Common law is no longer the core of schoalrship in law schools in Australia today. To the contrary, it is now possible for someone to expend their entire career a the bar and, if appointed, the bench, totally ignorant of it. Today, indeed, many graduates just have no clue at all about common law at all, a conversation running the interest in jurisprudence frequently enough, will find one of the chumps saying something like:

‘Common law… ah , you mean custom.’

And, one has had conversations just like that with some of the younger generation of judges. Epistemologically, the reality is, judges and lawyers are now being selected on their abilty to act from the assumptions of absolutism as expressed as regulation as the definitionof law. And be assured, such judges do hold to a Hobbesian and Comteian notion of law: those notions are completely antithetical to common law, to what it is, what it serves, thus its function, and its generation. They are the sort of judges the parties in Oz are fond of appointing and promoting.

Thus, merit alone is not sufficient for appointment to the bench, and promotion of judges to superior courts, since a judge of that absolutist stamp can be appointed none-the-less on their merits as a Judge but, in asserting the totalitarain notions of law, which are being inculcated in even the old law schools of OZ. Bye the bye, one wedge that brough about this lamentable state of affairs is `consitutional law’ and the trouble is, it is hocus pocus as so many articles are in the Consitutions Federal and States, hocus pocus which is specious justification for absolutism, and just to check, `professors of common law’ are inculcating the belief it is all about the acquistion of power and using it, inclsuive of suing the law to do so.That is a lamentable and disgusting degeneration of the law schools .

Merit must be subject to two specifying conditions:

1.The nominees are learned in common law;

2.Barristers considered for the bench must demonstrate both learning and a record as a Barrister for being distinguished in common law;
Judges considered for promotion must show they are distinguished in common law.

Naturally, those two conditions would disqualify many but, so what. the bench does not exist to provide pleasant careerahs for any, it is their to ensure freedom as advanced and buttressed by common law, and thus they are its servants, and decreasing numbers these days are fit for that grave and demanding task. That is the bottom line, on the test of common law, increasing numbers are not fit for judicial appointments and should be shut out altogether from appointments because, those men and women will just as surely contribute to the overthrow of common law as much as the polticians of the major parties are doing now. They can do as much damage as second -raters, even more because they are first-rate abiltity, and just as much or more damage as those whose appointments reduce to political correctness.

The explanation is sensible,seemingly reasonable jduge, uncompromiosed by sectional interests and political correctness, might seem reasonable and an excellent Judge when, in fact they are at bottom the ductile servants of absolutism hwo use their courts to assert and reinforce the expression of absolutism, `regulation’. The second thing, capricious morals come into play, and that is already in evidnece in too many cases already. Increasing numbers of judges are doing notjiong but parrot the false jsutification for absolutism, it is about ensuring higher morality prevails. In other words, they are already disposed epistemologically to compromisoing and overthrowing common law, the one great tradition of law which has actually served freedom. Such Judges are not fit to hold their appointments and should remove themseves from the benches, and no one appointed who is nothing but the same. SUch men and women do not grace the law, the corrode it, they bastardise it then finish it off completely. It is just such types, I might add, totalitarain regimes rely on, as studying the judiciary under the regimes Nazi and USSR amplifies, and what was done to those judges who refused to compromise the rule of law, unlike far too many now in Oz who are not learned but totally ignorant, effectively:

They are ignorant men and women, not scholars and ladies and gentlemen because, they are grossly ignorant of the one thing which counts, common law.

Anyway, here’s Flint’s column:

David Flint: High Court judges should be appointed on merit, not trendy notions

July 29, 2005

Here’s a gasser: James McConvill argues for exactly what one attacked above. McConvill damns himslef further by declaring what a wunnerful invention it is that, for example,

the High Court decided that the Commonwealth could impose income taxes

Spiffing, absolutely spiffing, that is, the official judicial grand imprimitur to wholesale property theft by the politicians.

McConvill’s leftoid dreams show it in this, he wants the high court stuffed with leftoid sookie bastards. He goes further, he considers Biggles to be just the man for the High Court, for McConvill, claims, Evans would usher in a new dawn of lightness and sweetness. Funny that,wannabe dictators also proclaim loudly in public how absolutly nice they are when they are frist rate criminal scumbags.

Mike Jericho however, has the right task for Biggles, he can fly a one man suicide mission to find out whether the aliens stationed off earth are really, really, wringing wet socialist sookies or mad as hell hordes of the Attila the Hun type hordes just waiting to pulverise all below. An old rocket could, no doubt be found and fitted with twin gattling guns and, Biggles can whoosh off to face the aliens.. that would be a happy lurve fest McConvill would wet himself with joy over,

MCConvill: `Gosh, Evans, you are so, so cool, nice , the Aliens, why, they will just cuddle right up to you.’

Next morning, , the day after Biggles flew his mission, McConvill is a feeling unwell, Biggles had crashed and burn when an alien ship fried his 1960s v.w. model capsule into tiny crumbly toasty bits.

James McConvill: Put Gareth Evans on a jet straight back to Canberra

Oh well, McConvill is almost right `Put Gareth Evans on a jet straight…’ , he just got the direction wrong.

Placing these two photos side by side, a good identitiy kit is available, but, who is the terrorist depicted in the photos?

One picture is of terrorist making his get-a-way after having detonated a bomb.

The second photo is of terrorist with his harbourers.

Are these clues?

A. `Devotees of Terrorists’, a twist, true in a perverse way, and who are devotees vomit on lving room rug..

B.

It is the second image of the man, who has yet to be identified.

Answers in more, below.
1.

2.

(Continued)

Apart from cricket, armed forces -Oz has them and N.Z. doesn’t, Fidel Castro’s inbred cousin Helen Clarke for Prime Minister.

N.Z. has ACT and Rodney Hide.

Hide cuts to the chase with few words, which puts to shame the socialistos who stuff all the parties in each tier of govt. in Oz. The Oz socialisto bullshitters, and Senator Campbell, Minster of Greenhouse Don’t fart Again Anyone and the Zoo it’s under the department of witch doctors and voodoo masters the EPA, is another prime example of a flabby, fatty, loose tongued steer, , who speak in glib slang and cliche riddled sound bytes, and in saying nothing at all it still takes many an Oz politican the best part of an hour to spit that out. Steve Bracks is the epitome of dumbed down speak, the shortes time for him in mouthing an ergonomic platitudinous dribble sound byte is when he utters one of his well rehearsed stock phrases: `You can’t create more rain’ - no shit, Bracksie, `We have to do this because we make you safe’ - just prior to imposing another stasiland diktat and so each time he says that, it’s a red light more thucking trouble from that pack of thugs .

What is an election campaign. Well, Oz bullshitting polllies will mutter;
`empowerment’ - yah, just like primitive tribal savages believe in mystical forces which somehow makes them magical.
`your decision on what we will do’ -tell a lie too often and the liar comes to beleive it and, the pollies of every dmaned party in Oz believe their own lies, just ask Campebll on Man Changes Climate.

But what an election is, under `democracy’ , well it ain’t, these days, electing some to cabinet who can be entrusted to sticking to the only duty the War Council mistakenly called Govt. It is about :

Other people?s money
Posted by Rodney @ 9:50 am on 27 July 2005
A student complained to me yesterday that the other parties are bribing voters with their own money. They are not. They are bribing voters with other people?s money.

The key to winning votes for Labour and National is to focus the benefits on the few while dispersing the costs over the many.

The student loan policy is narrowly focussed on graduates with loans while the costs are spread over 3 million taxpayers. The narrow group notices the benefit and votes accordingly ? those who pay don?t notice the cost. It?s spread across the many and made invisible.

The key is to get enough narrow groups to win. As H.L. Mencken observed ? an election is an advance auction in stolen goods!

Correct, absolutley correct, and something even the `liberals’ don’t have the guts to fess up to.

It was a litotes (understatement) of how peculiar the antics of Croby’s lawyers are ,

Another case consigned to the back pages of the News, until this morning
The Corby case

Must have been because, the 2 Qantas staff, feted by defence as their star witnesses, who will testify how nice the boogie board bag looked, find their star appearance to be a hot flash:

But the two staff – William Samaha and Goranco Trajkoski from Sydney — said last night they had not been contacted by Corby’s legal team.

Mr Trajkoski said he had signed a letter giving permission for Corby’s lawyers to contact him but had since heard nothing.

The comedians just keep spooning out thick dollops of rib tickling jokes:

“But I don’t have any information anyway,” he said. “I was working the day (Corby) came through the airport, but not in the area where the boogie boards pass through.

“I am trained to look for explosives and bombs. I have never been trained to look for drugs. I do not know anything that could help.”

Mr Trajkoski, who has worked at Sydney airport for 10 years, said he did not think any of his colleagues would have any information that could prove Corby was innocent.

My insides are now beginning to hurt and this doesn’t ease the laughter pain:

Corby’s legal team also expected two Australians who found drugs in their bag some years ago to give testimony.

This is an old joke, as related in, Another case consigned to the back pages of the News, until this morning
The Corby case:

Corby’s senior Indonesian lawyer, Erwin Siregar, said two “key witnesses” were also ready to testify, via teleconference, that they were responsible for the 4.1kg of marijuana found in Corby’s bodyboard bag, as long as they were given immunity by Australian authorities.

One Queenslander would testify that…

With defence like that, Corby shouldn’t worry about the prosecution, she’s already in need of a serapax. On the other hand, she should have learnt from the first trip on the merry go round and, accepted the Attorney General’s offer of the services of 2 Queen’s Counsels pro bono with a verve that would render the word alacrity an adjective for a slow coach, and putting them as her lead barristers. No, she stuck with the Marx brothers. She’s a fool.

An early evening news report, yesterday, illuminates what the hunting down of terrorists is, a bloody dangerous job, and a race against the clock, which also puts further into perspective the split second decision the police had to make when they shot the man suspected of being a terrorist, though turned out to be not one.

Police have in custody one of the terrorists, after having stunned him first, responsible for the underground bombings. The scumbag was preparing another act of mass murder. I’d call that a close shave.

Hopefully, the interrogators are giving him biff, and,then, after having extracted any intelligence from the rodent, will stick him in a bomb proof cell with a grenade jammed up his backside - nah, just jammed into his gob, with the fuse set for an hour.

More, this morning, from the Oz:

Police arrest four in bomb hunt
Reuters
July 28, 2005

And here’s more good news:

Three women arrested in bomb probe
From correspondents in London
July 28, 2005
BRITISH police arrested three women today on suspicion of harbouring offenders in a raid linked to last week’s failed attempt to bomb London’s transport system, a police spokeswoman said.

The women were held after an armed raid on a public housing estate in the Stockwell area of south London, close to the Underground train station where a Brazilian man was mistakenly shot dead by police as a suspected suicide bomber last week.

In a fast-moving investigation, police have arrested a total of 12 people in connection with the failed attempt to blow up three Underground (Tube

Better still, the interrogation of the 12 harbourers and abetters of terrorists will be, to predict, a very frutiful exercise.

On the theme of mass murdering bastards, Gerry Admas has decided to distance himself formally from terrorism, he wants to sever the terrorist outfits Sinn Fein and IRA apart. Surplise, surplise, what with the muslim terrorists in Britain, I’d say, Gerry Adams has a bit of clue of what the mood of the Brits, including the Irish of Northern Ireland, is: exterminate them once and for all.

Just like Che, Adams is a brave man when it comes to mudering children, women, and any decent chap but is a quaking heap whenever it seem she might get his come-uppance.There’s the difference between Adams and Che, Che was cornered and killed like the dirty rat he was, bludding like a tiny tot being beaten up by a bully, screamed for his life: I’d say, that’s what Adams would do when he his finally brought to justice and sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead.

Sinn Fein leaders quit IRA top body
July 28, 2005

Mental patients cast out on the streets
DANGEROUS psychiatric patients are being released without adequate treatment because of the failed policy of closing down mental asylums.

If you see these mentals on the loose, citizens are advised to do any of the folowing or the whole list of things which should be done to them:

Cry, `Help, police’ [ the wussies option]:

Use your stun gun on them

Having stunned them, secure them with manacles , release them into a dumpster and seal the lid permanently

Give them a good coshing

Sic poochie wootchie with the big fangs onto them

Drop them into a pool of sharks

Cry assault and battery and have them thrown into prison for life

Ask for all the money you’ve been forced to cough up at the point of the taxman’s gun so that the the mentals could live the life of billionaires without ever having had to hit upon a successful business proposition, mortgage their house to fund it, build it up, employ people and endure every god-damned thing mentals can hurl against entrepeneurs : Be advised, if you do this, make sure you are accompanied by a couple of friends, Messrs. Smith and Wesson for the mentals are dangerous and won’t like any request to hand back all the stolen property they have been receivers of.

Caution : in any of the above options or all of them, don’t forget to defang him - recommended method pliers gripped to his dentals; and de-calw her, she won’t like be stripped to a pauper since she is accustomed to living the life of a billionaire by the means of theft. And do give them a clip over the ears each for good measure.

Hopefully, there will be a bluebottle worthy of the name of bluebottle whose notion of `commoooonity policing’ is to beat the crap out of the feral animals greenies, Redfern gorillas and MacQuarrie Field baboons, for he will be happy to join in:

`Can I assist you Ma’am/Sir beat the crap out of these to dangerous mentals?’
`By all means, constable, there’s enogh pleasure to be had for two.’
`Right, Sir/Ma’am, pleased to be of service. Here, you two, take this. Damn, this feels good, a long time since I last sank the boots into a right pair of stinkers.’

Korp visits dying wife
JOE Korp has arrived at the Alfred hospital to visit his dying wife, the woman he allegedly tried to kill.
Maria to die within days
Husband faces grim reality

All are headlines in the Herald Sun.

And, this is real tear jerking stuff:

Husband faces the grim reality
Ben Packham
27jul05

THE strain was clearly visible on Joe Korp’s face at his parents’ Craigieburn home yesterday.

Looking thin and drawn, he was a different man from the relaxed father who sipped a beer as he watched his son play football in country Victoria just weeks ago.

Perhaps it is wrong, ah that’s it, to consider it a disgusting mockery of the woman who he tried to murder with his accomplice and Moll, Herman.

To be sure, pity is for the Son who has such a rotten, evil bastard like that for a father.

`Relaxed…sipping beer’, yes, and so is Maria relaxed, one might at a pinch say, but she’s sipping nothing at all. For a bloody pooh bah has instead decided to do what Joe and Herman didn’t mange to achieve, kill her. This has other odd sounding things which, these days, which only chardonnay swilling dickheads could possibly apprehend. Since one is not, let Faris Q.C. explain why it is worse than wrong:

Death penalty: Victoria decides to kill Maria Korp

Further ramifications are insidious:

The ex L.A detective who investigated the Terry Schaivo case, right through to the medical records, and published the findings and, putting it mildly, his conclusionwas , the starvation of Schiavo by judicial order was convenient for various parties except for the mother and siblings of Terri,as well as Terri..

Worse, soon after that `judicial order?, an Oz Doctor delcared, Oz doctors would not even contemplate doing the same things. I doubted that then,as in: these days, is that true? Now, what has happened, qausi-judicial authority ordering exactly the same, and, medical and nursing staff willing to do it.

A lady called Hinch during show yesterday evening, stating that, her son, now in his 30?s, had been declared, soon after a nasty accident, dying and marked down by the Doctor as, to be taken off life support. She objected. Today, the son lives, given the irreparable damage he sustained, and is wheel chair bound, still, she said,a full enough life given his infirmity. A muder could have been committed if that woman had not fought for her son’s life and it woudl have been `legal’.

Now, that Korb is dying, apparently, is one thing, to deliberately kill and take her off feeding tube is quite another and insidious matter.

That her malevolent attackers did what they did is shocking , horrible. Shocking, disgusting, insidious is, to top it all off, some`Public Advocate? deciding this is how she will die, `I, in my pooh bah capacity decide’.It seems he can get away with deciding to kill her, which is quite a capricious freedom for someone who is merely as an administrator and thus whose charge is one of trust as her Junta appointed `Guardian’.

Here’s the summary of what ex LAPD detective Furhman found out about what was done to Terri Shiavo, from what her husband did to what the Judges did:

Oh, as usual, the trolls have come out. On the Hinch show, one dumbed down girly, in that false `oh I’m so compassionate’ teary voice said, `I feel so sorry for Maria, and yet, I feel she must be allowed to die quickly becuase she doens’t have a life now and she is dying anyway’. Hinch diodn;t hurl a brick at the stupid bitch. No, he murmered in nice sympathetic moo moo voice to with the stupid epitome of what is the issue of a schooling in Brackistaniland, snivelling, self absorbed, sookie, good commie dickheads. Revolting, disgusting and that’s what pretends to be an adult, perhaps she’s Catherine Pol Pot’s Banger Wheel Fitzgerald’s bed pal ( see post below) because, they are so much the same, dumbed down morons.

Cases
1. Terri Schiavo:

Bid to undermine Kyoto: Greenpeace27jul05

THE Federal Government’s participation in a reported, secretive climate change pact undermined the global Kyoto Protocol, Greenpeace said today.

The Greenies really are twisted and are ingrates. Why, there is Senator Campbell and the Coaltion, cheered on by the ALP, doing their upmost best to make Voodoo the number on occult in Oz. What do they get in return, a limp wristed slap from the very mummers who brought it to these shores in the first place.

“Environment Minister Ian Campbell concedes a comprehensive agreement involving all major emitters is needed,” Greenpeace energy campaigner Catherine Fitzpatrick said.

So, the greenies are going to kill , elk, moose, wildebeast, dear, sheep, cattle dogs, and every man, woman and child alive crocodiles, kangaroos, koala bears, whales, penguins, birds, chooks, budgies, buffalo, lions, elephants, apes, monkeys and gorillas with their bare hands after all. They all emit methane and no better solution is available than to just, slaughter everyone of them. Naturally, after having accomplished or, die in the attmept, then they will top themselves as the last of the hideous methane emitters of all species. The Greenies have made an excellent start, having achieved the murder of so many children in Africa and othe rplaces due to the ban on DDT, relying on ductile, craven poltiicans to do their bidding. Why, Senator campbell is a ductile, venal bastard at that, the greenies have a line into Cabinet on their great plan, exterminate methane emitters.

Here is the reason of their wrath:

“The suggested scheme is, unlike Kyoto, a voluntary scheme and all evidence shows that voluntary schemes do not work.”

Lordy, lordy, lordy, they haven’t signed on, but each tier of govt. is putting in their best stasiland oar stroke in to comply with that toilet rag.

Catherine Pol Potian Banger Wheel Fitzpatrick, however, unable to see what a number one fan club the major parties in each tier of govt. in Oz are for the blubbering snot dribbling down her face out of grief over, dah socialsito spivs are not doing enough to pacify the Great Evil Bitch Mudder Nature, beleives the major parties are committing high treason against that evil bitch:

Ms Fitzpatrick said the regional pact would not change Australia’s status as world’s number-one coal exporter and a renegade on climate change.

For such blubbering commie sookies as Pol Pot’s Banger, and their rotten, vile,stupid little beliefs and their totalitarain demands, the major parties are all too eager to do in good old real tax payer, impose stasiland diktat and umpteen criminal scams, and yet the lying , blubbing beasts bealt like little fwightened kiddiwinks. Perhpas, they could move to the Greenies’ paradieses of Iran , Zimbabwe, or Cuba. Plenty of scope in those places for killing off methane emitters. But, don’t cry little Catherine wheel, for your big brudder guru Campbell is on the job and will rush in and wipe the snot off your face and say all the right gooey things you’d like to hear. Meanwhile, perhaps some san eheads might prevail and kick that guru of voodoo and charlatanism and fraud out of ministerial office, out of parlaiment, and out into the gutters where he belongs.

In the meantime, the `Captain’ of this floating, methane emitting, heap of rust, the Rainbow Warrior, will be hauled before the beak on account of this:

Greenpeace is blockading Newcastle Harbour, the world’s largest coal export port, to highlight Australia’s role in global warming.

It would be nice to find a judge will have the bastard slapped in irons and consigned to a cell and once locked, no one can find the key again. Too much to expect,sadly. Worse, it will be more likely some wringing wet dickhead who stares lovingly down from on high and says nice goey things into the elephant like ears of this one of Pol Pot’s uglies.

The Corby case.

Qantas staff to back Corby’s case06:01 AEST Wed Jul 27 2005
AAP
Qantas workers who handled Schapelle Corby’s boogie board bag are expected to testify there was nothing suspicious about her baggage.

The staff are expected to arrive in Bali next week to testify there was nothing suspicious about the appearance of her luggage when she checked in at Brisbane airport.

Fine, so the boogie bag did not look `suspicious and so what. That testimony does not serve as an argument for establishing reasonable doubt, contrary to Erwin Siregar’s claim that it

would help convince the court there was reasonable doubt the 4.1kg of marijuana was in her luggage when she checked in.

The crucial evidence is, what did the bag weigh when she checked it in, and Corby had to check the bag in because it was overweight, without inferring anything as to the presence or not of a pillow-case sized bag of weed.

It is staggering to ponder, the defence did not seek to secure documentation of weight from Quantas when they were preparing for the first trial of Corby, this is just the very sort of detail a Barrister would be considered derelict in not securing. It is Andrew Sorrell who made an even more telling comment on Faris’s site:

30/5/2005 | 10:44 am

If the addition of the 4 kgs was added AFTER the bag was checked in then why did she not insist that her luggage was reweighed in Denpasar and checked with the computer record in Brisbane?
Most people take less than 20kgs to Bali so the addition of 4kgs would certainly stand out.
Can anyone let me know.

Fingerprints, or the lack of them, have no bearing on the case, because finger prints do not impress very well at all on plastic surfaces, and other smooth shiny surface, they cannot be lifted by a detective off such surfaces. Faris Q.C., pointed out, even if they could be lifted, fingerprints are at best circumstantial evidence only, cases have to built on far stronger arguments than fingerprints.

Those who doubt the weed came from Australia, miss the bleeding obvious, the defence never denied and never even made a lame attempt to rebut that it came from Australia. To the contrary, the defence, in the first trial, agreed it did come from Oz since, that is contained in their assertion, drug smuggling baggage handlers planted the weed into the boogie board in the international terminal at Sydney airport. The test conducted on the weed showing it was high grade, hydroponically grown weed, suggestive of its Oz origin, is, therefore trivial by way of it being circumstantial confirmation of what the defence set out in the first trial.

Neither is this any help to Corby’s defence as pointed out by the lawyer involved on this matter of witnesses:

Meanwhile, a man labelled by his own lawyer as a “total bull***t artist” claims the drugs in Schapelle Corby’s luggage were meant for him.

The man has told News Limited newspapers he was offered $50,000 to collect the 4.1kgs of marijuana from Sydney Airport in October last year.

The plan fell apart when a Sydney airport baggage handler did not pass on the package and it ended up in Corby’s body board bag, the man who had demanded $250,000 for his story told the newspaper.

“I was supposed to make a quid out of picking up the package but it never went ahead,” the man said.

“I got a call telling me to forget it because the package had ended up with the Corby girl.”

So, again, Corby’s defence are clutching at straws:

Corby’s Indonesian lawyer, who is urging the federal government to grant the witness immunity from prosecution, says the man, who lives in Sydney’s western Suburbs, is vital in saving her.

Corby twigged on to one thing, unlike for the first trial, a media beat up serves her defence no good at all, and that she is in need of substantive evidence to do the work of at least establishing reasonable doubt and thus establishing justification of acquittal. Unlike the first trial, her defence has made efforts, such as they are , to discovering substantive evidence. Even then, they have still resorted to using the medja to somehow shift some burden onto the Federal Cabinet and, in particular, the Attorney General, for furnishing evidence.

Two federal Police investigations have been conducted into the baggage handlers employed at Sydney airport. Both investigations have yielded no discoveries which would even serve as circumstantial evidence, let alone the substantive evidence Corby’s defence requires to establish at least reasonable doubt for acquittal, and acquittal is the objective which was entirely ignored by the defence during the first trial.

There are further similarities between the preparations for the new trial and those for the first trial, further to using the medja to mount emotive demands and insinuations - though not so strident as they were in the first trial.

The first trial ran on:

1. Story telling based on allegations against the baggage handlers and specifying how the baggage handlers did the dirty deed.

2. Hearsay mounted as substantive arguments, inlcuding what were nothing more than witness to Corby’s character, according to their own view of Corbby which, while character witnesses can bring considerations to a Judge’s decision in sentencing, have no standing as evidence what-so-ever, not just in Indonesia but in any court in Oz too. To this, that is why a Western Australia Supreme Court Judge rejected polygrapah tests as not just pseudo-science but the `polygprah tester’ as nothing more than a character witness. That, to allow polygraph tests would lead to perversion of justice entailing, the risk anyone guilty of a serious crime being acquitted and those innocent of a criminal charge being convicted. That assessment of the value of polygraph testing, none at all it is just rubbish, was buttressed by the compilation of an extensive body of cases. It might be noted, independently of courts, the issue of polygraph `testing’ by various entities has yielded grievous and very damaging consequences.

In the case of the C.I.A. a KGB spy, having infiltrated the CIA was able to remain in place because he `passed’ the `polygraph tests’ while, loyal agents have been acted against because they failed the same `test’. It is disgusting that, even in Oz, there are still those pressing for the use of polygrapah tests in criminal investigations. `Polygraph’ is , obviously, a mis-spelling of the actual name for it, Poograph.

The two Quantas staff members will not be acting as character witnesses, but their evidence is still no more than hersay of a most trite order, `what the bags appeared like’. The question is, how much did it weigh when she checked it in with the clerk at the service desk for weighing, and charging for excess weight. What a bag looks like is meaningless, nothing to do with what is inside it and, what was its weight at check in and after it had been sent through to baggage handling room and collected at the airport in Indonesia.

3 The defence during the first trial made a series of ad hominem accusations:
a. Corrupt, drug smuggling baggage handlers did it.
b.The Indon. customs officials were corrupt and and did things to ensure Croby would be convicted of the charge.

That’s quite enough of a long chain of conspiracies to get Corby, as it were. The handlers were in on it, the customs were in on it from their own motives of course. Presto, Corby the victim. Assume the allegations are true, the defence did no work to substantiate those claims, they just told stories with very nasty ramifications, as the Sydney Baggage Handlers have found out.

Through the Oz medja -
c. The Judges are corrupt
d. The Govt. is corrupt
e. Judges and Govt. conspired against Corby and, the variation, the Customs, the police, the Govt., and the Judges conspired to
get Corby.
f. The Judge presiding on the first trial has never aquitted anyone of drugs charges in all of 500 cases and therefore, was
biassed against Corby and predisposed against Corby, and already, virtually convicted before the trial or early into the
trial.

The conspricay chain multiplied:

” Your honour, the baggage handlers, the customs, the police, the govt., the prosecutors, The Oz fed Govt., the Attorney General, the whole Federal cabinet, the Federal Police, yourself Mi’Laud, you are all in on it.”

Face facts, anybody else who would trot out that line would be thrown into a loony bin wearing the jacket straight.

The defence played hard against the man, the prosecution did not.

While defence and media have not indulged in such a loopy, stupid chain of allegations, story writing, ad hominem attacks against all and sundry, they are yet still at it. Oz QCs are ingnorant, incompetent interfering nobodies and, Indcoup relates this example of stupidity but, it has a twist:

Tantrum time
The Corby circus show takes another twist.

Superstar lawyer Hotman Paris Hutapea has threatened to quit the case after an Australian newspaper suggested that the Indonesian defense team had asked for funds to bribe the judges overseeing her appeal.

“I am considering resigning because the Australians are killing the case,” he said by telephone. ?They (the Australians) have called five times today. But I’m not picking up the phone because I’m still angry,” he said….

Indcoup’s comment is accurate in its aim:

I can understand why Hotman is so mad. The appeal judges are not going to like this news one little bit. They are being pushed into a corner: better for them to throw out the appeal rather than be accused of taking bribes. Perhaps Corby?s best hope now is a significant reduction in her prison sentence because the judges sure aren?t gonna find her innocent.

That is as ugly as the attacks against the Judge of the first trial, who in his decision made a few matters plain:, as one wrote previously:

I listened to some of the translation of the Judge?s delivery of his reasons and, unless I misheard, the statement was made to the effect: in the course of his arguments, Indonesian courts will not be subverted by public opinion and, the integrity of the courts will contuinue to be upheld by the Judges.

Correct me if I?m mistaken, but I understand that comment to be a reflection on what the defence launched, a media campaign, preceded by the extroadinary letter pleading letter form Corby to the President of Indonesia.

Next, the defence complained recently, the Federal Govt. must grant immunity to anyone who did the deed. The Attorney General announced just that, it would.The Federal Cabinet is not an obstacle on this count. No one creditable, however, has come forth. And mark, the defence, a couple of weeks after that declaration by the Attorney General, came out saying, the govt. must offer immunity, and has continued to repeat his strange nonsense.

4. Michelle Corby sent a letter pleading, `please, help me get released, this time not to the President of Indonesia but to Prime Howard. What is the Prime Minister supposed to do? Bring poltical pressure to bear in an attempt to make the President interfere with the judiciary? Who can tell what goes on between the defence team’s members except, at a guess, some woolly and wild notions of what to do.

5. The defence lawyer merry-go round, again: do I or do I not accept the services of the 2 Q.Cs.? After the first disastrous effort, one would have assumed it’s automatic, of course well take the second offer straight of the bat but, no Sir. The defence railed against Oz Barristers, then said, may be, no, yes, whined, `we need lots of expert help’. Why don’t they just put themselves out of their misery and dress two old continuously bickering, mutinous old grannies in silks and put them onto the team, no less effective and a lot cheaper.

Then, one day, Corby sacks her lawyers, the next, rehires them, then on other day frets, have I enough lawyers, and, are the two QCs on the way. The habitual prevaricator is really the very model of resolve and action in contrast to Corby in Arthur and Martha mode.

Then, after all the pregrinations of the feedle of brain and spine, they decided they should make an effort to find something, anything and then came the tantrums. The Q. staff won’t fly out to help, no criminal, who must be guilty of what I say they must be guilty of, is coming forward, the cry of the heart to Howard. Oh, well, one day defence will get round to mounting a defence, the day when, once again, the trial is done with.

Enough of comparisons. I wrote on the completion of the first trial:

Whoever runs the appeal case will have to put in some fast fancy footwork just to clear that mess up, salvage something from the wreckage of a mangled case, still leaving the work of obtaining, if available, evidence that will serve their appeal.

It seems, the appeal, is like the N.Zealand 1st 11 fronting up to the Oz 1st 11, in for another hiding with knobs on - the risk of a stiff increase in the sentence, due to the mess.

The defence were derelict in their duties when they accepted the brief for the first case. Right back then is when they should have done solid detective work and here’s the rub: What else didn’t the defence do during the preparations for the first trial:

A Barrister, on accepting a case, receives an initial summation of the case and statement from the client. The Barrister is obliged, on the strenght of that, to advise the client of probability of securing the case. The client must make the decision as to what they will do and instruct the barrister accordingly. The probability is based on the strength of the material so far supplied by solicitor and client. The Barrister isn’t reflecting on guilt or innocence but the substance of the case, e.g. `Look, it’s low, so if you wish to plead innocent of the charge, it’s best that you are not pulling the chain on this’ . The Barrister will, subsequent to instruction, leave no stone unturned in seeking substantive evidence. If the client is pulling the chain, diligence will not cover over a rotten case. The Barrister having diligently sought to discover evidence and found nothing at all to cast even reasonable doubt, could return to the client and say, `You wish to adhere to the claim, because, there is nothing to suport your claim’. It’s a matter of the client being truthful with himself first up: after all, penalties for criminals who pleaded innocent, when they are not, tend to be harsher.The essential point is, the QCs would have been rather more disciplined in advising Corby of the position, at the initial briefing, and at subsequent briefings. Firmer also in ensuring that she had to be sure in her instructions to them. For, while Barristers will run on insturction of, plead innocent when the client is guilty as charged, will do it to the best of their abilty, even though they have the client summed up and fully apprised of, their hands are tied becuase of the client’s instruction. Barristers make that plain to clients, ` we’d prefer that you do not tie the hands, don’t waste the effort by an indefensible instruction, that, though it might be unpalatable, if you are guilty, and the case is solid against you, we can do better and more for you if you instruct truthfully.

In summary, the defence was neither disciplined, nor diligent and, as a consequence, not firm enough with Corby . That showed, her lawyer pictured with Corby in the Prison, hugging her and having an emotional get together. That lawer did Corby no damned good at all by that. What she did was to make it easier for Corby to not face up to what she had to do with regards to what she had to furnish her lawyers with. The upshot, each reinforced the other’s weaknesses, and served only the commission of mistakes. Things have not improved since.

The prosecution did their job from beginning to end, from receiving the initial briefing and instructions, the discovery of substantive evidence, to the closing statements in court. Faris’s, Q.C, demonstrated they had with his summary and analysis of the case. All that can be said is, if the offer of the serices of two QCs pro bono had been accepted, acquittal might not have been secured but, but the defence would have been sound and stiffer than it was and thus served Croby far better.

The prosecution’s case rested on substantive evidence, their arguments were sound, they had done their job. They will do it again and, even better and with a different view of what penalty should be dealt Corby.

How not much at all of the defence has changed. One thing has changed: this is no appeal, it is worse than an appeal, it is a new trial. A conviction this time round will be worse for Corby, for this time, defence has been given the opportunity to not simply do as they did last time, work for the prosecution, but completely shred their case. That’s a given in view of, this time, all the resources which have been spent on making discovery, inclusive of two federal Police investigations, and those which been offered to defence to make discovery, inclusive of the offer of immunity to anyone who can supply direct, substantive evidence of what Corby alleges, someone else did it. Ten the silks ranging on behlaf of Corby, acquistion of `expert witnesses’, and so. Unlike all those who cheered it, one didn’t regard the declaration of a new trial, rather than appeal, as champagne cork popping stuff, the danger for Corby was all to clear as soon as the old trial was struck down and off the records and the new trial declared. To be blunt, if one were a Q.C. faced with trying to rescue a mangled case and all, it would be the last brief on earth one would wish to have landed on the old desk.

One would rule oneself out, of course. Couldn’t accept a case one regards as about as seaworthy as a concrete submarine, that would also be doing a job for the prosecution, but that is how bad the defence position is.Who can tell, they might get lucky, the Judge will be blind, deaf, dumb and dribbling from senile dementia.