HOME

APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND - striking out my application

---

APPEAL - my Outline of Arguments

APPEAL - BAQ lawyers Arguments _PDF download

APPEAL - my reply to BAQ lawyers Arguments

APPEAL - transcript of the court hearing - 18.02.2014

APPEAL - Judges Reasons - Markan v Bar Association of Queensland [2014] QCA 034
Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and Mullins J 28/02/2014

28.02.2014 - The judges obviously stood by their mates from BAQ by delivering unsurprising 'judgements' in favour of BAQ.
The text is above or on - http://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QCA/2014/034

18.02.2014 - The Appeal against Bar Association of Queensland and Mr Fryberg heard by Appeal Court judges McMurdo, Muir, Mullins.
In spite of 2 of them being judicial members of BAQ and being involved deeply with the daily workings of BAQ - they refused to recuse themselves. All of them were previously involved either in my appeal in personal matter or other appeal against BAQ.

Using their own 'authority' which judges and lawyers love to quote
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
where it is said in relation to the selection of an arbiter in the court case -
"a judge is disqualified if a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide.”
I challenged them to ask 'a fair-minded lay observer' what he/she thinks about them claiming to be 'impartial' arbiters.

In reply I heard that this 'authority' is a 'test' which is actually never being ‘tested’
(presumably ‘assumed’ that judges already known what 'a fair-minded lay observer' thinks) -
and they declined my kind offer of verifying my personal opinion with opinions of other people in this matter.
Regrettably, I forgot to thank them for participation and assistance in proving in anglo court of law that judges references to ‘authorities’, as supposedly valid legal arguments to justify judges decisions, are in fact fake, worthless bulshit stories without any meaning.

(I never heard about a case of a judge actually asking  'a fair-minded lay observer' what he/she thinks about judges decision to run the court proceedings.)

I stated that I do not accept legitimacy of such court and I presented further arguments for the Appeal ONLY as I would in a legitimate court. And I reminded them that I do not consider them as legitimate court at the end of my presentation as well.
'Desision' reserved.

To make it even more interesting Mr Muir will be managing/chairing next month the lecture
for barristers at their Annual Conference at the Sheraton Mirage on the Gold Coast.
Title of the lecture is very appropriate ‘The Latest Word on ‘Authority’ and Other Significant Issues’ - is he going to quote the application of ‘Ebner…’ in his own decision ?
May be someone should ask him ?

---

COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CA NUMBER: 5272/13
Number: 6041/13

Applicant :      Peter Markan
AND                       
Defendant :     Bar Association of Queensland

NOTICE OF APPEAL

To the respondent
And to the Registrar of Supreme Court of Queensland,

TAKE NOTICE that the appellant appeals to the Court of Appeal against the whole orders
by judge H George Fryberg of Supreme Court of Queensland.
- the decision not to recuse himself from the hearing of the case against Bar Association of Queensland and
- the decision rejecting my Application to Strike out the Defendant application to strike out my Claim and Statement of Claim.

• Date of Judgment: 26.07.2013

Description of Proceedings: Supreme Court NUMBER : 6041/13                  
Description of parties involved in the proceedings :

Plaintiff :    Peter Markan
AND                             
Defendant:    Bar Association of Queensland

Name of Primary Court Judge:  H George Fryberg
Location of Primary Court:  SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

• GROUNDS –
  

1. The subject of my application to this Court relates to the issues of:

• the lack of respect for the human rights in Queensland;

• racist attitude, discrimination and vilification of people who are not lawyers and not of anglo origin and who represent themselves in courts;

• denial of the protection by law to those people;

• treatment of those people by 'public institutions' and courts as SECOND CLASS CITIZENS.
  

2. I am demanding that my human rights are acknowledged and respected.
   Particularly, the provisions of Article 14 of  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights –
   'All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.'
   

3. I am rejecting the 'orders' made by H George Fryberg during the hearing on 26.07.2013 as unlawful and illegal – as being blatant abuse of the International and Australian laws.
   

4. H George Fryberg conduct highlights serious problems with administration of justice in Queensland:

• Judges are given so called 'immunity' permitting them to say any rubbish they choose without having legal responsibility for what they say

• There is no effective community supervision of judicial conduct and  decisions

• The feudal concepts of 'masters' and 'slaves' are maintained under pretext of 'respect for tradition'

5. H George Fryberg failed to comply with the provisions of law and is involved in the abuse of internationally recognized legal standards, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.
   He did not express any feeling of guilt or remorse.

6. H George Fryberg is involved in improper exercise of power, in the abuse of judicial discretion which has been exercised arbitrarily and capriciously and in bad faith. The abuse resulted in a manifest injustice.
   

7. H George Fryberg conducted the court hearing without my consent.
   

8. H George Fryberg authoritarian conduct brings the administration of justice in Queensland into disrepute and has impact on the issue of integrity and respect for the law affecting Queensland legal system as the whole.
   

• ORDERS SOUGHT –
  

• The Applicant requests the Supreme Court  to pronounce the 'orders' by H George Fryberg from 26.07.2013 in this matter ( 6041/13 ) as null and void – not having any legal consequences, the verdict set aside and order the new hearing.
  

• The Applicant requests the Supreme Court to select truly neutral, independent and impartial arbiter, conforming to internationally recognized standards, to preside over the court hearing against 'Bar Association of Queensland'.
  
  Signed:  

Description:    Plaintiff

Dated : 02.08.2013

BACK