Home Australia The Hon. Michael Kirby on the Law, and “The Devil is in...

The Hon. Michael Kirby on the Law, and “The Devil is in the Detail”

65

Some weeks ago I (Dee McLachlan) interviewed Retired High Court Justice The Hon. Michael Kirby on the law and how to deal with injustices. I also asked Justice Kirby a Port Arthur question without notice.

SHARE

65 COMMENTS

  2. At 13:33: “The one thing you learn about the law in 34 years of judicial service – WHICH I GAVE – was that the Devil is in the detail – that law depends upon people who have a capacity to concentrate {I’m sure he has studied Bernays]. Generally, media and most citizens don’t concentrate on the minutiae [sic] of evidence – and they’re not really interested in what judges say in cases or what they say in their sentencing remarks. All they want to do is react with horror and anger in particular instances.

    The Devil is in the detail. You’ve just got to focus your mind and get down to the detail and that ultimately leads to a – if you do focus and concentrate and pay attention to all the detail – you ultimately get into your mind that you have to have some people who are servants of the whole populous [Bernays again] – who are not bound to one side of politics or another … “

    “The Devil is in the detail” indeed. The controlled demolition of WT7 is a matter of factual detail – as stated openly by Larry Silverstein himself (Lowy’s business partner) – no conspiracy there so why the need [15:30] to deflect this devilish little ‘detail’ by immediately putting up the ‘conspiracy theory’ umbrella? WT7 wasn’t even mentioned in “The Commissioned 911 Report [sic – Manifesto] so why would The Hon Michael Kirby think it was somehow tied in with the ‘911 conspiracy’? – mmm.

    Dee, Mary, you just need to focus and concentrate more.

    I mentioned Bernays – the following for your archives

    https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/

    • Thanks Julius. “Detail”. I will be following up and sending detail for Justice Kirby, and hopefully he might agree to discuss Bld 7 and 9-11 once he’s reviewed..

    • Indeed Julius, there is much in the ex-High Court ‘Justice’ that tends to exclude the accepted ‘normality’ of society in favor of his own perceptions – and that is my take on this interview. The other aspect to Kirby is that he has garnered a reputation for the use of Commonwealth Cars – and that is allegedly during his time as a High Court Justice – around the areas of Darlinghurst reputed to have been a hangout for rental toy boys, and while he was living with his long time homosexual lover.

      In my opinion, and I base my opinion on what I have learned thus far in life, and especially as a cop, Kirby is the kind of freak that is given far too much attention that he then takes to abuse for his own advantage and ends, and that he takes to generally use against the rest of us who identify as ‘straight’ and for whom he really has not time for.

      Why anyone would waste their time interviewing this blatant homosexual and alleged child molester that is a pretender to real ‘justice’ is beyond my own comprehension.

      • Nemisis, maybe listen to the interview again. You just don’t get it — do you. Maybe you are clouded by your own prejudices.

        I was asking a Justice of the High Court about the law and processes for justice. Plus what a journo can rely on if jailed under the new bogus laws and more. Here we have Kirby EXPLAINING exactly the processes for Bryant (or anyone) to appeal in Tasmania — and also a case relating to a mentally challenged individual being reversed. Maybe you do not understand the legal value of what this Justice said — but rather spew out character aspersions.

        PA was a question WITHOUT notice — and he will be presented with details of the case — and will then be given a further opportunity to be interviewed after reviewing the “detail” — that is if he does not refuse because the detail is too shocking. (I guess 95% of legal people would refuse.)

        If we are going to change thinking and how the world works, I honestly think your crappy attitude will get us nowhere.

        • Dee, are you suggesting that the professional – in this case a High Court Justice – is not influenced by his own character in his decision making?

          Kirby’s interpretation of the Law or as he likes to call it – the majesty of the Law – may not be another Justice’s viewpoint or finding. If you knew the real character of the person you hold in such high regard and who the rent a boys of Darlinghurst could tell you all about, you would look upon Kirby’s judgments with different and more open eyes.

          There is an old saying that clothes maketh the Man, in reality, that saying is no different in describing those who take to hiding behind a professional facade in order to deceive who they really are.

          In my opinion, Kirby is a classic case of such a character.

  3. Well, for a start, Martin didn’t have a devoted and competent person with him. Secondly with this new law in Tasmania, Martin should be in court, his miscarriage of justice as we know sticks out like you know what.. A criminal appeal should be done! asap! Michael is saying Martin lawfully has rights! and the bonus being a ton of fresh/stored evidence!, that always was!
    Good work Dee, especially asking this question…
    Cherri

    • He has to agree to it, someone has to see him and explain to him the situation in a way he will understand. Keith Noble who wrote a book about the PA Massacre believes if he decided to go to court, believes the money would roll in. Could not be crowdfunding as they would not allow it. A trust could be set up where people could donate to but getting a solicitors and barristers, maybe a QC willing to put their reputation on the line could be an issue. I agree, there is serious injustice done to Martin.I don’t know if he is guilty or innocent but I tend to believe the latter. At the very least the truth needs to come out. How could the snake Avery allow a guilty plea when there were witnesses who said it was not Martin. Getting started is the problem and it has to start with Martin himself.

  4. Indeed Mr Kirby, the devil is in the detail/s.
    But one has to have an open mind free of pre-judgement and prejudice and take the challenge to locate the devil.
    Try looking at the whole official government 911 conspiracy theory and you will find many devils.

  5. OK guys, cut Kirby some slack. He is obviously out-of-the-loop on a lot of this stuff. He doesn’t have a clue about Port Arthur – there was a time I was like that and I expect ALL of you were the same way.

    I remember when I got a call from Andrew Macgregor after he had read my ‘Gun Runner’ article (about the machinations about gun control in Canberra). He wanted to send me some information about the massacre. At that time (1999) I believed the media spin about Bryant. I didn’t really want to look at any stuff, but I agreed to. – He sent me a stack of photocopied witness statements.

    I put them on the corner of my desk to look at when I had some time. After about 2 weeks I was sitting there and decided to look at some of it. Hmm, didn’t know about that, didn’t know about that either – Crikey, maybe this thing has some legs.

    I called him back and told him about some of my reservations, He replied “no problem, I’ll send you some more information”. – As if I wanted to add more work to my complicated life…

    The information arrived and the stack of documents was even bigger than the first stack. Oh Crikey, why do I do this to myself…

    I worked through that stuff and then had more questions. This back and forth exchange went on for about 3 months. – I had finally reached a point where I had all the answers to my questions, but I still couldn’t grasp what was in front of me. I had this huge ‘cognitive dissonance’ bouncing around in my mind.

    I finally ended up sitting there at my desk and thought, “how does this evidence stack up if Martin Bryant is innocent?”

    It was like a bolt of lightening hit me – My subconscious relaxed and told me, “it is about time dumb-ass” – I pushed myself back from my desk and stood up – “Oh shit! He’s innocent, Oh shit, Oh shit.”

    I walked around my desk going “Oh shit” for a about a minute.

    We all have gone through a similar experience about things like Port Arthur – Kirby just needs some time to access the ‘Devil in the details’.

  6. Kirby comes over as a subtle victim, serene, calculated, conscientious, intellectual and cool.
    With respect Dee, you came up against one of the usual masters of spin coached to express feigned ignorance.
    My bet is that he had you sized you up and was briefed ten minutes after your original approach to him.

    • Yes, he is certainly calculated and highly intellectual to the point that he is almost able to read the interviewers mind as to the following questions.

      • Nemesis, I am disappointed that you and some others did not pick up the strategy of this interview. It it easy to write tough articles that discredit those working for the powers that be. For years I’ve seen people just ‘bleating’ about the injustices done to Martin Bryant. But it has gone where? No-f-where.

        This was PART ONE towards a case of how to, and create action to free Bryant.

        But then, it was like you rushed onto the field AT QUARTER TIME and spoiled the game.

        I honestly feel like disabling the comments on this post.

        • Dee, it is your choice to do as you wish with the comments – but you should consider that Kirby is the wrong person for your adventure – he will not provide anything that does not suit his own agenda. Whatever that is today.

          • I agree… almost no one is doing anything that doesn’t suit their agenda. But lets see and work on how to do this.

          • I should have also added that Kirby is a reflection of those who have been controlling us for such a long time – he only gave what was expected of him to give and he never put himself out in doing so.

        • I absolutely agree N. All the judges and politicians would do the same as Kirby here. But this interview is really NOT about Kirby. It is really about Bryant and the injustice there. So l look forward to this unfolding.

          • I thought that the interview was about trying to give the injustice system a false credibility and the question about Bryant was just to give yourself some credibility.

    • To Dee: One must get to know the persona of the the person they would like to interview – and their history as far as is known. Kirby is a highly intelligent and subsequently manipulative persona and who as such, would be very difficult to interview within a criminal investigation unless one had the FACTS at hand with which to hit him with and that are on the record.

      I would place Kirby as a would be when he could be and if found out on his wrongdoing would have no hesitation in blaming others if he could get away with it.

      • Nemisis, as I wrote above maybe you just understand the value of what was said — being clouded by your own prejudices.

        And to the point of Bld 7 — I will ask anyone I interview about Bld7. The usual answer is “no, never heard of it”. And THAT proves the point.

        • There is the old 911 credibility
          Test applicable here.
          If any topic/submission is raised before a honest jurist that he does not understand or he is unaware of it is incumbent/polite for the bench to have the topic or submission clarified and to hear it.
          Kirby failed, full stop.
          He grinned,dismissed the topic/submission and did a polite version of ‘Faine’ of ABC fame.
          Now we know for sure the calibre of another example of those who attempt to control and condition us.
          Kirby is most disapppointing, but typical…… just as the others.
          Their intellect fails such people if they think the public are idiots and will not in due course dismiss them from history as failures.
          Pity, he joins so many that had potential to advance humanity and peace.

        • ‘Clouded by my own prejudices’? How does assessing a person’s character from years of observation cloud one’s judgement or prejudice?

  7. God gave Michael Kirby a beautiful mind. (We’re talkin’ bi-i-i-ig brain.) Then “Law” gave him a great education.

    Reinhold Niebuhr used to say: From him to whom much has been given, much is expected.

    Kirby should arise and cast off out of whatever misguided loyalties he has developed. He should apply high principle (I know he has this talent) and save us right now.

    Dee, in your next interview, start by asking him “If it should turn out that claims of cattle prods being used on children at an Australian army base are true, what would you like to see the public do about this today?”

    Michael, it’s too late for “Sir” Anthony Mason at 93, but you’re a babe of 79. Go on, throw caution to the wind. This is your moment. I dare you.

  8. A futile exercise if Kirby does not believe in conspiracy why bother with someone like that? every week there is another revelation im the media on injustice of a gross level of exposure, look at 4 corners on the aged, or banking? Australia now a state of fascists, controled by overseas interests and a growing population that police neighbors and report them anonomously to local authorities, the lucky country is for those who dream, for many a living nightmare.

    • Agree — “Australia now a state of fascists, controlled by overseas interests… the lucky country is for those who dream, for many a living nightmare.”

  9. The current Chief Justice is a chick, Kiefel, and there are two other chicks, Bell and Gordon. Four lads: Gageler, Keane, Nettle, and Edelman. None of them with any noticeable mettle (as far as I am aware). But then it is my prejudiced opinion, that any person appointed to any high position in Oz after 1995 or so, was thoroughly vetted to make sure they would do the right thing for The Powers That Be.

    I only arrive at that idea by using logic: anyone who wasn’t so vetted would be a risk. They might at any moment go on record about Martin Bryant, about Fiona Barnett, about genocide-by-vaccination, or whatever. People will listen to a judge speaking publicly. And as for a judge’s requirement to NOT speak, there is no such requirement. Without judges speaking we are left with what the media wants us to hear.

    The whole arrangement is killing us. How mean we are to future generations to deprive them of all that intellectuals had accumulated for centuries.

    Lazy, selfish, cowardly, that’s us.

    Fascism is icumin in. We deserve all that it will bring.

  10. I rest my case.
    We are being led round in circles and up blind alleys by a bunch of compromised sexual perverts and slaves to perverse ideologies.

    Where Kirby says “the population” or the “populace” read “Masonry”.

    The Queen is but a highly privileged figurehead of “the Crown” which is the “City of London” which is wholly owned by perverse and megalomaniac banking and subversion interests.

    • Oldavid, London goes back a long ways – all the way back to the Roman city of Londinium – that became one of the financial controllers within the Roman Empire. I wonder what, if anything, has changed over all that time?

  11. i have to agree with nemesis, this man has moral issues and his feigned ignorance of Martin Bryant and WT7 where a dead give away, but notice his little speech about minorities wow really a justice of the supreme court and he cannot get past minorities.

    • I agree with you dazza – re: He is very focus on minorities — but I sprung the PA question on him. We will see if he responds after reviewing the material sent.

  12. Dee, I say this with no particular reference to Port Arthur or our CPS issues:

    Message to all judges in Australia:

    You are with us or you are against us. There is no middle ground.

    • Oops, sorry. I really did have in mind such things as PA and CPS (child protection service) as these are the items that are pressing hard on Gumshoe at the moment.

      But I hope the principle holds generally too.

  13. OK. Since a commenter above said something about Masonry.

    Eustace Mullins wrote a book, The Rape of Justice, giving examples of US judges favoring any litigant who signalled that he was in the Brotherhood.

    If there is a more amazing example of the law not working impartially as it should, I’d like to hear about it.

    I also think the US should require new judges to swear under oath that they do not belong to any secret society, since that would of course oppose their purpose.

    And while I’m on the subject, cuz I don’t feel like writing an article about it, the current nonsense about SCOTUS-candidate Brett Kavanaugh having a right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty is very annoying. The innocence protection has to do with someone accused of a crime. Not someone trying out for a position on the highest court in the land for Pete’s sake.

    • Under English based Law, everyone, even Judges Mary, have a right to the presumption of innocence. It is always up to the accuser to prove their accusation and never down to the accused to prove their innocence.

        • Terry, are you saying that our system has become that corrupted? Presumption of innocence is THE fundamental aspect to criminal justice. Have things changed that much in thirteen years – since I was discharged medically unfit from the NSW Police Force?

          • Oh Hell yeah. Don’t you remember my article –

            https://gumshoenews.com/2018/06/19/review-of-australian-law-and-its-decline/

            Go ahead and take a look at a syllabus for ‘Constitutional Law’ at an Australian law school – forget any fundamental principles of English Law, it ain’t there.

            I retired in July 2007. One of the last cases I did was an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The prosecutor tried to tender a ‘Confidential Police File’ on my client (all people in Oz have one). According to the prosecution, the client and I had to leave the courtroom while the prosecutor and judge discussed the contents behind our backs.

            We were not allowed to see or know of the contents, so we couldn’t produce evidence or even arguments to refute the contents. – I flipped out and put up a ruckus and gave an undertaking to not discuss the contents with my client (pretty hard to get instructions in those circumstances), but I could at least make SOME sort of submission. Eventually, the judge allowed me to sit in the court (with my client outside) while I went through the file with the prosecutor. What a load of BS was in the file!

            Due process? right to confront your accuser? rule against hearsay? presumption of innocence? – Forget those principles of English Law.

            I expect it has gotten a lot worse since 2007.

          • Terry, I do remember reading that well written and detailed article – but like everything to be learned – unless it is absorbed it is soon forgotten.

            You have refreshed my memory. Poor old Oz just ain’t the same country that I grew up in anymore as the crims have truly gained control.

            The referral to ‘Constitutional Law’ would be from the Whitlam days when ol’ Gough got to tinkering with the only Australian Constitution – the real one – so as to broaden his own agenda with the ‘new’ version of it.

            Michael Smith News may be interested in reading what you have to offer on this subject concerning the corruption – would you have any drama with me referring your article to his site? BTW, he – Michael Smith – has been a tireless campaigner against the kind of corruption and subversion you touch upon and he has not given up on Gillard and the AWU – Australian Workers Union – scandal and is about to lay a private citizen’s charge at the door of the corruption gatekeepers with assistance from another retired cop and who is also just as adamant in exposing the criminality.

            Please let me know.

        • No problem, the more people that know what has happened to the legal system in Oz the better. The only ones that would object are the corrupt/cowardly creatures in that system.

          • Another thought, in the ‘old days’ when a copper would strap-up somebody with a ‘verbal’. At least you could read the contents of his statement and cross-examine the copper in court.

            In the example I posted above, not only do you NOT get a chance to cross-examine – you don’t even get the chance to know what the copper wrote!

          • [quote Nemesis] Cops still lie in court, and while many do get found out, some are very good liars.[/quote] And have very influential “friends” in high places that serve the same ideology. They’re in a mutually dependent protection racket.

    • OK – I’ll see your Kavanaugh and raise you a Cosby

      “No one is above the law and no one should be treated differently or disproportionately based on where they live or who they are,” or based on “wealth, celebrity, philanthropy,” – Judge Steven O’Neil on sentencing the 81-year-old legally blind Bill Cosby to 3-10 years in state prison. {I can’t remember his crime – fondling the NBC or something …]

      But this may interest your legal mind …

      “Look, we are not in a court of law, we are in a court of credibility at this point,” – Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) on the Kavanaugh ‘case’.

      [I am sure the same ‘court’ would ‘convict’ Brett Kavanaugh]

      Re Judge O’Neil’s quote – regardless of “wealth, celebrity, philanthropy” – just imagine!

      • I don’t often watch David Icke – but this is excellent. He is almost too kind on the ‘pawn’ Ford – she still had to be a willing party to this depravity. I guess she just assumed the tribe would take over the narrative and she would not have to be publicly cross-examined. (Shame they didn’t cross-examine ‘Professor’ Richard McLaren …)

        The End Of Justice – It’s Rule By The Mob – David Icke Dot-Connector Videocast

        https://youtu.be/ky_wKlOi0DQ

        Icke: “that presumption of innocent until proven guilty is now being trashed by this fascistic, ’progressive’ as it calls itself, illiberal, regressive mentality that has taken over the Democratic party and has hijacked the traditional left increasingly across the world.
        …
        The hypocrisy is stunning.”

        • The collective Left will always descend into chaos when confronted with TRUTH it can no longer hide from, and then attempt to destroy what it no longer can control before self-destructing.

          Human history is full of such occurrences.

          Especially so, the 20th Century.

          • I mentioned the ‘fundamental principles of English Law’ in the above posted article. THAT is the substance that is missing from Australian Law. Australian law since Dicey and the ‘Sovereign Parliament theory’ is all about LEGAL POSITIVISM.

            Legal positivism is whatever those hacks in Parliament come up with. It is the ‘rule’ – the ‘law’. The next load of jackasses in Parliament can come up with another whole load of ‘rules’. – One rule is as good as another.

            When you study something like ‘the rule against hearsay’ you begin to understand WHY the rule exists. That is the PRINCIPLE behind the rule.

            Such legal education is absent in Australia and subsequently, from the subsequently graduated students, is notably absent in many legal decisions.

          • The legal jurisdiction is derived from the equitable jurisdiction.
            The following quote is a good summary of the nature of the equitable jurisdiction and the relationship to the legal jurisdiction:

            John Bouvier Inst. Am. Law 1882;
            “Law is nothing without equity, and equity is everything, even without law. Those who perceive what is just and what is unjust only through the eyes of the law, never see it as well as those who behold it with the eyes of equity.
            Law may be looked upon, in some manner, as an assistant for those who have a weak perception of right and wrong, in the same way that optical glasses, are useful for those that are short sighted, or those whose visual organs are deficient.
            Equity, in its true and genuine meaning, is the soul and spirit of the law; positive law is construed, and rational law is made by it.”

          • The greatest document ever written to safeguard our freedoms, is in my opinion, the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.

            Those who took to formulating the term ‘inalienable rights’ within that document, knew exactly what they were doing in promoting such a term – it takes human rights out of the hands of ordinary Men who will always tend to take them away if not fought for or stood against.

            In our own circumstances, there has been no one in my recollection with any authority, and I am 67 years old, who has taken to publicly defend our original Australian Constitution, our Law of the Land, that was ‘doctored’ by the Whitlam government so as to suit their socialist agenda.

            And as you write in your comment, the effect of subverting a meaning here or a law there, and especially by those who like to place themselves about it, has a snowballing effect on future governments who look back at such precedents set and who then take to enacting their own agenda, and without so much as a hiccup coming from the High Court to put a stop to the gradual erosion our own Law of the Land, or what is now left of it that ‘they’ wish to uphold.

            The whole joint needs a good cleanout, as far as I am concerned, including the High Court and all of our ‘educational institutions’ that set the agenda through indoctrination, rather than reasoned or critical thinking, and especially those employed to carry the agenda forward.

  14. I think that the Australian Constitution is better than the Yanky one but it doesn’t really matter if they’re both ignored by the ideologues who are pushing a “New World Order”, or as a pervasive ideology has it; “ordo ab chao”… essentially, create a chaos then impose another “order” on it.

    The whole joint needs a good cleanout orrite but it’s not going to happen while the secretocracy is pulling the strings.

    • Our Constitution is a copy of the American Constitution albeit without the emphasis on inalienable rights and other guaranteed personal freedoms and liberties, and that includes, freedom of expression, the most fundamental aspect to any society that values its liberties and sovereignty.

      Our Constitution does not provide for its protection.

      I would also add, that the ‘secretocracy’ is losing against one Donald J. Trump and his agenda to restore the United States to the Constitutional Republic it was always meant to be under God.

  15. I wonder if his ‘friends’ in high places included the late Elliot Johnson (Communist Party), Dr Robin Millhouse & Judge Peter Liddy??? People are entrapped financially by the system, they can’t affrd legal representation to get to the High Court!!! He makes it seems so simple! Uggghhhh

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.