Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Calling Queensland's Chief Justice Tim Carmody To The Rescue?

It's hard to communicate with the Registrar of the Queensland Supreme Court, when they won't even reply to my reasonable E Mail requests concerning an Application for a Judicial Review.

Here's hoping to God that they don't develop "gate-keeper" fever, as life sure is difficult enough at the moment.

Let's go back now to that September Tim Carmody "Queensland corporate government" Chief Justice appointment - and the kerfuffle that it caused.

Separation of powers

Supreme court Justices must at all times remain or, be totally independent from the state. (Please make a comment if you may feel that this is not necessary, if you feel this is so.)

< "The prominent human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC says that Queensland, like many jurisdictions within the international community, needed to adopt a model to appoint judges similar to that used in the UK."

"It leads to judges being more representative, it leads to judges who are not necessarily in the pocket of the government or conservative," he said. >

Yet... Opinions, differ.

< University of Queensland law Professor James Allan has warned that the UK system is "appalling" and "incredibly incestuous", arguing it essentially allows judges to pick their own successors. >

Geoffrey Robertson [a brilliant] QC says Queensland needed to adopt a model to appoint judges similar to that used in the UK.

He's a worry?

Yes. This University of Queensland law Professor "James Allan" becomes a concern for me, and he is a very outspoken man on many matters, it does appear.

James Allan -

Professor James Allan of the University of Queensland, and a regular commentator on legal matters in "The Australian", in a recent opinion piece concerning the controversy surrounding the appointment of Chief Justice Carmody, is quoted as saying:

"If, like me, you want your judges committed to interpreting the legal texts in the way they were intended by the democratically elected legislature, and in line with their plain meaning, then uber-smart judges are simply those with the resources to avoid such constraints"

The author- Patrick Anthony Keane, a Justice of the High Court of Australia comments: "Just think about that: a really smart person ... is more likely to make an awful judge. Perhaps Professor Allan should try to get out and meet more judges."

(Bottom of page 3, top of page 4):

I loved this piece by the High Court Justice when he says (Bottom page 19):

"the Reformation, [] which fixed the character of the common law and its processes as something quite different from the civil law system rooted in the academic treatment of Roman law and canon law."

What is he actually saying?

I feel that this High Court Justice is saying that ... "the civil law system [is/was] rooted in the academic treatment of Roman law and canon law."

And if it can be easily proven to people that the Roman cult (that powered the "fiction of law", prior to February/March of 2013) is now dead - where then, does the Australian "civil law system" now get it's power from, for it to be lawful?

Gee...Pope Francis has clearly "killed" the fiction of law. It no longer exists. His Sept. 1st 2013 Decree (made Motu Proprio) was the "icing on the cake", in that department - it can also be reasonably argued.

More evidence - (Pages 19/20.)

Furthermore (High Court Justice P-A-Keane adds):

"Sometimes, in our enthusiasm to maintain our independence, including our independence from each other, we lose sight of these institutional connections without which we could not even begin to face the challenges of doing justice to our rights-conscious and self-confident fellow citizens."

What "institutional connections" is he referring to?

We live in very interesting times, we do.

Always, only an opinion.