I had the pleasure of observing pseudolaw guru Derek Balogh in court this week. And it did NOT disappoint! Buckle up, you’re in for a wild ride!
Derek flew to Adelaide to assist one of his “clients” in the SA Supreme Court. According to Derek, the case was about “a home and a will, where the court thinks it can strip ppl of their land, when the court has no governor, no writ, no elections, no nothing”.
Derek managed to convince a group of his Adelaide based supporters to come to the Supreme Court to watch him in action! I think there were about 10 or so watching him in person.
The hearing starts off and it’s rather uneventful. Derek’s “client” is representing herself, with Derek there as her support person.
“This is not a civil case anymore”, she says. “A crime has been committed. This is treason”. Derek’s “client” hands up a wad of lengthy documents
Derek’s client wants to charge the respondent, the judge and the barristers. It’s not clear why – something to do w/ Anthony Albanese.
Derek’s client says that even though she was the one that filed the case, she is not the applicant. She rants for a while, sighting among others, the Criminal Code, charges of treason & the Bill of Rights. None of which have any relevance at all here.
She wants the judge to recuse herself. The judge is not going to recuse herself.
Then BAM! All of a sudden and seemingly out of nowhere, Derek Balogh rises to his feet and starts to YELL at the judge!
“YOU ARE NOW CHARGED, YOU ARE UNDER ARREST! YOU HAVE BROKEN SECTION 80.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT!” Derek is incensed.
The judge says something & that sets Derek off even more! Yelling even louder this time, he repeats himself: “YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED! YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED! YOU DON’T HAVE AN APPLICANT! YOU ARE TRADING IN NECROMANCY. THERE ARE DEAD PPL IN THIS COURTROOM!”
“YOU DO NOT HAVE A COPYRIGHT OVER FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE. YOU ARE IN TREASON! YOU ARE IN TREASON! YOU MUST STAND DOWN UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS!”
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more bizarre, Derek then claims he is going to call the Australian Federal Police. “YOU NEED TO LEAVE, YOU LEAVE THE COURT ROOM”, Derek screams at the judge.
Derek continues to rant. “YOU ARE CONCEALING CRIMES AGAINST SOUTH AUSTRALIA. YOU DO NOT HAVE A GOVERNOR, YOU DO NOT HAVE A WRIT. YOU MUST STAND DOWN”. Oh lordy.
The judge temporarily adjourns the court. Court security is called.
Derek now decides that the matter has been dismissed – the matter has not been dismissed. Derek thinks the matter is automatically dismissed “because of treason”. Derek says there is no judge here, he says “she has abandoned her ship”.
Derek tries to rally his supporters, of whom there appears to be about 10 or so watching this absolute sh*t show unfold.
Court security asks Derek to leave the court room. “I am directing you under the Sheriffs Act to leave the court room”, the court security staff say. Derek: “Which governor do you have, sir?”. Derek refuses to leave the courtroom.
Derek demands court security staff give them their name. “We stand under Australia”, Derek says. Derek, yelling again, says that this is not a court under the Kings Court. It is a fraudulent court. “I have the documentation to prove it”, he says.
Derek eventually concedes – he is going to leave the court room. However, before doing so, Derek DEMANDS a court order that he has won the case. He says the court is now closed for breaches of the Criminal Code.
Derek's supporters think he’s done an amazing job - they all stand and burst into a round of applause for Derek. WTF!
Derek demands to know how many sheriffs are here in court today. Why? He wants to name them all so he can put them in his affidavit to the Federal Police and have them all charged w/ treason or something.
“We have exposed the corruption. There is no Supreme Court in SA, there is no referendum and we are not standing under an original Crown. We have got our grand jury back!”.
FINALLY, Derek & his supporters leave the court room – but not before Derek gets one last word in. “Thank you ladies & gentlemen, we’ll remove ourselves. A crime has been committed & we’ve all seen it for ourselves”.
No doubt Derek will claim this as a win.
END
h/t @28Cooker
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Bike Boy’s private criminal prosecution of Daniel Andrews will go nowhere
Allow me to explain…
2. For your continued education, the Victorian legislation that delegates the plenary power of the Crown (the Victorian Governer General to be exact) to the Victorian Director of Public prosecutions is the Public Prosecutions Act 1994 (Vic)
3. Section 22(1) (a) of the Act gives the DPP, and ONLY the DPP, the absolute authority to institute (initially charge), prepare and conduct indictable offences
1. Bec Freedom, who’s one of the organisers behind the 31 August “anti immigration” rally claims she’s not a racist & that any recordings of her making statements to the contrary have been taken out of context
Let’s see if Bec’s claims stack up!
2. Here’s Bec sharing the tweet of a neo-Nazi, promoting her rally on 31 August
3. I asked Bec why she was re-tweeting the post of a neo Nazi and she replied with this:
1. A Pauline Hanson fan’s hope for a High Court showdown has ended before it even began!
The self represented litigant tried (& failed) to get the High Court to declare 18C invalid & overturn Pauline Hanson’s Federal Court loss
🧵
2. Heidi Ward filed a writ naming the Cth, Federal Court & Senator Mehreen Faruqi as defendants. She wanted to overturn decision in Faruqi v Hanson, declare s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act invalid & have Faruqi ruled ineligible to sit in Parliament
3. Because her proposed writ was so obviously lacking in legal basis, she needed the High Court’s permission just to file it!
(This only happens when an application on its face is lacking in merit!)
🧵1. Earlier this year, conservative US commentator Candace Owens was denied a visa to Australia on grounds she has “capacity to incite discord”
She’s now challenging that decision in the High Court of Australia!
In this thread I explain what her case is all about!
2. This case is very different to Djokovic’s legal challenge over the Minister for Home Affairs’ decision to deny him a visa. In that case, Djokovic essentially challenged the WAY the Minister made his decision to deny him a visa
3. HERE, Candace is challenging the LEGISLATION that gives the Minister the power to deny her a visa!
🧵 1. The no longer suspended doctor Bay vs AHPRA & the Medical Board.
In this thread, I summarise the court’s decision: why Bai is no longer suspended, why his Constitutional argument failed, and what the possible future brings for Dr Bay
2. This case was an application for “judicial review” by Dr Bay. He applied to the QLD Supreme Court for a review of the following 2 decisions of the Medical Board: the decision to suspend him & the decision to investigate his conduct
3. What is judicial review? It’s the power of a Court to review decisions of government agencies or public bodies. The role of the Court is to determine if the decision was properly made – the focus is on the law & how the decision was made, not the MERITS of the decision
🧵 1. What happens when lawyers behind a failed lawsuit against Pfizer & Moderna accuse the presiding judge of bias because the judge happened to have a science degree & a cousin who once supported medical research?
A judicial smackdown of course!
2. Background to this drama:
Controversial doctor Julian Fidge decided to sue Pfizer & Moderna, claiming their COVID vaccines were genetically modified organisms & illegally unlicensed under the Gene Technology Act
3. Justice Rofe of the Federal Court dismissed the case summarily, on the basis that Fidge lacked “standing” to bring the proceedings. Fidge used the same lawyers who’d once represented the Australian Vaccination-risks Network (cont)