People of the Commonwealth

Fair Dinkum Radio Interview

2011-11-24T00:45:00.000-08:00

An enterprising Aussie fellow called Leon Pittard has started an online radio. From his welcome page - "We are here to cover important news, stories and issues that effect every Australian. We will bring you stories of real Australians their fight for freedom and liberty, let down by their own government. We will cover topics that mainstream media do not deal with.

Topics like the New World Order, the real agenda of the United Nations and we will focus on the real Greens Agenda. We will cover what their real issues are, their real aims for the citizens of Australia and the world."

I have been fortunate enough to have an interview recorded with Leon discussing a trespass case my husband and I were involved in and its outcome. You will find it at http://fairdinkumradio.com/

Document Storage

2011-11-24T00:30:00.000-08:00

If you wish to read, download and pass on, the actual documents relating to the current research, please go to

http://www.4shared.com/folder/n8jvC7D1/_online.html

You will find -

Theft of Australia - The Facts - April 2011
Betrayal of Trust - by Political Parties Parliamentary Supremacy - September 2011
Overview of the Last 100 Years in Australia - March 2011
Royal Styles & Titles and other information by Dick Yardley

The first two packages contain information that was sent to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth asking her to intervene in the political situation in Australia.

To date she has refused to do so.

Why This Corporate Government is Not Our Government

2010-09-03T20:08:00.000-07:00

To read the full package of information including some evidentiary documents please go to Larry Hannigan's Australia http://larryhannigan.com/bewareqld.htm

First it is vital to understand just who We, the People are constitutionally.

The Commonwealth is the People - not the landmass known as Australia
The Commonwealth Parliament is the Parliament of the People.
Common Law is the law of the People.
Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Ireland is the sovereign of the People.
The People are Her subjects.
Her Majesty owns the land mass known as Australia, in trust for the People
Her Majesty is the keeper of the Law of the People, the Law of the Land

Therefore, all judges, police, politicians and etc can only deal with the People in any judicial and political manner by

swearing an oath to Her Majesty

which gives them Her authority to arrest or render a judgment, or make a law which will affect the People.

Without that authority, any of those kind of actions are null and void.

That is why, in the Courts and Parliament, the representatives of Her Majesty sit under a picture of Her or a replica of Her Royal Seal - to signify they hold Her authority in that place and that position.

That is why all acts of Parliament dealing with all civil and political matters of the People are sealed to Our Queen, under her Royal Seal. Because they are part of the part of the contractual relatonship we have with Her and Her Parliament.

Now what keeps the People to this structure of civil and political rights is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution (UK) 1900 inter alia Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900.

This is a commercial contract,

signed by the Hand of Her Majesty, Queen Victoria,
sealed by Her Royal Seal (the lion and the unicorn)
and delivered to the People with whom She has the contract - the People in the Commonwealth of Australia.

This contract is NOT and has NEVER been made with any government. It was made with Her Majesty.

Government, as such, belongs to Her Majesty, administering and protecting Her assets.

As subjects of Her Majesty, we are the beneficiary of Her assets, however, Government, in their dealings with the People, are bound to the People's "rules", as found in our Constitution.

Her Majesty CAN NOT remove Herself from that contract as it is binding on the Heirs and Successors to the throne in perpetuity.

Only the People of the Commonwealth can remove the contract.

Hence our Constitution is referred to as indissoluble - unable to be terminated or annuled.

The People of the Commonwealth pay Her Majesty $19 million dollars per year as part of that contract.

As Her Majesty is the owner of the landmass known as Australia any purchase of land is a commercial contract with Her.

Government are no more or less than agents in the sale. Stamp duty until recently accumulated in order to supply government with the funds to buy land back when necessary. That land would then return to being Crown lands.

(For all details on what you actually own when you purchase land please go to earlier postings on this site.)

Regardless of whether the land has been onsold since the first sale, it remains a commercial contract with Her in its inception, construction and constitutional authority.

This is because in every sale, She remains part of the ownership via the registration of minerals and other such physical elements of land.

This reservation has always AND must always be noted on the Deed of Title OR the reservation is not lawful or valid.

And in the case a person dies without any heirs to inherit, the land reverts to Her full ownership.

The right to own land is the foundation of all ownership rights, the ability to inherit and etc.

The money of the People is money that Her Majesty authorises as the owner of the land, which is the collatoral. This money must carry Her face and Her Seal to signify that authority.

Without the Authority of the owner of the land - all other forms of money in Australia have no value.

Why has our research led us to believe all governments since 1972 have been Foreign governments to the People?

Because in 1973, the Parliament of the Commonwealth was given permission to form a Research & Development arm, to capitalize on the mineral elements of the land mass of Australia.

Because Her Majesty owned that land mass, this was done with Her Majesty's permission as the Patron of that "arm."

And just as any company or corporation must have, the government claimed for its Seal - the Great Seal of the Commonwealth - the kangaroo and the emu - renamed the Great Seal of Australia.

From that time on, Australia should have had a constitutional parliament of the People under the "Commonwealth", AND a government arm dealing with the land under "Australia".

However, please note this could only be Crown land, because Her Majesty had sold private land out of Her government's control UNLESS, they purchase the land back and it returned to being Crown land.

Instead, as our research shows, the Parliament from Whitlam on, gradually absorbed the Parliament of the People of the Commonwealth, turning it into the Australian Parliament.

Creating the massive deception that Our Parliament was still in place, even after it had completely disappeared by 1986.

An immediate and simple proof of that is that ALL government acts, since 1973, have been sealed to the Great Seal of Australia.

What is the significance of the Seal I have been asked?

The Seal on any legal document - and all Deeds and government acts, etc are legal instruments - reflects the structure of law under which the document can only and must only be recognized lawfully and administered.

By that I mean, if a document is sealed to the government of Russia, it has absolutely no relevance in Australia.

Therefore, if the People are protected under the Royal Seal of Her Majesty, and all relevant acts, laws, etc must be sealed to that Seal to hold lawful authority over the People - then any act sealed to the new Australian government can have no power over the People.

Thus making the laws of the Australian government, no more or less, foreign to the People of the Commonwealth.

This is also vital in the Courts, because after firstly reworking all the Commonwealth court acts back under the Great Seal, making our judicial rights subect to the Australian government's courts - the judges began to make their Oaths, not to Her Majesty OUR Queen, but to the Queen of Australia - their Queen.

The judges are now called "corams" meaning an unelected judge, a person sitting as a judge, but not a judge.

Therefore making the courts liable to uphold not our Common Law, but the civil law of commerce, as practised by this Australian System of Government.

And to doubly keep the People well away from any Common Law, the sea boundaries were extended around Australia, both outward and inward along each State's coastline - the landmass was now legislatively covered in "water", thus allowing maritime law to rule in the courts as well.

Under maritime law, the captain of the ship has total lawful control, making all judicial rules. Common Law does not exist at sea.

Now, as the People CAN onlybe arrested, punished, sentenced, etc through Common Law UNLESS they hold a commercial contract with any government "department" or entity - the rise of registration, licensing, certification, etc began in this country.

Suddenly it was a crime to do anything without being given permission from some government agency.

Prior to the Australia Act 1986, which is the constitution of this corporate government, followed by the States entering their own individual republican agreement in 1999, then culminating in the full-blown Corporate Government from 2000 onwards, the governmental structure operated under a sort of dual system, whereby the People were "allowed" to retain some rights, in order to give the semblance that all was still well.

From 2000 onwards that is no longer the case.

It is now impossible to plead common law rights of ownership in the courts and as more and more people have suffered the consequences without understanding how or why - the People are forced into obeying government legislation and conforming to the rules of this foreign government.

Our Solution

We, the People hold a commercial contract with Her Majesty in the form of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution (UK) 1900 inter alia with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900.

And we pay Her through that contract.

She is now being asked whether We, the People still hold that contract and will She now abide by it to protect us and return to the People a Commonealth Parliament.

If She does not, We the People of Australia can sue Her for breach of contract.

If She does not, She will tell every other country that holds land under contracts with Her - including Britain, India, Jamaica, Fiji, Singapore, the Faulklands, NZ, Canada - that those contracts are breached and therefore valueless.

She will have breached Her duty of care.

Her worth as a commercial entity will be nill.

She holds only a nominal contract with the Australian Government, in that She is only their Patron under the title Queen of Australia.

This government can not claim any form of ownership of the land, as the Queen of Australia is not a real person, but an entity, owns nothing and has no Hand to sign a contract.

You will also note, that Australian money is not the lawful money of the People guaranteed by the land of Her Majesty, but paper guaranteed by a Queen who owns nothing - so it has no value.

What that will do to shares, money deposits, mortgages is yet to be seen.

Her Majesty gave the Australian Government two provisos concerning the People -

In 1973, that they could not use Commonwealth money to fund this Australian research and development arm - which they did not obey.
In the Australia Act 1986, that they hold a commercial contract with any person whose ownership rights were impacted by any government activity - they did not obey that.

Therefore, Her Majesty has been asked to remove Her patronage from this Australian government.

The only way this government can protect itself and minimize the damage is to force/persuade/coerce/manipulate the People of the Commonwealth to agree to a Republic, which would then mean that We, the People, had stepped away from our protective arrangement/commercial contract with Her Majesty. (Remember She can't do it, only we can dissolve the constitution).

Fill Australia with immigrants, give them Citizenship rights and massive financial support, to vote and wait till We, the People of the Commonwealth, are too small in number to have any voting strength. Then vote in a Republic and dissolve the contract.

However, that was before we knew what had been done and how.

Now it is up to each and every person in the Commonwealth to speak out and demand the return of their rights - because under this foreign government we have absolutely none and time will show that very clearly.

If you live in Victoria and have to ask permission from at least one council to more there, you know that already.
If you live in QLD and have been taken for an involuntary mental health check because you spoke out against the government, you know that.
If you live in the coastal areas of QLD, NSW and Vic, and are having the arbitrary wildlife corridor, run through your land, removing even your right to walk on it, you know that.
If you live in Tasmania and a world heritage listing is going to apply to your land because you have views over a significant site, you know that.
If you live in WA, and are fighting to keep government from seizing your land for environmental purposes, you know that.
If you live in SA and every high tide allows government to claim more of your land, you know that.
If you have lost your land because you chopped down some dead tea-trees to feed starving livestock and the court costs bankrupted you, you know that.
If you lost your home to council because you owed $240 in back rates, you know that.
If you were arrested by Water Board officials who raided your land, you know that.
If a bird has priority over your ability to live on your land, you know that.
If you were not allowed to build on your land, but council took it off you to give to developers who were given permission, you know that.
If you know something is wrong with government but no government person will listen to you, you know that.
If you have been told by a politician's office staff that they decide what letters he receives and who can see him and it won't be you, you know that.
If you did not receive any kind of justice in court, you know that.
If you have been roughed up by the government's police for disagreeing with government, you know that.
If you feel powerless to understand where this country is heading, you know that.
If you have ever said, "But they can't do that..." and they did, you know that.
If you did not agree at Referendum to any structure of government that I have described, you know that.
If you voted at any Referendum and saw the resulting vote ignored, you know that.

YOU ALL KNOW SOMETHING IS WRONG.

DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT OR YOU WILL LOSE EVERYTHING.

The People of the Commonwealth do not have -

Any common law protection
Any Bill of Rights protection
Any Human Rights protection (Amnesty International can verify that)
Any security of tenure
Any inheritance right

The People of the Commonwealth do not have -

Any courts to protect us
No police to protect us
No army to protect us
No lawyers or solicitors to speak for us
No politicians who work for us

WHAT DOYOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

IS THAT THE LEGACY YOU WILL LEAVE FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN?

ARE WE STILL CONVICTS OR ARE WE FREE MEN AND WOMEN!

KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND SPEAK OUT, LOUDLY AND WITH ALL THE AUTHORITY YOU HAVE AS A MEMBER OF THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH.

Brief Overview with regard the Previous Posting

2010-08-26T00:28:00.001-07:00

If you want the full package of the information regarding the research that has gone to Her Majesty and will be part of the Case in the Privy Council please email flora@reachnet.com.au

Here is an overview of the research findings as I personally understand it.

In 1973, the Parliament of Australia used a particular Act to create a research and development arm of the government which they call the Australian System of Government.

This ASG removed every common law / constitutional act from its lawful structure inside the Commonwealth government and placed them UNDER the corporate arm, including the judiciary.

In 1999 all (without reference to the People), states agreed to a republic inside this arm, created their own constitution for the research and trading called the Australia Act 1986.

They then corporatized the whole of the government, every tier, and began selling the country off.

Since 1973, the people of the country have not had a government as such, certainly not one that answers to their rights under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900.

The land mass of Australia is now a business,

the corporation that owns it is the Australian System of Government,
the board of directors (COAG) consists of the head of each state and the Prime Ministers,
the trading element is Australian money (which has absolutely no collatoral to back it),
the sweat and labour of the people is the asset base.

This corporate structure

has claimed ownership of all land in Australia, including any privately owned land (in a particularly devious manner)
borrows money using that land base from the International Monetary Fund
has made the only law in Australia civil / maritime attached to the International Criminal Code of Rome
moved the edges of the sea in order to 'cover' Australia in water for the purposes of maritime law

The judiciary work for the corporation in their own corporate arm

their practising certificates are issued by the corporation
their wages are paid in Australian money
they are bound to acts of treason against the prime Minister.

The People

are classed in these corporate acts as 'things'
are being forced to contract to this corporation
are charged under the Crimes at Sea Act
have their ownership rights removed under the Foreign Acquisitions Act.

The Foreign Acquisitions Act relates is used because if the people are "things", then they can not be heard or seen, they have no way of complaining and they belong to a government (Commonwealth) that does not exist in Australia at present, so this ASG is foreign to them.

How does this relate to the whole global warming issue, the ETS, the Mining Tax, etc?

I believe that is the actual research and development area of this corporate ASG, with the corporate decisions from that research being used to legislate over and remove the wealth of the People and the country.

I think we have been defrauded for the last 37 years, in a progressive theft, so that these entites, who have stolen our rights and our money, can make off with our land as well.

Update on the matter of the Rights of the People of the Commonwealth

2010-08-23T22:49:00.000-07:00

Since April 2010, the research we have been involved in has been completed.

We spent quite some time attempting to lodge the matter into the High Court.

However, firstly we were told we were attempting to lodge the matter on the wrong paper, then when we changed it, that was also the wrong paper!

Then we were told we were 'apparently' not asking for anything constitutional, so it was returned, and etc.

Just like a game.

Finally David John Walter sent Chief Justice French a letter outlining the situation as we saw it in Australia, asking for him to intervene in a constitutional manner as a person of gender in the High Court of Australia.

In a letter written and sent by the Registrar of the High Court, we were told we could not correspond with the Chief Justice and that our matter held no jurisdiction in that court.

That was all we needed.

How could a constitutional, common law matter hold no jurisdiction in the High Court unless the High Court no longer acted in that area?

Unless the High Court no longer acted for the People of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900.

That matter has now been given to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the protector of the People through our Constitution and the holder of the common law, to read.

We are now preparing to go to the Privy Council to recover the civil and political rights of the People and to recover the protection for their private rights of ownership.

We are in the process of placing all relevant documentation on a website and I will publish that link as soon as possible.

If you wish to have the package of information immediately please contact flora@reachnet.com.au and they will be sent as a PDF document.

A Prayer for the People of the Commonwealth

2010-02-24T14:55:00.000-08:00

110 years ago, our forefathers entered into a Covenant relationship with God through His regent Queen Victoria, when they created the Preamble to the Commonwealth Constitution.

In that Preamble, they forever stated that they "humbly relied on the blessings of Almighty God."

That Preamble is where the People reside as People of the Commonwealth and at this time in our lives and our history we need His blessings more than ever.

I offer this prayer to the People.

Almighty God, I acknowledge that relationship my forefathers entered into with You and I can see that Your blessings were mighty over this country, protecting it from many of the horrors that other people have lived through in other parts of this world.

And Lord, I acknowledge that we the People have become complacent and rebellious, turning from that blessing and following our own paths, even forgetting who created that blessing.

For that, I am personally sorry.

Humbly I ask, as a member of the People of the Commonwealth freely accepting that covenant relationship, that You continue to pour out Your blessings.

I ask, in this time when the People have no apparent judicial protection, that You become our Justice and our Judge in all things to do with the People of the Commonwealth.

When You see deception, manipulation and lies being used to remove the People from their covenant, constitutional & Royal protection, I ask that You stand between the People and those who would harm us, and render Judgment.

When You see theft being used to remove any and/or all the rights of the People, I ask that You stand between the People and those who would commit this crime against us, and render Judgment.

And when You see any attempts to enslave the People, removing them from their covenant relationship with You, removing them from that awesome freedom, I ask that Your Judgment be swift and decisive.

I ask, in this time when the People are bewildered, unable to clearly see where the Truth stands, that You place discernment, wisdom and clear direction into the hearts and minds of the People of the Commonwealth.

Finally I ask, in this time when the People are fearful and lacking in courage, that You give us a measure of Your power, a Measure of Your Fearlessness and a measure of Your Might.

And, as I can only speak for myself, I promise to use those gifts with Faith and Trust.

I ask in the name of Jesus Christ.

So be it.

Amen.

Notes from the Sydney Cooee Rally - 24 Feb 2010

2010-02-24T14:48:00.000-08:00

What is happening in Australia? The People know that legislation is removing their rights, taking their assets and endangering their mental safety. The People know men and women who are fighting parts of the problem, such as Peter Spencer, but the question we must ask is how have government been able to do this without the permission of the People?

This is a simple overview of our findings -

1. Prior to the formation of the Federation, all colonies but SA were independent penal colonies, under the authority of the British Empire.
2. For purposes of trade, these colonies operated under the 1855 Federal Council of Australasia.
3. The planning for a Federation took 10 years of conventions and referendums.
4. The draft Constitution was formed and sent to England.
5. On 9 July 1900, Queen Victoria signed the amended Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900 and returned it to Australia.

6. This constitution required a final referendum of the People to approve it. Why?
7. Because it was a contract between the owner of the land, the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, and her loyal subjects under the Seal of the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. And any contract must have the full agreement of both parties.
8. The details of this contract were that she and her heirs would protect us, we would pay into her consolidated revenue our taxes, she would then pay the public servants wages, and the public servants would obey our Constitution in their administration of her lands on our behalf.
9. Who are we in this Act? We are the Commonwealth. The actual Constitution at part 9 is the rules applicable to government.
10. And it states at part 9, section 117 and section 128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900, that government can not remove our rights without our permission.

11. Unfortunately, for reasons of state, the heads of those independent colonies decided not to have another referendum, but instead agreed to this contract “for and on behalf” of the People. Creating the first loophole in Federation.
12. In 1973, Gough Edward Whitlam came into power and immediately created the Queen of Australia and the Great Seal of Australia.
13. From the time on all government legislation has been created under that Queen and sealed to the Seal. What does this mean?
14. The Queen of the People of the Commonwealth is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain and Ireland – not the Queen of Australia. The Queen of Australia is an entity completely unknown to our rights. She did not sell us her land, she does not quarantee our protection.
15. The Seal of the People of the Commonwealth is the Royal Seal of Great Britain with the lion and the unicorn. The Great Seal of Australia with the kangaroo and the emu, is a seal completely foreign to our laws under our Constitution and our rights.

16. A Queen and a Seal are not just pretty pictures on a page, they are profound legal elements telling anyone who understands them and must operate under them, what laws, what government, what power they must obey.
17. Anyone who has been taken to court under these draconian laws should know that the first thing a judge must do is look at the Seal on the charge. If it is the Royal Seal he must rule under common law. If it is the Great Seal he must rule under the legislation of the Aust government. If it is the state Seal he must rule under state legislation. And he can not look at any other legislation in his decision. He is bound to the Seal and your rights are completely ignored.
18. Our rights are found under the Royal Seal, at common law and equity, as found in the judicial system created in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900 and protected by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Ireland.
19. Our rights are not found in the courts of Australia which are bound to these government creations – hence – we lose.
20. In essence, what Gough Whitlam created in 1973, was a republic in all but name.

21. The progressive removal of our Queen and our Seal from all legislation in Australia now sees the sovereign power vested solely in the Prime Minister, who has never been given that right by the People.
22. Under that sovereignty we have been made their commercial chattel, we provide them with our money/our taxes, we must obey their laws on political grounds, we are taken into their courts by their employees and tried in their system under statutory law, where, under the Criminal Code 1995, a person is defined as being a ‘nothing” and an act of treason can only be committed against a Prime Minister..
23. This is not our government. This government is completely foreign to our 1900 (UK) Commmonwealth Constitution.
24. In this foreign government all dealings are now contractural under the corporate structure.
25. Our government was authorised by Queen Victoria to operate under common law and equity, and their permission stopped at making laws for Peace, Welfare and Good Government only.

26. What have they done with our Constitution? They have placed it inside a consolidated act referred to simply as The Constitution. Inside that act is the Australia Act 1986 (their constitution), the Westminster Act and our Constitution – all Sealed under the Great Seal of Australia.
27. In simple words, under their control. We have been enslaved.
28. The states have all returned to their independent colonial status, reworking those 1800’s constitutions back into modern terms.
29. COAG is now the trade agreement between all government entities including local councils. You do not get to vote who sits in COAG, yet all agreements over your land rights are under the power of COAG.
30. People of the Commonwealth, they have removed our civil and political rights – did you agree to that?

31. People of the Commonwealth, they have removed your private ownership rights to your wealth, your land, your goods and your chattels. Did you agree to that?
32. People of the Commonwealth, they have created a ‘republican style’ government and removed our Constitutional Monarchy. Did you agree to that?
33. Her Majesty did not give this foreign government permission to steal her land and she has recently re-affirmed her role as the protector of the People when she stated she was the Head of State in this country.
34. And you must understand, we are the People of the State of the Commonwealth, so she was telling this government that she is now stepping into the battle to protect us.
35. People of the Commonwealth, this foreign government has taken the assets of Her Majesty, kept in trust for her People, they have sold those assets and pocketed the money. Did you agree to that?

36. This foreign government rules with fear and statute law.
37. They are nothing but thieves – do not allow them to force us to live in fear. We are much, much greater than that.
38. If you do not know who you are and what you own, you will not know what is being stolen from you.
39. Stand united, know who you are, where your protection lies and speak out. Make your voices roar through the offices and halls of their corporate headquarters. Let them know the People of the Commonwealth have had enough!

My Will - Appendix

2010-02-10T18:05:00.000-08:00

APPENDIX I

(A) Magna Carta 1215.
(39) No freeman shall be captured or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.

(B) Extract from the Statute issued by Edward I, in confirmation of the Charters, November 5, 1297.
"...and that our justices, sheriffs and mayors, and other ministers, which, under us, have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters, pleaded before them in judgement, in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law."

(C) Bill Of Rights 1689.
(5) That it is the right of the subjects to Petition the King, and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.

(D) Crimes Act 1914.
(24F) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this Part makes it unlawful for a person:-
(a) to endeavour in good faith to show that the Sovereign, the Governor-General, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Territory, or the advisors of any of them, or the persons responsible for the government of another country, has or have been, or is or are, mistaken in any of his or their counsels, policies or actions;

(F) Postage exemptions for material sent to the Governor-General and the State Governors:-
Information from the stamp below must be printed or written on the top left corner of envelope to the Governor-General or State Governors. All information abbreviated as given on stamp must appear on the envelope:
EXEMPT POSTAGE
Post. Serv. Act. 1975
Part III; Div. 1. Sec. 14(5a).

My Will - Part 8

2010-02-10T18:02:00.000-08:00

8) FEW THOUGHTS ON EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS FOR THE PEOPLE

In the previous Chapters the Constitutional and legal powers available to the people to get what they want, and to protect themselves against the manipulators of party politics, have been outlined.

The question now arises whether additional Constitutional safeguards are required to further protect the people. In this chapter a few thoughts are advanced.

Clearly, whilst the Commonwealth and State Constitutions give the people the power to have their Lower Houses of Parliament dissolved at any time of the people's choosing, there is presently no authority:-

(a) For the Upper Houses to be sent back to face the electors when they so WILL it.
(b) For any Senator or Legislative Councillor to be forced to face reelection at any time the electors so WILL it.
(c) For any electorate to have its existing Member, Federal or State, sent back to re-contest his seat if a majority of his electors so WILL it.

The inclusion of all three above powers in both Commonwealth and State Constitutions are essential to give the electors even more effective control over their parliamentarians and the machinery of Parliament, and make both more sensitive to the requirements of the people.

To bring any Senator, Legislative Councillor or Member back to face a re-contesting of his seat ought only to require a simple majority of electors in each of the three constitutional areas to inform the Govenor-General or State Governor - which ever is appropriate - that it is MY WILL that "so and so be sent back to recontest his seat in his House of Parliament."

It may be contended that such a constitutional provision would make the Houses of Parliament unworkable because the actions of opposing groups would involve Members and Senators in continuous elections. Such a contention, however, misses the point that electors would not be interested in recalling a Member or Senator who was giving public evidence of faithfully performing his judicially defined legal function and duty. Naturally legal safeguards would have to be included in the Constitutions making it illegal, even an act of conspiracy, for any recall of a Senator or Member to be initiated, organised and or financed from outside the electorate concerned.

In this work it is not intended to go into the question of the actual machinery necessary to allow the electors to replace any Member or Senator whom they have recalled. Rather it is the purpose to raise the point for serious study by the electors themselves as to how they may determine what basic protection changes they want in their Constitutions. Undoubtedly there would be many competent persons who could work out the machinery necessary to give full and proper legal effect to the WILL of the electors in this matter.

Another extremely vital protection element for the people is that no treaties, international conventions or agreements, and the like, should be entered into by Parliament, or by executive action, without the specific consent and authority of the people themselves. This point is raised because such things are agreed to, far too often, without the people having the faintest idea of the direct and indirect legal and other significances and consequences of such actions.

Indeed, few would be the politicians, let alone the people, who would have any conception of the far reaching effects that many such Treaties, agreements and conventions could have upon Australia and the Australian way of life. Under the influence, if not the manipulations, of international interests, theorists and idealists, Ministers of the Crown far too often persuade the legal government and the Houses of Parliament (under party control) to agree to bind the nation and States without the full implications of the legal, political and economic impacts being first thoroughly publicly debated.

Even at this moment of writing there are agreements and conventions afoot of which, in Australia, few indeed have any real knowledge; agreements and conventions that can have far greater impact upon the liberty and way of life in this country than some Ministers would care to fully explain.

The people should also insist that the Commonwealth and State Constitutions be tightened to make it absolutely impossible for Ministers of the Crown and Houses of Parliament to effect, what some would call, snide changes in the Constitutions without a referendum of the people. Those who have made long and deep researches into constitutional law are aware how these changes can be affected without the real understanding of the people and most politicians.
It cannot be denied that this country is suffering from "government by regulation" and many writers have drawn attention to this indisputable fact. In Commonwealth and State Parliaments the volume of legislation which is implimented by subsequent departmental regulations is quite unbelievable. Even during the last War, the noted N.S.W. constitutional authority, Dr. Frank Louatt, K.C., was moved to direct attention to the fact that for every 1000 pages of Acts of Parliaments there were over 5000 pages of regulations.

In their own interests the people should forbid the passing of any legislation which requires departmental regulations to impliment it. If regulations are thought to be required then the parliamentarians, party pressures notwithstanding, must be adamant that the departmental officers seeking those regulations shall be brought before the bar of the House of Parliament and made to publicly prove that such regulation is absolutely vital in the interests of the people.
This Chapter advances but a few thoughts: a few of the many arising from many long years of Constitutional research, coupled with both parliamentary and departmental personal experience. They are offered to stimulate deeper thought and study by the reader of this book.

It has been said of the great Henry Ford_of the "tin lizzy" fame_ that he once stated:-
"It matters not how many degrees you may have after your name, unless you can think, you are uneducated."

The writer hopes that the contents of this book will make you

THINK!

AND THEN ACT.

"BUT THEY SHALL SIT EVERY MAN UNDER HIS VINE AND UNDER HIS FIG TREE; AND NONE SHALL MAKE THEM AFRAID;...."
MICAH I V, iv.

My Will - Part 7

2010-02-10T17:56:00.000-08:00

(7) IS THERE A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE PARTY SYSTEM?

As was stated in Chapter 5:-
"the only true Constitutional and legal reason for the existence, and the only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the institution of the Monarchy, and the offices of the Governor-General and State Governors - IS TO GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THE PEOPLE ASK FOR. NOT WHAT OTHERS THINK THE PEOPLE OUGHT TO HAVE.

Keeping this in mind leads to the logical next step, i.e. to look briefly, but closely, at what the Commonwealth and State Constitutions provide for the establishment and operation of a true democratic Parliament_as previously defined:-

• The Parliament MUST consist of the Queen, or Her Vice Regal representatives, acting in consort with both Houses of the Parliament.

• Including the Senate, but excepting the so-called Upper Houses of the five States, the Constitutions provide that the people shall have the power to elect parliamentary representatives to those other so called Lower Houses.

• The elected representatives have, within limits, the right of laying down rules and procedures for operating their own House of the Parliament and, subject to the boundaries of the respective Commonwealth and State Constitutions (and the judicial interpretations thereof), to enact laws for the order and good government of the people and, where clearly expressed, the written WILL of the people.

• As stated in other chapters, the Queen or Her Representatives have the sole legal right to appoint and dismiss Her Ministers of the Crown.

• If the Houses of the Parliament wish to remove a Minister, the only legal power available to them - short of a special Act of the Parliament to do so - is to petition the Queen or Her Representative to dismiss the Minister or Ministers concerned, and the Queen will do so unless the people ask Her not to do so.

• The removal, or dismissal of a Minister or Ministers does not legally mean the dismissal of a government, for the government is permanently vested in the institution of the Monarchy and the Queen cannot be dismissed unless Her people, i.e., a majority of the electors, request the Queen to divest Herself of ALL AND EVERY POWER AND AUTHORITY WHICH THE MONARCHY HOLDS ENTRUST FOR THE PEOPLE, TO BE USED AS THE PEOPLE DIRECT.

• The removal of Ministers by the Queen, or Her Representatives, only means replacing them with other appointees of the Queen, and has no more legal significance than that. It is only the unwarranted interference of party politics which has given rise to a false understanding of the legal and Constitutional facts.

• Electors, in each electorate, have the legal power to select and elect one Member to the so-called Lower Houses and, in the Federal system, State Senators.

• Upon election, these Members and Senators have the legal power to select and elect their respective Speaker and President and, additionally, to appoint as many standing, or temporary, committees of the House, or Joint House Committees, as they consider necessary within the bounds of the Constitution.

• These committees can hold legal enquiries, command the appearance of any person or persons before them; command the production of any written, printed, typed or photostated material or matter and, generally, commit any person, for contempt of the House to prison, for not longer than the life of that Parliament, i.e., 3 years.

• With proper dignity, and sense of conscience, a Member may speak absolutely freely and fearlessly in his House of Parliament. This right comes down to Parliamentarians from the 'British Petition of Rights' and the 'Bill Of Rights: Both these ancient British quasistatutes are the basis of the judicially defined legal function and duty of a Parliamentarian, as referred to in this work.

• In a correctly functioning Parliament (which no House of Parliament presently is) every Member has the right to ask leave of the House to present a Bill for an Act on any subject matter within the legal boundaries of the Constitution. Although a Member, theoretically, has the right to present a Bill, under the operation of the party system, he is allowed to do so only if the party leaders can see some political mileage for that party in that Bill, to the discomfort of their opponents.

• If he chooses to use them, every Member has unlimited research facilities available to him, both within the Houses of Parliament and within universities, colleges, big and small organisations and so forth. Few of these bodies would not be happy to make their research facilities available to a Member, so it is his own fault if he does not possess a well-informed mind on the various matters coming before him in his House of Parliament.

• In each House of Parliament, the role of House attendants is, within the rules of that House, to assist the Member in every way to fulfil that Member's judicially defined function and duty. The House attendants, in every Parliament in Australia, are an example of the finest service and a credit to themselves and the House they serve.

• Ministers of the Crown, in their paid capacity as administrators of departments of State are legally responsible direct to the Queen, or Her Representative, i.e., the Governor-General or appropriate State Governor. Unless incompatible with the respective Constitutions and Parliamentary legislation, all direction from the Queen must be obeyed by the Ministers who are also legally bound to correctly and properly enforce all legislation relating to their specific department.

• It is not within the Constitutional or legal power of Ministers to determine what business, or order of business, the Houses of the Parliament shall deal with. That is solely in the hands of the Members of each House. Unfortunately party manipulation interferes with the Members direct legal control over their own affairs in their House, and this is a fact that Members of all parties have complained about from time to time but do not exert their legal authority to stop it.

• Through either Mr. Speaker or Mr. President, or both, the Queen or Her Representative may transmit message and requests that the House or Houses amend, reconsider, or introduce any Bill, except in the so-called Upper Houses no Financial Bills shall be initiated in that House.

• If the Queen or Her representative is asked by the Majority of the people to direct either or both Houses to do a lawful thing, then those Houses have no legal alternative than to carry out the clearly expressed written WILL of the people.

• As stated in Chapter 2, the Members of each House are required, within that House, to act with a dignity, decorum and solemnity not less than that of a judge in his court. Members who do not, or who refuse to, act with judge-like solemnity - and few Members do so act - are guilty of a gross violation of their judicially defined function and duty, and of their Oath or Affirmation of Office, and the Speaker or President is equally guilty if he does not, in the strongest terms, and possible lawful ways, strictly enforce that conduct of solemnity amongst the Members.

• The Speaker and the President are the sole direct legal contact between each House of Parliament and the Queen or Her Representatives. Ministers of the Crown illegally usurp the authority of the Speaker and or the President when they try to act as if THEY were the direct contact.

• Contrary to the long-standing cliches, party political and otherwise, Ministers of the Crown are not legally responsible to Parliament or the Houses of the Parliament.

• Parliament, as previously stressed in this work, consists of the Queen, or legal government, and the Houses of Parliament acting in consort. The Queen is the supreme legal government and the Houses of the Parliament are the legislative-forming bodies. The Minister can be legally responsible only to the legal government, that is the Queen or Her appropriate Commonwealth and State Representative.

• Members have complete legal power to bring public servants before the bar of the House for any purpose whenever the House deems it is vital to do so. It is completely outside of the legal jurisdiction of a Minister to direct his departmental officers not to give information to the House when called before the bar of that House. It is only party politics which makes this illegal act of Ministers possible, despite resort to the authority of the Solicitor General and or standing works like "May's Parliamentary Practices". Such authorities are wholly and solely based upon pure party political practices and not upon legal grounds sustainable in court.

• If Members of Parliament really exercised the true legal authority they have to bring top public servants before the bar of the House and make them disclose the real or theoretical basis of much of the advice that these officers give their Ministers, then you would see the beginning of the end of bureaucracy and the emergence of true public service at all levels. It must be obvious to everyone that, because of internal empire-building and internal office and interdepartmental politics Ministers do not always get the impartial factual advice that they are entitled to receive and, of a consequence, many fine departmental officers have to carry a public odium that is not warranted. It is time, therefore, that senior Officers, at least, should be made to carry the full responsibility of the advice they give their Ministers and, from this writer's inside knowledge most such officers would welcome this responsibility.

• The Queen, Her Governor-General and State Governors are directly responsible, not to the Houses of Parliament nor political parties but, to the people in the respective Constitutional areas.

• Except where any Constitution, or a lawful statute within that Constitution, lays down that the Queen - or Her appropriate representative - shall act, in relation to a specified matter, only with the advice of the Executive Council (be it Federal or State) there is no legal compulsion for the Queen to do so. Nor is there any legal compulsion for the Queen or Her Representative to give the Royal Assent to any legislation, unless directed to do so by the clearly expressed written WILL of the people.

• The Federal and State Executive Councils do not legally have to be composed wholly of Ministers of the Crown. This is just a non-legal party political practice to keep party control over the machinery of government and of Parliament. The Commonwealth and State Constitutions all provide that the appropriate Executive Council shall be comprised of all Ministers of the Crown and such other persons whom the Queen, or Her Representative, may care to appoint as advisors in particular subjects or matters.

• The Constitutions of the Commonwealth and State give the Queen, and Her appropriate representatives, the sole power and authority, at anytime of their choosing, to dissolve the so-called Lower House and send those Members back to the electorate. If directed by the written WILL of the people the Queen or Her Representative, MUST dissolve the Lower House.
This is one of the two most vital powers of control over parliamentarians and parliament that the people possess. The other is the power to ask the Queen to give them the specified results they want from the parliamentary machine.

• ALWAYS REMEMBER THIS VITAL FACT: IF IT IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WANT IT, THEN THE QUEEN HAS THE FINAL POWER TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE PEOPLE GET WHAT THEY WANT, AND NO COURT WOULD RULE AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF THE QUEEN'S POWER IN THAT RESPECT.

• It is obvious that it is not in the best interests of the political parties, and certain other writers, that you should have the above knowledge; for your understanding of, and use of, that knowledge means the end of party manipulations; the end of Party control over the voice and vote of Members of Parliament, and this is unarguable.

• It is stressed again that it is the lawful duty and obligation of every elector continuously to inform his Federal and State Members of Parliament, and State Senators, of what his WILL is on everything that comes before Parliament or should come before the Houses of the Parliament. In not performing your lawful duty and obligation you are giving Members and Senators a plausible excuse for not carrying out their judicially defined legal duty and legal function, thus enabling party manipulators and controllers to retain their dictatorship over the voices and votes of your Members and Senators and of the machinery of Parliament to to impose their will upon you.

Shorn of all legal jargon, the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the six Australian States provide for the operation of an almost perfect form of democratic parliament IF YOU, THE PEOPLE, choose to apply the power and authority which those Constitutions give to you.

THE SOLE AND ONLY LEGAL LIMIT TO THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE QUEEN IS THE UNKNOWABLE EXTENT OF WHAT HER PEOPLE, AT ANY TIME OF THEIR CHOOSING, MAY DIRECTLY REQUEST OF HER.

My Will - Part 6

2010-02-10T17:53:00.000-08:00

6) WHAT IS A POLITICAL PARTY?

If you will but pause to think deeply and seriously you will find that a political party, despite its propaganda, constitutions, fine words and phrases, eventually becomes an organisation in the form of a pyramid with final power in the apex of that pyramid. The mass at the base being subject to manipulation by those in the apex, or by those who control the apex from outside of party organisation.

It is not an unreasonable contention that those who finally win through to the apex of the pyramid, both organisational and parliamentary, have to become manipulators of their fellows if they wish to hold their place of power at the top.

A political party, by the very nature of its pyramidal structure, is not, and cannot be, a democratic organisation, and the many years of party politics in Australia since Federation, proves that it is not democratic, despite beautifully worded constitutions, platforms, policies, and philosophies.

Here it might be wise to pause for a moment to define that much used, and much abused, word "democracy" Consensus has it that "democracy" is "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." However, whilst Lincoln's definition, with its tremendous emotive tones, sounds and reads well, experience has shown that in application this concept produces the opposite result "Government of the many by the few in the apex. "

It is suggested here that a far more practical definition of "democracy" would be that it is:
the administration of the affairs of the country to produce the specific results that the people request, not what politicians promise they will give if elected to power.

In the light of the long experience of Australian party politics, it becomes indisputable that political parties are incompatible with this new definition; that the continued domination and control of the Parliamentary machine by party politics must inevitably end in the wrecking of that machine, and the transfer of power to party manipulators. The evidence for this is becoming more painfully obvious each day.

The Australian history of parties demonstrates that every new party comes into being on the claim that existing parties have become dictatorships and that the new party is the only party capable of governing in the name of democracy. However, once its candidates enter a House of Parliament the new party quickly develops in the same mould as those it strove to replace.

Thus, we find the breaking-up and reforming, or splintering, of party groupings as people foolishly seek to overcome the party pyramidal structure and manipulation by replacing it with the same device and mechanism clothed in fine emotive words and phrases. People do not stop seriously to examine the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the States, and the court interpretations thereof, to find the real nature of the Constitutional and legal powers that the Australian people possess to obtain the specific results they want from their Parliaments and Parliamentarians.

In discussions with politicians and others, the existence of faults in the party system will be admitted, to be immediately followed by the claim that the people traditionally vote on party lines; that the people vote for the party system because the people want the party system.
It is legally unchallengeable that the party system exists and operates ONLY because the Australian people have been deliberately misled into believing that, other than by a dictatorship, there is no other way that Parliament could function effectively and efficiently; that despite its many faults the party system is the only effective and efficient democratic way of governing the country. This is Constitutionally and legally false.

The sole role of a political party, like any other lawful organisation, is simply to recommend to the electors that "so and so " would be a good parliamentary representative and would faithfully carry-out the judicially defined legal function and duty of a parliamentarian. Should the electors accept the party's recommendation and elect that person then the party has no further legal vested interest in that elected person.

Once the Australian people are given the opportunity to learn and grasp that their Commonwealth and State Constitutions, and judicial interpretations thereof, provide the people with a practical legal alternative to the party system to democratically (as defined in this Chapter) operate the seven Australian Parliaments then, save those with a vested interest in the party system and its manipulation, the electors will cease to use the party system.

It is a matter of the printed evidence in the Hansards of all Australian Parliaments that the most honest debating and voting only takes place, with the rarest of exceptions, when the leaders of the parties agree that a certain Bill shall be debated on non-party lines; that their party parliamentarians shall be allowed to speak and vote absolutely freely according to their individual conscience. All other debates and votes must be on strictly party lines.

To summarise the answer to the question "what is a political party?

A political party, in fact and in experience, is a device or mechanism designed to enable manipulators, either elected or non-elected, to obtain and exercise the maximum direct control over the destiny of the people, cliches notwithstanding, in accordance with the will of the manipulators and controllers.

My Will - Part 5

2010-02-10T17:49:00.000-08:00

5) WHAT IS THE TRUE LEGAL ROLE OF THE QUEEN AND HER VICE REGAL REPRESENTATIVES?

Over the last few years, as referred to in previous Chapters, there has surfaced the clear lines of what used to be a more subtle underground campaign to mislead the Australian People in accepting the concept that a republic is far superior in every way for Australia; that the monarchy is an out-dated mediaeval idea, having no logical place in modern thinking, whatever that may mean, no real relationship with this nation, and no real power or authority in our Parliamentary system.

YET NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!

As stated in Chapter 4:
Whatever it is physically possible to do, and the people want, the Queen has the final legal power to see that they get it, no matter how politicians may protest.

The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the Queen is the unknowable extent of what Her people, at any time of their choosing, may directly request of Her.

Put even more simply: the only true Constitutional and legal reason for the existence, and the only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the institution of the Monarchy, and the offices of the Governor-General and State Governors:-
Is to give the people what the people ask for. Not what others think the people ought to have.

If the Australian people are too lazy and indifferent to ask for what they want, then they can blame only themselves if politicians and political parties impose their own ideologies on them.

It is legally unchallengable that the party system, with its direct and indirect powers of manipulating politicians and people, has quite illegally striven to drive a wedge between the people and the final source of all their Constitutional and legal powers, i.e., the institution of the Monarchy, as a prelude to transferring the unlimited power of that Monarchy into the hands of the controllers and manipulators of political parties, including the final party political control over the Armed Forces of the nation; a control which, at present, is legally vested in the Queen to ensure that, where directly expressed to Her, the WILL of the people shall at all times prevail.
In Chapter 3 it was stressed that Ministers of the Crown are not, and never legally can be, the "Government" of the State or Commonwealth that the Government was legally non-elective, and that an expansion of that statement would be given in this Chapter.

Both the written Constitution of the Commonwealth and the so called unwritten Constitutions of the six Australian States vest the "government" exclusively in the institution of the Monarchy, to be legally exercisable_in almost every case_by the Governor-General in the Commonwealth and the State Governors in the States.

Thus, constitutionally and legally, the Government CANNOT BE ELECTED for it remains permanently embodied in the institution of the Monarchy. It can "govern" only according to the direct or indirect expressed WILL of the people, for that is its legal role as the protector of the people.

The legal WILL of the people can only be expressed in two ways: indirectly through elected Parliamentarians by "MY WILL" letters or directly through the Queen's Vice Regal Representatives likewise. There is no other legal way that that WILL can be expressed. Electing a candidate to Parliament does NOT express it. All that an election does is to put a person into a House of Parliament whom the electors believe will faithfully carry-out the written WILL of the people as and when so expressed.

Over the years the party system has cleverly hidden the fact that the people have the legal freedom at all times to express their WILL direct to the Queen, no matter what politicians and others may try to claim.

The Queen is the permanent "government" with a perpetual "mandate" to govern according to the clearly expressed WILL of the people. It is obvious, then, that no political party can lawfully occupy the Constitutional seat reserved in perpetuity for the Monarchy, no matter what political scientists, text- book writers, academics, politicians, political parties and other theorists may claim.

This writer codified the powers of the Monarchy back in 1941 in the following sentence, and it still stands to be challenged before the High Court, if legal minds feel competent to do so:- "THE POWER, PEROGATIVES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE MONARCHY, THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL, AND STATE GOVERNORS, ARE THE BRAKES WHICH THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE CAN APPLY AT ANY HOUR (without having to wait for any general election) TO BRING MINISTERS AND POLITICIANS TO A COMPLETE AND SUDDEN STOP, SO AS TO RECEIVE FROM THEM, THE ELECTORS, EITHER FRESH INSTRUCTION, REPRIMAND, OR DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE. "

My Will - Part 4

2010-02-10T17:41:00.000-08:00

(4) WHAT IS PARLIAMENT, AND ITS FUNCTION?

Most of us use our words loosely, sometimes particularly so. Thus, we drift into a habit of using words and phrases, without stopping to think what they really mean and convey.

Take the word "Parliament"… We all say that "Parliament is meeting" or "sitting" or that "So and so is going to Parliament". At first sight it may seem a mere splitting of hairs to state that, except when both Houses of the parliament (Queensland has but one House) and the Queen, or Governor-General or State Governor, is present together, it is a physical and legal impossibility for a Parliament to meet.

This is because, in Constitutional law, Parliament both legally and physically consists of the Queen - or Her Representative, i.e., the Governor-General in the Commonwealth and State Governor in a State - and both Houses of the Parliament, in Queensland ONE House of Parliament.

Thus, Parliament, as such, does NOT debate anything. Parliament is solely and simply a law-making machine, and nothing else. The pivot of that machine is the institution of the Monarchy, or in Australia in the Monarch's absence the Governor-General in the Commonwealth and State Governors in the States. This will be explained further in the next Chapter.

It is common practice, when commenting on party political control over the operation of the parliamentary mechanism, to refer to the 'Westminister System'. Indeed, in the inter-party confrontations and power struggles, the phrase 'the Westminister System' is hurled, with explosive expletives, that the other side is destroying that 'democratic System'.

Critical analysis reveals that that phrase has no legal relationship whatever to strict Constitutional law, the law that actually binds each and every one of us in our daily lives. (Here the Reader is asked to refer back to the third last paragraph of the 'Introduction' to this Book.)
It is extremely doubtful if the users of the phrase 'the Westminister System: themselves, have any clear understanding of its true meaning. Simply put it means the practices and usages of the various British political parties in controlling, and using, the legal machinery of the British Parliament in the interests, and for the sole purposes, of party political ideologies and power struggles.

The phrase, the Westminister System' has nothing to do with the legal law of the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and six States of Australia. It is only sacrosanct to Australian politicians, and parties, where it can be publicly used to suit their propaganda purposes. Its use is completely hypocritical and must be exposed for the absolute legal falsehood that it is.

To operate Parliament we have four (4) distinct and separate areas of legal responsibility (in Queensland only three because it has only one House of Parliament):
1. The electors, who have a duty and obligation asset out in Chapter 1.
2. The so-called, and mistakenly-called, Lower House, i.e., the House of Representatives in the Commonwealth, the Legislative Assembly in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the House of Assembly in Tasmania.
3. The mistakenly-called Upper House, i.e., the Senate, and the Legislative Council in each State, excepting Queensland.
4. The Queen, or Her Representative, as above mentioned.

What is the function and duty of each of these four areas of Constitutional and legal responsibility?

(a) As pointed out in Chapter 1, the electors have a specified legal duty and a lawful obligation.
The legal duty is to vote at election time.
The lawful obligation is to keep your State and Federal Members and your State Senators fully informed, at all times, about what is your WILL.
It has always been a fundamental principle of British and Australian law that, within the limits of statute and - where applicable - common law, YOU, and YOU ALONE, are solely responsible for the preservation of what you believe to be your lawful inherent freedoms and privileges; that if you are too lazy and indifferent to exercise the lawful avenues open to you to protect and retain those freedoms and privileges_provided always that you demonstrate your responsibilities with respect to those freedoms and privileges - then you have nobody but yourself to blame for your laziness and indifference.

(b) THE SO-CALLED "LOWER HOUSE"
IF the Members of the, so-called, Lower House strictly carry out their judicially defined function and duty, then that House is a place where the WILL of the people is given effect to in the form of "A Bill For An Act" to do so and so, and in the formulation of that Bill the Members of that House are constantly before the "bar of public Conviction" not mere opinion.

(c) THE HOUSES OF SECOND THOUGHTS
IF the Members of the, so called, Upper House strictly carry out their judicially defined function and duty, then that House performed its legal responsibility of also being a House of second thoughts; of being a counter-check to ensure that the clearly expressed written WILL of the electors is correctly translated into legislation.
In strict constitutional law both Houses act, or would act, if it were not for party interference, as a constant check upon each other as a safeguard against the misuse of the laid down Constitutional powers of each House.
(Of course, this rarely happens because of the constant party political control exerted over the voice and votes of the Members of each House. Where it does happen, it does so only because no party is in control of both Houses and, as practical experience demonstrates, in the final analysis opposing parties are primarily concerned in trying to destroy each other.)

(d) THE QUEEN
If the Australian People only knew it, the Queen is the final legal protector of the whole of the people, without regard to party, race, colour or creed; a final check against the peculiarities of the operation of party politics in the control over the machinery of Parliament, and of the voices and votes of politicians.

No Bill for an Act can become law without the Royal Assent being given; an assent that can be withdrawn within twelve months of its being given. This final Royal check enables the people, if they only knew it, to determine whether or not they wanted the Act and to ask the Queen to withdraw the Royal Assent if they did not, or to request that the legislation be amended, according to their WILL.

Even after 12 months, for there is no actual constitutional time limit, the electors have the legal power to ask Her Majesty to re-submit any Act of Parliament for amendment or repeal according to their WILL. It is also the legal privilege of the people to ask the Queen to have any legislation, that the People WILL, brought down and passed in both Houses of the Parliament.

PUT SIMPLY:
Whatever it is physically possible to do, and the people want, then the Queen has the final legal power to see that they get it, no matter how politicians may protest.

The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the Queen is the unknowable extent of what Her people, at any time of their choosing, may directly request of Her.

This would also explain the reason for the campaign to replace the monarchy with an Australian republic. Forgetting their judicially defined function and duty, many politicians, as well as political parties and others, like to believe that their party shall have the final determination of political power and what the people shall have.

TO SUM UP THIS CHAPTER:
• Parliament is only a machine to make laws in accordance with the written WILL of the people on the subject matter of the law.
• The Houses of Parliament are both complementary to, as well as being a check on, each other in their legal functioning.
• The Queen is the final check and will, at all times, give assent to the clearly expressed written WILL of the people, irrespective of parties and politicians.
• The function of the electors, apart from voting, is constantly and clearly to inform their Parliamentarians of their WILL on any subject or issue.
• If the Houses of Parliament disregard the written WILL of the people on any matter, then the people have the legal power, and responsibility, to directly inform the Queen that THAT legislation is NOT in accordance with their written WILL, and request Her to have it annulled or amended accordingly.
• With respect to the so-called Lower House of Parliament it is the legal privilege of the people to directly ask the Queen, through Her Vice Regal Representative concerned, to dissolve that House so that they, the people, may proceed to the election of a fresh set of Parliamentarians.

My Will - Part 3

2010-02-10T17:38:00.000-08:00

3) WHAT IS THE LEGAL FUNCTION AND DUTY OF A MINISTER OF THE CROWN?

Over the years you have been encouraged to believe, quite incorrectly, that:-
Ministers of the Crown are the government.

Legally they are not.

The party with the greatest support in Parliament has the right to become the government and to appoint its own Ministers to govern the State or Commonwealth.

Legally this is not so.

Ministers of the Crown are responsible to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the People.
Legally this is not so.

The Ministers of the Crown, or government, have been elected with a mandate from the People; a mandate to carry out the entire policy and platform of the party (platforms which the majority of electors have never seen, let alone studied).

Legally this is quite false.

Not one of the above beliefs could withstand constitutional challenge in the Courts. They are wholly and solely political party propaganda without one scintilla of Constitutional and legal truth. They are party political practices developed to suit political parties and have no legal connection with the Commonwealth and State Constitutions. They are falsely called "conventions of the constitution"

Ministers of the Crown ARE NOT and LEGALLY NEVER CAN BE the government, for, as will be shown in later Chapters, the TRUE LEGAL GOVERNMENT is non-elective, residing in perpetuity in the institution of the Monarchy and is exercised, for the Monarchy, by the Governor-General in the Commonwealth, and State Governors in the States.

That is precisely, and legally, what the words "Governor-General" and "Governor" mean:
ONE WHO LEGALLY GOVERNS

Ministers of the Crown are not legally nor constitutionally responsible to the Houses of the Parliament nor to the people. They are solely responsible to the Queen through the offices of Governor-General and or State Governors, as the case may be.

Consequently, Ministers of the Crown can have no mandate of any kind from the people, neither can the political party which claims, quite legally wrongly, to appoint them. Any such claims are pure party propaganda with no legal basis whatever.

Irrespective of whether they be Federal or State Ministers of the Crown they have precisely ONE LEGAL FUNCTION and one LEGAL DUTY:-

(a) Their legal function is to administer departments of State on behalf of the Queen and in accordance with parliamentary legislation relating to their specific department.
(b) For this legal function they are paid salaries out of Crown revenue and, like other departmental officers, they are paid servants of the Crown, excepting that other paid public servants are generally secure in their appointment until retirement whilst Ministers are wholly dependent upon the Monarchy (through its Representatives) and can be dismissed at will by that Monarchy.
(c) The legal DUTY of the Ministers of the Crown is that, by virtue of being Ministers, they become AUTOMATICALLY honorary advisors, to the Queen through Her Representatives.
(d) As honorary advisors they AUTOMATICALLY are Members of the Executive Council (State or Federal) which is set up by the Constitutions to give advice to the Queen, or legal government of the Commonwealth or the State.

As already stressed above, Ministers of the Crown are the paid legal servants of the permanent government, and their legal responsibility is directly, and can only be, to that legal government and to no one else.

On the other hand, the permanent legal government or Monarchy IS WHOLLY AND SOLELY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE, AND TO NO ONE ELSE. But this vital knowledge has, for party political purposes, been carefully kept from the Australian People. This is why the People do not realise, and have no real knowledge of, the full significance of what the institution of the Monarchy legally means in their daily lives. This will be explained in further Chapters.

A Prime Minister, or Premier, or Minister, who claims to speak as the government, without first stating that he "is authorised by Her Majesty's Government"- Commonwealth or State as the case may be- is, whether he realises it or not, making a legally false claim.

Under Commonwealth and State Constitutions ALL MINISTERS of the Crown STAND EQUAL TO EACH OTHER IN LAW, none is subordinate to the other, all are equal before Her Majesty. Thus, in cold hard legal law, no Prime Minister or State Premier has any legal power of control over the other ministers, unless a specific Act of Parliament gives him that control for specific purposes AND ONLY for that purpose.

The correct legal role of a Minister of the Crown is that he can only speak as a Minister of State in relation to his department. He speaks as the paid public head administrator of his department and in no other capacity.

Under the non-legal practices of party politics, Ministers are in consistent breach of their true legal role when they claim to speak for "the government" or as "my government".

My Will - Part 2

2010-02-10T17:34:00.000-08:00

2) WHAT IS THE LEGAL FUNCTION AND DUTY OF A PARLIAMENTARIAN?

While there are many British and Australian judicial interpretations on precisely what IS the true legal function and duty of a Member of parliament it will be sufficient, here, to give two such. Heavy print in these two quotations has been added by this writer to stress the points involved.

The first is from a British case (for those of legal mind see A.C.1910, at p. 110) where Lord Shaw of Dumfermline stated, amongst other things:-
"Parliament is summoned by the Sovereign to advise His Majesty freely. By the nature of the case it is implied that coercion, restraint, or money payment, which is the price of voting at the bidding of others, destroys or imperils that function of freedom of advice which is fundamental in the very constitution of Parliament. "

The second is from a High Court case ('Home v Barber' (1920) 27 C. L. R. p. 500):-
"When a man becomes a Member of Parliament, he undertakes high public duties. These duties are inseparable from the position: he cannot retain the honour and divest himself of the duties. One of the duties is that of watching on behalf of the general community the conduct of the Executive, of criticising, and, if necessary, of calling it to account in the constitutional way by censure from his place in Parliament - censure which, if sufficiently supported, means removal from office. That is the whole essence of responsible government, which is the keystone of our political system, and is the main constitutional safeguard the community possesses. The effective discharge of that duty is necessarily left to the Member's conscience and the judgement of his electors, but the law will not sanction or support the creation of any position of a Member of Parliament where his own personal interest may lead him to act prejudicially to the public interest by weakening (to say the least) his sense of obligation of due watchfulness, criticism, and censure of the administration. "

(The above judicial decision on the duty and function of a Member of Parliament surely gives rise to the following legal question:-
in debating and voting on strict party lines in his House of the Parliament is not a Member of the dominant party in serious breach of the law, and in contempt of the Court, for how can a Member obey strict party rules and the High Court decisions at one and the same time?)

More simply put, these and other interpretations mean:-

(a) THE SOLE LEGAL FUNCTION of a Member of Parliament IS TO FREELY ADVISE the Queen in the government of the Country, according to the clearly expressed will of the people, on any matter or thing, i.e., his sole legal function is to legislate.
(b) In legislating, his SOLE LEGAL DUTY is that, like a judge entering his court, he shall enter his House of the Parliament, each official Sitting day, and with judge-like dignity and decorum, he shall honestly, impartially, and searchingly examine all matters that properly may be placed before him and, with unbiased judgement, vote according to his conscience and his sense of legal responsibility.
No Member of Parliament has any legal function or duty outside of his House of Parliament, unless that House officially details him otherwise.
(d) It is no legal part of his function or duty to interview Ministers of the Crown or departmental officers for and on behalf of his electors or others.
(e) Such interviewing is purely a social and moral obligation that flows from his public status; obligations which can be, and are, performed by other non-parliamentary public figures without monetary rewards, either by salary or allowances.
(f) There is no constitutional-legal authority for paying Members, out of Crown revenue, for the performance of purely social responsibilities, whether that payment be a parliamentary salary and allowances, or just allowances - State and Federal Parliamentary Allowance Acts notwithstanding.

Of necessity, the following crucial questions must arise out of the aforestated judicial interpretations:-

(a) Who, or what, is it that deliberately prevents back-bench Members of Parliament from faithfully carrying out their sole legal function and duty, as judicially defined?
(b) If it is claimed that legal authority exists then, precisely, what Section of the Constitutions grant constitutional power to pay Members' of Parliament salaries, out of Crown revenue, for not faithfully carrying out their judicially defined legal function and legal duty?
(c) Where is the precise Constitutional power to pay allowances, out of Crown revenue, to back-bench Members of Parliament for the performance of judicially defined PURELY SOCIAL OBLIGATIONS of interviewing Ministers of the Crown, and departmental Officers, for and on behalf of constituents?

(For the legally-minded, it is suggested that the going would be extremely rough, if not impossible, to claim the "implied and incidental powers" of the Constitutions as the authority for such payments.)

Seventy-seven years of party political control over our seven Australian Parliaments reveal that it is only on very rare occasions that Parliamentary party leaders agree to allow their back-bench Members to have a free, or "conscience", vote. On all other occasions party leaders and party controllers, DEMAND ABSOLUTE LOYALTY to the party, and INSIST on voting BEING ON PARTY LINES.

This raises the further crucial question of whether, under State Criminal Codes and the Commonwealth Crimes Act, Parliamentary party leaders, and controllers, are not severally and individually guilty of deliberately breaching those codes and statutes, i.e., of being guilty of conspiring to prevent back- bench Members of Parliament from fulfilling their judicially defined legal function and duty in their Houses of Parliament?

It also raises the basic question, touched on on page 4, of whether or not back-bench Members of Parliament themselves violated their legal duty to the People by freely allowing themselves to be coerced by their leaders and party into not correctly fulfilling their judicially defined legal function and duty and, of a consequence, thereby rendering their Parliamentary Seat vacant by an act of overt or covert conspiracy.

My Will - Part 1

2010-02-10T17:21:00.000-08:00

The People of the Commonwealth Constitution Act UK 1900 have the right to govern the politicians who are in their employ.

Arthur Chresby - a former Member of Parliament who spent 53 years researching our Consitutional rights, presented them to the People in a profound little booklet.

I present this booklet, to both honour Mr Chresby and to allow his work to keep teaching the People, who they are & what they must do to protect themselves and their fellow Australian.

---------------------------------------------------

Your Will Be Done
A booklet by Arthur A Chresby

(Research Analyst in Constitutional Law, and formerly Federal Member for Griffith in the House of Representatives.)

INTRODUCTION
In the great controversy on the alleged need for constitutional reform and the replacement of the monarchy with an Australian republic, there seems to be an increasing airing of the views of those apparently bent on destroying the faith of the people in their established parliamentary institutions; that the real truths, safeguards and functions of our Commonwealth and State Constitutions are being lost to the knowledge of the nation.

This work is an attempt to put forward those truths, a sort of primer of Constitutional Law; to bring to public notice the true legal functions and duties of the institution of the monarchy, the offices of Governor General and State Governors, Ministers of the Crown, Federal and State Parliamentarians; to reveal the correct legal relationship between the electors and parliamentarians; to show what can be done under both Commonwealth and State Constitutions to bring Ministers and politicians to a full sudden stop "… for reprimand or dismissal, without having to wait for a general election…"

It may be contended that the people have been denied the above mentioned knowledge; that our schools, colleges and universities have failed to inform, as have the news media at large.
The history of parliament and politics in Australia shows that no political party, few, if any, politicians, and almost none of the constitutional and political text-book writers has published this information, for it is knowledge that, once grasped by the people, means the end of party political control over the voice and votes of politicians, and the elimination of party political dictatorship over the machinery of Parliament.

Those who would seriously attempt to dispute the contents of this book are advised that the law courts are open to them to do so. Any other form of denial would have no legal validity.

Because this is being written for the information of Mr., Mrs. and Miss Everyman, the writer has tried to keep the contents as simple as possible, to avoid legal jargon, and to give quotations only where it is deemed essential to clarify a legal point.

It is stressed that the sole purpose of this work is to show the Australian People what their true Constitutional powers are, and how they can lawfully use those powers to obtain the results they want their elected parliamentarians to produce, e.g.,
"I want my dollar to buy more tomorrow than it does today!"

Readers are invited to keep the following legally unarguable fact in mind:-
In the final analysis it is the Constitutions and Laws of the Commonwealth and the States, and the High Court interpretations of such, that determines what we can or cannot do in our daily lives. It is, therefore, to those Constitutions, Laws, and Court interpretations that we must continuously look for guidance and succour in our living, work and play, and not to the dissembling party politicians.

The writer hopes that the following pages will open up the way to such constitutional and legal guidance and succour.

This introduction cannot be completed without acknowledging the debt which this writer owes to Bart Marney of the blue ribbon provincial daily newspaper, "The Toowoomba Chronicle" (Queensland), without whose many objective criticisms and encouragement this book might never have been written.

(1) WHAT IS THE CORRECT RELATIONSHIP OF AN ELECTOR TO A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT?
Both by Constitutional and Statute law an elector has no legal right, whatever, to abuse, intimidate or demand anything of his Member of Parliament, State or Federal, or of his State Senators.

Any such abuse, intimidation or demand, would enable a Parliamentarian to take court action against an elector for attempting to use unlawful pressure to force the Member or Senator to act contrary to their judicially defined function and duty.

As an elector you have a right, and a legal duty, at election time to vote for the candidate of your choice. Indeed, so long as you obtain a ballot paper in a lawful manner and place it in the ballot box you cannot be compelled to vote for the candidates on that ballot paper and may, if you wish, cast your vote against all names on that paper by neatly crossing them out. As voting is legally secret there is, at present, no legal way of stopping you from doing so.

Although such an action is classed as "casting an informal rote," you have legally signified that none of the candidates on that ballot paper meet with your satisfaction and have, therefore, lawfully cast your vote against all of them. If a majority of the electors were to vote "informal" it would force a fresh election and bring forth fresh candidates, thus indicating that the electors were casting their votes with care.

Political parties, of course, would cry that the electors were wasting their votes; that electors were disenfranchising themselves. But this is only party propaganda, because no party got any value out of your informal vote, and that is all that concerns parties: they need your vote to grab for power.

Once the election is over that is the end of ballot paper voting until the next election. However, under both Federal and State Constitutions and Statute laws you have certain implied legal duties and obligations.

The whole system of Parliament, and the SOLE reason for its existence, is to make laws for the people, with the clear implication that those laws will reflect the WILL of the people on the subject matter of those laws.

By those legal implications you have a lawful duty and obligation to keep your Members and Senators fully informed about what your WILL is upon any issue or matter that comes before them in their Houses of Parliament, or that should come before them.

It is only when you fulfil that lawful duty and obligation that your ember and Senators can properly fulfil~their judicially defined function and duty in their houses of Parliament. If you do not fulfil your lawful duty and obligation, if you do not keep your Members and Senators fully informed of your will on any issue, then you cannot blame them for what they do. You have only your own laziness or indifference to blame.

How do you correctly inform your Members and Senators of your WILL? It is so simple that only laziness and indifference ON YOUR PART stops it from working. Yes, it is so very simple, and here is an example:- Suppose, for instance, you believe that income tax should be halved and sales tax completely eliminated. You write, in this case AN INDIVIDUAL letter to your Federal Member, and each one of your State Senators, such as this:-

Dear Sir,

I know that it is my duty to keep you informed of MY WILL on anything that comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament

IT IS MY WILL that you take immediate action to have income tax halved and sales tax removed completely.

Yours faithfully,

(signed)

(Insert your full name, address and date, as legal evidence that you are a constituent.)

Should your Member or Senators try to side-step (and some of them are extremely adept at doing this) or tell you what their party is or is not doing, you simply write back and say:-

Dear Sir,

I repeat that, in accordance with my lawful obligation to keep you informed of MY WILL, I again inform you that it is MY WILL that you take immediate action to have income tax halved and sales tax removed completely.

Yours faithfully.

Don't enter into written argument with a politician, for many politicians are past masters in the art of avoiding that which they don't want to face up to, and become experts in manipulating words to their benefit.

Although the majority of politicians would never publicly admit it, what worries them most - irrespective of majority or party - is the percentage trend in electorate thinking that is shown by the number of simple straight letters clearly expressing THE WILL of the elector signing the letter.

To illustrate the above point further Opinion polls claim to reveal THE TREND of public thinking BY ASKING SIMPLE QUESTIONS of a given number of people selected at random, and, more often than not, the trend shown is reasonably accurate. BUT NOTE THAT THE TREND IS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE OPINIONS of people, and people can change their opinions as often as they change their clothes.

The principle of percentage trends in electorate thinking as shown by the above simple straight "MY WILL" letter is an entirely different thing, and certainly leads to greater accuracy, for politicians know from experience that if one of their electors sits down to write such a simple "IT IS MY WILL" letter, then that elector is not expressing a mere opinion, but knows what he wants and says so in a no-nonsence way. It is doubly impressed upon the politician's mind if, after trying to side track the elector, he still gets back a straight "IT IS MY WILL!"

Experience of the various techniques used in opinion polls, and the evaluation of same, reveals that one such "IT IS MY WILL" letter indicates the mathematical probability that a MINIMUM of four(4) other electors are of the same conviction but have not written.

Even the least intelligent politician, where his Seat is concerned, can multiply four (4) by the number of such "MY WILL" letters he receives, and if he gets two or three thousand such letters he will know that he is going to come up with a mathematical stomach-twisting figure showing that he is not in tune with his electorate.

Self-preservation, even with a party-ridden politician, is always of the highest motivating priority to that politician, and, as the long experience of the former Queensland Parliamentarian, Senator Ian Wood, has proved, time and again, a political party thinks many times when trying to remove a determined straight Parliamentarian who has electorate thinking behind him. (Senator Wood fulfilled his judicially defined function and duty and refused, consistently, to bend to party pressures.)

On a subject like the drastic reduction of income tax, and removal of sales tax, it is obviously something on which most people will have strong convictions, not mere opinions. Thus, it requires only a few ordinary people to get together in their various electorates and, after writing their own "MY WILL" letters get out amongst friends, relatives, acquaintances and others in their own electorate inviting them all to write such "MY WILL" letters to their Federal Member and State Senators. Such determined ordinary people also have relatives and friends in other electorates and can invite them to do likewise.

Thus, in no time, the work of, say 3, 4, 5 or 6 people can spread like wild- fire through the electorate, especially when most people are incensed over one thing. To get two or three thousand individually signed "MY WILL" letters is not a hard task for such ordinary determined people.

It must never be forgotten that ordinary people have the legal privilege, if they wish to exercise it, of quietly approaching relatives, friends, acquaintances and others inviting them to write such "MY WILL" letters to their Member and Senators. It requires no committees, no resolutions, no street marching, no formation of groups, bodies or associations with all sorts of names and titles. No constitutions, no minutes, no wasting of hours in fruitless arguing and discussions, no presidents, secretaries or treasurers.

All that is required is that an individual with a determination to act lawfully to right or alter something he doesn't like, and with the initiative to do so, is to write his "MY WILL" letter, show others and encourage them to do likewise. There are a multitude of issues upon which people have strong convictions and the simple "MY WILL" letter is their lawful simple way of telling their M.P.

Don't argue that it will not work, or that people are stupid. If you feel strongly enough about something, don't just moan and talk about it, write your "MY WILL" letters. IT IS YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to do so, not someone else, nor those never identified "THEY OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT." You have to be your own "they".

It is stressed again: it is your legal privilege, and your lawful duty, to encourage others, peacefully and quietly, in the manner outlined in this Chapter. A Parliamentarian, armed with the written proof of the "WILL" of his electors, upon any issue, can completely ignore party pressures and set about faithfully fulfilling his judicially defined legal function and legal duty. He is freed to be a Parliamentarian and not, as at present in most cases, a mere party yes-man. THE "MY WILL" LETTER IS A LEGAL DEMONSTRATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.

When your Members of Parliament, State and Federal, do something that pleases you WRITE AND TELL THEM SO, as Members get plenty of abusive letters and extremely few courteous ones. If a Member or Senator knows that he is the centre of watchfulness from his area at all times he is left with no alternative than to carry out his judicially defined function and duty, no matter the protests and pressures of his party.

Thus, Politicians, secure in the knowledge of written electorate support, possessed of the written "MY WILL" is freed from control of the party manipulators, for the party has lost control over his voice and vote on all issues on which the electorate has expressed its WILL. Wise politicians would do well to continuously seek the written "WILL" of all their electors on every issue and proposed legislation. After all they do have offices and a secretary in their electorate, whilst Federal Members also have Research Officers, so they have no excuse for not organising to seek the electors "WILL" before casting their votes in their House of Parliament.

To sum up this Chapter:

It is your legal duty and obligation, and yours alone, to keep your Members and Senators fully informed, at all times, of your "WILL." That is your true lawful relationship with your Members and your Senators.

Index of January 2010 Research Information

2010-02-10T17:20:00.000-08:00

This is an Index of the January posts, which I would ask you read in order to understand the flow of research the EnviroWild Team have provided.

Background to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900
An Overview of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900
Government Creation of a new Constitution
WA and QLD and the 1900 Constitution
COAG, Corporations and the New Government
People of the Commonwealth
Doubts About the Validity of the Constitution of the Government 1901
Demand Request for Anna Bligh, Premier of QLD
Reply from Anna Bligh, Premier of QLD
QLD Public Letters of Support to the High Court
Commonwealth Public Letters of Support to the High Court
An Overview of the Brigalow Corp Takeover of Australia
You tube videos on Queensland & its Constitution

Index of December Research Information

2010-02-10T17:18:00.000-08:00

This is an Index of the December posts, which I would ask you read in order to understand the flow of research the EnviroWild Team have provided.

A Grant in Fee Simple
A Grant in Fee Simple v Torrens Title & More
Trespass Sign
High Court Rulings on Trespass
What is a Deed?
Removing Our Ownership Rights Through Deception
Common Law
Magna Carta 1215 - the Great Charter
Bill of Rights 1689
Writ of Habeus Corpus
Maritime Law
Civil Law
Comparison of Common Law v Civil Law
Colour of Law v Black Letter Law
The Colour of Law in Australia
Pt 1. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of...
Pt 2. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of...
Pt 3. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of...
Pt 4. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of...
Pt 5. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of...
Pt 6. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of...
Pt 7. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of...
Pt 8. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of...
Queensland Has 3 Constitutions
Who Makes the Rules In & For Queensland?
Brigalow Corporation
Are Australians Already Enslaved?
The Superiority of private Land Ownership Rights
The Executive Government of Australia in 2009
State Governments of Australia in 2009
Courts of Australia in 2009

You tube videos on Queensland & its Constitution

2010-01-30T16:50:00.000-08:00

I was sent this link - the fellow is spot on in his comments. Worth the watch.

The Fake QLD Constitution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiaFr_jEoCE

How they changed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggjYM6pFFmY

An Overview of the Brigalow Corp Takeover of Australia

2010-01-10T00:55:00.000-08:00

The Queensland Constitution 2001 / The Brigalow Corporation /
The Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD & all other states of Australia.

GOVERNOR OF QUEENSLAND

1. Queensland Constitution 1867 was reframed with 114 Changes, 131 Additions and 116 Deletions.
2. January 1998, QLD National Party documented a move to place the QLD Governor in the Government as a Parliamentary Secretary under the QLD Constitution 1867 / Constitution (Parliamentary Secretaries) Act ©The State of QLD 1996.
3. This became official January 29 1999, the same day the QLD Constitution 1867 was reprinted.
4. Thus the Governor was no longer a sworn representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, but a Public Servant of the QLD Government.
5. He was still using the Public Seal of the State on behalf of the Premier and Parliament of QLD and maintained the appearance of the Governor to the Sovereign People of the State.

CROWN IN QUEENSLAND (& AUSTRALIA)

1. In 1973, Gough Whitlam brought in the Queen of Australia through the adoption of the Royal & Parliamentary Titles Act 1927
2. This removed Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Assigns as enshrined in the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act (UK) 1900 and replaced the Crown with the Queen of Australia.
3. On the 19 December 1973, the Whitlam Government also removed the Great Seal of Britain from use and replaced it with the Great Seal of Australia.
4. In 1986, Bob Hawke brought in the Australia Act.
5. This is the Constitution of the new Parliament of Australia.
6. This is not the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900 of the People.
7. This act removed the ability of the UK Parliament to make laws for Australia, making Britain a foreign country. This was defined by the High Court in the case Sue v Hill 1999.

THE BRIGALOW CORPORATION & PRIVATE LAND OWNERSHIP

1. During the early 1990’s all important and relevant Acts were changed and framed, but were adjourned without a definite date of reprinting.
2. On 3 December 2001, the Queensland Constitution 2001 came into being.
3. On this day, this ACT became the “Fundamental Law of QLD”.
4. 7 June 2002, all the framed Acts were reprinted and became law.
5. QLD then became, at the completion of these matters, without the assent of any of the laws by the Crown or Her Representative, an independent sovereign State and fractured the common law and the separation of powers in that state.
6. 15 July 2002, The Corporations (Q) Act 1990 (Q) Reprint No 3 created in QLD a Corporate Government.
The State of Queensland Australia is registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commissions under No. 0001244818.
7. The Queensland Treasury Corp is registered under No. 0000852555.
8. The old crowns lands act (Qld) was converted to the Land Act 1994 (Qld), and at section 4(1) the Land Administration Commission was renamed Brigalow Corporation.
9. The Land Act 1994 – Reprint No 10c, Part 7A, Section 506C states that the Corporation (Brigalow Corp) represents the Crown.
10. Culminating in the Beattie Govt introduction of the QLD Constitution 2001, QLD government administrations had reworked backward every piece of Federal and state legislation, removing any connection to and mention of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, British law and the Royal Seal of England.
11. These acts were then reworked forward, replacing the removed elements with the Queen of Australia (as created by the Whitlam Govt in 1973) and the Great Seal of both Australia and QLD.
12. This means that the legislation contained in those acts are now “governed” by the government of those Seals, not the government of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900.
13. The Australia Waste Lands Act 1855 was reprinted in 1996 under the Seal of QLD, and because the Queen of Australia was also now sealed with the Seal of QLD, this effectively created a QLD “ownership” of all Crown land in Australia.
14. And as the introduction of the Corporations (Q) Act 1900 (Q) Reprint No 3 had created a Corporate Govt, this effectively meant all Crown land “ownership” was now under the control of the Qld Corporation, known as the Brigalow Corp.
15. All Crown land, assets and infrastructure in Australia including schools, hospitals, roads, etc are subject to and responsible to the Ministers of the State of QLD as cited at Chapter III of the QLD Constitution 2001.
16. All Sovereign People are now persons under the Corporation, All persons are chattel ( a piece of property that is moveable).
17. Their land, bank accounts and all items of ownership are now assets under the Brigalow Corporation.
18. The Supreme Court, the District Courts and the Magistrate’s Courts are now inside the Parliament of the State of QLD, and as such must obey the QLD Constitution 2001.
19. The Australian Constitution, the Common Law & Equity, the High Court and the Federal Government no longer have any superior governance over the State of QLD.
20. The State of QLD and the Sovereign People of QLD have only Civil and Statute Law in this state.
21. As private ownership can not exist under Civil and Statute Law, all private equity and inheritance in the State is now the property of “the State”.

LEGAL STRUCTURE

1. Under the civil law system, which is now subject to the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules of the Supreme Court Act 1991(Qld), every person is guilty until they prove their innocence.
2. The Common Law has been repealed from the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Q), Reprint No. 2, reprinted as in force 2 March 2001 © State of Q 2001
3. This states that the Governor in Council may make rules of court under this act for the Supreme Court, District court, Magistrates Court, registries and other matters mentioned in Schedule 1
4. Schedule 1 has jurisdiction over the civil, criminal and appellate courts, Parties & Proceedings, Defence, Service of Documents, Pleadings, Disclosure, Preservation of Rights & Property, Ending Proceedings Early, Court Supervision, Evidence, Jurisdiction of Judicial Registrars, Trails & Other Hearings, Particular Proceedings, probate, Contempt of Court, Vexatious Proceedings, Trusts, Costs, Appeals etc, Money Orders Enforcement, Foreign Judgment Enforcements, Corporations, Miscellaneous.
5. Therefore the Governor in Council now makes all the Rules of the Court for these matters.
6. The Queensland Constitution 2001 Chapters 1 & 2 refer to the Legislative Assembly and the Governor. In Chapter 3, Part 1, sect 27 – “The Governor in Council is the Governor acting with the advice of Executive Council.”
7. Sect 30 – “The Constitution Act 1867 contains provisions about the office of Governor. At Chapter 3, Part 4, sect 48, those “appointed as members…by the Governor…..”
8. This Executive council is given separate law makings Powers of the State at Chapter 3, Part 5, Sect 51, where is states, the Executive Government of the State of QLD (the “State) = The State may exercise its powers……
9. In Chapter 3, Part 5, Sect 55 (1) – “A minister may delegate a power of the State to an appropriately qualified officer of the State.” (“officer of the state” means – a chief executive………………….)
10. Therefore the Premier of QLD must always be the leader of the Executive Body and is now the Executive Leader of the Parliament of QLD.
11. Simply put – the Premier is delegated the power through his role as Chief Executive. This power controls the Executive Government of QLD. The Governor acts on the advice of the Executive Government.
12. Therefore the Premier is now the “Crown” in Queensland.

QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION

1. All government tiers, including Local Council are now inside the Parliament of the State of QLD.
2. The public officials are not public officials of “the Crown” but public officials of “the State” of QLD

THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH

1. The British colonies in Australia were all independent, under military law.
2. In 1885, the independent states had interstate agreements for trade, etc under the Federal Councils of Australasia Act 1855.
3. As free settlers began to grow, the People decided to unite under 1 form of government.
4. 10 years of conventions and referendums culminated in the Draft Constitution of the People which went to England for ratification.
5. On July 9 1900, Queen Victoria signed the amended draft Constitution and returned it to Australia.
6. At this point a final referendum was required to acquire the agreement of the people to this amended Constitution.
7. This was not done, the heads of each independent colony instead agreed FOR AND ON BEHALF of the People.
8. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was the result, brought into Australian law on 1 January 1901.
9. The first 8 clauses are British law.
10. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution starts at clause 9.
11. The Constitution lays out the rules and regulations under which Parliament may administer government to the People.
12. There are no entities known as a Prime Minister or a Premier to be found in the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK).
13. As the Preamble states, the People agreed to be united under one indissoluble Commonwealth.
14. Therefore the people are the Commonwealth.
15. The Commonwealth is defined in the Constitution as a State.
16. Therefore the People of the Commonwealth are their “own” state.
17. Section 117 states, verbatim, that the People governed by the Queen (of the Constitution), and members of a state (of the Commonwealth), cannot have their rights removed by another state (that perhaps being the state they physically live in), WITHOUT
18. Section 128 – A REFERENDUM
19. There has been no Referendum of the Sovereign People to approve any of these moves. This means they are Ultra vires, an act beyond the powers or authority of the government.

It appears that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900, ratified on 1 January 1901 is an act of the heads of the independent colonies of the Australian dominion, which means that the Constitution of the People is still a draft document.

As the people had formally agreed to this document, all state and federal government in Australia are in fact, a foreign entity to the rights of the people of the Commonwealth.

As our land ownership is a Deed in Trust and Equity with the Queen of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution (UK) 1900, a foreign government has no lawful right to step inside that Deed and remove rights inherent in it.

In order to do so, government have created registration processes that manipulate our agreement. They have also created a new jurisdiction known as the Environment, with which they have enslaved the People as a plural, thereby creating legislation which enforces the People as an individual.

However, they have not asked our permission to create the form of government under which they now legislate OVER the People.

Commonwealth Public Letters of Support to the High Court

2010-01-10T00:37:00.000-08:00

February 4 2010 amendment - THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HAS SUPPORTED THIS MATTER WITH LETTERS AND DONATIONS.

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY MORE LETTERS.

Although this matter is focused on QLD, this state is the key to the growing problems in all other states of Australia. All governments are following the "lead" of Queensland.

And the assets being sold in QLD are not assets of the QLDers, but of the People of the Commonwealth. Therefore we the People of the state of the Commonwealth ALSO had to give permission to both take and sell the assets.

So, we are also asking the people of the Commonwealth to sign the following letter and return it to us as soon as possible.

Fax to (07) 4096 2641

The cost of High Court cases are massive, please donate $165 (incl GST) per family OR $110 (incl GST) per individual.

Either as a postal order, a cheque or into the following account Envirowild Pty Ltd
NAB
BSB: 084 512
Account No: 79847 1759

Name ………………...…………………………………………………….

Residential Address ……..………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………

Postal Address ………………………...…………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………

I am a person as described in the Preamble and at Section 117, subject to Section 128
of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 proclaimed 1st January 1901,
which was the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).

I, along with all the other sovereign people inside the Constitution as in its Preamble, am an equal shareholder of all the assets of the Commonwealth of Australia, those assets being currently held under the Corporations Act 2001 (C’wth).

I, as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia, have never been presented with any referendum subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, to allow Queensland to become a Sovereign State.

I, as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia, have never been presented with any referendum subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, to allow my assets to pass from those held by the Commonwealth, to any corporation in Queensland.

I hereby support the Demand for Information from The Honourable Anna Bligh MP Premier of the State of Queensland as requested by Mr David John Walter on 1st December 2009.

If this matter is to be put before the High Court, I request that the High Court accept this as my application to join in the application for a writ to be put to The Honourable Anna Bligh MP Premier of the State of Queensland, as no referendum has been placed before me in these matters by my elected Members of the body politic thereby failing to respect and uphold the trust I placed in them by my vote.

I also request that the High Court allow further time for acceptance of any other sovereign person of the Commonwealth of Australia to join in this action after its initial lodgement.

……………………………………… ………………………………………
(Printed Full Name) (Signature)

Signed this ………………..……..….…….. day of ………….…..……….….…….. 20…..

QLD Public Letters of Support to the High Court

2010-01-10T00:25:00.001-08:00

February 4 2010 - THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTED THIS MATTER WITH LETTERS AND DONATIONS.

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY MORE LETTERS.

The EnviroWild Team is asking for support with our lodgement in the High Court in January, asking the Justices to ask the Premier of QLD to answer the Demand Questions.

Following is the letter we are asking the People of QLD to sign and return to us.

Fax to (07) 4096 2641

The cost of High Court cases are massive, please donate $165 (incl GST) per family OR $110 (incl GST) per individual.

Either as a postal order, a cheque or into the following account Envirowild Pty Ltd
NAB
BSB: 084 512 Account No: 79847 1759

Name ………………...…………………………………………………….

Residential Address ……..………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………

Postal Address ………………………...…………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………

I am a sovereign person and an entity inside the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) of 9th July 1900 and the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 proclaimed on the 1st January 1901.

I, along with all the other sovereign people inside the Constitution as in its Preamble, am an equal shareholder of all the assets of the Commonwealth of Australia, those assets being currently held under the Corporations Act 2001 (C’wth).

I hereby support the Demand for Information from The Honourable Anna Bligh MP Premier of the State of Queensland by Mr David John Walter on 1st December 2009.

If this information has not been supplied to Mr David John Walter by close of business on 31st December 2009, I wish to be named in the application for a prerogative writ of mandamus, that The Honourable Anna Bligh MP Premier of the State of Queensland, presents the information requested by Mr David John Walter on 1st December 2009, at a date of mention to the full High Court, subject to Chapter III of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act at Sections 75(5), 76(2) and 80.

On the day of mention to the full High Court, if the information is still not forthcoming, a further request will be made by Mr David John Walter for a further writ.

I have not been informed by any elected representative of the body politic of either Queensland or the Commonwealth of Australia, as to changes to Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867, subject to Section 53, to alter the position of that Constitution.

I have not been requested by the subjects of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act under Sections 117 to 128, to vote as to whether to allow Queensland, as a State of the Commonwealth of Australia subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, to become a Sovereign State, to vote as to whether Queensland may use the assets of the sovereign people under the Corporations Act 2001 (C’wth), and to vote as to whether Queensland’s legislature should not comply with section 109 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901.

If this matter is to be put before the High Court, I also request that the High Court accept this as my application to join in the application for a prerogative writ of mandamus to be put to The Honourable Anna Bligh MP Premier of the State of Queensland, as no referendum has been placed before me in these matters by my elected Members of the body politic thereby failing to respect and uphold the trust I placed in them by my vote.

I also request that the High Court allow further time for acceptance of any other sovereign person of the Commonwealth of Australia to join in this action after its initial lodgement.

……………………………………… ………………………………………
(Printed Full Name) (Signature)

Signed this ………………..……..….…….. day of ………….…..……….….…….. 20…..

Reply from Anna Bligh, Premier of QLD

2010-01-07T02:08:00.000-08:00

The office of Anna Bligh replied to the Demand letter one day before the 21 days were up.

We were not provided with any referendum details whatsoever and the letter replied from the perspective of the Qld Constitution 2001 and not the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.

You will also note that the letter states that the Governor's role is mandated by the QLD Constitution 2001, when rightfully, the governor is an entity of the 1900 Constitution under the Royal Seal. The QLD Constitution 2001, is of course sealed under the Seal of QLD (as was this letter), indicating that the Governor now answers to the acts emanating from the government of that Seal.

This now moves to the High Court, who, next week, will be asked to ask the Qld Premier the same questions.

The reply from the office of Anna Bligh, Premier of QLD.....................

Transcript of the reply............

Office of the Premier
Executive Building
100 George St Brisbane
PO Box 15185 City East
Queensland 4002 Australia
Telephone +61 7 3334 4500
Facsimile +61 7 3221 3631
Email ThePremier@premiers.qld.gov.au
Website http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/

For reply please quote CALS/DS - TF/09/34138 - DOC/09/143649

17 DEC 2009

Mr David Walter
Envirowild Pty Ltd
PO Box 578
HERBERTON QLD 4887

Dear Mr Walter,

Thank you for your letter of 1 December 2009 concerning consitutional matters. I have been asked to reply to you on the Premier's behalf.

You have alleged that the Queensland Government has moved to remove the Crown from Queensland legislation and alter the Office of the Governor. I can assure you that the Queensland government has taken no such action.

The role of the Governor in Queensland is clearly mandated by Part 2 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001. The Governor is Her Majesty's representative in Queensland and holds office during Her Majesty's pleasure. The Governor gives Royal Assent to Bills passed by the Parliament, may summon and dissolve Parliament, appoints all ministers and may issue writs and grant pardons.

While Section 128 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia provides that a referendum is required to alter any part of the Commonwealth Constitution, Queensland's Constitution is different.

As Queensland's constitutional laws are ordinary Acts of our Parliament, they can be changed by passing other ordinary Acts of Parliament. The Constitution of Queensland Act 2001 is an Act of the Queensland Parliament which primarily brings together the constitutional provisions of other Acts of the Queensland Parliament into one Act which can be referred to as our Constitution.

Any provisions of Queensland's Constitution Acts which were entrenched (that is required a referendum to change) have not been changed, and remain in force.

The provisions which remain in their original Acts include:

the establishment and legislative power of the Parliament of Queensland
the duration of the Parliament, and
matters relating to the office of the Governor.

Please be assured that the Queensland Government is committed to the ongoing governance of Queensland.

I trust this information has been of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely,

Jessica Collins

Policy Adviser

Demand Request for Anna Bligh, Premier of QLD

2010-01-07T01:58:00.000-08:00

What is happening in QLD is the primer for the removal of all property rights in the other states of Australia.
By effectively removing themselves from the 1900 Constitution in 1923, yet maintaining the appearance of being part of the Commonwealth in order to continue to accept money from consolidated revenue, the QLD govt have become a "foreign government" in Australia.
As Mr Rudd and the Governor-General Quentin Bryce both come from this independent state, Australia is now a "colony" of QLD, the government of which has claimed the land of the Crown of the 1900 Constitution and placed it under the Crown know as the Executive Government of QLD.

On December 2 2009, David John Walter sent Anna Bligh the following letter...............................

The Honourable Anna Bligh MP
Premier of the State of Queensland
Parliament House
Brisbane Qld 4000

RE: DEMAND FOR INFORMATION FROM THE HONOURABLE ANNA BLIGH MP PREMIER OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

1. I, David John Walter,

am a sovereign person under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
(reference Chapter 12 of 63 and 64 Victoria of 9th July 1900 AD) and under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 proclaimed on 1st January 1901,

am an equal shareholder, along with all the other sovereign persons under the above-mentioned Constitution of all the assets of the Commonwealth of Australia inter alia with the Corporations Act 2001 (C’wth),

am a citizen of the indissoluble Federal Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of Australia, under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,

am a loyal subject of Her Majesty The Queen, Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors,

and am a resident in the Commonwealth of Australia’s State of Queensland
at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

2. I hereby place before you a Demand for Information with regard to the following:-

Demand for Information
from
The Honourable Anna Bligh MP Premier of the State of Queensland
requested by
David J. Walter

2.1. Full results of the referendum to progressively remove the constitutional Crown from legislation in Queensland.

(Refer: Section 53 Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867)

2.2. Full results of the referendum to progressively alter the position of the office of the Crown’s representative in Queensland, the Governor of Queensland.

(Refer: Section 53 Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867)

2.3. Full results of the referendum to progressively pass to the corporate Queensland Government, the assets of the sovereign people of Commonwealth of Australia.

(Refer: Sections 117-128 of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901)

2.4. Full list and details of transfer of those assets.

2.5. Full results of the referendum to progressively remove entrenched sections of Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867.

(Refer: Section 53 Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867)

2.6. Full results of the referendum to remove Queensland from the Commonwealth.

(Refer: Section 53 Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867 and Sections 117-128 of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901)

3. The citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia have the right to a referendum under Section 128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, before any attempt to alter this Constitution may be made.

4. The citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia who are also residents in the Commonwealth of Australia’s State of Queensland have the right to a referendum under Section 53 ofQueensland’s Constitution Act 1867, extract from which states:- “A Bill that expressly or impliedly provides for the abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor or that expressly or impliedly in any way affects any of the following sections of this Act namely—sections 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B, 14; and this section 53 shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen unless it has first been approved by the electors in accordance with this section and a Bill so assented to consequent upon its presentation in contravention of this subsection shall be of no effect as an Act.”

5. The Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 and its Constitution of Queensland 2001 have removed entrenched sections of Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867 by removing the Separation of Powers, by placing members of the executive government, the premier and cabinet ministers, inside the current Parliament in Queensland, by altering the positions of judges of the Supreme and District Courts, the positions of Ministers of the Crown, and the position of Governor, the Crown’s representative, to positions of office holders inside that Parliament, and by changing Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) to Members of Parliament (MP), all contra to Section 53 of Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867 and Sections 117-128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901.

6. Also contra to Section 53 of Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867 and Sections 117-128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, with this demise of the Crown, Her Majesty’s Police Force as people once knew it and which protected the Crown and its people, has been changed to the Queensland Police Service which now protects only the Queensland Government owned corporations and has therefore become a security agency for these corporations but has no lawful Crown authority over us, the sovereign people.

7. Also contra to Section 53 of Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867 and Sections 117-128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, with this demise of the Crown, the ownership of property which includes freehold land as people once knew it has been changed, with the corporate Queensland Government taking an unregistered interest in property and land, by placing its corporate seal on people’s property and certificates of title, thereby taking joint ownership of that property and land, but without the owners’ consent.

8. Also contra to Section 53 of Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867 and Sections 117-128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, with this demise of the Crown, The Treasury, under its corporate seal, borrows money on the people’s and Crown’s assets and deals at will with that money with no accountability to the people.

9. I require this information to be forwarded to me within 21 working days from the date below.

…………………………………………..
(David J. Walter)1st December 2009

Doubts About the Validity of the Constitution of the Government 1901

2010-01-07T00:44:00.000-08:00

The West Coast of Australia had been discovered by Dirk Hartog, a Dutch explorer.
The East Coast by Captain Cook.
Subsequently the east coast was colonised as penal colonies, and eventually those colonies broke away to form independent colonies.
SA was included but founded by private settlers.
SA went all the way through to the top of Australia and included what is now the Northern Territory.
Due to the Dutch claim over WA, private settlers moved there, but the English Crown had no claim of right on the land, so to go to the settler’s aid with military forces may have been seen as a act of aggression by the Dutch.

So, prior to Federation each state except WA operated as an Independent Colony under the dominion of Great Britain.

In 1855 the administration of several independent colonies created the Federal Council of Australasia.
This agreement was for trade purposes between the states.
During the late half of the 1800’s the people of all colonies, except WA, indicated that they would be in agreement to forming a Federation – joining the states together under one common government.
10 years of conventions and referendums followed, until a draft Constitution was finally created and sent to England for ratification by the Parliament and the Queen.

This draft had several changes made to it by the British Parliament.

In the meantime, the People of WA had asked to be included.
So, when Queen Victoria signed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) on 9 July 1900, she signed pending the approval of the People of the eastern states giving permission for WA to be included and for their final approval of the changes in the Constitution that was being returned to Australia.

Now, for anyone to understand the Constitution, which is a clear and extraordinary document, they must remember that the first 8 chapters are British law.
The Constitution stands at chapter 9.

They must also understand that this is an agreement of the PEOPLE, not government.
The Commonwealth is the People, so when we talk about the Commonwealth of Australia, we are referring to the People (united) of Australia.
In that draft constitution, the PEOPLE agreed to unite and agreed to have the assets of the Crown administered by Parliament and public servants.
The PEOPLE were to be subject to criminal law for crimes against other people.
The parliament’s only task was to administer and protect the assets of the Crown.
The Queen guaranteed to pay those public servants out of her pocket, the People funding her pocket through their taxes.
Quite simple.

So, when this document returned to Australia, the leaders of those independent colonies were in a pickle.

The Boer War was looming, which meant that Australia, as a troop & financial supporter of the British side, could be attacked by the Dutch using WA as a base.
The preparation for the Federation had taken 10 years, and it was likely that to approve the changes could take as long.

So, the framing fathers decided to approve the new Constitution FOR and ON BEHALF of the People.
They pledged an oath of honour to govern under it, that oath being held by the High Court.
And they did, for many years.
However, the fact remained that the Constitution brought into power by the Governor-General on 1 January 1901, was NOT APPROVED AT REFERENDUM by the People, but was essentially a constitution between the British Parliament and the Australian Independent Colony’s administration heads.

[To put this very simply, a bowling club gets set up.
The assets of that club belong to the members, it is run for the convenience of the members, and they appoint a body to administer the assets and the overall health of the club.
The body has a leader, who is no more or less than a person from the membership taking on a role for a period of time.
The staff of the club are paid from the funds held under the body’s administration.
That money coming from the members.
The staff are charged with obeying the instructions coming from the membership via the body. The head of the body can not sell an asset without prior approval of the membership.
Or make a new ruling, or appoint new staff.
He and the body must always answer to the membership.
Nor can he go to a members private home and remove an asset of the member, just because he is a member.
Nor can he start a new form of club without the permission of the members.
The structure of the Parliament of the 1900 Constitution is no different.]

In 1917, the People of QLD were asked in a referendum to allow the removal of the parliamentary upper house.
They refused, yet in 1923 the QLD parliament removed it.

The Constitution has what is called Manner and Form – that being the proper and lawful arrangement under which the government entities must operate.
To breach Manner and Form causes that government to step outside the Constitution.

This is what QLD did and from that time on, QLD began to operate outside the Constitutional structure.

In 1927, the British Parliament amended the Royal Styles and Titles Act, changing the Monarch’s title from a single Crowned head to a multiple crown.
Suddenly, it was possible for every dominion to either operate under King George of Great Britain, Ireland and his dominions OR under King George of Canada or of Fiji, or of NZ or whatever.
This fractured the Empire & as our ownership rights are held by the Empire Monarch, it put those in jeopardy.

However, the Australian govt did not bring this act into Australian law until Gough Whitlam took power in 1973.

At this time, by ratifying the Queen of Australia, he created a new government.
And that government had the Crown in the form of the Queen of Australia inside its acts, thereby claiming the Crown for themselves.
We became, in all but name, a Republic at that time.
The Australia Act of 1986, being the Constitution of the new Republican government.

Now, remember the original Constitution was to bring all the independent states into a united structure.
In effect, each state has returned to its independent status, but as republics completely separated from British law, which is why such ancient protections as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 etc are totally absent from current courts.

The new version of the Federal Council of Australasia 1855, is COAG.
Each state is now in a position to ignore the High Court, which is a court of the 1901 British/ Australian Constitution, and can not rule over the independent colonies, hence the decision in Fazzolari v Parramatta City Council for the land owner, and the NSW govt just makes a new piece of legislation giving the council back the right to remove private land.

These independent governments do not operate under laws, but under statutory legislation.
A law, once ratified, cannot be changed without a due process, legislation can be amended daily.

Where is the protection of the People?

Believe it or not, it is still in the Constitution. P
art of the way that this return to independent states has been created is because under the 1901 Govt Constitution, the states retained their ability to make their own laws as long as those laws did not breach the rights of a person in another state.

What they have overlooked is that the Commonwealth is another state.
And remember the people are the Commonwealth.
Therefore, while a person may physically reside in the state of NSW, they are first and foremost a person of the Commonwealth state.

So every law of NSW that removes the rights of a person under the state of the Commonwealth is repugnant (in breach).

S 117 of the Constitution, states that a subject of the Queen (not the Queen of Australia, but of the original constitution), residing in a state (see above) shall not be subject in any other state to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if her were a subject of the Queen resident in such other state.
WITHOUT!!!!!....... S 128 a referendum to gain his or her approval for that disability or discrimination to apply to him or her.

At all times the People must be asked for their approval – and they clearly are not any more.
All federal and state governments in Australia are, in effect and to the rights of the People, a foreign power.

Back to land – we own our land in a contract of trust & equity with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her Heirs and Assigns – the Crown of the Constitution.
In the contract for that sale, it states that we own the land completely removed from any government interference or claims UNLESS they pay us for it!!!
That being Just Terms compensation.
However, this is the trick.

That Compensation is only guaranteed by the Federal govt of the govt 1901 Constitution.
The states, now operating as independent republics, never made that same agreement.

We must also understand that when Gough Whitlam entered power he set up a Royal Commission into Land Tenures.
The document that came from that, which is mentioned on the internet, but cannot be found on it, came to the conclusion that it would be preferable for govt to buy back land from private owners, but as they could not afford it, the next step was to remove all rights of land use, so as to render the value of the land worthless.
This meant they could acquire it for a song. (I have a copy of that if anyone wants it.)

When the High Court ruled in the Tasmania Dams case in 1983, that government could remove any and elements of land ownership AS LONG as the owner kept his deeds, they were telling the truth from the perspective of the new government under the Australia Act & the Queen of Australia.
However, they neglected to tell the People that their land was not under that act, but under the protection of the Crown as defined in the Commonwealth of Australia Act (UK) 1900.

We needs to stand our ground as a person of the Commonwealth of Australia Act (UK) 1900, under s 117 & s 128.

WE, the PEOPLE of the state known as the Commonwealth, NEVER GAVE OUR PERMISSION TO HAVE OUR OWNERSHIP RIGHTS REMOVED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

So where are the people to be found?
In the 1800's the people were governed by military rule, in penal colonies.
The moment the People agreed to the draft Constitution, they stepped INSIDE that structure.
Although that document was not agreed to at a referendum of the People, in order to approve its adoption as the ruling law over the Federation, it still exists.

So the ratification in 1901 of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900, by the heads of the independent colonies, does not change the fact that the people are still waiting for their opportunity at a referendum.

Therefore, (to my thoughts), the people are OUTSIDE of both the 1901 govt approved Constitution, and certainly OUTSIDE of this foreign government, all of which are in place without approval.

My thoughts are that the govt can ONLY gain our approval through means such as registration processes, which would explain why every element of trade involves being registered, having certification, licencing, etc.

Again, I would state, our protection is in the strength of s117 and s128.

We, the People, are subjects of the Queen of the 1900 Constitution, who approved the Constitution on the 9 July 1900 PENDING OUR APPROVAL (remember she owns the land on which govt govern and recognizes our right first and foremost) - and we are residents of our own state, that being the Commonwealth. With permission to refuse to allow the govts of the "independent colonies" to remove OUR RIGHTS WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION.

People of the Commonwealth

2010-01-06T21:31:00.000-08:00

The People of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900

Justice M D Kirby stated in a 1997 oration:“Monarchical government tends to be strong and centralised – formerly in the person of the sovereign but now in whoever the Parliament elects to govern.”

In Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises P/L, Justice Lionel Murphy said:“The authority for the Australian Constitution then and now is its acceptance by the Australian people.”

Law schools well into the 60’s and later, taught that the historical origins of the Australian Constitution, and they alone, gave that document its legal authority.

Chief Justice Mason in the Aust Capital Television case observed:“The Australia Act 1986 (UK) marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament and recognised that ultimate sovereignty resided in the Aust people.”

Justice McHugh in McGinty v WA said:“The political and legal sovereignty of Aust now resides in the people of Australia.”

Justice Toohey in the Public Law Review 1993 stated:“Where the people of Australia, in adopting a Constitution, conferred power upon a Commonwealth Parliament, it is to be presumed that they did not intend that those grants of power extend to invasion of fundamental common law liberties.”

Justice Cooke in Fraser v State Service Commission said:“This is perhaps a reminder that it is arguable that some common law rights may go so deep that even Parliament cannot be accepted by the Court to have destroyed them.”

People, Person, Persons, Citizen, Individual
In the Commonwealth of Australia Act (UK) 1900, the word People is found 25 times; Person 24; Persons 6; Individual 0 times; Citizen in s44 only.

What do these words legally mean?
To determine that in Australian law we first go to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 , which is the "dictionary of meaning" for all words used in Australian legislation.
If the word is not found in there, then we take the meaning from a legal dictionary, in this case Blacks Law Dictionary #1 1891

People - (from Blacks): a state, as in the people of the state of the Commonwealth
Person - (from AIA 1901): includes a body corporate, office, commission, authority, committee, tribunal, board, institute, organization or other body however described.
(from Blacks): Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called "corporations" or "body politics."
Persons - (from AIA 1901): expressions used to denote persons generally (such as " person ", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no‑one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual;
Citizen - (In English law from Blacks): An inhabitant of a city. The representative of a city, in parliament. When it is designed to designate an inhabitant of the country, or one amenable to the laws of the nation, “subject” is there employed.
Individual - (from AIA 1901): means a natural person.
(from Blacks): 'natural' is that which cannot be separated.

Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. Ann Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualism.html

The legal meaning of People does not show in Aust legislation until the EPBC Act 1999 - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/s528 Definitions that "environment" includes: (a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities

The word citizen is only used in the 1900 Constitution at s44, and appears to indicate that only a subject can hold office under this Constitution, being that a subject is an entity owing allegiance to that Crown and governed by its laws (common law), while a citizen does not, but owes allegiance to a foreign power (government).
Of course, where a foreign individual makes the choice to become a naturalized citizen under the 1900 Constitutional structure, they are then subject to the Crown and able to stand for office.

This was the focus of Sue v Hill & Anor 1999 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1999/30.html

So, a Person / Persons / People / Citizen are artificial words for an Entity.
An Individual is a natural, flesh and blood, thinking, feeling man or woman.

Now, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is an act OVER the entities of persons. You will find no reference to an individual, because an act cannot govern over an individual. And the act only refers to person / persons.
Therefore because our entity status, both singular and plural (person/s) was contained in the 1900 const, govt could not rule over that entity without permission, so they created a new entity for the new jurisdiction of environment - that being people.
It is our thought that all new restrictions are not over the person/s of the 1900 constitution, or over the individual (living, breathing) but over the people under the environmental jurisdiction.
In effect, you are being "protected" from yourself.
However, again, there was no agreement of the people to be re-created as another entity.

State of the Commonwealth
A state is not a physical land mass, but a political entity.
So, we have the state of the commonwealth, being the people.
The state of the Federal Parliament, being the Parliamentary structure as defined in the 1900 Constitution.
The state's of NSW, Vic, etc, being the Parliamentary structure governing the assets of that state on behalf of the owner of the land, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and assigns.

Our Protection
As a subject of the Queen comes your ownership of land and your common law protection. Which defines what we know is our protection.)

Section 117 - as a subject of the Queen, and a resident of the state (of the Commonwealth), I shall not be subject in any other State (being NSW, VIC, etc) to any disability of discrimination which would not be equally applicable to me if I were a subject of the Queen in such other State.
WITHOUT
Section 128 - my agreement at referendum.

[Disability: The want of legal ability or capacity to exercise legal rights, either special or ordinary, or to do certain acts with proper legal effect, or to enjoy certain privileges or powers of free action. At the present day, disability is generally used to indicate an incapacity for the full enjoyment of ordinary legal rights.
Discrimination: to show a difference in treatment]

So, the States (NSW, etc) cannot make different laws in opposition or that remove my rights as a person of the Commonwealth (state) and a subject of the Crown, who holds my protection of ownership and personal rights.

Each State can make different parliamentary laws for the purpose of maintaining the assets of the Crown, but I am not an asset and that is their only Constitution 1900 area of jurisdiction.
So, as an individual I have the right to a religion of my choice, to thoughts, etc of my choice, because they are the only rights of pure and unconstricted ownership I can claim individually.

To participate in private ownership makes me a subject of the Crown and therefore subject to her protection under Common Law.

To my understanding, to be a member of the People of the Commonwealth, means I step into an entity role for the purpose of creating a stable community/society in which I can live peacefully as a subject of the Crown, and privately on my land or in my home as an individual.

However, we may interpret these words, our protection is in our agreement.

If we as an individual have not agreed, how then can we as an individual be enforced into a contract?

If we as a People have not agreed at Referendum, how then can the People be enforced into a contract?

COAG, Corporations and the New Government

2010-01-06T17:52:00.000-08:00

COAG – Council of Australian Government
In May 1992, COAG was established to debate and co-ordinate government activities between the Federal, state and local governments.
It is the peak intergovernmental forum in Australia.
COAG is the "modern" restoration of the 1855 Federal Council of Australasia, wherein the independent colonies had a trade agreement.
Members are not voted in by the people.
They are the Prime Minister, the Premiers of each state and territory and the President of the Australian Local Government Association.
Some activities have included a review of Government Services.
Reform packages for early childhood
Nation building and jobs partnerships
Intergovernmental agreements on Federal Financial Relations
Bushfire inquiry
Economic Implications of an ageing Australia
National Water Initiative
Foot and Mouth Disease

Corporations & Government
Subsequently all states who have turned corporate in their own right, are outside the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and inside the Australia Act and can reprint all acts back to statutory legislation.
This allows the Australia Act to be the definitive constitution for a republic in all but name.
According to Law Alert, during the last week – 1 week only, the following 76 act & bills were brought in to be discussed, amended and passed
ACT: 8 including Rates & Land Taxes
Cth: 30 including Water Appropriation & Federal Magistrate Courts Amendments
NSW: 3 including Criminal Assets Recovery
QLD: 2 including Constitution Preamble Amendment
SA: 7 including Constitution Appointments
TAS: 5 including Police Offences Amendment
VIC: 13 including Local govt Act, Planning Legislation, water Amendment
WA: 8 including Mining, Environment, Crown Land & Planning Amendments
All together for 2009, the Federal and State Parliaments have passed or amended 2,313 new Bills, Acts and Regulations.
All are statutory laws of the new corporations protected by the Queen of Australia, sealed to the Great Seal of Australia and/the State Seals & inside the Australia Act 1986.

WA and QLD and the 1900 Constitution

2010-01-06T17:50:00.000-08:00

Queensland
In 1917, the Queensland government put a referendum to the people, asking them to remove the Legislative Council (Senate).
The people refused and the government went ahead and removed it.
This fractured the manner and form of the Australian Constitution and with that Queensland stepped out of the Constitution.
In the time since then, culminating in the QLD Constitution 2001, successive QLD government have gradually prepared the laws and the public service until today finds QLD without common law in any court, with a dictatorial executive government that ignores the wishes of the people, and enforces its own legislation over the rights of the people.
To do this successive Parliaments gradually repealed, back in time, every law that has ever been in existence that mentions a British law, including the American Bill of Independence.
These changed acts would be presented to parliament and using s15da of the Acts Interpretation Act, after 2 years they jump up and became valid to the new parliament.
Then if there were no requests to examine these acts, after 7 years they would be reprinted. Hence the big differences in the dates legislation came into effect.
If necessary, the QLD parliament would create another act to fill a gap.
Over that progressive period, the QLD Parliament have reprinted all necessary acts, and amended others until they now operate effectively under both the QLD Constitution 1867 and the QLD Constitution 2001.
All acts are all sealed to the power of the crown of Mr Whitlam – the Queen of Australia, rather than the crown of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
Beattie, in the second reading of the QLD Constitution 2001, stated, “It is so simple, they’ll never work it out.”

Western Australia
When the Constitution was passed by the British Parliament, WA had yet to endorse their inclusion.
The WA Parliament convened to consider an Enabling Bill for a referendum. This was assented to on 13 June 1900.
On 31 July 1900, a WA referendum carried their people’s agreement for the Act.
Queen Victoria had signed the Constitutional Act on 9 July 1900.
A separate proclamation had to be issued after the WA referendum to set the date for Federation – 1 January 1901.
In 1933, 68% of WA voters voted to have WA leave the Commonwealth and return to the British Empire as an autonomous territory. However, the British Government refused to intervene and no action was taken.
In WA, during 1 week in November 2009, over 50 acts were reprinted.

Government Creation of a new Constitution

2010-01-06T17:05:00.000-08:00

Balfour Declaration 1926
This Declaration accepted the growing political and diplomatic independence of the Dominions, in the years after WWI.
It also recommended that the governors-general, the representatives of the King who acted for the Crown as de facto head of state in each dominion, should no longer also serve automatically as the representative of the British government in diplomatic relations between the countries.
In following years, High Commissioners were gradually appointed, whose duties were soon recognised to be virtually identical to those of an ambassador.
Labor PM James Scullin, acted within its precepts and insisted on picking the new Governor-General rather than taking the person chosen by King GeorgeV. George was forced to agree by the Imperial Conference 1930.

Royal & Parliamentary Titles Act 1927
This act modified the King’s title, proclaiming that he was no longer King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland & of the British Dominions, but rather of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions.
This meant that the unified Crown that had been the centre point of the Empire was replaced by multiple crowns worn by a “shared monarch.”
Before 1927, King George V reigned as King in Australia, NZ, Canada and etc, with them all being dominions of the United Kingdom. After 1927, he reigned as King of Australia and etc.

While the King did not seem to grasp the significance, the Irish did, and immediately separated themselves from the new UK monarch.
On the 19th October, 1973, Gough Whitlam, used the Royal Styles Act to create the Queen of Australia, this act being reprinted on 22 April 2002.

Monarch of Australia
Her current Australian title is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
She is regarded as a legal personality of the Australian State, and is referred to as her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia or Regina in law cases.
As such all state lands are called Crown land, state owned buildings and equipment are called Crown held property, copyright for all government publications are called Crown
copyright.
Employees of the Crown may be required to recite an oath to the Crown. Parliamentarians, members of the judiciary must do so as well.
The Queen of Australia cannot be sued in foreign courts without her express consent.

Symbols
State Coat of Arms are now replacing the Sovereign’s Coat of Arms in the courts of Australia.
The Commonwealth Coat of Arms is now known as the Coat of Arms of Australia.
In 2004, an Australian barrister, David Fitzgibbon established in the High Court of London, that the Queen had used the wrong stamp to approve the appointment of the new governor-General. The court agreed. The Queen had used the Great Seal of Australia instead of the Great Seal of Britain.

Westminster System
Although four Prime Minister’s had refused to ratify the Westminster Statute, in 1942 John Curtin was forced to, by the entry of the Japanese into WWII, when it became obvious the British could not protect Australia.
In order to seek an alliance with the US, the Australian
Parliament formally adopted the Statute of Westminster 1931, a statute which allowed our Parliament to act independently of the British Parliament and Government.
This act demonstrated to the international community that Australia was an independent nation.
It also meant that any laws the parliament made which were repugnant to British laws would no longer be invalid.
The Governor-General now assents to all bills with the Great Seal of Australia.

Changes under the Westminster System
* The Westminster system is a series of procedures for operating a legislature.
* The Prime Minister is recognized as the presiding and actual head of the government and head of the executive branch.
* The Queen / Governor-General holds a ceremonial position only.
* A cabinet executes executive authority.
* A multi-party system
* Parliament can be dissolved and elections called at any time.
* Parliamentary Privilege allows the legislature to discuss any issue it feels is relevant, with no fear of consequences
* Government or legislature interpret the results of Plebiscites and may ignore them if desired.
* The Governor-General ceased to be the representative of the British government and a British High Commissioner was from then on appointed.
* The Governor-General now has the responsibility of appointing a prime minister.
* Westminster governments usually do not have a very strong tradition of Separation of Powers.

Australia Act 1986
The power of the Westminster Statute allowed the Australian Parliament to request that the British Parliament enact the Australia act 1986.
This effectively terminated the ability of the British Parliament and government to make laws for Australia, even at their request, and meant that any law previously passed on behalf of Australia could now be done so by the new Australian Parliament and government.
It removed the right of the monarch to exercise their power in Australia unless personally present.
In Sue v Hill 1999, the High Court declared that the UK is a “foreign power”.
This means that such laws as the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689 and etc are the laws of a foreign country and no longer able to be accessed by Australians.

Royal Coat of Arms & Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain

Great Seal of Australia & the Queen of Australia

An Overview of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900

2010-01-06T16:09:00.000-08:00

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
Consists of 8 Chapters and the Schedule.
I. The Parliament
consisting of the Queen, a Senate & a House of Representatives
Governor General appointed by the Queen as her representative
Before taking their seat, they must all swear and Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance.
II. The Executive Government
Executive power is vested in the Queen and can be exercised by the Governor General
The Governor General chooses the members of the Federal Executive Council, who advise him/her.
All references to the Governor General in Council refer to the Governor General acting on the advice of the Federal Executive Council.
III. The Judicature
Judicial power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Federal Supreme Court, called the High Court of AustraliaJustices are appointed by the Governor General in
Council.
IV. Finance and Trade
V. The States
VI. New States
VII. Miscellaneous
VIII. Alteration of the Constitution
The proposed law for the alteration must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament and not less than two or more than six months must be submitted to a referendum of the voters in each State and Territory .
If, the referendum is approved by a majority of the States and a majority of the voters, the Governor-General may approve the proposed law.
The Schedule
The Oath & Affirmation of the new parliamentarian.

Protection of Rights
There is no Bill of Rights in the Australian Constitution, because the majority of the people felt that the traditional rights and freedoms of British subjects were sufficiently guaranteed by the Separation of Powers and the 2 houses of Parliament.
And as the Act itself is British law, our access was therefore provided to the Magna Carta, Habeus Corpus, Bill of Rights 1649 and etc.

However the Constitution did include the following rights –
* Right to Trial by Jury in s80 for indictable offences against Commonwealth Law.
* Right to Just Compensation in s51 (xxxi) for assets taken by the Commonwealth.
* Right to Freedom of religion in s116, wherein the Commonwealth can not make laws to do with religion.
* Right to Freedom from Discrimination against residents of another state in s117.
The High Court have also established an implied Right to Freedom of Political Communication and a limited Right to Vote in s7 & s24.

Separation of Powers
Refers to the separation of the Executive (the Ministry), the Legislature (the Parliament) and the Judiciary (the Courts), with none of the three branches of government able to exercise total power.
Legislative power means the power to make laws and is concentrated in the Parliament. Executive power means the power to implement laws and is given to the government.
Judicial power gives the High Court power to decide whether laws are legal according to the Constitution.
The essence of the doctrine of separation of powers is thus based on the idea of checks and balances.

Prime Ministers, Premiers & Political Parties
The Constitution does not mention any of these entities in any manner.
The intent of the Constitution was that each person entering the House of Representatives & the Senate would be entirely independent, answerable only to the electors.

Referendums & Plebiscites
At all times, the only manner in which the Constitution could be altered were by binding polls called referendums.
To pass a referendum the final vote had to consist of a majority of states and a majority of the voters agreement.A Yes vote in a referendum would change that section of the Constitution. This would then be presented to the Governor - General for Royal Assent. This then becomes a binding and entrenched alteration to the Constitution.
A No vote was as lawful, in that it meant that there could be no change to the relevant section.
A Plebiscite is an optional voting structure to do with decisions that do not alter the Constitution.
Because the general feeling toward the Constitution is that it is fine the way it is, only 5 Federal referendums out of 21 have received a Yes vote.
* In 1916 & 1917, the people voted No to allow govt to conscript Australians for war.
* 1n 1944, the people voted No when govt wanted to extend its wartime powers into peace times.
* In 1951 the people voted No to banning communism – because it infringed on Freedom of Choice.
* In 1967, 89% of the People voted Yes to include Aboriginal people in the Constitution.
* In 1988, the Federal govt tried to introduce a Bill of Rights which, by stealth, gave govt greater powers. 70% of the people voted No, preferring less govt control.
* In 1999, over 50% of the people voted No against a Republic.
* The people have voted No to allowing govt to further extend their powers into trade, finance, corporations, industrial matters, disputes, aviation, marketing, democratic rights, pricing, incomes and more.
* Important referendums in which the people voted No twice, were in 1974 & 1988, where the People refused to allow Local Councils to be recognized in the Constitution.

Chapter III Court
Under the Constitutional Judicial structure, a constitutional court of law is known as a Chapter III Court.
The judicial power of the Commonwealth can only be exercised by a Chapter III court.
No other body, such as a panel, tribunal, commission, etc can render and enforce a judgment.
This has been upheld by the High Court in
* NSW v Commonwealth (1915) the Wheat Case
* Harry Brandy v Human Rights & Equal Opportunities Commission 1995
* Lane v Morrison 2009

Background to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900

2010-01-06T16:00:00.000-08:00

History
Original settlement in Australia was under military law, for the purpose of penal colonies. Gradually private settlement grew until by the mid 1800’s, 5 states were colonized – SA, QLD, NSW, Vic & Tas, with private settlement existing in WA under Crown Colonies.
In 1885, the Federal Council of Australasia was formed, consisting of Vic, Tas, QLD & SA , and included the Crown Colonies of WA & Fiji.
This Council dealt mainly with matters of trade between the various colonies. Constitutional Conventions began in the late 1880’s and the final referendum was held in June 1899.
After some changes were made by the British Parliament, The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was passed on 5 July 1900 and given Royal Assent by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900. On 1 January 1901 the Proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia was held in Centennial Park, Sydney.
The new Act was an act of the British Parliament as well as ratification of the Constitution of Australia.

The Preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established; And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen; Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same…….

To Clarify
We must all remember that the words of the Preamble were carefully chosen after over 10 years of conventions, public discussion & referendums, so those words are vital to understand.
1. The People – not parliament or government or councils or public servants.
2. from NSW, VIC, SA, QLD & TAS – with the allowance of admitting other Australasian colonies (such as WA)
3. humbly – without pride
4. relying – depending and trusting
5. on the blessings – guardianship, protection and favour
6. of Almighty God – therefore the people included God in this agreement
7. agreed – came to a common consent and understanding
8. to unite – join together, make one, combine
9. under one – beneath a single
10. indissoluble – that which can not be dissolved, undone or destroyed
11. Federal – a league or compact between two or more states.
12. Commonwealth – where the states retain powers of self-government in respect to the states concerns, but form an integral part of a larger government or nation.
13. under the Crown – sovereign power in the monarchy, especially in relation to the punishment of crimes
14. of the United Kingdom & Ireland
15. and under the Constitution hereby established – the organic and fundamental law of a nation, establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing and limiting the functions of its different departments and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers.
16. enacted – established by law and decree
17. by the Queens’s Most Excellent Majesty – Queen Victoria
18. and with the advice – opinion, instructions
19. and consent – agreement
20. of the Lords Spiritual – the archbishops and bishops who have seats in the house of lords
21. and Temporal – those lay person who have seats in the house of lords
22. and Commons – the class of subjects of Great Britain who are not members of the royal family and nobility, and are represented in the house of commons.
23. in this great parliament assembled – all of them together
24. and by the authority of the same – by the legal power, right to command of the whole parliament.

Put together….
The people of the five independent colonies, depending on the protection and favour of Almighty God, consented to join together beneath a single indestructible agreement, wherein the independent colonies joined together to form a combined government, still allowing for state concerns, with the Queen as the sovereign authority for crimes and the foundation laws of the Constitution providing the structure of the government.
A very simple, easily understood agreement.

Why is God in the Constitution?
The Queen is the head of the Church of England.
She holds our constitutional power.
The Oath of office taken by all politicians, which is a pledge to the Queen.
Every year before the start of the legal year, all justices and barristers go to church to uphold that part of their oath.

Common Law and The Crown
The Queen’s authority particularly lay in the matter of the punishment of crime using common law.
The ancestry of common law lies in the Ten Commandments and is the ancient unwritten law of England.
It is the principles and rules of action, relating to the security of persons and property.
It is not, has never been and can not be Roman law, modern civil law, canon law, maritime law, kangaroo law or any other system.

The Governor-General
Because the Queen did not reside in Australia, she placed her representative in the form of the Governor-General here.
His role was to approve any change to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) in the form of a Referendum and/or a Law.
The difference between a Law and Legislation being that –
* a Bill is raised in the Lower House, debated and discussed. If passed, this bill goes to
* the Senate, which must cross-reference the bill with the Constitution to make sure the bill does not interfere with it in any way. Once approved the bill goes to the
* Governor-General for approval. He then stamps it with the Seal of the Crown.
* That Law cannot be amended or changed without the same process in place. Legislation however, is a matter of government decision-making and can change from day to day, as the government wishes.
In the event a person feels that the legislation has removed his Constitutional rights, he may take it to court.
The final arbiter being the High Court of Australia, who are charged with the protection of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.
Please note however, they are also the guardians of the State Constitutions.

Index of December 2009 Research Information

2010-01-06T15:09:00.000-08:00

Courts of Australia in 2009

2009-12-23T22:59:00.000-08:00

How or why does this jurisdiction refuse to recognize common law & equity, or any authorities in jurisprudence?

Let’s look at Queensland. Under the current Parliamentary Supremacy of govt, this state was ‘birthed’ in 2001, when the Qld Constitution 2001 came into existence. And hence the new jurisprudence of public policy.

Due to that timeline the supreme “Authority” for jurisprudence is held by “Bone v Mothershaw” which was a decision off the back of the newly commenced Constitution. All jurisprudence in Queensland has a “Start Date” of (approx) June 2002 to this present day.

And remember, the outcome of Bone v Mothershaw was that a court could refuse to give a petitioner permission to take their appeal to the High Court, because the High Court would refuse it!

So, the first authority for jurisprudent decisions removed the High Court from this new structure of law.

No court in QLD can use any case prior to this date as a decision making tool. And because there is such a shortage of cases to use, the Courts are bound to the Statutory Instruments (legislation).

Because of this lack of any pre-existing jurisprudence in authorities, the Courts must use that very same Statutory Instrument not only for the Court’s jurisprudence but for its authority.

In other words, the current govt legislation gives the court its rules and tells the court its decisions. And so the courts must find for the govt in almost all relevant cases.

Under that structure of legislative “precedent”, the courts now operate under a balance of probabilities. For example – you may have a tree on your land, a particular bird may prefer to nest in that type of tree, however at a point in time, the bird has never done so. You cut down that tree, and are fined heavily under the relevant environmental laws.

In effect, the court must rule that the bird could have nested in that tree, may be planning to nest in that tree, may even have been in the process of nesting in that tree, and if it had you would have harmed the bird when felling the tree.

Therefore on the balance of probabilities, you are guilty. And you cannot prove yourself innocent because there is no legislation that gives you any way of doing so.

Now at this point, you are all probably jumping up and down and telling me “They can’t do that!” “We haven’t had a referendum about this!” “They can’t do that under this law, that law, the other law!” And a few more “They can’t do that!”

Well, they have. And the sooner we accept that and work out how to restore our Constitution to its supremacy, return ourselves to being common law men and women, turf out these fraudulent individuals and learn to protect our vital rights, the less likely this is to happen ever again.

Meanwhile, it has and what can we do about it?

State Governments of Australia in 2009

2009-12-23T22:23:00.000-08:00

The Constitution refers to a State. That being “a State” of the Commonwealth of Australia (Chapter 5).

The reference to “the State” is to the State of the Commonwealth of Australia and its external territories.

To clarify the term “the State” and its effect within today’s laws. The best way to explain this is take the meaning of “the State” from the South Australian Acts Interpretation Act 1919 (SA) at s4A, where it says this about the State:

Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA)
Section 4A headed, Date of establishment of the State “For the purposes of the law of the State, the State will be taken to have been established on the twenty-eighth day of December, 1836.”

Therefore, in each government, The State is the entity created at its inception as a colony, prior to the Federation when that state became A State. The State being an independent entity, A State being a confederated entity.

In other words, the Constitutional states are still in existence, the govts of those states have simply returned to operating under their original colonial constitutions.

Have we returned to being prisoners under military rule then?

Now as a consequence of holding (keeping) Chapter 2 and the reading down (ignoring) of Chapters 1 and 3 specifically, the Executive Government of the Commonwealth and the Executive Governments of “the States” are exercising extraordinary powers through the process known as COAG which is based on a process of Statutory agreements alienated (separate) from the Constitution.

What is now created? –

An independent jurisdiction without limit, or restriction,
that was in existence before Federation (Colonies)
with the exception, that British Law no longer applies by virtue of the Australia Act.
Therefore; there is no applicable jurisprudence obtainable from within Chapters 1 or 3 of the Constitution.
The jurisprudence is now held solely within the Statutory Instrument (govt legislation) and again is alienated from the Constitution.

So, the Crown now resides in the “hands” of the Governor, who is under the advisement of the Federal Executive.

The Executive has assumed the role of Governor, therefore the Crown now resides in the hands of the Executive.

Therefore all state legislation made by the

executive=governor=crown is binding.

The Executive Government of Australia in 2009

2009-12-23T22:08:00.000-08:00

The Australian Constitution is divided into “Jurisdictions” (i.e. parliament, executive, crown, judiciary)

Chapter 1 – The Parliament
Chapter II – the Executive
Chapter III – the Judicature

Govt have “read down” (ignored) Ch I & III.

They have found a loophole and “created” a new “constitution” out of Chapter II s61, s62 and s63. Hence the Australia Act 1986.

Thus – the Governor-General exercises the power of the Queen (61), under the advisement of the Federal Executive Council (62), therefore this provision of this constitution referring to him shall be construed as referring to him acting in advice (63).

In other words, the GG works in with the Executive to exercise the powers vested in him.

S63, therefore allows the Executive to assume the role of the Governor-General as Head of State.

This has created an entirely new jurisdiction INSIDE the Australian Constitution – the jurisdiction referred to by the High Court in several cases. Note: In most legislature “This Act binds the crown in each of its capacities”.

Remember, the Australian Constitution is STILL IN PLACE. This new structure operates like a cancer INSIDE the Aust Constitution.This new jurisdiction is known as the law of the body politic, or the law of public policy (e.g EPBC Act 1999, Local Govt Act 1995 & etc) .

It has allowed, over the previous 20 years, the dramatic amendments (parliamentary supremacy) to the Judiciary Act 1903 specifically during the Hawke/Keating years and more aggressively through the Howard years.

This jurisdiction (public policy) has the ability to create laws that remove, or weaken all and any provisions (Common law) normally found under the jurisdictions of Chapter 1 and 3 (remember they are being ignored).

The public policy jurisdiction (Statute law Miscellaneous Provisions) has its own Courts (Tribunals, or Committees), Rules of Court and employs a different type of public servant, that being a person, or authority in the service of the Government (assumed Crown) as differentiated from, in the service of the Crown.

In nearly all circumstances in the provisioning of statutory instruments made under this jurisdiction, the so called Government public servants attain the authority of “authorised officers” exercising similar powers to police officers (Crown employees) which include powers of search, power to obtain documents, power to demand answers to questions at a time and place of their choosing and the power to prosecute.

This jurisdiction operates WITHOUT restriction, or limitation. Nearly all the States, particularly Qld, make all law under this jurisdiction and there is absolutely no provision for cross-vesting between these two jurisdictions. Cross-vesting being the ability for a court to recognize both or either common law and/or civil law (ie. mercantile, admiralty).

In other words, this parliamentary supremacy has created a new form of law under public policy, new courts to administer that law and new public servants to police that form of law. The new courts do not have the ability to adjudicate under any form of common law, but at all times can only operate under civil law.

Let’s make this even simpler to understand.
Look at your body, it operates under the laws of nature, thriving with the proper food, liquid, exercise. Natural rights each of us are entitled to.
A cancer creeps in, finds a home in a portion of your body and proceeds to build its own structure. With the end aim of taking over & perhaps killing you.
There is nothing illegal about this cancer, it comes from your own body, feeds from your own body, but it is against the law of nature as it creates its own kingdom INSIDE your body, taking over your right to health.

Now we constantly hear reference to tax loopholes – usually found by the wealthy with the assistance of high-priced lawyers. Govt get wind of these loopholes and close them.
Government have simply found a loophole in the Constitution – except it is a loophole that is turning the people of Australia into slaves, with no personal liberties, no right of ownership and no ability to protect themselves legally.

Who closes it down when govt finds a loophole – this time in the very structure of the governance of our country?
We, the people do!

This is what govt have been working to create since possibly the inception of the Australian Constitution 1900. The Framers of the Constitution are quoted in the Commentaries on the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia by Sir Robert Garran (1867 - 1957) - It was the great ambition of the framers of the Australian Constitutions of 1855–6 to acclimatize, in the colonies which they were then helping to found, the system thus known as Responsible Government.

This brings us to a review of some of the objections which have been raised to the application of the Cabinet system of Executive Government to a federation. These objections have been formulated with great ability and sustained with force and earnestness by several Australian federalists of eminence, among whom may be mentioned the names of Sir Samuel Griffith, Sir Richard C. Baker, Sir John Cockburn, Mr. Justice Inglis Clark, and Mr. G. W. Hackett, who have taken the view that the Cabinet system of Executive is incompatible with a true Federation. (See “The Executive in a Federation,” by Sir Richard C. Baker, K.C.M.G., p.l.)

In support of this contention it is argued that, in a Federation, it is a fundamental rule that no new law shall be passed and no old law shall be altered without the consent of (1) a majority of the people speaking by their representatives in one House, and (2) a majority of the States speaking by their representatives in the other house; that the same principle of State approval as well as popular approval should apply to Executive action, as well as to legislative action; that the State should not be forced to support Executive policy and Executive acts merely because ministers enjoyed the confidence of the popular Chamber; that the State House would be justified in withdrawing its support from a ministry of whose policy and executive acts it disapproved; that the State House could, as effectually as the primary Chamber, enforce its want of confidence by refusing to provide the necessary supplies. The Senate of the French Republic, it is pointed out, has established a precedent showing how an Upper House can enforce its opinions and cause a change of ministry. On these grounds it is contended that the introduction of the Cabinet system of Responsible Government into a Federation, in which the relations of two branches of the legislature, having equal and co-ordinate authority, are quite different from those existing in a single autonomous State, is repugnant to the spirit and intention of a scheme of Federal Government. In the end it is predicted that either Responsible Government will kill the Federation and change it into a unified State, or the Federation will kill Responsible Government and substitute a new form of Executive more compatible with the Federal theory. In particular, strong objection is taken to the insertion in the Constitution of a cast-iron condition that Federal Ministers must be members of Parliament. Membership of Parliament, it is argued, is not of the essence of Responsible Government, but only an incident or an accidental feature, which has been introduced by modern practice and by statutory innovation.

The Superiority of private Land Ownership Rights

2009-12-14T13:31:00.000-08:00

Under English law, the recognition of ownership must always include the ability to inherit. That recognition being accepted by English law as fee simple ownership.

Civil law can recognise Fee Simple BUT it is enshrined in an extremely tight constitution where it can not be interfered with.

The problem that our Australian Federal & State legislatures have is that statute law can not guarantee rights because the statute can changed or even repealed. In civil law countries (France, Germany etc) these rights are enshrined in their very tight constitutions. In common law countries these rights are enshrined in the common law itself although it must be said that civil law countries have elements of common law as well, and vice versa. However, in Australia they are progressively extinguishing the common law and replacing it with civil law without any enshrined constitutional mechanism that protect the rights lost by the removal of the common law. Single or multiple statutes can not accommodate those rights because they can be removed or altered at the whim of the parliament or "Polite Bureau".

With regards to land ownership those rights are tied up in an "Inheritable Estate" which in this country can only be Fee Simple. Lease hold titles are not inheritable because they are titles by virtue of a "Statute" and that statute can be altered or repealed therefore there is no security of inheritance.

Therefore if the legislature removes the "Inheritance" or can not guarantee the inheritance of a "title of inheritance" that once existed, but by virtue of a statute has been removed and IN DOING SO also imposes a penalty (for destroying ones inheritance and therefore private property) therein lies an "ABSOLUTE TAKING". The "Penalty" and criminal prosecution means that you have destroyed "Their Property" NOT YOURS therefore the inheritance has transferred to the Government and the "Public".

MABO and ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND and ANOTHER [1988] HCA 69; (1989) 166 CLR 186 F.C. 88/062 (8 December 1988)

Deane:

23. The question therefore arises whether the practical effect of the Act would, upon the assumption made for the purposes of the demurrer, be to produce a situation where the Torres Strait Islanders or the Miriam people(being "persons of a particular race, colour or national or ethnic origin") "do not enjoy a right that is enjoyed by persons of another race, colour or national or ethnic origin, or enjoy a right to a more limited extent than" such other persons within the meaning of those words as used in s.10 of the Commonwealth Act. In the light of what has been said above, the answer to that question must, in my view, be in the affirmative.

The practical operation and effect of the Act, even on the correct and more confined construction of s.3, are to single out the Torres Strait Islanders (including the Miriam people) for discriminatory treatment in relation to traditional proprietary rights and interests to and in their homelands. The confiscation or extinction of such rights and interests without any compensation or any procedure for ascertaining or assessing the existence and extent of the claims of particular individuals is a denial of the entitlements to ownership and inheritance of property, including the implicit immunity from arbitrary dispossession, which are "rights" for the purposes of s.10(1) of the Commonwealth Act.

That denial of rights is confined to the Torres Strait Islanders. It does not extend to persons of "another race, colour or national or ethnic origin". Its effect is that the Torres Strait Islanders, including the Miriam people, are denied ("do not enjoy") "rights", including the entitlement to immunity from being arbitrarily dispossessed, which are enjoyed by those other persons. That being so, that denial attracts the protective provisions of s.10(1) of the Commonwealth Act. In the context of the provisions of s.10(3), it would be anomolous if it were otherwise.

Mabo (2)

Deane and Gaudron:

69. The detailed findings of Moynihan J. of the Supreme Court of Queensland in relation to the issues of fact remitted to that court unavoidably contain areas of uncertainty and elements of speculation. Nonetheless, they provide, for present purposes, a sound basis for some generalizations in relation to native entitlements to the occupation and use of land within the Murray Islands under local law or custom at the time of their annexation to Queensland. It suffices, for the purposes of this judgment, to say that the Meriam people lived in an organized community which recognized individual and family rights of possession, occupation and exploitation of identified areas of land.

The entitlement to occupation and use of land differed from what has come to be recognized as the ordinary position in settled British Colonies in that, under the traditional law or custom of the Murray Islanders, there was a consistent focus upon the entitlement of the individual or family as distinct from the community as a whole or some larger section of it. It would seem that, with the exception of the area used by the London Missionary Society, those individual or familial entitlements under traditional law or custom extended to all the land of the Islands. It is true, as the learned Solicitor-General for Queensland submitted, that it is impossible to identify any precise system of title, any precise rules of inheritance or any precise methods of alienation. Nonetheless, there was undoubtedly a local native system under which the established familial or individual rights of occupation and use were of a kind which far exceed the minimum requirements necessary to found a presumptive common law native title. In circumstances where the strong assumption of the common law was unaffected by the act of State annexing the Islands, the effect of the annexation was that the traditional entitlements of the Meriam people were preserved. The radical title to all the lands of the Islands vested in the Crown.

The Crown's proprietary estate in the land was, however, reduced, qualified or burdened by the common law native title of the Islanders which was thereafter recognized and protected by the law of ueensland. It is unnecessary to determine whether the lands of the Islands became, upon annexation, Crown lands for the purposes of the Crown Lands Alienation Act. If they did, the common law native title of the Islanders was not extinguished but remained a burden on the underlying title of the Crown, and any provisions of that Act which would have the effect of modifying the common law native title or restricting the rights of use and occupation of the Islanders were, to that extent, inapplicable.

Newcrest Mining (WA) Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia [1997] [HCA]

One highly influential international statement on the understanding of universal and fundamental rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document is not a treaty to which Australia is a party. Indeed it is not a treaty at all. It is not part of Australia's domestic law, still less of its Constitution[479]. Nevertheless, it may in this country, as it has in other countries, influence legal development and constitutional interpretation[480]. At least it may do so where its terms do not conflict with, but are consistent with, a provision of the Constitution[481].

The use of international law in such a way has been specifically sanctioned by the Privy Council when giving meaning to express constitutional provisions relating to "fundamental rights and freedoms"[482]. Such jurisprudence has its analogies in the courts of several other countries[483]. The growing influence of the Universal Declaration upon the jurisprudence in the International Court of Justice may also be noted[484].

The Universal Declaration states in Article 17:

"1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

Whilst this article contains propositions which are unremarkable to those familiar with the Australian legal system, the prohibition on the arbitrary deprivation of property expresses an essential idea which is both basic and virtually uniform in civilized legal systems. Historically, its roots may be traced as far back as the Magna Carta 1215, Art 52 of which provided:

"To any man whom we have deprived or dispossed of lands, castles, liberties or rights, without the lawful judgment of his equals, we will at once restore these".

A more specific documentary embodiment of the notion may be found in Article 17 of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789[485]:

"Property, being an inviolable and sacred right, none can be deprived of it, except when public necessity, legally ascertained, evidently requires it, and on condition of a just and prior indemnity".

Like protections against arbitrary and uncompensated deprivation of property may be found in the constitutions of most civilized countries. In the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution it is provided that[486]:

"No person shall be ... deprived of ... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The original provision to this effect in the Indian Constitution[487] has been amended several times [488]. The provision required that no person should be deprived of that person's property save by authority of law and such law had to provide for compensation for the property so acquired or requisitioned[489]. The Supreme Court of India, while that test stood, insisted that provisions for compensation were a necessary condition for the making of a valid law providing for the acquisition or requisition of property by the state [490]. In other countries of the region property rights are constitutionally protected by the same two requirements. Thus, Malaysia's Constitution provides that there shall be no deprivation of property save in accordance with law and no valid law for compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation[491]. Similarly the Japanese Consititution provides[492] that "[p]rivate [p]roperty may be taken for public use upon just compensation". In South Africa, where the issue was much debated in the context of the rights of the dispossessed majority, the 1996 Bill of Rights provides that "[n]o-one may be deprived of property except in terms of a law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property"[493].

In effect, the foregoing constitutional provisions do no more than reflect universal and fundamental rights by now recognised by customary international law. Ordinarily, in a civilised society, where private property rights are protected by law, the government, its agencies or those acting under authority of law may not deprive a person of such rights without a legal process which includes provision for just compensation. Whilst companies such as the appellants may not, as such, be entitled to the benefit of every fundamental human right[494], s 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution must be understood as it commonly applies to individuals entitled to the protection of basic rights. It must be given a meaning and operation which fully reflects that application. In this way, in Australian law, it extends to protect the basic rights of corporations as well as individuals.

When the foregoing principles, of virtually universal application, are remembered, it becomes even more astonishing to suggest that the Australian Constitution, which in 1901 expressly and exceptionally recognised and gave effect to the applicable universal principle, should be construed today in such a way as to limit the operation of that express requirement in respect of some laws made by its Federal Parliament but not others. Where there is an ambiguity in the meaning of the Constitution, as there is here, it should be resolved in favour of upholding such fundamental and universal rights[495]. The Australian Constitution should not be interpreted so as to condone an unnecessary withdrawal of the protection of such rights. At least it should not be so interpreted unless the text is intractable and the deprivation of such rights is completely clear. Neither of these conditions applies here. Nor should arbitrary deprivation of property be lightly attributed to a constitution, such as the Australian Constitution, given the history of its origins and its purpose. That purpose is to be the basic law for the government of a free people in a nation which relates to the rest of the world in a context in which the growing influence of international law is of ever increasing importance.

The authority of Teori Tau apart, a correct understanding of the Constitution does not oblige a construction condoning a law made by the Federal Parliament for a territory providing for the acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms. The obstacle which Teori Tau presents to the adoption of the correct constitutional principle should be overcome. This may the more readily be done because that decision effectively breaks a promise given on behalf of the Commonwealth at federation adopting a safeguard, restriction or qualification on its lawmaking powers relevant to the fundamental rights of all persons from whom property is compulsorily acquired under federal law. That promise extends to the territories and to laws for the government of the territories. This Court should ensure that the promise is kept. The decision in Teori Tau should be overruled. Section 51 (xxxi) applies to a law made by the Federal Parliament under s 122. It therefore applies to the Conservation Act. It follows that the orders and declarations proposed by Gummow J should be made.

Are Australians Already Enslaved?

2009-12-14T13:23:00.000-08:00

Environment Protections & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The act states in s3, that
1) The objects of this Act are:
(a) to provide for the protection of the environment,
(d) to promote a co‑operative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, land‑holders and indigenous peoples; and
(e) to assist in the co‑operative implementation of Australia's international environemental responsibilities

The act then states in s528 Definitions that
"environment" includes:
(a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities

Now the meaning of the word “People” under Australian law is not defined.

The meaning of person is in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s 22

Meaning of certain words
(1) In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
(a) expressions used to denote persons generally (such as " person ", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no‑one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual;
(aa) individual means a natural person ;
(Very important to note the use of the words contrary and includes. Contrary tell us that this meaning applies unless there is a “differing” or “inconsistent” meaning. Includes however is a word that gathers every definition under its meaning. There can be no inconsistency of meaning, because all the contrary intentions have been gathered under that word “includes”. At no time in this Act is the word “exclude” used in any reference to free will, sovereignty, private ownership rights, etc of any kind.)

The legal meaning of “people” as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary No 1
“A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation of its collective and political capacity. “

So, the only definition of ‘people’ we have is the legal interpretation, & the creators of this International Treaty, have been very careful not to place this over the individual, but over the collective of individuals.

Therefore, to prove you have these rules now enslaving you, you must first identify yourself with the collective.

One interpretation may be found in the Criminal Code Act 1995, where people is always defined as more than one person by implication. (More research will be necessary re this word.)

This means that when the Australian government makes rules about the environment, those rules include YOU (under the collective) in the jurisdiction.

This then allows the Australian Government to apply restrictions, orders, enforcements and the like over YOUR (under the collective) activities as defined in the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment Report.

Hence such imposed activities as Fluoride – being the imposition of a supposedly healthy activity OVER the people and the community, who of course come under the responsibility of govt via the EPBC Act 1999. They are making sure the “environment” is “healthy”.

YOU are NO longer a free will person, because the government have “stolen” your free will and replaced it with their rules.

If we go to the list of unsustainable activities that were listed on the UN The Global Biodiversity Assessment Report - they are ALL human activities.

These activities involve leisure, work, homes and food creation involving land use.

All activities, on land, are defined as unsustainable.

How then are people supposed to remain alive if every activity they perform, on land, is unsustainable.

And if any activity, on land, that sustains the People, is no longer permissible under the “global crisis” as promulgated by Gore – are the People going to be allowed to continue to have children, make personal choices as to the kind of life they wish to have, live and work where they choose, eat the kind of food they choose, etc?

Here is a list of the things that the The Global Biodiversity Assessment Report directed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) considers Unsustainable -
Ski Runs - Grazing of Livestock: cows, sheep, goats, horses - Disturbance of the Soil Surface - Large hoofed animals, compaction of soil, reducing filtration - Fencing of Pastures or Paddocks - Agriculture - Modern Farm Production Systems - Chemical Fertilizers - Herbicides - Building Materials - Industrial Activities - Human-Made caves of brick and mortar, concrete and steel - Paved and Tarred roads, highways, rails - Railroads - Floor and Wall Tiles - Aquaculture - Technology Improvements - Farmlands, Ranglands - Pastures, Ranglands - Pastures - Fish Ponds - Plantations - Modern Hunting - Harvesting of Timber - Logging Activities - Fossil Fuels - Used for driving various kinds of machines - Dams, Reseroirs, Straightening Rivers - Power Line Construction -Economic systems that fail to set a proper value on the environment - Inappropriate Social Structures - Weaknesses in Legal and Institutional Systems - Modern Attitudes toward nature - Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions - Private Property - Population Growth - Human Population Density - Consumerism - Fragmentation of Habitat - cemeteries, derelict lands, rubbish tips, etc - Sewers, Drain Systems, Pipelines - Land use that serves human needs - Fisheries - Golf Courses - Scuba Diving - Synthetic drugs - Fragmentation - Agricultural development, Forestry Urbanization (impervious surfaces)

The other issue to understand is that an International Treaty such as the EPBC Act 1999, is a “contractural” arrangement between two or more different parties.

If this act has effectively “enslaved” the people by removing their free will & their sovereignty, who are the other parties outside the Aust Federal Govt who now have certain as yet undetermined rights of foreign sovereignty in Australia and over the people?

Brigalow Corporation

2009-12-14T13:22:00.000-08:00

Brigalow Corporation (of the State of Qld) originated in the old Qld crowns lands act and came about through the Qld government borrowing from the federal government funds to develop what was termed the “Brigalow Belt” (about 4 mil acres) out from Rockhampton during the 1960’s.

The old crowns lands act (Qld) has now been converted to the “Land Act 1994 (Qld)” and this is where you can find the “Brigalow Corporation” today. In essence the government of Qld has moved all the crowns land AND all crown land that was sold (fee simple) into the Brigalow Corporation through the Land Act, Land Title Act, Property Law Act, etc, etc, etc.

This was achieved through a series of Constitutional changes that were “Reprinted” into and out of the 1867 Constitution commencing in 1996 with “Reprint no 1” and ending with the introduction of the 2001 Queensland Constitution Act (whole new constitution) all without a referendum of any sort.

Once the necessary changes to the “Engine” have been made then moving or amending all subordinate laws is very simple, just reprint them starting with the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld).

The “Brigalow Corporation” in not Listed as a “Public” company on the Stock Exchange, it is an “Exempt Public Authority” which is found by definition at s9 and 5A of the Corporations Act 2001 (C’wth) (in right of the crown), except there is no “Crown” in Qld just “the State”.

The term “The State” or as written in most the modern Qld statutes, “This Act binds the state” is reminiscent of Stalin’s Russia where everything was the property of “The State”.

Who Makes the Rules In & For Queensland?

2009-12-14T13:00:00.000-08:00

Notes from information provided by the Envirowild Research Team - May 2008

This question must be answered by both the courts and the government.

Under the Australian Constitutional structure & the Commonwealth we have a Separation of Powers, where the Judiciary are not to be governed or influenced by the Parliament.

This is evidenced in (reference included in this document) –

Judiciary Act 1903 – sect 86
High Court of Australia Act 1979 – sect 48
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 – sect 81
Legislative Instruments Act 2003 – sect 9
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 – sect 28

Each of these sections gives the authority to make the Rules of Court to –

Justices of the High Court
Federal Magistrates

However, in Queensland, the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Page 7) , which was reprinted in 1995, states in sect 118 (1) , the Governor in Council may make rules of court under this act for the Supreme court, District court, Magistrates court, registries and other matters mentioned in Schedule 1.

It further states in sect 134, that the Supreme Court of QLD ACT 1991 prevails in all areas of inconsistency over the 1995 Act.

Now, Schedule 1 has jurisdiction over the civil, criminal and appellate courts, Parties & Proceedings, Defence, Service of Documents, Pleadings, Disclosure, Preservation of Rights & Property, Ending Proceedings Early, Court Supervision, Evidence, Jurisdiction of Judicial Registrars, Trails & Other Hearings, Particular Proceedings, probate, Contempt of Court, Vexatious Proceedings, Trusts, Costs, Appeals etc, Money Orders Enforcement, Foreign Judgment Enforcements, Corporations, Miscellaneous.

This, in essence, states that the Governor in Council may make Rules of Court for all of the above. Consider carefully what is involved in each of these areas.

Not the judges. The Governor in Council.

And of course, the Governor was moved into the role of Parliamentary Secretary 29 January 1999. See Constitution (Parliamentary Secretaries) Act ©The State of QLD 1996. On the same day the QLD Constitution 1867 reprint was proclaimed, thus verifiying the position of Parliamentary Secretary under its Constitution.

Now, note the Supreme Court Act 1991 states the Governor in Council.

QUESTION: So, who are the members of the Council?

We now go to the Queensland Constitution 2001 (Page 13).

Chapters 1 & 2 refer to the Legislative Assembly and the Governor. But in Chapter 3, Part 1, sect 27 we read – “The Governor in Council is the Governor acting with the advice of Executive Council.”

Clearly the Governor and the Executive council are making the rules of court. Which is not and has never been the Governor’s role.

Sect 30 – “The Constitution Act 1867 contains provisions about the office of Governor.

QUESTION: Who are the members of the Executive Council?

At Chapter 3, Part 4, sect 48, those “appointed as members…by the Governor…..”

This Executive council is given separate law makings Powers of the State at Chapter 3, Part 5, Sect 51, where is states, the Executive Government of the State of QLD (the “State) = The State may exercise its powers……

Chapter 3 has created another House of Parliament in QLD. A matter (among others) which clearly required a Referendum of the People. In this Chapter, the Governor is created as a separate entity, capable of approving laws and acts which do not answer to either the people of QLD, or the courts.

In QLD now, the judges do not make the rules of court, the Government of QLD does. This removes the Separation of Powers and Common Law.

In fact, the Legislative Assembly has no more role than to appear to create discussion of proposed laws, acts, etc as developed by the Executive Council and stamped treasonously by the Governor/Parliamentary Secretary.

Although the people may still vote for members of the Legislative Assembly, they are given a furphy in that their vote leads to no control whatsoever of the laws of this state, as the LA is not part of the Governor in Council which decides the Rules of Court.

Also the Governor is not stated as the leader of the Executive Council but acts ‘with their advice” and “in council”.

The Premier of Qld, must always be the leader of the Executive Body. In Chapter 3, Part 5, Sect 55 (1) –
“A minister may delegate a power of the State to an appropriately qualified officer of the State.”

“officer of the state” means –
(a) a chief executive………………….

As the Leader of the Executive is chosen by the Executive, this is in line with Sect 55 (1). If the Governor is not the leader, then this person – the Premier – must be in leadership for both the Executive and the governor.

Hence this leader is in a position of almost dictatorial power in QLD.

In order to see the result of these situations in the Courts, go to the Court of Appeals QLD - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/

Cases include
· Glasgow v. Hall [2007] QCA 19 (2 February 2007) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2007/19.html
· Burns v. State of Queensland & Croton [2007] QCA 240 (27 July 2007) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2007/240.html
· Watts v. Ellis [2007] QCA 234 (23 July 2007) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2007/234.html
· Dore & Ors v. Penny [2006] QSC 125 (5 May 2006) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2005/150.html
· Wilson v Raddatz [2006] QCA 392 http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2006/QCA06-392.pdf

Reference Notes for the sections listed.

Judiciary Act 1903 http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth8_doc_1903.pdf

Rules of Court.

86. The Justices of the High Court or a majority of them may make Rules of Court not inconsistent with this Act for carrying this Act into effect, and in particular for the following matters, that is to say :—
(a) Appointing and regulating the sittings of the High Court and of the Justices;
(b) Regulating procedure pleading and practice in the High Court in civil or criminal matters in the exercise both of its original and of its appellate jurisdiction;
(c) Regulating any matters relating to the duties of the officers of the High Court and of the Marshal and his
Deputies and officers;
(d) Prescribing the forms to be used for the purposes of the proceedings of the High Court;
(e) Prescribing and regulating the fees to be charged by practitioners practising in the High Court for the
work done by them in relation to proceedings in the Court and for the taxation of their bills of costs, either
as between party and party or as between solicitor and client;
(f) Prescribing the fees to be collected by the officers of the High Court and by the Marshal and his officers in respect of proceedings in the Court or of the execution of the process thereof;
(g) Prescribing the extent to which the provisions of this Act shall be applicable to the Courts of Territories of the Commonwealth;
(h) Generally regulating all matters of practice and procedure in the High Court and other federal courts, and so far as is necessary in courts of federal jurisdiction.

High Court of Australia Act 1979 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/5D4B7E7835DF0683CA256FBF0027DC00?OpenDocument
48 Rules of Court
The power of the Justices or of a majority of them to make Rules of Court under section 86 of the Judiciary Act 1903 extends to making any Rules of Court required or permitted by this Act to be made or necessary or convenient to be made for carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.

Federal Magistrates Act 1999 http://www.fmc.gov.au/law/html/act.html
Part 6 - Practice and procedure
Division 8 - Rules of Court
81 Rules of Court
(1) The Federal Magistrates, or a majority of them, may make Rules of Court:
(a) making provision for or in relation to the practice and procedure to be followed in the Federal Magistrates Court (including the practice and procedure to be followed in registries of the Federal Magistrates Court);
or
(b) making provision for or in relation to all matters and things incidental to any such practice or procedure, or necessary or convenient to be prescribed for the conduct of any business of the Federal Magistrates Court;
or
(c) prescribing matters required or permitted by:
(i) any other provision of this Act;
or
(ii) any other law of the Commonwealth;
to be prescribed by the Rules of Court.
(2) Rules of Court have effect subject to any provision made by another Act, or by rules or regulations under another Act, with respect to the practice and procedure in particular matters.
(3) The Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (other than sections 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 16 of that Act) applies in relation to rules of court made by the Court under this Act or another Act:
(a) as if a reference to a legislative instrument were a reference to a rule of court;
and
(b) as if a reference to a rulemaker were a reference to the Chief Federal Magistrate acting on behalf of the Federal Magistrates;
and
(c) subject to such further modifications or adaptations as are provided for in regulations made under section 20 of this Act.
(4) Despite the fact that section 16 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 does not apply to rules of court made by the Court under this Act or another Act, the Department may provide assistance in the drafting of any of those Rules if the Chief Federal Magistrate so desires.

Legislative Instruments Act 2003 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/lia2003292/s4.html#instrument
SECT 9
Rules of court are not legislative instruments
Rules of court for the High Court, the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court are not legislative instruments for the purposes of this Act.
Note: Rules of court are treated as if they were legislative instruments by express amendment of the legislation providing for them to be made.

legislative instrument has the meaning given by section 5 and includes instruments that are declared to be legislative instruments under section 6 but does not include:
(a) instruments that are declared not to be legislative instruments under section 7; or
(b) instruments to which section 9 applies.

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s28.html
SECT 28
Rules of Court
(1) In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears, the expression “Rules of Court” when used in relation to any court shall mean rules made by the authority having for the time being power to make rules or orders regulating the practice and procedure of such court.
(2) The power of such authority to make Rules of Court shall, unless the contrary intention appears, include a power to make Rules of Court for the purpose of any Act which directs or authorizes anything to be done by Rules of Court.

Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/S/SuprCrtQA91.pdf

118 Rule-making power
(1) The Governor in Council may make rules of court under this Act for—
(a) the practices and procedures of the Supreme Court, the District Court or the Magistrates Courts or their registries or another matter mentioned in schedule 1; (see Schedule 1 (Subject matter for rules))
or
(b) the admission of persons to the legal profession under the Legal Profession Act 2007, including fees relating to admission;
or
(ba) the assessment of costs for the Legal Profession Act 2007, part 3.4, division 7; or
(c) appeals from the Mental Health Court; or
(d) any law giving jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, the District Court or the Magistrates Courts, including a law of the Commonwealth.

134 Act to prevail over Supreme Court Act 1995
(1) If a provision of the Supreme Court Act 1995 is inconsistent with this Act, this Act prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.
(2) In this section—
inconsistency includes—
(a) direct inconsistency; and
(b) covering the field inconsistency.
this Act includes the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules made under this Act.

Schedule 1 Subject matter for rules Section 118
Part 1 General
1 Jurisdiction generally
Jurisdiction of the courts, including civil, criminal and any appellate jurisdiction.

Part 2 Civil proceedings
2 Starting civil proceedings
Starting civil proceedings in the courts, including, for example, the following—
(a) originating process;
(b) where to start proceedings;
(c) for the Supreme Court—cross-vesting of jurisdiction.

3 Parties and proceedings
Parties and proceedings, including, for example, the following—
(a) several causes of action and parties in a civil proceeding, including reconstitution of proceedings and representative parties;
(b) multiple civil proceedings;
(c) interpleader orders;
(d) civil proceedings by or against a business or person under a legal incapacity;
(e) third party procedure.

4 Notices of intention to defend
Notices of intention to defend in civil proceedings.

5 Service of documents
Service of documents for civil proceedings, including, for example, the following—
(a) the various types of service, including personal service and ordinary service;
(b) service outside Australia and service of foreign legal process in Queensland.

6 Pleadings
Pleadings, including, for example, the following—
(a) matters in pleadings and particulars;
(b) progress of pleadings;
(c) particular pleadings, including statements of claim and counterclaims.

7 Disclosure
In civil proceedings—
(a) disclosure by parties, including disclosure and inspection of documents and interrogatories; or
(b) non-party disclosure; or
(c) admissions; or
(d) disclosure of experts’ reports and other material to which legal professional privilege may attach, including by direction or order of the court.

8 Preservation of rights and property
Preservation of rights and property in civil proceedings, including, for example, the following—
(a) inspection, detention and preservation of property;
(b) for the Supreme Court and the District Court—
(i) injunctions, including Mareva injunctions and Anton Piller orders;
or
(ii) receivers;
or
(iii) sales by court order.

9 Ending proceedings early
(1) Ending civil proceedings early, including, for example, the following—
(a) ending proceedings because of default;
(b) summary decisions;
(c) discontinuance and withdrawal;
(d) alternative dispute resolution processes, including, for example, the following—
(i) experience and qualifications for approval as a mediator or case appraiser;
(ii) persons who must pay ADR costs and the way, and time within which, ADR costs are to be paid;
(iii) jurisdiction of a case appraiser at a case appraisal;
(iv) ability of a mediator or case appraiser to seek independent advice or information;
(v) time within which an ADR process should be finished (which may be a time specified by the court);
(vi) conduct of an ADR process;
(vii) confidentiality of a mediated agreement or case appraiser’s decision;
(viii)applying procedures and other matters similar to those applying to arbitrations under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990;
(ix) imposing penalties against a party who fails to cooperate in an ADR process;
(e) conciliation processes, including, for example, the following—
(i) experience and qualifications for approval, under the Magistrates Courts Act 1921, section 42T, as a conciliator;
(ii) the way a conciliator is to be appointed under the Magistrates Courts Act 1921, section 42F;
(iii) time within which conciliation processes should be finished;
(iv) requirements about recording an agreement under the Magistrates Courts Act 1921, section 42M;
(v) requirements for parties to help conciliators;
(vi) ability of a conciliator to seek independent advice or information;
(vii) appointment of a replacement conciliator;
(viii)abandonment of a conciliation process;
(ix) information to be contained in the register to be kept under the Magistrates Courts Act 1921, section 42X;
(x) form of a conciliation certificate;
(f) offers to settle and payments by defendants;
(g) the referral of cases to arbitration.
(2) In this section—
conciliation certificate means a certificate mentioned in the Magistrates Courts Act 1921, section 42L.
conciliation process see the Magistrates Courts Act 1921, section 42D.
conciliator see the Magistrates Courts Act 1921, section 2.

10 Court supervision
Court supervision of civil proceedings, including, for example, the following—
(a) directions about the conduct of proceedings;
(b) consequences of failing to comply with rules, directions or court orders;
(c) amendments, both with and without leave;
(d) continuation of proceedings after delay.

11 Evidence
(1) The taking of evidence generally, including, for example, the following—
(a) the way evidence may be given;
(b) dispensing with the rules of evidence;
(c) taking evidence out of court;
(d) taking evidence for future claims;
(e) subpoenas;
(g) affidavits and the exchange of correspondence instead of affidavit evidence;
(h) the obtaining of evidence by the court, including, for example, the calling of witnesses.
(2) Expert evidence generally, including, for example, the following—
(a) conferring immunity from action on experts in relation to reports tendered in evidence;
(b) matters relating to court experts;
(c) the appointment by the court of an expert to prepare a report about a dispute before proceedings are started for tendering as evidence in proceedings started later in relation to the dispute;
(d) defining the duty of an expert witness in relation to the court and the parties;
(e) prescribing the basis of and conditions for the admissibility of expert evidence.

12 Jurisdiction of judicial registrars and registrars
Jurisdiction of judicial registrars and registrars.
Note—
judicial registrar means a judicial registrar of the District Court—see schedule 2.

13 Trials and other hearings
Trials and other hearings of civil proceedings, including, for example, the following—
(a) practice lists;
(b) listing applications for hearing and setting trial dates;
(c) the conduct of trials;
(d) decisions without pleadings or without hearings;
(e) separate decisions on questions;
(f) assessors and special referees;
(g) assessment of damages;
(h) simplified procedures for minor debt claims and other claims.

14 Particular proceedings
Particular civil proceedings, including, for example, the following—
(a) the taking of accounts;
(b) proceedings for damages for personal injury or death;
(c) the payment of amounts into court;
(d) for the Supreme Court—
(i) judicial review proceedings; or
(ii) proceedings for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.

15 Probate
For the Supreme Court, probate, including, for example, the following—
(a) applications for grants of probate or letters of administration and the documents required;
(b) resealing grants;
(c) proceedings under the Public Trustee Act 1978;
(d) caveats objecting to grants, orders to administer or resealing of grants;
(e) contested proceedings.

16 Contempt of court
Contempt of court, including, for the District Court, contempt of the District Court as constituted by a judicial registrar, and proceedings for failure to comply with an order, other than an order for the payment of an amount.
Note—
judicial registrar means a judicial registrar of the District Court—see schedule 2.

16A Vexatious proceedings
Restriction of vexatious proceedings within the meaning of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005.

17 Trusts
For the Supreme Court, trusts.

18 Costs
Costs in civil proceedings, including, for example, the following—
(a) security for costs;
(b) entitlement to recover costs of a proceeding;
(c) costs of a party in a proceeding;
(d) assessment of costs, including—
(i) the approval of registrars, and the appointment and removal of other persons, to assess costs under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999;
or
(ii) powers of costs assessors to assess costs;
or
(iii) procedures;
or
(iv) review of assessments.

19 Appeals, applications and cases stated to Court of Appeal
Appeals, applications and cases stated to the Court of Appeal.

20 Enforcement of money orders
Enforcement of orders, including, for example, the following—
(a) enforcement hearings;
(b) enforcement warrants, including—
(i) enforcement warrants for entry on to and deliveryof possession of land;
or
(ii) enforcement warrants for seizure and sale of property; r
(iii) enforcement warrants for seizure and delivery of specified goods;
or
(iv) enforcement warrants for seizure and detention of property;
or
(v) enforcement warrants for redirection of debts or earnings;
or
(vi) enforcement warrants for payment of the money order debt by instalments; or
(vii) for the Supreme Court—enforcement warrants for charging orders and stop orders;
(c) powers of enforcement officers.

21 Reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgments
The reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgments, including under a Commonwealth law.

22 Corporations
Any law, including a Commonwealth law, under which the Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction in relation to corporations or similar entities.

23 Miscellaneous matters
The following matters—
(a) documents filed in the registries;
(b) filing, receipt, service, issue or transmission electronically of approved forms and other documents and material for use in, or in connection with, proceedings, including, electronic representations or equivalents of seals, stamps and signatures and their validity;
(c) the functions of the registries generally;
(d) the rules applicable to lawyers acting for parties in proceedings in the court;
(e) transitional arrangements.

Part 3 Criminal proceedings
24 Practice and procedure in criminal jurisdiction
Practice and procedure in the courts’ criminal jurisdiction (including any appellate jurisdiction) generally, including, for example, the following—
(a) forms for proceedings;
(b) applications;
(c) lawyers’ and court’s duties;
(d) pre-trial matters, including, for example, subpoenas and pre-trial directions and rulings;
(e) regulating trial proceedings;
(g) evidence;
(h) the custody and inspection of exhibits;
(i) the recording of proceedings and access to the records;
(j) appeals, including, appeals to the Court of Appeal and the District Court;
(k) listing trials, sentences, applications and appeals for hearing, and setting hearing dates;
(l) filing, receipt, service, issue or transmission electronically of forms and other documents and material for use in, or in connection with, proceedings, including, electronic representations or equivalents of seals, stamps and signatures and their validity.

Part 4 Miscellaneous
25 Matter used in proceedings
The disposal or destruction of matter held by the court that was used in a proceeding and is unclaimed.

Constitution of Queensland 2001 http://www.constitution.qld.gov.au/pdf/ConstitutionAct.pdf

CHAPTER 1—PRELIMINARY

1 Short title
This Act may be cited as the Constitution of Queensland 2001.

2 Commencement
This Act commences on 6 June 2002.

3 Object
This Act declares, consolidates and modernises the Constitution of Queensland.
Note –
However, this Act does not consolidate the following constitutional provisions because of the special additional procedures, including approval by the majority of electors at a referendum, that may be required—
Constitution Act 1867, sections 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B and 53
Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890, section 2
Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934, sections 3 and 4.
Further, this Act does not consolidate the Constitution Act 1867, sections 30 and 40.

4 References to the Sovereign
A reference in this Act to the Sovereign is a reference to the Queen or King for the time being, and, if necessary, includes the Queen’s or King’s heirs and successors.

5 Note in text is part of this Act
A note in the text of this Act is part of this Act.

CHAPTER 2—PARLIAMENT
PART 1—CONSTITUTION AND POWERS OF PARLIAMENT

6 The Parliament
The Constitution Act 1867, section 2A provides for the Parliament in Queensland.
Note—
The Constitution Act 1867, section 2A is subject to section 53 (Certain measures to be supported by referendum) of that Act.(see Attachment 1 for these provisions)
Note also the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934, section 3 (Parliament not to be altered in the direction of re-establishing the Legislative Council or other body except in accordance with this section).(see attachment 3 for these provisions)

7 Legislative Assembly
The Constitution Act 1867, section1 provides for a Legislative Assembly in Queensland.
Note—
The Constitution Act 1867, section 1 is subject to section 53 (Certain measures to be supported by referendum) of that Act.(see attachment 1 for a copy of these provisions)

8 Law-making power
The Constitution Act 1867, section 2 provides for law-making power in Queensland.
Notes—
The Constitution Act 1867, section 2 is subject to section 53 (Certain measures to be supported by referendum) of that Act.(see attachment 1 for a copy of these provisions).
See also the Australia Act 1986 (Cwlth), sections 2 (Legislative powers of Parliaments of States), 3 (Termination of restrictions on legislative powers of Parliaments of States) and 6 (Manner and form of making certain State laws).

9 Powers, rights and immunities of Legislative Assembly
(1) The powers, rights and immunities of the Legislative Assembly and its members and committees are—
(a) the powers, rights and immunities defined under an Act;
and
(b) until defined under an Act—the powers, rights and immunities, by custom, statute or otherwise, of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and its members and committees at the establishment of the Commonwealth.
Note—
Date of establishment of the Commonwealth—1 January 1901.
(2) In this section— “rights” includes privileges.

10 Members of Legislative Assembly
The Legislative Assembly is to consist of directly elected members who are eligible (see S21) to be elected by the inhabitants of the State who are eligible (see Electoral Act 1992) to elect members.

11 Number of members of Legislative Assembly
The Legislative Assembly is to consist of 89 members.

12 Division of State into electoral districts
The State is to be divided into the same number of electoral districts as there are members of the Legislative Assembly.
Note—
The process for dividing the State into electoral districts is provided for by the Electoral Act 1992.

13 1 member for each electoral district
Each member of the Legislative Assembly is to represent 1 of the electoral districts.

14 Power to alter system of representation
The Parliament under an Act may—
(a) vary the number of members to be elected to the Legislative Assembly;
and
(b) vary the electoral districts of the State that are to be represented in the Legislative Assembly;
and
(c) establish new and other electoral districts;
and
(d) vary and regulate the appointment of returning officers and make any new and other provision that it considers convenient for the issuing and return of writs for the election of members to the Legislative Assembly and the time and place of holding the elections.

PART 2—PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY/\

15 Summoning, proroguing and dissolving the Legislative Assembly
(1) The Governor may summon the Legislative Assembly in the Sovereign’s name by instrument under the Public Seal of the State.
(2) The Governor may prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly by proclamation or otherwise whenever the Governor considers it expedient.

16 Duration of Legislative Assembly
The Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890, section 2 provides for the duration of the Legislative Assembly.
Note—
The Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890, section 2 is subject to the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934, section 4 (Duration of Legislative Assembly not to be extended except in accordance with this section).(see attachment 2 for a copy of these provisions)

17 Continuation of Legislative Assembly despite end of Sovereign’s reign
If the Sovereign’s reign ends, the Legislative Assembly, as constituted immediately before the end of the reign, continues in existence, subject to dissolution under section 15(2), for as long as it would have continued if
the Sovereign’s reign had not ended.

18 Time and place for sessions of Legislative Assembly
(1) The Governor may set the times and places in Queensland for sessions of the Legislative Assembly that the Governor considers appropriate.
(2) The Governor may change the times and places if the Governor considers change advisable and more consistent with general convenience and the public welfare.
(3) The Governor must give sufficient notice of a change.

19 Minimum sitting requirement for Legislative Assembly
(1) There must be at least 2 sittings of the Legislative Assembly in every calendar year.
(2) Six months must not pass between a sitting of the Legislative Assembly and the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly.

PART 3—APPROPRIATION FOR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
20 Separate appropriation for Legislative Assembly
(1) Legislation appropriating the consolidated fund for the Legislative Assembly and the parliamentary service, including salaries payable under the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 and the Parliamentary Service Act 1988, is to be contained in a Bill separate from any other Bill about any appropriation for any other purpose.
(2) This section is to be read with the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977.

PART 4—MEMBERS
Division 1—Generally
21 Eligibility to be a candidate and to be elected as a member
(1) A person is eligible to be a candidate, and to be elected, as a member of the Legislative Assembly, if the person—
(a) is an adult Australian citizen living in Queensland;
and
(b) has any further qualification required under an Act;
and
(c) is not disqualified under an Act.
Note—
For an example of subsection (1)(b) and (c), see the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, section 64 (Qualifications to be a candidate and be elected a member).
(2) Subsection (1) is subject to any conditions imposed under an Act.

22 No member to sit or vote without first taking oath or making affirmation
(1) No member may sit or vote in the Legislative Assembly unless the member has taken or made the oath or affirmation of allegiance and of office in schedule 1. (Schedule 1 (Oaths and affirmations))
(2) The oath must be taken or the affirmation must be made in the presence of the Governor or a person authorised by the Governor to administer the oath or affirmation.
(3) A member “takes” the member’s seat on taking the oath or making the affirmation.

Division 2—Members who are Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries
23 Ministers
Chapter 3, part 3 (Chapter 3 (Governor and Executive Government), part 3 (Cabinet and Ministers of the State) contains provisions about the appointment of members of the Legislative Assembly as Ministers or acting Ministers.

24 Appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries
(1) The Governor in Council may appoint members of the Legislative Assembly as Parliamentary Secretaries.
(2) However, a Minister or member of Executive Council may not be appointed as a Parliamentary Secretary.

25 Functions of Parliamentary Secretary
A Parliamentary Secretary has the functions decided by the Premier.

26 Length of Parliamentary Secretary’s appointment
(1) The appointment of a member of the Legislative Assembly as a Parliamentary Secretary ends on the polling day for the next general election after the appointment.
(2) However, the appointment ends before the polling day when any of the following happen—
(a) the member’s seat becomes vacant otherwise than because the Legislative Assembly is dissolved or expires by the passage of time;
(b) the member resigns as Parliamentary Secretary by written notice of resignation given to the Premier;
(c) the member is appointed as a Minister or member of Executive Council or is appointed to act as a Minister under section 46; Section 46 (Member may act for a Minister)
(d) the appointment is ended by the Governor in Council under subsection (3).
(3) The Governor in Council, at any time, may end the appointment for reasons the Governor in Council considers sufficient or for no reason.
(4) In this section—
“general election” means an election for the members of the Legislative Assembly.

CHAPTER 3—GOVERNOR AND EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT
PART 1—INTERPRETATION

27 Governor in Council
The Governor in Council is the Governor acting with the advice of Executive Council.

PART 2—GOVERNOR
28 Definition for pt 2
In this part—
“Royal Sign Manual” means the signature or royal hand of the Sovereign.

29 Governor
(1) There must be a Governor of Queensland.
(2) The Governor must be appointed by commission under the Royal Sign Manual.

30 Office of Governor
The Constitution Act 1867, sections 11A and 11B contain provisions about the office of Governor.
Note—
The Constitution Act 1867, sections 11A and 11B are subject to section 53 (Certain measures to be supported by referendum) of that Act. (See attachment 1 for a copy of these provisions.)

31 Requirements concerning commission and oath or affirmation
(1) Before undertaking any duties as Governor, a person appointed as Governor must, in the presence of the Chief Justice, or the next most senior judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland who is able to act, (the “judicial officer”) and of at least 2 members of Executive Council—
(a) cause the commission appointing the person as Governor to be read and published at the seat of government in the State;
and
(b) take or make the oath or affirmation of allegiance and of office in schedule 1,( Schedule 1 (Oaths and affirmations) subject to and in accordance with the law and practice of the State.
(2) The judicial officer must administer the oath or affirmation.

32 Termination of appointment as Governor
(1) The appointment of a person as Governor may be terminated only by instrument under the Royal Sign Manual.
(2) The instrument takes effect on its publication in the gazette or at a later time stated in the instrument.

33 General power of Governor
The Governor is authorised and required to do all things that belong to the Governor’s office under any law.

34 Power of Governor—Ministers
Ministers hold office at the pleasure of the Governor who, in the exercise of the Governor’s power to appoint and dismiss the Ministers, is not subject to direction by any person and is not limited as to the Governor’s sources of
advice.

35 Power of Governor—removal or suspension of officer
(1) This section does not limit the power of the Governor under another provision of this Act or another Act.
(2) To the extent that it is within the Governor’s power and if the Governor considers there is sufficient reason, the Governor may remove or suspend a person holding an office or place under an appointment made in the name or under the authority of the Sovereign.

36 Power of Governor—relief for offender
(1) This section does not limit the operation of another Act.
(2) In relation to an offence against a law of the State, the Governor may grant the offender, in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign—
(a) a pardon, a commutation of sentence or a reprieve of execution of sentence for a period the Governor considers appropriate;
or
(b) a remission of a fine, penalty, forfeiture or other consequence of conviction of the offender.
(3) The grant may be unconditional or subject to lawful conditions.

37 Power of Governor—public seal
The Governor may keep and use the Public Seal of the State for sealing all instruments made or passed in the Sovereign’s name.

38 Continued use of seal despite end of Sovereign’s reign
(1) This section applies if the Sovereign’s reign ends and, immediately before the end of the reign, a seal for Queensland issued by the Sovereign is in existence.
(2) The seal, until a new seal is issued by the next Sovereign, may continue to be used as if the Sovereign’s reign had not ended.

39 Statutory powers when Sovereign personally in State
(1) When the Sovereign is personally present in the State, any power under an Act exercisable by the Governor may be exercised by the Sovereign.
(2) The Governor has the same powers in relation to an act done, or an instrument made, by the Sovereign under this section as the Governor has in relation to an act done, or an instrument made, by the Governor himself or herself.
(3) This section does not affect or prevent the exercise of any power under an Act by the Governor.
(4) In this section, references to the Governor or to the Sovereign include references to the Governor, or to the Sovereign, acting with the advice of Executive Council.

40 Delegation by Governor to Deputy Governor
(1) The Governor may delegate all or any of the Governor’s powers to the person mentioned in subsection (2) during and only during any or all periods—
(a) the Governor is temporarily absent for a short period from the seat of government, except when administering the Government of the Commonwealth;
or
(b) the Governor is ill and there are reasonable grounds for believing the illness will be of short duration.
(2) The person to whom the Governor’s powers may be delegated is—
(a) the Lieutenant-Governor;
or
(b) if there is no Lieutenant-Governor in the State and able to act—the Chief Justice;
or
(c) if there is no Chief Justice in the State and able to act—the next most senior judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland who is in the State and able to act.
(3) The delegation must be by instrument under the Public Seal of the State and specify the powers given to the delegate.
(4) A person exercises the Governor’s powers under a delegation as Deputy Governor.

41 Administration of Government by Acting Governor
(1) The person mentioned in subsection (3) must administer the Government of the State during any period—
(a) the office of Governor is vacant;
or
(b) the Governor assumes the administration of the Government of the Commonwealth;
or
(c) the Governor is absent from the State and the Governor’s powers are not being exercised by a Deputy Governor under section 40;
or
(d) the Governor is incapable of performing the duties of office and the Governor’s powers are not being exercised by a Deputy Governor under section 40.
(2) The Governor is taken not to be absent from the State for subsection (1)(c) if the Governor is beyond the boundaries of the State in the course of travel from 1 part of the State to another part of the State.
(3) The person who must administer the Government of the State is—
(a) the Lieutenant-Governor;
or
(b) if there is no Lieutenant-Governor in the State and able to act—the Chief Justice;
or
(c) if there is no Chief Justice in the State and able to act—the next most senior judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland who is in the State and able to act.
(4) A person administering the Government of the State under this section acts as Governor and performs the Governor’s functions and exercises the Governor’s powers as Acting Governor.
(5) Before assuming the administration of the Government of the State, the person must have previously taken or made, or must take or make as soon as is reasonably practicable after the occasion arises for the person to administer the State, the oath or affirmation of allegiance and of office in schedule 1. (Schedule 1 (Oaths and affirmations))
(6) The oath must be taken or the affirmation made in the presence of—
(a) the Chief Justice or the next most senior judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland who is able to act (the “judicial officer”);
and
(b) at least 2 members of Executive Council.
(7) The judicial officer must administer the oath or affirmation.
(8) The person must not continue to administer the Government of the State after the Governor or some other person holding an office prior in title to administer the Government of the State under subsections (1) and (3) has, by proclamation, given notice that the Governor or other person has assumed or resumed, or is about to assume or resume, the administration of the Government of the State.

PART 3—CABINET AND MINISTERS OF THE STATE
42 Cabinet
(1) There must be a Cabinet consisting of the Premier and a number of other Ministers appointed under section 43.
(2) The Cabinet is collectively responsible to the Parliament.

43 Appointment of Ministers of the State
(1) The Governor, by proclamation, may declare the offices to which persons may be appointed as Ministers of the State.
(2) The Governor, by commission, may appoint a person as a Minister of the State.
(3) To remove any doubt, it is declared that the Attorney-General is a Minister.
(4) The maximum number of Ministers at any time is 19.
(5) A Minister must, before entering on the duties of the Minister’s office, take or make the oath or affirmation of allegiance and of office in schedule 1.( Schedule 1 (Oaths and affirmations))
(6) The oath must be taken or the affirmation made in the presence of the Governor or a person authorised by the Governor to administer the oath or affirmation.

44 Administrative arrangements
The Governor in Council, by order published in the gazette, may make administrative arrangements doing either or both of the following—
(a) distributing the public business, or any of that business, among the Ministers;
(b) declaring either or both of the following—
(i) the administrative units, or any of the administrative units, or the parts of the administrative units administered by each Minister respectively, or any Minister;
(ii) the Acts, or any of the Acts, or the parts of the Acts administered by each Minister respectively, or by any Minister.

45 Minister may act for another Minister
(1) The Governor or Premier, in writing, may appoint a Minister to act as another Minister.
(2) The Minister may be appointed to perform all or any of the other Minister’s functions and exercise all or any of the other Minister’s powers.
(3) However, an appointment by the Premier may not be for a period of more than 14 days.

46 Member may act for a Minister
(1) Without limiting section 45, the Governor, by proclamation, may appoint a member of the Legislative Assembly to act as a Minister for any or all periods the Minister is—
(a) absent from the State in the course of the duties of the office;
or
(b) absent on leave given under section 47.
(2) The member may be appointed to perform all or any of a Minister’s functions and exercise all or any of a Minister’s powers.
(3) The member, before entering on the duties of the office, must take or make the oath or affirmation of allegiance and of office in schedule 1.( Schedule 1 (Oaths and affirmations))
(4) The oath must be taken or the affirmation made in the presence of the Governor or a person authorised by the Governor to administer the oath or affirmation.
(5) A person who is already a Minister may not be appointed under subsection (1).
(6) An appointment under subsection (1) has effect despite section 43(4).

47 Sick leave
The Governor, by proclamation, may give a Minister who is ill leave of absence with pay for a period of not more than 6 months.

PART 4—EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
48 Executive Council
(1) There must be an Executive Council for the State.
(2) Executive Council consists of the persons appointed as members of the Executive Council by the Governor by instrument under the Public Seal of the State.
(3) A member of Executive Council must, before entering on the duties of the member’s office, take or make the oath or affirmation of office and of secrecy in schedule 1. (Schedule 1 (Oaths and affirmations))
(4) The oath must be taken or the affirmation made in the presence of the Governor or a person authorised by the Governor to administer the oath or affirmation.

49 Length of appointment as member of Executive Council
The appointment of a person as a member of Executive Council ends only on the happening of either of the following—
(a) the person’s resignation as a member of Executive Council;
(b) the person’s removal as a member of Executive Council by the Governor.

50 Meetings of Executive Council
(1) The Governor must preside over a meeting of Executive Council.
(2) However, if, for good reason, the Governor can not preside, a meeting of Executive Council must be presided over by—
(a) if the Governor has appointed a member of Executive Council to preside—the member;
or
(b) if the Governor has not appointed a member to preside—the member who is taken to be the most senior member present.
(3) Executive Council must not deal with any business at a meeting unless—
(a) it has been summoned to meet by the Governor’s authority;
and
(b) at least 2 members, other than any presiding member, are present for the entire meeting.

PART 5—POWERS OF THE STATE
Division 1—General
51 Powers of the State
(1) The Executive Government of the State of Queensland (the “State”) has all the powers, and the legal capacity, of an individual.
(2) The State may exercise its powers—
(a) inside and outside Queensland;
and
(b) inside and outside Australia.
(3) This part does not limit the State’s powers.
Example—
This part does not affect any power a Minister has apart from this part to bind the State by contract.

Division 2—Commercial activities
52 Definitions for div 2
In this division—
“commercial activities” includes—
(a) commercial activities that are not within the ordinary functions of the State;
and
(b) commercial activities of a competitive nature;
and
(c) activities declared by an Act to be commercial activities; but does not include activities declared by an Act not to be commercial activities.
“State” includes a public sector unit.

53 Commercial activities by State
(1) The State may carry out commercial activities.
(2) This section is sufficient statutory authority for the State to carry out a commercial activity.
(3) Commercial activities may be carried out—
(a) without further statutory authority;
and
(b) without prior appropriation from the consolidated fund for the purpose.
(4) Commercial activities may be carried out—
(a) inside and outside Queensland;
and
(b) inside and outside Australia.

54 Commercial activities by Minister
A Minister may carry out commercial activities for the State.

55 Delegation by Minister
(1) A Minister may delegate a power of the State to an appropriately qualified officer of the State.
(2) An officer of the State may subdelegate the delegated power to another appropriately qualified officer of the State.
(3) In this section—
“appropriately qualified”, in relation to a delegated power, includes having the qualifications, experience or standing appropriate to exercise the power.
Example of standing—
A person’s level of employment in the entity in which the person is employed.
“officer of the State” means—
(a) a chief executive, or employee, of a public sector unit;
or
(b) an officer of the public service.

ATTACHMENT 1 sections 6, 7, 8 and 30

CONSTITUTION ACT 1867, SECTIONS 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B AND 53

The Constitution Act 1867—
1 Legislative Assembly
There shall be within the said Colony of Queensland a Legislative Assembly.

2 Legislative Assembly constituted
Within the said Colony of Queensland Her Majesty shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the said Assembly to make laws for the peace welfare and good government of the colony in all cases whatsoever.

2A The Parliament
(1) The Parliament of Queensland consists of the Queen and the Legislative Assembly referred to in sections 1 and 2.
(2) Every Bill, after its passage through the Legislative Assembly, shall be presented to the Governor for assent by or in the name of the Queen and shall be of no effect unless it has been duly assented to by or in the name of the Queen.

11A Office of Governor
(1) The Queen’s representative in Queensland is the Governor who shall hold office during Her Majesty’s pleasure.
(2) Abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor shall not be effected by an Act of the Parliament except in accordance with section 53.
(3) In this Act and in every other Act a reference to the Governor shall be taken—
(a) to be a reference to the person appointed for the time being by the Queen by Commission under Her Majesty’s Royal Sign Manual to the office of Governor of the State of Queensland; and
(b) to include any other person appointed by dormant or other Commission under the Royal Sign Manual to administer the Government of the State of Queensland.

11B Definition of Royal Sign Manual
In section 11A the expression “Royal Sign Manual” means the signature or royal hand of the Sovereign.

53 Certain measures to be supported by referendum
(1) A Bill that expressly or impliedly provides for the abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor or that expressly or impliedly in any way affects any of the following sections of this Act namely—
sections 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B; and this section 53 shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen unless it has first been approved by the electors in accordance with this section and a Bill so assented to consequent upon its presentation in contravention of this subsection shall be of no effect as an Act.
(2) On a day not sooner than two months after the passage through the Legislative Assembly of a Bill of a kind referred to in subsection (1) the question for the approval or otherwise of the Bill shall be submitted to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the Legislative Assembly according to the provisions of the Elections Act 1915–1973 and of any Act amending the same or of any Act in substitution therefor.
Such day shall be appointed by the Governor in Council by Order in Council.
(3) When the Bill is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament of Queensland prescribes.
(4) If a majority of the electors voting approve the Bill, it shall be presented to the Governor for reservation thereof for the signification of the Queen’s pleasure.
(5) Any person entitled to vote at a general election of members of the Legislative Assembly is entitled to bring proceedings in the Supreme Court for a declaration, injunction or other remedy to enforce the provisions of this section either before or after a Bill of a kind referred to in subsection (1) is presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen.

Act 24 Geo. 5 No. 35 preserved
(6) The provisions of this section shall in no way affect the operation of The Constitution Act Amendment Act of 1934.

ATTACHMENT 2 section 16

CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT ACT 1890,
SECTION 2
The Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890—
2 Duration of Legislative Assembly to be 3 years only
Every Legislative Assembly hereafter to be summoned and chosen shall continue for 3 years from the day appointed for the return of the writs for choosing the same, and no longer; subject nevertheless to be sooner
dissolved by the Governor.

CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT ACT 1934,
SECTION 4
The Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934—
4 Duration of Legislative Assembly not to be extended except in accordance with this section
(1) The provisions of section two of “The Constitution Act Amendment Act of 1890” (referred to in the preamble to this Act) shall not be amended in the direction of extending the period of three years, which, as provided by the said section two, is the period for which any Legislative Assembly, now or hereafter summoned and chosen, shall continue from the day appointed for the return of the writs for choosing the same and no longer (subject, nevertheless, to be sooner dissolved by the Governor), nor shall any other Act or law relating to the Constitution be passed extending such period of three years as aforesaid, except in the manner provided by this section.
(2) A Bill for any purpose within subsection (1) of this section shall not be presented to the Governor for the reservation thereof for the signification of His Majesty’s pleasure, or for the Governor’s Assent, or be in any other way assented to, until the Bill has been approved by the electors in accordance with this section.
(3) On a day not sooner than two months after the passage of the Bill through the Legislative Assembly, the question for the approval or otherwise of the Bill shall be submitted to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the Legislative Assembly according to the provisions of “The Elections Acts, 1915 to 1932,” or any Act amending the same or in substitution therefor.
Such day shall be appointed by the Governor in Council.
(4) When the Bill is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Legislature prescribes.
(5) If a majority of the electors voting approve the Bill, it shall be presented to the Governor for the reservation thereof for the signification of His Majesty’s pleasure.
(6) The provisions of this section shall extend to any Bill for the repeal or amendment of this section.

ATTACHMENT 3 section 6

CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT ACT 1934,
SECTION 3
The Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934—
3 Parliament not to be altered in the direction of re-establishing the Legislative Council or other body except in accordance with this section
(1) The Parliament of Queensland (or, as sometimes called, the Legislature of Queensland), constituted by His Majesty the King and the Legislative Assembly of Queensland in Parliament assembled shall not be altered in the direction of providing for the restoration and/or constitution and/or establishment of another legislative body (whether called the “Legislative Council,” or by any other name or designation, in addition to the Legislative Assembly) except in the manner provided in this section.
(2) A Bill for any purpose within subsection one of this section shall not be presented to the Governor for the reservation thereof for the signification of His Majesty’s pleasure, or for the Governor’s Assent, or be in any other way assented to, until the Bill has been approved by the electors in accordance with this section.
(3) On a day not sooner than two months after the passage of the Bill through the Legislative Assembly, the question for the approval or otherwise of the Bill shall be submitted to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the Legislative Assembly according to the provisions of “The Elections Acts, 1915 to 1932,” or any Act amending the same or in substitution therefor.
Such day shall be appointed by the Governor in Council.
(4) When the Bill is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Legislature prescribes.
(5) If a majority of the electors voting approve the Bill, it shall be presented to the Governor for the reservation thereof for the signification of His Majesty’s pleasure.
(6) The provisions of this section shall extend to any Bill for the repeal or amendment of this section.

SCHEDULE 1
OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS sections 22, 31, 41, 43, 46, 48 and 59 (39 Sections 22 (No member to sit or vote without first taking oath or making affirmation), 31 (Requirements concerning commission and oath or affirmation), 41 (Administration of Government by Acting Governor), 43 (Appointment of Ministers of the State), 46 (Member may act for a Minister), 48 (Executive Council) and 59 (Appointment of judges))
Oath or affirmation of allegiance and of office—member of the Legislative Assembly
I, ..(name).., do sincerely promise and swear (or, for an affirmation—do sincerely promise and affirm) that
I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her (or His) Majesty..(name of Sovereign).. as lawful Sovereign of Australia and to Her (or His) heirs and successors, according to law; and I will well and truly serve the people of Queensland and faithfully perform the duties and responsibilities of a member of the Legislative Assembly to the best of my ability and according to law.
So help me God! (or omitted for an affirmation).

Oath or affirmation of allegiance and of office—Governor and Acting Governor
I, ..(name).., do sincerely promise and swear (or, for an affirmation—do sincerely promise and affirm) that
I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her (or His) Majesty..(name of Sovereign).. as lawful Sovereign of Australia and to Her (or His) heirs and successors, according to law; and I will well and truly serve Her (or His) Majesty..(name of Sovereign).. in the office of Governor of Queensland (or, for an Acting Governor—in the
office of Acting Governor of Queensland) in the Commonwealth of Australia, and will duly perform the functions and exercise the powers of the office according to the best of my ability, skill and knowledge; and I will, in all things associated with the office, duly and impartially administer justice in Queensland.
So help me God! (or omitted for an affirmation).

Oath or affirmation of allegiance and of office—Minister of the State and acting Minister of the State
I, ..(name).., do sincerely promise and swear (or, for an affirmation—do sincerely promise and affirm) that
I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her (or His) Majesty..(name of Sovereign).. as lawful Sovereign of Australia and to Her (or His) heirs and successors, according to law; and I will well and truly serve the people of Queensland in the office of (portfolio title) (or, for an acting Minister of the State—acting in the office of (portfolio title)).
So help me God! (or omitted for an affirmation).

Oath or affirmation of office and of secrecy—member of Executive Council
I, ..(name).., do sincerely promise and swear (or, for an affirmation—do sincerely promise and affirm) that
I will, to the best of my judgment and ability, faithfully advise and assist the Governor or other officer performing a function or exercising a power of the Governor as Deputy Governor or Acting Governor, in all matters
brought under my consideration as a member of the Executive Council of Queensland; and I will not disclose the confidential deliberations of the council.
So help me God! (or omitted for an affirmation).

Oath or affirmation of allegiance and of office—Judge
I, ..(name).., do sincerely promise and swear (or, for an affirmation—do sincerely promise and affirm) that
I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her (or His) Majesty..(name of Sovereign).. as lawful Sovereign of Australia and to Her (or His) heirs and successors, according to law; and As a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland (or District Court of Queensland) (and/or as (title of other office, for example, Chief Justice of
Queensland)), I will at all times and in all things do equal justice to all persons and discharge the duties and responsibilities of the office according to law to the best of my knowledge and ability without fear favour or
affection.
So help me God! (or omitted for an affirmation).

Queensland Has 3 Constitutions

2009-12-14T12:58:00.000-08:00

The 1867 Constitution is still there, as facilitated by Chapters 1 & 2, specifically section 9 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001.

HOWEVER , a very careful reader will find that there is a Second Constitution Embedded within the 2001 Constitution and it Starts at Chapter 3 specifically sections 51 together with 27.

This is the law making power of “the State” which ONLY includes those individuals to the power of those individuals, so given as mentioned at section 51.

Sections 51 & 27 offer a whole new law making power (the power of “the State”) this is a Separate Power from that of section 9 of Chapter 1 which is the law making power of the Legislative Assembly.

HOWEVER through the use of the Seal of “the State” over laws passing through the Legislative Assembly, IF NOT by the use of section 15DA of the Act Interpretation 1954, therefore ALL laws come under the power & authority of Chapters 3 – 10 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001.

Laws that come under the powers of “the State” at section 51 are easy to recognise they are bound by “This Act binds all persons including the State” .

Laws that have not been sealed with the seal of “the State” bind back to the 1867 Constitution and are easy to recognise as they are bound by “This Act binds the Crown in all its capacities” .

There are precious few of these Acts left in Queensland.

Simply put,
the legislature passes a bill under section 9 of the 2001 Constitution ( which represents the old 1867 Constitution),
then the Governor seals it with the seal of “the State” and, in so doing the newly made law passes to Chapter 3 (section 51) of the 2001 Constitution, abrogating the law from the 1867 Constitution therefore the Common law.

It really is so simple in setting up a claytons democracy. The legislative Assembly (s9) honestly think that they made a law to their power and, they have control over that law, however in reality “the State” has kidnapped the law on assent through the seal.

“the State” (s51) = The premier (dictator) + the lackey Ministers (dictatorial assistants).

“the State” can also, and often does, use another method in making laws to the power of section 51 of the Constitution 2001 and that is by using section 15DA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 by simple laying an “Undebated or Voted on” “Bill” on the Table of the so called parliament for a period, and once that period has expired the “Bill” simply “Automatically” becomes Law to the power of Chapter 3 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001.

Technically, and perhaps a bit simplistic, Queensland at present has 3 Constitutions
(1) the 1867 Constitution (derogated)
(2) the Constitution of Queensland 2001 Chapters 1 and 2 (useless)
(3) the Constitution of Queensland 2001 Chapters 3 – 10 (power & glory).

Prepared June 2008

Pt 8. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD

2009-12-14T12:56:00.000-08:00

Is it Legal

May I first say – that as this matter covered almost 30 years, there can be no doubt that every major QLD politician must have been aware of this plan, including Mr Kevin Rudd. There is also no doubt that every major Federal politician should have been aware of the plan including both John Howard and Kim Beasley. And finally there can be no doubt that the Governor-General of Australia was complicit in this plan.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. Chapter II. The Executive Government.
Section 61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative and extends, to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

The primary fact that all these changes and manoeuvres were done without a referendum of the People clearly shows that the politicians involved knew they would not succeed if the people were asked for their approval. There in lies the major area of illegality.

McHugh J in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), stated "[T]hat there is a common law of Australia as opposed to a common law of individual States is clear".

Lipohar v R [1999] HCA 65; 200 CLR 485; 168 ALR 8; 74 ALJR 282 (9 December 1999)
At 53. ………………….. If the common law were fragmented, it would be necessary to spell out of the Australian constitutional structure principles to resolve conflicts or variances between, in particular, "federal common law" and that of the particular State in which the executive government of the Commonwealth conducted its activities…………

Lipohar v the Queen is still law and subject to the section 77M of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) . It is only the High Court of Australia who can remove the common law from the State of QLD, not the elected members of the Legislative Assembly.

Is this happening in other states? Yes.

New South Wales removed the Governor in 1987 under the Consolidated Amendment Act 1987.

WA is almost in the same situation as QLD. The State Govt, the World Wildlife Fund and the Real Estate Institute of WA have combined to sell Bush Blocks.

All Governor’s of each state now obey the Premier’s in each state. See their websites.

Pt 7. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD

2009-12-14T12:53:00.000-08:00

What is Behind This

It is quite clear that those who have been put in power by the sovereign people of the State have, since 1992 when the original Acts were being framed, had a full intention in time, to bring about their own personal agendas, regardless of the wishes of the sovereign people who have, in good and open faith and intention, by secret ballot at elections, voted these people into positions of power and of trust and who must swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty that they will uphold Her laws for the benefit of the people of the State of QLD. That power has turned from the power granted by the people to the Legislative Assembly to make laws for 'peace welfare and good government' on behalf of the sovereign people of QLD using funds from taxes paid by the citizens of QLD and all of Australia, into a totalitarian system of Government, whereby we the people are subject to the corporation Government of the State.

The ramifications caused by these actions carried out over a long period of time by the Members of the body politic dating back as far as 1992 are so vast and wide spread it will take a long time to remedy and repair the whole system of government in QLD. The Parliament can make any laws they wish but I do not believe that under a democratic system of Government they are elected to Parliament to make draconian laws which remove the rights of the sovereign people to their use of their land without fair and just compensation.

Under the Constitution of Queensland 2001, by the removal of common law in the State of QLD, the public officials of this State can acquire an interest in private registered land without compensation, for the benefit of the State Government corporation. This also includes the property owned now and in the future as the sovereign people are in fact " an individual and a corporation" and therefore subject to the corporation Government of the State of QLD.

It is very clear from the time line of events that this was a well-planned manoeuvre to remove QLD from the Federation of Australia and through that action from the protection of the Australian Constitution and Common Law & Equity.

The former Premier said in the Second Reading Speech for the constitution, 'we all look forward to the day when we are a republic'. The people of the Commonwealth of Australia at referendum in 1999 voted against a republic but wished to retain the present system of Government with a clear separation of powers under common law and for the Commonwealth of Australia to remain exactly the same with a combined Federation of States as was created in 1901.

Mr Beattie also stated –
"But this Act is much more it is the fundamental law of QLD that underpins our system of government.

The entities it provides for include this Parliament, the Supreme and District Courts of this State and the system of local government that we know in QLD. The office holders under this Act include the Governor of QLD, the Ministers of the Crown and the judges of the Supreme and District Courts. This law is of supreme importance."

Further in the speech, the Premier stated "Our entity as a Sovereign State, the democratic ideals on which our State is built, rest on our Constitution".

Pt 6. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD

2009-12-14T12:52:00.000-08:00

Assets of the Corporation

As the corporation of QLD, when it was formed, had no assets, it had to acquire assets if they wished to borrow. Under the Queensland Government (Land Holding) Amendment Act 1992, they immediately took all the Crown land and estates in fee simple registered under the Property Law Act 1974 as equity for the corporation without compensation to the registered owners of the property whether they live in QLD or anywhere else and converted that property for their own use, contrary to Chapter 7 of the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) - The proper administration of Government.

The QLD Government Land Holding Amendment Act 1992 was reprinted into law through the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, whereupon all Crown land, assets and infrastructure on that land including schools, hospitals, roads, etc became subject to and responsible to the Ministers of the State of QLD as cited at Chapter III of the Queensland Constitution 2001.

The Acts Interpretation (State Commercial Activities) Act 1994 amended the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 to define "the State" to mean the Executive government of the State of QLD. Under the provisions of this Act, "the State" may carry out commercial activities 'without further statutory authority' and 'without prior appropriation from the public accounts' {s47C.(3)} Section 47C. defines 'commercial activities to include 'commercial activities that are not within the ordinary functions of the State' and these functions may be delegated by a Minister to an officer of the State who may subdelegate delegated powers to another officer of the State. An 'officer of the State means a chief executive, or employee of the public sector or an officer of the public service'.

Under the Lands Legislation Amendment Act No. 64 of 1992 © The State of QLD and mfurther now in the corporation of the State known as the Brigalow Corporation and further by amendment of the Constitution Act 1867 Reprint 2A which clearly defines that any estate or interest in the land to be acquired from any other person, the definition of land clearly does not include any estate, therefore the only land held has been transferred from the Real Property Acts of 1861; 1877; 1952 and 1956 into the Land Title Act 1994(Qld) Reprint 7 ©State of QLD 2003 and you hold your land in a statutory title only, without any further element of tenure of the Crown and the Courts are inside the Government and subject to the rules of the Court as found in the Statutory Instruments Act 1992© The State of QLD.

Recent newspaper articles have shown the next steps in this “legal land theft”. The QLD Government plans to determine Land valuation via the Improved Capital Value, which would allow their asset base to rise extraordinarily, as well as increase the amount of rates to the land owners.

A second article states regarding the QLD Urban Land Development ……..
“Both the authority and a developer will be able to write their own by-laws, open and close roads, levy their own rates, enter buildings without a warrant and cut councils out of the planning process in designated areas, all without being elected.”

Pt 5. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD

2009-12-14T12:50:00.000-08:00

Sovereign People

We are all subjects of Her Majesty under section 117 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

The Parliament of QLD does not recognize the rights of the sovereign people inside the State of QLD.

What now happens to people who have been prosecuted, fined, imprisoned etc. under the civil law of QLD, which does not exist elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Australia. The people of QLD are still, under section 117 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and protected by Her laws as there has been no referendum under section 128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act to allow the separation of QLD from the Commonwealth of Australia.

Those of you who hold a Deed of Grant in fee simple in QLD, now only hold a statutory title, and that title is upheld by the civil laws of the Supreme and District Courts of the corporate Government of QLD and the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts who are inside the Government. Your common law estate in fee simple is now held by the corporate Government of the Sovereign State of QLD.

Under the definitions in the Acts Interpretation 1954(Qld), section 36, the definition of 'property' and 'land', the State of QLD now owns all your property, which includes money, real and personal property from the past and any future property which includes your will.

I refer to the definition of 'land' under section 22 - Meaning of certain words (aa) 'individual' and (c) 'land' of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth) and the definition of 'property' in section 130.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) The Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) is ultra vires to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth), Chapter 7 - The proper administration of Government; the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth).

The Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Q) defines property both present and future, owned by
you as an 'individual and a corporation' as subject to a statutory instrument only and that statutory instrument is not only applicable to your land, but all property that you, as a person in QLD now own, as opposed to the previous common law indefeasible deed of grant in fee simple. All land, including private land held previously in the common law estate of inheritance in fee simple by private individuals, is now held by the corporation of the State of QLD known as the Brigalow Corporation.

The only tenure that any financial institutions hold in land in QLD today, even though they may believe they hold an estate in fee simple, is in fact held by the corporation of the State, the Brigalow Corporation and is now the full property of the State. The lending institutions now only hold a statutory title and an interest only in the land by virtue of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 under which the rules of the Supreme and District Courts are found under section 12 of that Act.

The owners of that property taken by the corporation can only hope that the corporation has not used your real property as an asset to borrow funds for the corporation for whatever purpose. If the independent State corporation fails or borrowing is too extensive, it will again be the sovereign people who will bear the financial consequences.

Your Deed of Grant in fee simple is now a statutory title only, and that title is upheld by the civil laws of the Supreme and District Courts of the corporate Government of QLD and the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts who are inside the Government

Your land is now held by the Government of QLD in the Brigalow Corporation with no compensation paid to you for that acquisition. For “Even though the King may not enter” (Plenty v. Dillon [1991] HCA 5; 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004 (7 March 1991) the QLD Government and the delegated authorities thereof can, without fine or legal interference.

To have QLD become an independent Sovereign State and to remove the common
law, set up statutory civil law and have Queensland not recognize the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act but only that Act from section 9 onwards, a full referendum
would have been required of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia to enact,
validly, that QLD, from 29th January 1999 was now independent of the Commonwealth of
Australia and a State in its own right.

That did not happen.

In the Second Reading Speech for the Constitution the Premier stated that the Constitution would be 'broadly accessible' to the people of QLD. Considering that this Act has effectively removed all common law property rights from the people of QLD it should, one would reasonably assume, have been put to a referendum of the people.

The sovereign people of the Commonwealth of Australia have never been required at a referendum by virtue of section 128 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia to vote to allow "the State" of QLD to fracture the Commonwealth and become an independent sovereign state.

Pt 4. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD

2009-12-14T12:48:00.000-08:00

Judicial Results

Because this new Constitution was presented to and passed b the Parliament of Qld without respect of reference to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act section 106, to the Queensland Constitution Act 1867 and without a referendum of the People as cited at section 53, this removed the Separation of Powers and recreated QLD as an independent, sovereign, corporation government outside of and not, therefore, subject to the laws of the Commonwealth or other States & Territories, in contradiction of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

The Common Law has been repealed from the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Q), Reprint No. 2, reprinted as in force 2 March 2001 © State of Q 2001, by the omission of Part 9 – Division Heading 4 Common Law & Jurisdiction; Division Heading 5 Equitable Jurisdiction; Division Heading 6 Criminal Jurisdiction - Section 199 Laws of England to be applied in the administration of Justice; Section 200 Common Law and General Jurisdiction of the Court, Jurisdiction at common Law; Section 2001 Equitable Jurisdiction; Section 202 Criminal Jurisdiction.

Courtesy of the Constitution of Queensland 2001 Chapter 4 – Courts – section 58 – Supreme Courts – the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is now of the State.

QLD is now outside the Commonwealth of Australia as an independent sovereign
State without common law, and the people are subject to civil and statute law only. The
'common law and general jurisdiction'; the 'Laws of England to be applied in the
administration of justice' and 'equitable jurisdiction' have been removed under the Supreme
Court Act 1995(Qld) Reprint number 2A dated 2nd March, 2001 under Schedule 2 of the
Constitution of Queensland 2001.

All private equity and inheritance in the State is the property of “the State”, see Corporations (Q) Act 1990 (Q), Reprint No 3, reprinted as in force immediately before 15 July 2001 ©State of Q 2006. All courts, including the Magistrates Courts, are inside the Parliament of QLD.

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of QLD is found in the Constitution of
Queensland 2001, Part 5 - Powers of the State. Therefore it is assumed that the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts of QLD must protect the 'assets' of the State of QLD and find only in favour of the State, not in favour of the registered ownersof private land who have lost, under the statute laws of QLD, the rights to use their fee simple land as they see fit.

The Constitution of Queensland 2001 Chapter 3, Sections 51 & 27 are ultra vires to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act at s109, s106, s107, s51 & s52 of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (C’wth). Ultra vires meaning Without authority. An act which is beyond the powers or authority of the person or organization which took it.

The common law and references to the Crown have been removed out of the Supreme Court Act 1995(Qld).

Civil law and statute law have a very different requirement for the committing of any offence, whether an indictable offence, a summary offence, a simple offence or an absolute offence such as a traffic offence where a guilty mind is not required to commit that offence.

Under the civil law system, which is now subject to the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules of the Supreme Court Act 1991(Qld), every person is guilty until they prove their innocence.

The Supreme and District Court, other courts and the Judges and Justices of those Courts are now inside the corporation of the Government, and not sworn representatives of the Crown. Under the Constitution of Queensland 2001, all documents are issued or signed under the Public Seal of the State. This would be any document appointing a politician, a Judge or any person who should swear an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign. The Governor now seals that document in accordance with the Constitution of Queensland 2001 section 37 with the Public Seal of the State therefore voiding the appointment of any of those people by the Sovereign but making those people in effect 'officers of the State' and subject to the 'Powers of the State' as cited in Part 5 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001.

Pt 3. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD

2009-12-14T12:47:00.000-08:00

All Government tiers, including Local councils are now inside the Parliament of QLD.

The Members of the Legislative Assembly are clearly individuals and members of the corporation as defined in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 sect 32 & 33.

Members of the Legislative Assembly are paid by the Parliament of QLD and are elected subject to the Election Act (Q) which is an Act enacted by the Parliament of QLD.

All elections held in QLD since 6th June 2002 are elections at common law but the Election Act of QLD is subject to the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 1999 of QLD, therefore any vote given in any State, Federal or Council elections since that time are votes in name only.

The Acts Interpretation (State Commercial Activities) Act 1994 amended the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 to define "the State" to mean the Executive government of the State of QLD. Under the provisions of this Act, "the State" may carry out commercial activities 'without further statutory authority' and 'without prior appropriation from the public accounts' {s47C.(3)} Section 47C. defines 'commercial activities to include 'commercial activities that are not within the ordinary functions of the State' and these functions may be delegated by a Minister to an officer of the State who may subdelegate delegated powers to another officer of the State. An 'officer of the State means a chief executive, or employee of the public sector or an officer of the public service'.

The Second Reading Speech of the former Premier the Honourable Peter Beattie when he created the new Government of QLD, placed inside the Parliament himself as Premier (President), the Ministers, the Governor as a parliamentary secretary, the judges and justices of the Supreme and District Courts, the Supreme and District Court, the Local Government Councils.

The public officials are not public officials of "the Crown" but public officials of "the State" of QLD. As all real property has now been taken back by the State and held under the State corporation, the Brigalow Corporation, the public officials are in fact now working for the owners of the land, the State Government of QLD.

When the State of QLD removed the land and placed it under the ownership of the State, they did so without compensation or without a referendum.

Pt 2. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD

2009-12-14T12:44:00.000-08:00

The Brigalow Corporation (of the State of Qld) originated in the old Qld Crowns Lands Act and came about through the Qld Government borrowing from the Federal Government funds to develop what was termed the “Brigalow Belt” (about 4 mil acres) out from Rockhampton during the 1960’s.

The old Crowns Lands Act (Qld) has now been converted to the “Land Act 1994 (Qld)” and this is where you can find the “Brigalow Corporation” today. In essence the government of Qld has moved all the crowns land AND all crown land that was sold (fee simple) into the Brigalow Corporation through the Land Act, Land Title Act, Property Law Act, etc, etc, etc.

The “Brigalow Corporation” in not Listed as a “Public” company on the Stock Exchange, it is an “Exempt Public Authority” which is found by definition at s9 and 5A of the Corporations Act 2001 (C’wth) (in right of the crown), except there is no “Crown” in Qld just “the State”. The term “The State” or as written in most modern Qld statutes, “This Act binds the state”.

It is quite clear in the Second Reading Speech by Premier Beattie, that at the time the Legislative Assembly voted for the passing of the Parliament of Queensland Bill 2001 and the Constitution of Queensland 2001, they were allowing the use of Acts which had been framed but had not been passed by the Legislative Assembly and were, in fact, adjourned sine die going back to 1991. Sine die meaning to be Adjourned without giving any future date of meeting or hearing.

Those Acts were proclaimed on 7 June 2002 and then reprinted as law of that Parliament.

By the passing of these Acts by the Parliament of QLD, the subject citizens of Her Majesty have suffered the loss of their judicial relief at common law and all those rights which are originally entrenched in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act at sects 109, 107, 108, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, Chapter II, III, sects 75 and 76.

The Corporations (Q) Act 1990 (Q) Reprint No 3, was reprinted as in force immediately before 15 July 2001 ©State of Q 2006.

At this time, the State of QLD became a Corporation Government. Under the definition of ‘person’ in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (C’wth), section 22 (1)(a) expressions used to denote persons include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual.

The Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Q) defines a person as an ‘individual and a corporation’ and as such the once Sovereign People are now subject to the corporate government of the State of QLD and as such are ‘chattels’ of the State of QLD Corporation.

I refer to the following Acts - the Reprints Act 1992, the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, the Legislative Standards Act 1992. These Acts were used in conjunction with the Constitution of QLD 2001, section 92 to create the corporation Government of the State and then further to repeal those Acts under section 95 of that Constitution. Those Acts moved back in time, one may say like the Tardis, reprinting, removing the Crown out of all Acts as far back as the Magna Carta then reprinting back to the Australia Acts (Requests) Act 1985 and removing all the positions as cited in that Act. The only part of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act which is recognized by QLD is the Commonwealth Constitution commencing at section 9. The sections of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act which are not recognized includes the High Court and the Federal Court.

By using the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 section 12 in conjunction with the other three State Acts, the Acts reprinted QLD into a corporate State. In conjunction with the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 section 15DA(2) which allowed for the automatic commencement and assent of any Act that had been laying dormant for a period of twelve months, Acts which were framed to create the corporate State of QLD in 1992, 1993 and 1994 were reprinted by the Reprints Act 1992 which is under the Department of the Premier.

The elected Members of the sovereign people of the State of QLD have, since 29th January 1999 taken it upon themselves, (contrary to the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) to which they are all subject under Chapter 7 - The proper administration of Government), to create for themselves, under the Constitution of QLD 2001, a corporation Government in which the sovereign people of QLD and their property are mere chattels of the State. This surely is a breach of the trust and faith which the electors of QLD placed in their elected members to uphold and respect the laws of the Commonwealth.

The State of Queensland Australia is registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commissions under No. 0001244818.

The Queensland Treasury Corp is registered under No. 0000852555

I have copies of their Annual Report for Foreign Governments & Political Subdivisions including the Queensland Treasury Corporation’s 2006-07 Indicative borrowing program Update.

I also have the Queensland State Accounts December 2006 which carries gross private information.

Pt 1. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD

2009-12-14T12:40:00.000-08:00

In order to bring about the structure now known as the State of QLD / Brigalow Corporation a long process of legal manipulation was instituted.

As the aim was to remove QLD from the Australian Federation, it was necessary to remove it back to the original QLD Constitution 1867, prior to Federation and make sure that Constitution was able to carry the intended results.

Consequently, this Constitution was reprinted but withheld for a date to be fixed, with 114 Changes, 131 Additions and 116 Deletions.

The most relevant change initially was the addition of over 14 sections regarding the expansion of the role of Parliamentary Secretary.

During the early 1990’s all major laws were reprinted, but held over for a fixed date.

On approx the 29 January 1998, the leader of the National Party placed on the table in Parliament, a document seeking to move the Governor of the State of QLD, into the Constitution Act 1867 as a parliamentary secretary and a public official. This was done under the Imperial Acts Application Act 1954 section 15DA.

This document was not challenged by any member of any party or any independent member of the QLD Parliament, and therefore became official on 29 January 1999. See Constitution (Parliamentary Secretaries) Act ©The State of QLD 1996.

On the same day the QLD Constitution 1867 reprint was proclaimed, thus verifiying the position of Parliamentary Secretary under its Constitution.

From this day on, the Governor of the State of QLD was no longer a sworn representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, but was now inside the 1867 Constitution, conducting the daily business of the government and allocating “laws” applicable to each government department. He was removed from his “no party allegiance” and had become, effectively, a part of the QLD government and under the Premier’s control.

On 9 November 2001, the Premier of the State of QLD, the Honorable Peter Beattie presented to Parliament the new Constitution of Queensland 2001 Bill.

The elected Members for the people of QLD, the Members of the Legislative Assembly, passed the Bill, said only to 'modernise' the Constitution of QLD.

This constitution was assented to by the Governor on 3rd December 2001 and upon assent, under section 95 of the new Constitution, Acts subject to the Constitution Act 1867 were repealed. Section 92 immediately came into force which repealed parts of the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1922. This allowed the Parliament to move back prior to the removal of the Legislative Council at referendum in 1922 and 'recreate' the positions of that former Legislative Council.

QLD then became, at the completion of these matters, without the assent of any of the laws by the Crown or Her Representative, an independent sovereign State and fractured the common law and the separation of powers in that state.

Although the Governor was clearly now a public servant under the current QLD State Government, he still held the Public Seal of the State, and sealed all documents signed under the Hand of the Sovereign with the Public Seal of the State, therefore rendering void, any contracts, Acts, Laws, etc under the Hand of the Sovereign.

In fact, on that day, 3 December 2001, the Governor of QLD with the authority of the Entrenched Provisions contained in the Constitution Act 1867 (Reprint No 1), and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act which in their manner and form hold the entrenched provision of “The Governor of QLD”, and exercising the delegated authority of “The Crown”, did unilaterally ‘Assent’ to the ‘Constitution of Queensland Parliament of Queensland Bill’ without the consent of the People’s of QLD through the ultimate and absolute authority gained through a vote of ‘Referenda’.

And in doing so, this Constitution of Queensland 2001 became the ‘Fundamental Law of QLD.’

The Colour of Law in Australia

2009-12-07T20:06:00.000-08:00

Every Common Law country has been battling the ever increasing surge of Government regulations, which have been removing our ownership rights, personal & civil liberties, rights of free speech and free will choice, that has been a key feature of our common law rights as men and women.

Why?
Money.

After the great wars, most countries were made bankrupt. Australia in 1932. Our country was already in massive debt to the international bankers, based in the City of London (a 1 mile square in the centre of London dominated by banking, insurance companies, trading companies and the like) – as they had funded much of the original early colonisation growth.

The deal was that Australia could continue to borrow – without having to ever repay the principal – as long as the government met the interest repayments.

To to do that they needed assets and the labour of the Australian people was the only asset that could produce money.

Yet, we were free will people with the right to choose whether we would pay off a debt that was not of our making.

So, we were manipulated subtly but surely to agree to contract ourselves to that debt.

How?
By our voluntary agreement to register ourselves as assets, firstly of the government of Australia, then more securely under the corporate government of Australia.

Registering what –
Our children at birth – for which we are paid a fee (family allowance) to recognize our role as guardians.
Starting a bank account
Driver’s licence
Tax file number
Electoral role
Marriage certificate
Trade licences
Torrens Title land registration
Etc, etc

Registration
At birth, each child is worth $1 million to the government – the birth certificate is printed on bond paper.

At all stages of registration, your value increases allowing more borrowings.

In many US state documents, the state is not only listed as a third party to every marriage but as the primary party.

This voluntary and ongoing registration enters each of us in a situation where we became contracted to the government and are “forced” to obey laws that would not apply under Common Law.

Therefore we become subject to speeding fines parking fines, rates, dog registration, child innoculations, etc and when we protest, we enter the courts as guilty people having to prove their innocence.

Where is our Common Law?
Oh, it is still there, but as we are no longer Common Law people, having voluntarily given ourselves to the corporation as a chattel, we cannot access it.

And because we still appear to have a Constitution, we can still get a jury trial for murder, we can still appear to have a Monarch guarding us, we THINK we still have access to our long history of rights, when in fact we do not.

We have what is called the Colour of Law. Looks right, but is overlaid with something completely different.

And because the only legitimate money in the world is gold and silver, which government took away from us during the wars, we can only buy and sell with pretend money / fiat money, which ultimately means we have not really paid for anything properly.

Are we the true parents of our children any more? No, we simply mind them for the government, which is why they can step in and take them off us.

Do we truly own our cars? No, the manufacturer’s deed of production is held by government, we simply get to “rent” them yearly.

Do we truly own our land? No, we hold the paper title, but the government holds the primary title through our registering our land under Torrens title.

And Mr Kerry Shine, Minister for Justice and Member for Toowoomba in QLD stated that in a reply to a letter from a constituent, published in the Toowoomba Chronicle August 11, when he said “Finally, in relation to Mr Patch's third enquiry (TC 25/07), Common Law land rights have not applied to Queensland freehold land since the introduction of the Torrens Land Title system in 1861 or the leasehold lands which are governed by the Lands Act 1994. The "Brigalow Corporation" simply administers land pursuant to this Act. This system functions effectively to protect the interest of private landholders in Queensland.”

This explains why we cannot get Common Law relief in a court of law, why we are constantly told the Bill of Rights does not apply, why we have our home taken from us, when this is against common law, why government authorities think they can trespass freely on our land and in our homes.

We have voluntarily registered our rights away.

Colour of Law v Black Letter Law

2009-12-07T19:46:00.000-08:00

Black Letter Law
The black letter law refers to the basic standard elements for a particular field of law, which are generally known and free from doubt or dispute.

The phrase definitely refers to a distillation of the common law into general and accepted legal principles and is used commonly in the Australian legal system to mean well-established case law.

In common law, black letter legal doctrine is an informal term indicating the basic principles of law generally accepted by the courts and/or embodied in the statutes of a particular jurisdiciton.

Letter of the law is its actual implementation, thereby demonstrating that black letter law are those statutes, rules, acts, laws, provisions, etc. that are or have been written down, codified, or indicated somewhere in legal texts throughout history of specific state law.

This is often the case for many precedents that have been set in the common law. An example of such a state within the common law jurisdiction, and using the black letter legal doctrine is Canada. Being a monarchical state, with its roots invested in Colonial England, black letter law is that which is a term used to describe basic principles of law that are accepted by the majority of judges in most provinces and territories.

Contract, tort and land law are typical black letter law subjects, whereas administrative law, example, would be considered considerably less black letter.

Colour of Law
Color of is a legal term meaning "pretense or appearance of" some right; in other words, 'color of', as in 'color of law', means the thing colors (or adjusts) the law; however the adjustment made may either be lawful or it may merely appear to be lawful.

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may actually operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the color of law authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probably cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the 'color of law', that does not mean that the action was actually lawful.

Comparison of Common Law v Civil Law

2009-12-07T19:35:00.001-08:00

Lawful De jure government .................................................De facto government

God's Law / Common Law..... ................................................................Admiralty (law of the sea - corporate)
Sovereign authority(people)..................... .........................................................Artificial entities (corporations)
God-given Rights.......... .........................Privileges + civil, natural and political rights (ie: no protected rights)
Unalienable Rights under God........................ ........................................Inalienable civil rights (not protected)
Claim of Right................................... ...............................................................Color of right
Ownership with fee simple title or contract................................... .............Color of right to possession by 'law'
Full liability for actions............... ............................Limited liability ponzi scheme (Social Insurance/Security)
Government based on sovereign authority..Corporate governments of defacto power or pretended authority.
Organic Constitution................ .........................................Corporate Military Constitution acting on the citizen
State statute that govern how officials uphold the law to protect our God-given rights... ……Federal and State
commercial code that we volunteer ourselves into.
Electors elect independant representatives......................... .......Voting in a two or more party corporate system
Inhabitants............ ......................citizens/residents/persons (corporate entities with diminished political status)
Births are recorded...........................................................................Births are registered (certificate)
Sovereigns breaking God's law, Government officials braking lawful statute.. ..Breaching the peace (breaching de facto gov.- straw man citizen statutory/commercial contract - basis of thought crime).
People are responsible for themselves and their own protection......... ......'citizens' want government to 'protect them' on a personal basis
God-given right to own, keep and bear arms............... .......................................licensed privilege to have arms
Intent to hurt or damage is what determines unlawfulness...........accidents or 'negligence' is considered a crime
No conflict of interest in government (prosecutors were private).......... ........Corporate government pays salary of judge, prosecutor and POLICE.
Courts are Constitutional...................................All courts are in equity (corporate) acting on corporate straw men names!!!
Sheriffs and deputies (Citizens on Patrol:COPs).................. ...................... Peace officers (POLICE = POLICy Enforcer).
Search warrants must be based on affirmation of a verified criminal complaint, based on probable cause by a judge that a crime was committed and signed by a judge.... ......... Searches based on belief, warrant signed by clerk only
First hand knowledge of an injured party crime...................... ..................."Probable cause" to believe a 'crime' committed against corporate statute/by-laws (may or may not be an existing injured party).
It's all about the facts in evidence of violation of rights or harm.... ............Charges based on allegation or reason to believe
Habeas corpus can be presented to question nature and cause of charge/arrest/being held..... ….....No Habeas Corpus
There is always an official court record................ ...................There is often not even an official court record.
Consent not needed to try................ .............. Understanding and consent of accused needed to be prosecuted.
No negotiable instruments.............................Informations and Warrants/Prisoner Bonds are negotiable instruments.
Jury Nullification (juries try validity of the law, and the facts of case).............. ........Juries aren't instructed to try the law.
Lawyer...........................................................................................................Attorney at BAR.
Judge.................................................. .................................................................................Quasi-judge.
Judicial................................................... .............................................................................Quasi-judicial.
Lawsuit questioning law and facts........................ .............................................."lawsuit" of facts.

And there is more.

Civil Law

2009-12-07T19:03:00.000-08:00

What is it?
Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law, the primary feature of which is that laws are written into a collection, codified, and not determined, as in common law, by judges.
It holds legislation as the primary source of law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially-trained judicial officers.
The principle of civil law is to provide all citizens with an accessible and written collection of the laws which apply to them and which judges must follow.
It is the most prevalent and oldest surviving legal system in the world.
The primary source of law is the legal code, which is a compendium of statutes, arranged by subject matter in some pre-specified order; a code may also be described as "a systematic collection of interrelated articles written in a terse, staccato style."
Law codes are usually created by a legislature's enactment of a new statute that embodies all the old statutes relating to the subject and including changes necessitated by court decisions.
In some cases, the change results in a new statutory concept.

Civil Law Around the World
Because Germany was a rising power in the late 19th century and its legal system was well organized, when many Asian nations were developing, the German Civil Code became the basis for the legal systems of Japan and South Korea.

In China, the German Civil Code was introduced in the later years of the Qing Dynasty and formed the basis of the law of the Republic of China, which remains in force in Taiwan.

Some authors consider civil law to have served as the foundation for socialist law used in Communist countries, which in this view would basically be civil law with the addition of Marxist–Leninist ideas.

Even if this is so, civil law was generally the legal system in place before the rise of socialist law, and Eastern Europe reverted back to civil law following the fall of socialism.

Several legal insitutions in civil law were also adapted from similar institutions in Islamic law and jurisprudence during the Middle Ages. For example, the Islamic Hawala institution is the basis of the Avallo in Italian civil law and the Aval in French civil law.

Difference From Other Major Legal Systems of the World
Common Law

also called, Anglo-American, English & Judge made
source is case law & legislation
lawyers control the courtroom
judges must be experienced lawyers
there is a high degree of judicial independence
juries are provided at trial level
courts share in the balance of power over policy making.

Civil law

also called Continental & Romano-Germanic
source is statutes & legislation
judges dominate the court
use career judges
there is a high degree of judicial independence, separate from the Executive & Legislative branches of government
juries adjudicate in conjunction with judges in serious criminal matters
an equal but separate power in policy making

Socialist Law

also called communism
source is statutes & legisaltion
judges dominate trials
judges are career bureaucrats & party members
judicial independence is very limited
juries are often used at the lowest level
courts are subordinate to the legislature in policy making
found in countries like the Soviet Union

Islamic Law

also known as Religious Law
source is the Qur'un
lawyers play a secondary role
judges have religious and legal training
judicial independence is very limited
juries are not allowed
courts and other government branches are subordinate to Shari'a.

Maritime Law

2009-12-07T18:39:00.000-08:00

History in England
Eleanor of Acquitane, acting as regent for her son, King Richard the Lionheart, during the Crusades, established Admiralty/Maritime law in England
In England, special admiralty courts handle all admiralty cases.
These courts do not use the common law of England, but are civil law courts largely based upon Roman Law.

Difference between Common Law & Maritime Law
Littered throughout Law is the concept of "reasonable belief" (when detaining people or property) which is based on admiralty law, the law of the sea where the captain of a ship only needed reason to believe that his ship was in danger by those under his command to order that certain things be done to protect it's commercial goods and goals.
Everything in admiralty works backwards from due process common law. A person being guilty before being proven innocent.
In Common Law, crimes can only occur if there is there has been physical damage to someone or to property, AND if there was intent to hurt someone.
Accidents and "negligence" are not crimes.
But we can be charged and sued for negligence.
Suing is a function of the corporate world.
No longer does there need to be an existing flesh and blood injured party anymore to file a criminal affidavit to initiate criminal proceedings, just the breaching of a statute, a de facto corporate statute (breaching the peace), a by-law or regulation, where the 'injured party' is the state, or corporate entity.

Commercial Contracts
Today in our law courts, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into with each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty: The reason is the beneficial use and re-circulation of Reserve Bank Notes makes the federal government an automatic silent third party to the arrangements.
Admiralty jurisdiction has in many respects, “come ashore”.
It currently affects almost every element of our inland commercial society.
In the USA, Admiralty jurisdiction rules are used to settle claims and grievances regarding cargo, international conventions, financing, banking, insurance, legislation, navigation, hazardous substances from nuclear power plants, stevedoring (the unloading of a vessel at a port), and undersea mining and development, the navigable rivers of the United States, as well as world-wide off-shore oil drilling activity.

Maritime Law on Land
The reason why Admiralty jurisdiction is of concern to us is because our government is using jurisdiction attachment rules applicable to an Admiralty jurisdictional environment to on-land-based citizens where Admiralty jurisdiction does not correctly belong.

The only ordinary land based people who should properly be under the government’s in personam Admiralty jurisdiction are government employees (federal and state), military service personnel, and those who specifically contract into Admiralty Jurisdiction (such as employees working for a Defense contractor with a security clearance, and private contractors hired by government to perform law enforcement related work).

Maritime / Admiralty Law in Australia
The Federal Court of Australia operates under Admiralty Law under the Blue Ensign.

Writ of Habeus Corpus

2009-12-07T18:10:00.000-08:00

Background
In 1641, the Star Chamber (Latin Camera stellata) was an English court of law sitting at the royal Palace of Westminster.
The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes.
Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses.
Evidence was presented in writing.
And over time it evolved into a political weapon and became a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.
King Henry VII used the power of Star Chamber to break the power of the landed gentry which had been such a cause of problems in the War of the Roses.

Abuses
As the U.S Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed." Faretta v California, 422 U.S. 806, 821-22 (1975).
Too, the historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in theFifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The meaning of "compelled testimony" under the Fifth Amendment—i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to "take the Fifth"—is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber.

Habeus Corpus
The foundations for Habeas Corpus were established by the Magna Carta of 1215. William Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I.
However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century. Blackstone explained the basis of the writ, saying:
"The King is at all times entitled to have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted."

Therefore, in 1641, theLong Parliament led byJohn Pym and inflamed by the severe treatment of John Lilburne, as well as that of other religious dissenters such as William Prynne, Alexander Leighton, John Bastwick & Henry Burton, abolished the Star Chamber with an Act of Parliament, the Habeus Corpus Act 1640.

Then, as now, the writ of habeas corpus was issued by a superior court in the name of the Sovereign, and commanded the addressee (a lower court, sheriff, or private subject) to produce the prisoner before the Royal courts of law.

A habeas corpus petition could be made by the prisoner himself or by a third party on his behalf and, as a result of the Habeas Corpus Acts, could be made regardless of whether the court was in session, by presenting the petition to a judge.

Since the 18th century the writ has also been used in cases of unlawful detention by private individuals, most famously in Somersett's Case (1771), where the black slave Somersett was ordered to be freed, the famous words being quoted as:
"The air of England has long been too pure for a slave, and every man is free who breathes it."

A Writ of Habeus Corpus
Habeus Corpus means "You have the body."
In common usage, and whenever these words are used alone, they are understood to mean ""produce the body."
Therefore, when someone is arrested, this writ would be directed at the "jailor", commanding him to produce the body of the person being detained, with the day and cause of his capture and detention, to submit to and receive whatsoever the judge or court awarding the writ shall consider and determine as a judgment in the matter.
This then prevents a person from being held in illegal captivity, with no trial.

Habeas corpus ad deliberandum et recipiendum, a writ for bringing an accused from a different county into a court in the place where a crime had been committed for purposes of trial, or more literally to return holding the body for purposes of “deliberation and receipt” of a decision;
Habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum, also called habeas corpus cum causa, a writ of a superior court to a custodian to return with the body being held by the order of a lower court "with reasons", for the purpose of “receiving” the decision of the superior court and of “doing” what it ordered;
Habeas corpus ad prosequendum, a writ ordering return with a prisoner for the purpose of “prosecuting” him before the court;
Habeas corpus ad respondendum, a writ ordering return to allow the prisoner to “answer” to new proceedings before the court;
Habeas corpus ad satisfaciendum, a writ ordering return with the body of a prisoner for “satisfaction” or execution of a judgment of the issuing court; and
Habeas corpus ad testificandum, a writ ordering return with the body of a prisoner for the purposes of “testifying”.

Habeus Corpus in Australia
The writ of habeas corpus as a procedural remedy is part of Australia's English law inheritance.
In 2005, the Australian parliament passed the Australian Ant-Terrorism Act 2005. Some legal experts questioned the constitutionality of the act, due in part to limitations it placed on habeas corpus.

Bill of Rights 1689

2009-12-07T16:41:00.000-08:00

After defeating James II in 5 November 1688 and before they were affirmed as co-rulers of England and Ireland, William of Orange & Mary accepted a Declaration of Right onFebruary 13, 1689.
They were then crowned as joint monarchs in April 1689.
The Declaration of Right was later embodied in an Act of Parliament, now known as the Bill of Rights, onDecember 16, 1689.

The basic tenets (definition: possessions/holdings in virtue of the title) of the Bill of Rights 1689 are:

All Englishmen (embodied by parliament) had certain immutable civil and political rights including:
The King was forbidden to create his own courts or act as judge in order to interfere with laws
Royal taxation without agreement by Parliament was forbidden.
All men had the freedom to petition the Monarch,
Freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament
freedom [for Protestants] to have arms for their defence, suitable to their class status and as allowed by law
Freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign
Freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself (the basis of modern parliamentary privilege)
Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bail
Freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial

NOTE: It is very important to note that while this document is still in use in many countries, the Australian government have stated clearly that the Bill of Rights 1688 is no longer relevant to Australian law. Yet Federal Government used it as late as 1995 to protect any government minister from being impeached for anything that is said on the floor of Parliament. This was well after their original statements that it was no longer relevant in Australia.

Magna Carta 1215 - the Great Charter

2009-12-07T16:28:00.000-08:00

King John of England was crowned in the early 13th century.

He needed money for armies, but war losses, greatly reduced the state income, and a huge tax would have to be raised in order to attempt to reclaim these territories. Yet, it was difficult to raise taxes because of the tradition of keeping them at the same level.

John relied on clever manipulation of pre-existing rights which were easily broken and severely punished. He increased the pre-existing scutage (meaning a feudal payment to an overlord replacing direct military service) 11 times in his 17 years as king, as compared to 11 times in twice that period covering 3 monarchs before him. The last 2 of these increases were double the increase of their predecessors. He also imposed the first income tax, which raised what was, at the time, the extortionate sum of £70,000.

By 1215, some of the most important barons in England had had enough, and they entered London in force on June 10, 1215, with the city showing its sympathy with their cause by opening its gates to them. They, and many of the moderates not in overt rebellion, forced King John to agree to the "Articles of the Barons", to which his Great Seal was attached in the meadow at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. In return, the barons renewed their oaths of fealty to King John on June 19, 1215. A formal document to record the agreement was created by the royal chancery on July 15: this was the original Magna Carta.

Although enforced over the King by the Barons, the 62 clauses protected Common Law rights for every tier of English society and this document was truly for the sovereign men and women throughout Britain.

Simply put it dealt with
· A free English church and freeman rights forever.
· Protection of inheritance.
· Protection for widows.
· No more seizure of land to pay a debt.
· No usury for borrowing from money lenders.
· Cities will keep all their ancient liberties & customs.
· The right to a Common Law court.
· All trials to have a jury of peers.
· A freeman & a villein shall not lose his tools of trade to pay a debt.
· No bailiff can take food from another, but must pay; must not take another’s horse or cart; must not take another’s wood.
· One measure of weight & length to be used in the land.
· To be accused there must be witnesses.
· No man can be punished except by the judgment of his peers & the law of the land.
· No one will sell, refuse or delay, right & justice.
· All merchants may trade & travel.
· All judiciary to know the law of the land & honour it.
· All unjust fines to be returned.
· All land illegally removed to be returned.
· … that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid

Do we still have these rights in place? Aren’t these the very things that are being removed from us now?

Yet the English Monarchy were sworn to protect these rights with their lives!

Common Law

2009-12-07T16:18:00.000-08:00

What is Common Law?
Historically, Common Law came from the Anglo-Saxon people of England, but it was well known throughout the tribes of Europe..
Common Law was the law for the free women and men living on the land. It existed, and controlled and ruled the land of England previous to the reign of William the Conqueror [1066], when the Normans conquered Anglo-Saxon England.
In it was the Golden Rule that deals with Social Justice.
In the negative form reading as: Do not unto others as you would not have others do unto you, and in the positive form as: Do unto other as you would have others do unto you.
Under Common Law, it is illegal to deprive anyone of his inalienable Rights (“inalienable” means
can not be given or taken away").
There is a Legal Maxim that says, "Rights never die", and the first Right of a Free man is the Right to Trial by Jury.

Where does Common Law come from?
It is on record in the Vatican --- The early Christian missionaries reported that the people of Northern Germany "already have the law".
It is suspected that early Phoenician or Hebrew tin traders taught these people the law many years before Christ Some sources report that Joseph of Arimathea who paid for the burial of Jesus (Greek) a.k.a. Yeshuah (Hebrew) sailed on a tin trading ship from Israel to Glastonbury in Britain and ministered the law and gospel to the Celtic people who lived there, and with their help established the first Christian congregation and church in what later became England.
This ministry in Britain by Joseph happened in the first century A.D., centuries before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church.

What governs Common Law?
The Biblical expression of the concept of common law can be found at Matthew 22:37-40 - Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
That is a profound request and whether or not we are believers in God, that request is at the heart of all manner of human rights, can only create human peace, would prevent abuse in families and workplaces, would give man back his right to live his life in harmony with other souls.
Yet, how can people pretend they live at the common law when they have hired benefactors to take away their neighbors' goods for their personal benefit?

Other ways of understanding Common Law is are:
- Women and men have the right to do anything they WILL to do so long as they do not infringe upon the similar rights of any other woman or man.
-Your freedom ends where my nose begins.
-Show the evidence that I have caused harm to another and then the law gives you the jurisdiction to proceed within the law against me (this is similar to the old latin phrase habeas corpus or show the body).

So to answer the question – What Governs Common Law?

You do. Each and every individual must use their freely God-given will to ensure that they treat their fellow man with respect and love.