OF GOVERNING PRINCIPLES FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS
Valid Government does not exist in
Our experience is that owing to a number of factors, the majority of people - decide that our conclusions are bizarre. It is for this reason that we have provided numerous internet links. In other cases we can forward copies of original materials should you wish to view same.
This paper has not been prepared for lawyers exclusively & therefore the issues have not been analysed in exhaustive detail. Moreover, numerous issues have not been mentioned or elaborated (ie, the interregnum between the death of King.........& the ascension to the Throne of King..........& the important legal consequences this holds for the Commonwealth of Australia). Some of these issues have been canvassed in a two (2) volume, 480 page Application entitled 'Australia: the Concealed Colony' which was forwarded in September of 1999 to the individual Member States of the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Human Rights Commission & the International Criminal Commission, all of the United Nations. At our expense we would be happy to forward to you a combined one (1) volume reproduction of this document.
You may wish to obtain verification of the matters we have raised. May we suggest that if this is the case you do not hesitate to contact the Law schools of any of the following Universities: the University of Lausanne, the University of Paris (the Sorbonne), the Humboldt University (Berlin), Trinity College of Dublin, the Italian University of La Sapienza (Rome), the Complutenso de Madrid in Spain, the British Universities of Oxford, Cambridge & London, the University of Ghent (Belgium), the major American Universities of Stanford, Cornell, California (Berkeley) or Harvard. All of these Universities are aware of the matters raised in our paper & in some cases assisted with the preparation of 'Australia: The Concealed Colony'.
Valid Government does not exist in
To learn that to become a Member of the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia is to commit an act of treason against the sovereign people of Australia will no doubt result in a reaction of incredulity. In fact it would be reasonable to anticipate that the reader of such a statement would be inclined to immediately reject this paper without further examination of its content.
Similarly, the bold assertion that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) (see http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/preamble.htm) is invalid at first appears ludicrous. As the fundamental law of the Australian Nation, if it were invalid, then all Australian Governments - Commonwealth, State and Territorial - have no legal basis for their continued existence, no valid authority to pass and enforce legislation, and no authority to enter contracts or bind the Australian people by Treaty.
The consequences could be catastrophic, both within Australia and internationally. Yet, the consequences should not influence a disinterested analysis of the basis of that situation. This paper in part, presents these bases.
The fundamental facts which give rise to the accuracy of the above statements are indeed simple and were succinctly stated a few years ago by the late Professor G. Clements (an eminent UK QC and emeritus Professor in law at Cambridge). He summed up the situation thus,
Differing legal opinion cites the establishment of Australia as an independent sovereign nation over a wide range of dates. These include, but are not limited to:
Which ever date is chosen does not alter the consequences of the breach of Sovereignty, for Prof. O'Connell states:
However contrary to much of domestic Australian legal opinion, Australia became an independent sovereign nation following Mr. William Morris Hughes, Prime Minister and Commonwealth Attorney-General, together with Sir Joseph Cook, signing the multi-lateral Treaty of Peace at Versailles, France in June 1919. This included the Covenant of the League of Nations, along with many other important documents in International Law. Particular attention should be paid to clauses I, X, XVIII, and XX of the Covenant. (go to
The 'Australian' Constitution is United Kingdom law.
In "An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia", the 9th clause of which is usually referred to as the 'Australian Constitution' was, is, and remains conditional upon the first 8 covering clauses of that Act, a current Act of domestic law of the United Kingdom Parliament.
Under Section 128 of Clause 9, minor alterations to the Constitution may be made by the Australian people. However, the Australian people may not alter, in any way, Clauses 1 to 8 of the Imperial Act. Since the Australian people have only ever had the right to change sections 1 to 128 of clause 9 of that Act, it follows that covering clauses 1 to 8 remain law in Australia.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act passed through the UK Parliament in June 1900, to commence as law in Australia on the 1st of January 1901. Since the people of Australia have only ever had the right to change Sections 1 to 128 of Clause 9 of this Act, it follows that covering clauses 2, 6 and 8 remain law in Australia. (See Joosse v ASIC HCA 1998 159 ALR 260 or go to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/hca/transcripts/1998/M35/1.html ) This means that British colonial law still operates in Australia and that Australia is a self governing colony of the United Kingdom as stated in that Act (see clause 8). However, the High Court of Australia has recently ruled that the United Kingdom is a foreign power, and that the UK Parliament cannot have any effect on the Governments of Australia (Sue v Hill HCA 30 of 1999 or see http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/30.html). Hence, if British colonial law continues to operate in Australia, then this constitutes a clear breach of international law, along with the duties and responsibilities of the Australian and the United Kingdom governments, as both were Foundation Members to the League of Nations, and the United Nations. The Covenant and the Charter of both bodies, respectively, bind these nations.
The Australian people do not have ultimate control over the 'Australian' Constitution. In mid-July 1995 the Lord Chancellor of the UK in answer to a Parliamentary question asked in the UK Parliament about the Australian Constitution, stated:
Australia is an Independent sovereign nation.
During the 'Great War', the United Kingdom held Imperial War Conferences, to which the Dominions were finally invited to in 1917, as a result of their contributions to the war effort. It was at the 1917 Conference that the UK resolved to start the Dominions on the path to independent nationhood. Resolution IX stated:
Further, both as the result of the Dominions' World War I contributions, and the forceful position advanced by the United States President, Woodrow Wilson at Versailles, the United Kingdom, initially reluctantly, granted the Dominions the right to attend the Peace Treaty negotiations in their own right. This was followed by King George V instructing the Australian Governor-General, R. M. Ferguson, to issue a Head of State full powers document on the 23rd April 1919, being in "good and due form" authorising Mr. Hughes and Sir Joseph Cook to attend the Peace Conference and to negotiate, and sign the Treaty of Peace, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia. The emancipation of the Australian nation was recognised by the other signatories to the Treaty by these other independent nations allowing Australia, and the other former Dominions, to sign as separate nations. The United Kingdom no longer signed Treaties on behalf of Australia. The instrument through which this was achieved is also known as the Treaty of Versailles. (see http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/vercontents.html ) The unanimous ratification of this action was finalised in the Commonwealth of Australia Parliament on October 1st 1919. Australia immediately became a Member State of the League of Nations and the International Labor Organisation. Membership of these organisations was only available to sovereign nation states.
As recently as November 1995, the Australian Parliament through the release of a report by the 'Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee’ restated the historical events leading up to the achievement of independence, referring to the 1917 Imperial War Conference Resolution IX at para. 4.12, and clearly stated at para. 4.13 that Australia was now a sovereign nation:
and further in 4.13:
On July 14, 1996, investigators working in the archives of the League of Nations, held in Geneva by the Swiss Government, found the original copy of the Leaguer of Nations Covenant. Interspersed among the text is a commentary in italics by Sir Geoffrey Butler, KBE, Fellow in International Law and Diplomacy at Corpus Christie College, Cambridge University.
The discovery of the original copy of the Covenant revealed Sir Geoffrey's commentaries had been part of this crucial document from the beginning, not added later as historians had believed.
Full significance of Article I of the Covenant has never been widely understood by the people of Australia, whose future was irrevocably altered by the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919.
Sir Geoffrey Butler's comments went to the heart of the events. His commentary on Article I states:
The law of one nation may not be used to govern over another nation.
From the moment people gain independence they have a claim to, and possess the right of, self-determination. They are sovereign over their affairs (see the Covenant of the League of Nations, Art. 10, and the Charter of the United Nations, Art. 2 paras 1 and 4; http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml , together with resolutions 2131 [xx] 1965 & 2625 [xxv] 1970).
From that moment, the laws of their former colonial master become ultra vires. For it to be otherwise is to offend both common sense and the first principle of international law - the right to self-determination! If this is not so, than the United States of America remains today as a collection of colonies of Great Britain! From October 1st 1919 'An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia' became ultra vires, with regard to Australia. Its continued use by political parties to claim the power to establish a parliament to govern over the Commonwealth of Australia, that is, the Australian people, (see Quick & Garran "The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth" 1901 at page 366) constitutes an offence against international law. It represents political interference by the United Kingdom and a denial of Australian citizens' inalienable right to self-determination.
From October 1st, 1919 the British Monarch became irrelevant to Australia. From October 1st 1919 Australia became a republic. From October 1st, 1919 it has been necessary to create a political and judicial system capable of bridging the legal void created when sovereignty changed from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the people of Australia. That necessity still exists.
If confirmation of this change in Australia's status from a "colony" to being "accepted fully into the community of nations of the whole world" is required, the Balfour Declaration 1929 ( see http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/places/cth/cth11.htm), the Report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee 1926 - Extracts at page 348, ( see 'II. ¾STATUS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THE DOMINIONS' describing the Dominions as "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs"), and Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations make interesting reading.
By using UK law to claim power, parliamentarians and others become agents of a foreign power.
By relying on this current Act of domestic law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom the Australian Parliament is definable as an extension of the Parliament of the UK. The Governor-General, State and Territory Governors, individual parliamentarians, Senators and all others involved in government, including members of the judiciary, are definable as agents of the UK. That is, agents of a power foreign to the Nation State, the Commonwealth of Australia. This scenario manifests right down to the policeman on the beat!
The much-vaunted Statute of Westminster Act 1931 (UK) (see http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/places/cth/cth12.htm) was a thinly veiled attempt to patch up a broken legal system for the Dominions. Since it was design to operate beyond the shores of the UK, it failed the requirement under Article XVIII of the Covenant of the League of Nations as it was not registered with the Secretariat, and therefore never became a valid international instrument. It had no operational effect beyond thew shores where it was created, the United Kingdom.
Every Member and Senator has committed an Act of treason by swearing and subscribing to an oath to serve the government of a power foreign to Australia.
To underline this, the Constitution (embraced by Australian parliamentarians) at section 42, dictates that they must all swear and subscribe an oath of allegiance to the current Monarch in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (Confirmed by letter from the Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives dated 10th June 1999 and signed by Robyn Webber, Director, Chamber Research Office). But because the Monarch is appointed under the provisions of UK legislation and is therefore subordinate to the UK legislature (i.e. 'the Queen in Parliament') in point of legal fact, Parliamentarians, Senators and others have actually sworn an oath of allegiance to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Quite clearly this constitutes an act of treason against the sovereign people of Australia. The Oath appears as the schedule to the Act and being outside 'The Constitution' is beyond the reach of Section 128, and thus, may not be altered by any authority outside the UK Parliament.
Further, The 'Queen of Australia' is purely titular. If indeed such an Office exists at all it does so without legal authority.
Since the Bill of Rights of 1688, the Act of Settlement of 1701, and the Act of Union 1706, the Monarch has been appointed, first by the English Parliament and then, by the UK Parliament. The Queen is a ‘Statutory Monarch’. As such she has no powers separate from the UK Parliament. In fact the official, descriptive title is ‘The Queen in Parliament’. In her Office, the ‘Queen’ has no legal power to make decisions. She may only endorse and/or carry out decisions made by the Ministers that appointed her. (see http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/parlia.htm ) Further, the monarch has not executive function within the Commonwealth, her role being purely titular. (see http://www.fco.gov.uk/news/keythemehome.asp?8)
In 1973, in her private life as Mrs Elizabeth Guelph (for she had no authority from the UK Parliament which possessed no power with regard to matters relating to an independent Australia), she chose to amuse Gough Whitlam, the then Prime Minister of Australia, by signing the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973, which repealed the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953, and ‘created’ the “Queen of Australia”. Such an Office does not exist in UK law or, in particular, under the 'Australian' Constitution.
‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’ is UK law and by definition (clause 2 of the Act) the only Monarch that the Constitution (clause 9 of the Act) recognises is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Thus, even if it could be established that the Constitution has valid application, any law made under the Constitution cannot be given valid Royal assent by a Governor-General or Governor appointed by and representing a purely titular “Queen of Australia" (see the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 (Cth) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rsata1973258/ )
Further, taking into account the full content of the Act, even if it were possible to alter the Constitution so that it recognised the “Queen of Australia”, a referendum under S128 relating to the adoption of such an Office would be necessary. Such a referendum has never been conducted!
Attempts to "patch up the Constitutional mess" continued the concealment of the truth from the Australian people
Adopting the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) in 1942, and making it commence retroactively from the 3rd September 1939, was an attempt to rule out any illegality of involvement in WWII by not having formally declared war on Germany 3 years earlier. The Statute was adopted at the time the newly appointed Prime Minister was declaring war on Japan, and the Australian Parliament needed to be sure of it's power to do so.
The concealment continues with 2 more documents. The first being "The Letters Patent Relating to her Office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia" which was gazetted on the 24th August 1984 after being signed 3 days earlier at Balmoral in the United Kingdom. Under UK law, the writs of the sovereign die with the sovereign. But when Queen Victoria died on the 21st January, 1900, no new Letters Patent were issued until August 1984! This was 4 (not 5) monarchs later. These Letters Patent also had a clause to cover any 'invalid' Commission or appointment or any action taken by someone so commissioned or appointed without authority. This is the effect of clause VII.
The next document(s) created to continue the concealment was the passage of the Australia Acts (see web address for Australia Acts (Cth) & (UK)) through both the UK and the Australian Parliaments, in 1985, to commence in 1986. Contrary to international law, both of these Acts attempted to infringe sovereignty of another nation, were not registered as required under the Charter of the United Nations to have extra-territorial effect, and consequently, can not be relied on in any international forum. Notwithstanding the international status of the Australia Act 1986 (Cth), the preamble and several clauses clearly indicate that British colonial law was continuing in the sovereign independent Australia, and that from the commencement of this Act, all such colonial law, as well as the UK government, will have no effect. If this was not the case, than there would not be any need to have an Australia Act, let alone 2 of them.
There are several major structural problems associated with the Australia Act (Cth), and since it is continually referred to in judicial decisions, it is worthwhile noting these problems.
Recent confirmations establish invalidity of the political and judicial system currently being applied in Australia.
While all of this is relevant and pertinent, it is as well to be aware that on, 19th December 1997 the Office of Legal Council of the General Secretariat of the United Nations volunteered and thus confirmed that Australia has been a sovereign State from the 24th October 1945 at the latest. This was confirmed by letter dated 19th December 1997, from the Acting Director and Deputy to the Under-Secretary-General, Office of the Legal Counsel, under the hand of Paul C. Szasz.
On the 5th November 1999, the UK Government through their High Commission in Canberra, volunteered and thus confirmed that the UK British Nationality Act 1948 legislated that Australia was not a protectorate of the United Kingdom, so both the UN and the UK have confirmed that for at least 53 years Australia has been an independent sovereign nation State. This was confirmed by letter dated 5th November 1999, from the Chief Passport Examiner, British High Commission, Canberra, under the hand of Mrs Carole Turner.
As a consequence, under both international and UK law the UK Parliament’s ‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’ has been ultra vires in relation to Australia for at least 53 years. So, for purposes of definition and resolution there is no fundamental need to look any further back into history.
It is also most pertinent to note that on the 6th November 1999 the entire people of Australia, by referendum had for the first time, the opportunity to have their say regarding the acceptance or otherwise of the Constitution under which they are governed. They overwhelmingly rejected the 'Preamble to the Constitution' question which included,
Thus the question must now be asked: "How can present Australian parliaments possibly continue to exist under the terms of a Constitution to which the people have refused to be committed?"
So it is that the Australian Parliament; relying for its existence, as it does, on a law which can no longer have application in Australia, remains a puppet, in legal terms, of the United Kingdom Parliament. Currently, the only way Australian Commonwealth Bills can be allegedly passed into Acts of law is by having them assented to in the name of a Monarch, who has no legal standing in any forum anywhere in the world. Clause 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act rules that, for the purposes of that Act, all references to the Queen lie in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 1921, which was ratified on 15th January 1922, brought into existence the Irish Free State. In 1937 the Irish Free State became the Republic of Erie. Hence, "Ireland" ceased to exist as a legal entity on 15th January 1922.
At the same time, the sovereignty of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist. The establishment of the new sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was formalised through the United Kingdom Parliaments Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. The United Kingdom would constitute an international joke if at the beginning of the 21st Century it masqueraded as still existing in the 78 year defunct sovereignty of Great Britain and Ireland! But, to this day every Australian Parliamentarian, Senator, and Judge swears and subscribes an oath to the Monarch in the same 78 year obsolete sovereignty! Effectively, this results in a legal limbo any independent observer would conclude is bizarre. In short, the Australian Parliament is not a valid organ representing the Sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia and cannot pass any laws which can have valid application within Australia, or anywhere else for that matter.
Clearly the Commonwealth Government of
Australia is invalid.
The simple fact of the matter is, there is a fundamental and urgent need to place before the Australian citizenry a new, if interim, Constitution under which they are prepared to be governed with a view to allowing the appropriate mechanisms to be established which would enable a democratically decided Constitution to be agreed to and implemented.
However, there maybe serious consequences for the international community as a result of invalid Australian Governments entering into both international treaties and contracts. This arises because the "Australian" Constitution creates the structure of the Australian Federal Government together with establishing the States and Territories (see Chapter V being ss. 106 to 120 of cl. 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act). These governments, being established under that Act of the UK Parliament, are also then invalid, as is their legislation. Any treaties, contracts or agreements entered into by them must be void. In this context it must be noted that the Australian Federal Government - which is responsible for signing treaties - could not at any time, under International Law, have validly represented the Sovereign People of Australia. At any time, therefore, it could be argued that any, each and every one of such treaties maybe declared invalid and not binding on signatory States. This inturn represents a threat to the protection of, inter alia, commercial and intellectual property, patents, contracts, extradition orders, peace treaties and defence alliances.
Regarding contracts, by way of a simple example, multi-national insurance companies having entered into insurance contracts which operate within the territory of Australia or under Australian law may hold contracts which are void ab initio owing to a fundamental breach of the insured's duty of disclosure. The documents which unequivocally demonstrate the issues outlined above are inherently public documents which have been easily accessible for years.
A broader issue, likewise, arises with regard to the quantum of any damages claim that could foreseeably be made against the UK before the European Court of Justice, because given that the High Court of Australia has ruled that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Imp) is not ultra vires in Australia, and that all subordinate legislation is still subject to the limitations imposed by that domestic law of the UK, is Australia still therefore, a colony of the UK? If so, will citizens in Australia be granted their full rights as European Citizens resident in a colony of a Member State, including the right to freely enter each Member State and trade therein without restriction or penalty (other than those prescribed by the law of the EEC for members of the European Community)? Will damages be appropriate for the period that residents of Australia were denied such access to these European markets?
Has the UK denied the citizens resident in Australia, who by referendum on 6th November 1999, rejected the continued use of the domestic British Law, the right to self determination in contravention of International Law, the treaty establishing the European Community, the Charter of the United Nations and other treaties?
Has the UK, by subterfuge, attempted to conceal from the European Community, the real nature and depth of it's continued involvement in the governments of Australia? If so, at what cost?
Alternatively, do the Member States of the European Union, having recognised the sovereign independence of the Australian people owe a duty, under Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations and under Articles 2 and 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, to prevent continued illegal dominance of Australian citizens by the UK? Are such States liable for damages if they remain inactive in this regard?
Given that the High Court of Australia has declared that even though citizens resident in Australia are governed under domestic British Legislation, they are denied the fundamental Human Rights conferred on British citizens by the same UK Parliament through both common law and through the accession of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (See the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK)). Are judicial officers within Australia - all of whom are appointed under UK legislation and commissioned by Governors and Governors-General appointed by the UK Parliament - in breach of the said Covenant? If so, to what extent will liability be found to rest with the UK Parliament, given that despite official declarations as to Australia's independence, that Parliament has maintained a colonial regime in Australia through force majeure?
Moreover, the status of many people who have been granted Australian Citizenship under the provisions of the National Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) has - in a limited number of cases - already been questioned, for apart from the established arguments as to the invalidity of the 'Australian' Constitution, which inturn renders the National Citizenship Act 1948 invalid, there exists no power within the Constitution to create other than British citizens (see s. 51 xix)!
YES! THE SITUATION IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS! And yes, by definition, Australia currently exists in a state of legal anarchy! And yes, there is reason to believe that the international community is very concerned. After all, what is the worth of an international treaty which has been signed by an authority which does not validly represent the sovereignty of the State?
Over a number of years senior political identities of all persuasions within Australia including Prime Ministers, Attorneys-General and other senior Cabinet Minister together with minor party leaders have been fully briefed.
The documents of history have been presented to Australian Courts at all levels. Currently there are matters before other courts outside of Australia.
Having exhausted all possible avenues for domestic remedy and recognizing that, in fact, the situation is so serious that there exists a very real potential for a total breakdown in 'law and order', an appeal for assistance has been advanced to the entire international community.
The mechanism by which this was achieved has been by way of a 480 page submission individually presented to all 185 Member States of the United Nations as well as to, Kofi Annan the General Secretariat, the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Committee and the Security Council.
The document includes a request for the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal to prosecute individuals who can be shown to have inhibited the inalienable right of Australian citizens to self-determination by knowingly subjecting Australian citizens to British colonial law within the sovereign territory of the Commonwealth of Australia.. It is clear that along the way the situation will be, by necessity, brought before the International Court of Justice. Advice from three continents is that there exists no counter argument, and that therefore the outcome is a forgone conclusion.
All nations have received the submission. No nation has returned or rejected it. Many nations have confirmed and/or are actively giving their support to the Sovereign People of Australia. For obvious reasons these nations cannot, at this stage, be named.
It is to be hoped that Australia's unique constitutional conundrum and associated problems flowing therefrom can be expeditiously and peacefully rectified, however it is incumbent upon lawyers, academics, politicians and others to be fully aware of the situation and its implications so as to be able to offer informed advice when this is sought.
The authors believe that this advice will be required shortly, particularly by governments and businesses within those nations which are Australia's trading and defence partners. Moreover, there is cause to apprehend that citizens, former citizens and corporations domiciled in those nations against which Australia declared war- beginning on 3rd September 1939 - may wish to pursue claims for reparations under Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice ( see http://www.un.org/Overview/Statute/chapter2.html) because a declaration of war is an action under international law only capable of being performed by a sovereign power. Any seizure of property and assets belonging to such nations was illegal. The terms of section 3(1)and (2)of the Australia Acts 1986 (UK and Cth) constitute a clear admission by both Australia and the UK that colonial law was, at least up to 1986, being applied in Australia.
It is our hope that by not indulging in legal opinion or jurisprudential theory, but rather by relying entirely upon original documents of statute law and history (most of which are easily ascertainable), we have gone some way to answering this need.
(End Note: 6th November Referendum Results)
Thus, by the only national vote ever held in which all citizens were entitled to vote on the issue, the proposition was rejected in every State and Territory of Australia on a national basis of 60.66% to 39.34%, clearly establishing that the Australian population did not commit themselves to be ruled by a controlled colonial constitution)
FROM DAVID ICKE'S FREEDOM ROAD EZINE
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:27 PM
Because Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is the Head of State of the United Kingdom, she has no executive powers exercisable in Australia, contrary to Chapter II, Section 61 of the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (63 & 64 Victoria, Chapter 12) [9th July 1900] which says that .
Therefore, Major-General Michael Jeffery is not the legitimate Governor-General of Australia and the Prime Minister, John Winston Howard, MP, is an accessory to the fraud and deception, as he has countersigned the fraudulent Commission document bearing the forgery of Her Majesty's Sign Manual (ie: signature of Elizabeth R) "Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace on twenty-ninth of July, 2003. By Her Majesty's Command, (signed) John Howard Prime Minister". This document can be found in the "Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S 309, Monday, 11 August 2003", which is available in all Law Libraries.
On Monday (22nd March 2004) I went into town to the Australian Federal Police at 110 Goulburn Street, Sydney and reported these crimes to a young man and woman in the foyer. I gave them this evidence and advised that, at this stage, the offences should be kept simple, i.e.: fraud and false representation under various parts of Section 29 of the Crimes Act 1914 with penalties ranging from 2 to 10 years imprisonment. I phoned the lady officer today and she said they would let me know if they were going to procede with the charges.
There is also the matter of all the supposed appointments of Judges by those supposed representatives of Her Majesty, i.e.: the Governor-Generals and the State Governors. The Judges' appointments are equally invalid. Attached is a leaflet I have entitled "Australian Judges are Frauds, Liars, Criminals, Traitors & Fools."
Now that the Truth has emerged, it is time for ordinary Australians to reclaim their Laws, their Rights and their Country. Yours sincerely, John Wilson.
Australian Judges Are Frauds, Liars, Criminals, Traitors & Fools.
Written by John Wilson, http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au
Frauds: Federal Judges must be appointed by the Governor-General and State Judges by the State Governors who must have been appointed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second. However, Privy Council and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in London confirm that the Queen does not and can not appoint the Governor-General nor the Governors because she is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and has no executive powers exercisable in the Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore, any appointments made by these false representatives of the Queen are also fraudulent and those "Judges" have no authority or jurisdiction, whatsoever.
Liars: Common Law demands that an essential element in the creation of a contract is "certainty of terms". Variable interest rates render a contract void for uncertainty because "variable" means "uncertain" and "certain" means "not variable" (Oxford English Dictionary). However, Australian Judges say and maintain that variable interest rates are indeed certain. That is a lie with which they conceal the illegality of variable interest rate loan contracts.
Criminals: Australian Judges conceal 2 major counts of fraud committed by Banks. The first is the fraud of variable interest rate loan contracts (above) and the second is the fact that Banks create money for themselves "out of thin air" and inject it into the economy as loans, which they recoup with interest. These fraudulent practices by the Banks amount to hundreds of billions of dollars and have resulted in the illegal dispossession of homes and businesses as well as bankruptcy, family breakdown, suicide and hardship to many ordinary Australians. Australian Judges aid and abet in this atrocity.
Traitors: Australian Judges swear to well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second and to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. In the Queen's Coronation Oath, she promised to execute Law and Justice with Mercy in all her Judgments. Apart from the Queen being the Head of State of a foreign power, Australian Judges betray that allegiance and betray the Australian People through their Corruption and the denial of Justice.
Fools: Listed in Australia's Constitutional Enactments are Magna Carta 1297, Petition of Right 1627, Habeas Corpus 1640 and Bill of Rights 1688 which guarantee the Right to Trial by Jury - the denial of which is punishable by 5 years imprisonment (Imperial Acts Application Act 1969, section 43). Bill of Rights 1688 actually says that "counsellors, judges and ministers" who "subvert and extirpation the laws and liberties of the kingdom" are "evil". All evil-doers are fools.
- Written by John Wilson, http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au
Australian Government Now Officially Illegal
Summary of article by David Siminton, Principality of Camside,
July 1, 2004
THE BRITISH HIGH COURT’S (CHANCERY DIVISION) INVALIDATES
A case showing that documents used
to appoint Australia’s Governor General have been illegally issued, went
before the Chancery Division of the British High Court in London on 9th March
2004. The case was presented on behalf of a group of Australian citizens, by a
legal team, headed by a Queen’s Council (QC), who is regarded as the best
Chancery Division expert in the United Kingdom. The team included Australian
Barrister David Fitzgibbon QC. The case was heard by Master Bencher Bowman, of
the Chancery Division of the British High Court, who had previously reserved his
decision on 9th March 2004. Master Bencher Bowman reserved his decision, until
April 2004, (which means that he intended ruling on this case sometime within
Hidden Aspects of Australian Democracy - Part 1
These edited highlights of the “Murphy Papers” give further
background to the preceding article
“Australian Government Now Officially Illegal”. Full text at
Much has been attributed to the Australian Constitution by our
politicians, the judiciary and the academe in the hope that ordinary Australians
wouldn't notice or question its validity.
The Lord Chancellor of the UK states that the Australian
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was intended to deliver self-government to the six
British Colonies. Each of these colonies passed some power to a central
government while retaining their individual powers. The Commonwealth of
Australia was formed in 1901 while remaining a Colony or Dominion of the United
Kingdom under British rule. The colonial intent of the act is clearly indicated
in the covering clauses 6, 7 and 8 in the preamble to the Constitution. The
United Kingdom Government retained absolute control over The Commonwealth of
Australia as it had the sole right to disallow any bill, to control foreign
policy and to declare war!
At no time did the Australian people or government have any
authority with regard to changes to these clauses. In 1988, the British
Government decided to present the original copy of the Australian Constitution
Act 1900(UK) to the Australian people as a 200th centenary gift as it had long
been redundant. Both politicians and the judiciary would have the Australian
people believe that the Constitution conferred some form of national
sovereignty. This was not so and was aptly demonstrated by the declaration of
war made on behalf of the colonies by King George V in 1914. Mr William Hughes,
Prime Minister of Australia had a word or two to say about that event at the
1917 Imperial War Conference held in London.
The conference recognised that `the constitutional relations of
the component parts of the British Empire...should be based upon a full
recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth'.
Following this declaration by the United Kingdom, William Hughes in company with
Sir Joseph Cook carried out the first action taken by the now sovereign nation
of Australia - they joined the Peace Conference in Versailles on Jan 13th 1919
as the Australian delegates. Hughes and the US President (Wilson) wrangled about
the Pacific mandates. A `C' class League of Nations mandate was granted to
Australia over former German territories in the Pacific. On June 28th 1919, both
Hughes and Cook signed the Peace Treaty of Versailles in Australia's name.
The original copy of the League of Nations is held in the
archives in Switzerland. This original copy contains explanatory notes by Sir
Geoffrey Butler KBE, MA, Fellow, Librarian and Lecturer in International Law and
Diplomacy of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge University, London, UK - author
of the recognised definitive text book - A Handbook to the League of Nations.
His comments were..."It is arguable that this article is the Covenant's
most significant single measure. By it the British Dominions, namely, New
Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Canada, have their independent nationhood
established for the first time. There may be friction over small matters in
giving effect to this internationally acknowledged fact, but the Dominions will
always look to the League of Nations Covenant, as their Declaration of
Independence. That the change has come silently about, and has been welcomed in
all quarters through the British Empire, is a final vindication of men like the
United Empire Loyalists.
This declaration of sovereignty was a focal talking point in the
world media of that era. The act of joining the League of Nations was seen by
the world press as a `Declaration of Independence' from the United Kingdom which
indeed it was. Australia had its own delegate to the League in William Hughes.
Well known Australian author, Frank Moorhouse, spent four years in Paris
researching the League of Nations before writing his award winning book `Grand
Days'. Moorhouse said "Australia, like Canada, joined the league under its
own name, a gesture which commentators at the time had seen as remarkable. In
fact, it was seen as Australia's and Canada's declaration of independence from
the UK. We sat apart from them and handled our own foreign affairs. We sent our
own delegates to the League of Nations!" On 10th January 1920 the League of
Nations came into force with Australia now a sovereign nation under
International Law. On that momentous occasion, completely ignored by both
Australian `politicians' and the `judiciary' for very obvious reasons, all
colonial law was extinguished as has been the case with regard to all new
sovereign nations. A prominent attorney at law in New York who counts Microsoft
and IBM among his clients, Mr G. Rubacker states "If colonial law is not
extinguished by national sovereignty then even the USA would remain a colony of
The late, Mr G. Clements, a former well known QC in the UK
commented "The continued usage of the Australian Constitution Act 1900(UK)
by Australian Governments and the judiciary is a confidence trick of monstrous
proportions played upon the Australian people with the intent of maintaining
power. The Australian Constitution Act 1900(UK) remains an act of the United
Kingdom. After joining the League of Nations in 1919, Australia became a
sovereign nation. It had no further legal power to use, alter or otherwise
tamper with another nation's legislation."
Under International Law, Australia and its states have no legal
basis for the current political or judicial system. At no time following the
demise of the Australian Constitution have Australian citizens been asked for
any type of authority nor have they given any. Only by July of 1900 was a small
majority obtained with respect to the act of Federation of the six colonies.
This referendum excluded more than half of the then population in Australia
while a further large percentage didn't bother to register a vote. Only British
Citizens voted as there weren't any Australian citizens! Australian Nationals
have always been excluded from the political process by the continued unlawful
usage of British colonial legislation.
The first Australian academic to see and evaluate this problem
was Australia's most prominent and prolific writer on the Constitution - Colin
Howard. When Professor of Law at Melbourne University in the early seventies,
Colin Howard saw that the Constitution as an act of a foreign government could
not have survived sovereign nationhood. He had the foresight to recognise that
the future of Australia could not be left in the hands of incompetent
politicians continuing to illegally use the Australian Constitution as the basis
for their authority. He reasoned that regardless of the failure of politicians
to act upon the invalidity of the Constitution, at some time in the future the
question must be addressed. Colin Howard is currently the Victorian Crown
His comments fell on deaf ears even after the UK parliament
passed the 1972/73 Immigration Act as amended. This act clearly stated that all
ex-colonials were aliens and were to be processed as such by British Immigration
authorities. This act was meant to stop the migrant flow to the `mother land'
from previous British colonial possessions. Here was final confirmation that
Australian Citizens were neither British Subjects nor British Citizens.
The purpose of this letter is not to examine the rights or
wrongs of the Australian and British governments or for that matter, the Crown.
The legal and historical evidence is overwhelming that the Australian
Constitution Act 1900(UK) was without doubt or argument extinguished by 10th
January 1920 (at the very latest). It is not our intention to denigrate the
appointment of Governors or Governors General but to introduce much needed legal
discussion regarding these matters to the Australian public.
Mr. Skelton rightly states that there is a `legal void' and that
an interim constitution approved by both the Australian people and accepted by
the United Nations is required. A Constitution fitting this description is
already nearing completion following a basic demographic layout acceptable to
both the Australian people and also recognised by the United Nations Human
Rights Committee overseeing the First Protocol.
We 100, 000 plus Australian citizens have bypassed the
government processes with some reluctance. For many years, we attempted to get
the government to make an open declaration to the Australian people about the
Constitution. No one in government denied that the Constitution had been
extinguished. The argument was about the ramifications of this `confession'. One
major item refers to over 5, 500, 000 migrants who currently believe that they
hold Australian citizenship. Under International Law, this is the not the case.
The Australian Constitution has long been extinguished, laws cannot look to this
constitution for their validity.
Over ten years ago, a group of us spoke to members of the United
Nations Human Rights Committee in New York. We asked them what demographic means
should be applied with regard to formulating a new Australian Constitution. We
wanted to be assured that there would be acceptance of this Interim Constitution
by the Australian people and the United Nations. Such a constitution is nearing
completion and has been approved by over 49, 000 Australians. A minimum of 2100
randomly selected Australians were interviewed with respect to each item. Only
those items with at least a 75% approval rating are present in the Interim
Constitution. Of more than 49, 000 people interviewed, only 11% believed that
Australia was already a true democracy. The vast majority said Australia was a
dictatorship. The recent jailing of Albert Langer proved their point. It is
hoped that following the United Nations approval of this constitution it can be
presented to Australian citizens and voted upon item by item.
Copies of this constitution will be available after the
Committee rules upon the current usage of colonial legislation by the Australian
Government. The Australian Government has six months to reply to the Committee
following the 100, 000 plus complaints. Let us say this - for the first time in
human history power is delivered solely to the people. No member of Parliament
will have any more power than the ordinary person. Parliament must vote in
accordance with the pre-determined will of the people!
The Australian people will have to decide what to do with regard
to almost every facet of their daily lives. What type of country do we want? The
Interim Constitution addresses only the basics of Health, Education, Taxation,
Defence, Environment and Immigration. There isn't a question of retaining the
states as they were extinguished with their colonial legislative base on 10th
January 1920 along with the Australian Constitution!
After the Interim Constitution is validated by the Australian
people, Mr. Connolly and others who have attempted to enforce the authority of a
foreign government may find themselves defending this position in a real
Australian court deriving its authority directly from the Australian people! Who
are `we'? Over 90 percent of our group are current or past members of the legal
profession, legal academe and judiciary. We are resident in all states and
territories of Australia. We want to see Australia left in the capable hands of
the people before we expire. We have watched as politicians and bureaucrats
reduced the world's richest nation (World Bank comment) to the level of a third
world country. It is time for action!
Have any of you readers following this current series of letters
begun to wonder why the politicians, judiciary, academe and the legal profession
are so quiet? Not a murmur from them - I wonder why?
The truth is a light that cannot be extinguished. They who would
try to do so must come out into that light and be identified! If I identified
myself, they would make every attempt to keep me quiet.
By the way James, King George V of the UK declared war on
Germany on behalf of the Dominion of Australia, a colony of the UK on 5th August
1914. I would like to address the 'nitty gritty' of this debate with these
salient points. (1) Without doubt, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 is an act of the United Kingdom government. (2) The State Constitutions
are acts of the United Kingdom government. These are colonial acts easily
identified as such by their contents. In order to lawfully use these acts
according to the two referees - the United Kingdom government and International
Law, Australia and its states must be current colonies of the United Kingdom.
The case to be addressed is simple - is Australia still a
colony? If not exactly when did it cease to be a colony under International Law?
Why International Law? This is the only means by which a colony can declare
itself to be an Independent Sovereign Nation. Long before International Law
became a series of written statutes, it was already well recognised by most
nations. Certainly, Australia was a colony at the outbreak of World War I. There
can be no argument about that as King George V declared war on Germany in the
name of the colony of Australia on 5th August 1914. This demonstrates that the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) was colonial by statute and
practice. The fact that the Turkish government refused to surrender to the
'colonials' after Australians took Damascus in October 1918 is further
indication of the recognised position of colonial power.
With the armistice duly signed on 11th November 1918, Australia
remained a colony of the UK. On 28th June 1919, one William Morris Hughes and
Sir Joseph Cook of the colony of Australia with the consent of the British
Government signed an international document - the Treaty of Versailles in the
name of the nation of Australia. This document was the basis for the League of
Nations and became part of International Law on 10th January 1920. If this was
indeed, a 'declaration of independence' from the United Kingdom then this
document must therefore contain absolute evidence of this intent. The question
is - does it?
Article I of the League of Nations Covenant states that all
members must deposit a Declaration with the Secretariat within two months of the
Covenant becoming part of International Law. Australia deposited that
Declaration and was one of the twenty nine founding members. Article X
guarantees the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all
Members of the League.
This is the one we want. Here for the first time is clear
evidence of the Sovereign Nation status of each member of the League of Nations.
The only legal argument under International Law is the actual date of this
Sovereign Nation status. On the 28th June 1919 or the 10th January 1920? There
is no legal argument for a date later than 10th January 1920! Therefore no valid
legal argument exists for current usage of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act (UK)1900 or any State Constitution post 10th January 1920.
The next date of international significance is 3rd September
1939. On this day, Australia as a nation declared war on Germany. No declaration
this time by George VI of Great Britain! On the 1st November 1945, Australia
signed as one of the foundation members of the United Nations. Article 2
paragraph 1 states...The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign
equality of all its Members. That couldn't be more explicit could it?
Hidden Aspects of Australian Democracy - Part 2
Continuing edited highlights of the “Murphy Papers”. Full
text at http://users.orac.net.au/gds/democracy.htm
Here we have two declarations of independence for Australia
fully backed by International Law. The usage of colonial law by any authority in
Australia could be deemed to be a matter for the War Crimes Commission in
Geneva. Such usage certainly is contrary in every respect to almost every piece
of Human Rights legislation within International Law as well as the United
Nations Charter and the Statutes of the International Court.
From ‘George Murphy‘) The name says it all, I am another
member of the 'Murphy' clan. Currently, I hold a Chair of Constitutional Law at
an Australian University. The continuation of the State Constitutions (all acts
of the UK) is dependent upon the current validity of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) under UK and International Law. This is an
act of the UK government. Is the act still current? The UK Government say no as
Australia is an independent sovereign nation and the UK do not have legislative
power in Australia under both UK and International Law.
The Australian Federal government says that although the UK no
longer has the authority to legislate for Australia they alone would decide
which UK legislation would be valid in Australia (Statute of Westminster Act
1931 and the Australia Act 1986). This statement makes the greatest leap in
credibility I have ever seen in any legislation in my academic life. By what
authority is the sovereignty of an independent member State of the UN so easily
circumvented? No one appears to have an answer to that question including the
politicians or the academe!
Australia, as a sovereign nation joined the UN in 1945 and the
League of Nations in 1919! No foreign power has had the right to interfere with
the sovereignty of Australia by any means since these times and certainly none
of their legislation is valid here. The fact that Australia is a member State of
the UN is declared on a daily basis in our media! How then, can this fact be
ignored so easily? Anyone with an IQ above 100 cannot escape the fact that the
laws of one sovereign nation cannot be valid in another sovereign nation! This
would destroy the very notion of sovereignty.
The so-called minimalist proposal is mind blowing. Here we have
supposedly learned people discussing how they are going to alter the laws of a
foreign power to govern an independent sovereign nation. Why haven't I and my
like blown the whistle before? Years ago, I spoke about this to my Vice
Chancellor who quickly informed me that there were very few Chairs of Law and
lots of applicants! Some may call me a coward, I believe most people are more
realistic than that.
On 10th September 1919, Australian Prime Minister, Mr William
Hughes spoke to the House of Representatives about Australia signing the Peace
Treaty of Versailles on 28th June 1919. This is an extract of that speech from
Hansard of 10th September 1919. "Australia has now entered into a family of
nations on a footing of equality. Australia has been born in a blood
sacrifice." This statement clearly indicates that Mr. Hughes fully
recognised the fact of Australia's change of status from a British Dominion
(implemented 1911) or British Colony to that of a fully independent sovereign
nation. This sovereignty is guaranteed under Article X of the League of Nations
(High Court Judge’s Statement) I am a former member of the
High Court and I wish to take this unusual method of informing you about a
matter that is going to deeply affect us all. Unfortunately, a document such as
this is too easily "lost" in the bureaucratic jungle in which we
operate. A group of Australian Citizens have taken it upon themselves to test
the validity of our current political and judicial system. Like you, I have
lived my entire legal career with the assumption that the basis for our legal
and political system, state and federal, was written in stone. This group has
undertaken to present this paper when they test the legal system.
The group is articulate, well educated and counts some of our
best legal minds amongst its members. One of Australia's best known barristers
is one of the group's leading lights. It is far better informed with regard to
international law than most members of the judiciary or for that matter, the
legal academe. It has better international contacts than I would have thought
After spending some time with the group leader, I was able to
elicit its primary intentions. It is the introduction of a totally
democratic system of government devoid of party politics operated by the will of
the people incorporating a system of debit taxation which should go a long way
to eliminating the current unemployment problem and also addressing other
pressing social issues. An A.B.S. financial model supports the proposal.
The group has so far concentrated on matters relating to
taxation, state and federal, minor industrial and motor traffic while
undertaking not to present a criminal defence using their current presentation.
I challenged the leader of this group to present any evidence he had with regard
to the above defence so I could use my legal expertise to play the part of
devil's advocate. It should be brought to your attention that this group has
access to documentation of which we members of the judiciary have little
knowledge. I refer to the British Parliamentary Papers for the Colony of
Australia for the years 1860 through to 1922.
These are photocopies of all documents, correspondence etc.
between the states and later the Commonwealth of Australia, the British Crown
and the British Government. They are very revealing documents and indicate the
degree of chicanery in which the politicians of all shades were involved and as
I can now see, at the expense of the legal academe and the judiciary. I present
for your perusal the details of the group's presentation along with my comment
on each major item. The group relies solely upon historical fact and rejects
political rhetoric and legal opinion unless based upon historical fact.
Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations states
"The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve against
external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political
independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in
case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon
the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled."
It is appropriate that I now introduce a statement by Sir
Geoffrey Butler KBE, MA and Fellow, Librarian and Lecturer in International Law
and Diplomacy of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge author of "A Handbook to
the League of Nations" used as a reference to the League by virtually all
nations at that time. He refers to Article I of the Covenant of the League of
"It is arguable that this article is the Covenant's most
significant single measure. By it the British Dominions, namely, New Zealand,
Australia, South Africa, and Canada, have their independent nationhood
established for the first time. There may be friction over small matters in
giving effect to this internationally acknowledged fact, but the Dominions will
always look to the League of Nations Covenant as their Declaration of
Article 2 paragraph 1 of the United Nations Charter states
"The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of
all its Members." Article 2 paragraph 4 of the Charter states "All
members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,
or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United
In view of the above the historical evidence for Australian
Independence by 10 January 1920 when the League of Nations became part of
International Law is overwhelming. When this evidence is reinforced with the
contents of the Charter of the United Nations, the continued usage of any
legislation that owes its very legitimacy to the parliament of an acknowledged
foreign power cannot be supported by either legal opinion or indeed historical
evidence. I therefore have come to the conclusion that the current legal and
political system in use in Australia and its States and Territories has no basis
Following discussions with members of the British Government
relating to the Letters Patent for the Governor General and the State Governors
I find that these documents no longer have any authority. Indeed, the Queen of
the United Kingdom is excluded from any position of power in Australia by the
United Nations Charter and is excluded under UK law from the issue of a Letters
Patent to other than a British Subject. A Letters Patent must refer to an action
to be taken with regard to British Citizens. The Immigration Act 1972 UK defines
Australian Citizens as aliens.
The Governor General's Letters Patent is a comedy of errors. We
are greeted in the name of the Queen of Australia who suddenly becomes the Queen
of the United Kingdom in the next paragraph of the Letters Patent. This Queen
then gives instructions to the Governor General with reference to the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK. Here we have a clear breech
of Article 2 paragraph 1 of the United Nations Charter. Under both UK and
international law, the Queen is a British Citizen.
State Governors are in a worse position as their authority comes
from the late Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. Regardless of the validity
of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK, if the authority of
the Governor General and the State Governors is invalid, then so is the entire
political and legal system of government.
When advised that the War Crimes Commission was taking an
interest, I called them in Geneva. Under the 1947 Geneva Convention, they are
empowered to look into cases here in Australia where it is alleged the law of a
foreign country was enforced against a citizen of a member state of the United
Nations. As they perceive that only the judiciary can actually enforce the law,
the judiciary becomes their target. The group has already placed cases before
them which they are currently investigating. If found guilty, the penalties are
horrific and include the death penalty!
I could go on with more relevant information however I think now
is the time for a summary. The group leader, a QC, states the obvious when he
asked me how could a colony now acknowledged by all world nations to be a
sovereign nation retain exactly the same legal and political system it enjoyed
as a colony without any change whatsoever to the basis for law? This point alone
requires an answer.
The High Court has already answered with regard to the position
held by treaties signed by the Commonwealth Government in the Teoh case of 1994.
"Ordinary people have the right to expect government officials to consider
Australia's international obligations even if those obligations are not
reflected in specific Acts of Parliament: the rights recognised in international
treaties are an implied limit on executive processes."
My advice is to adjourn any case "sine die" that
challenges the authority of the Letters Patent. Under no circumstances hear a
case that challenges the validity of a State or the Federal Constitution. It is
the politicians who are using us as pawns without them having to face the music.
These matters are of concern to politicians, let them sort out these problems
and accept any inherent risks themselves!
Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice
is the correct reference for you to refuse to hear a matter when an
international treaty is cited as a defence.
[End of summary]
United People Power (UPP)
A revolution in the way people think about government which can best be explained by an extract from the American Declaration of Independence.
Not that we suggest that Australia should necessarily follow the American example, but the statement is a universally accepted benchmark:-
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, -----that all men are created equal, -------that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, ------that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ------That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, ------deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ---------that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."
We consider that Australian government has become destructive of these ends.
What can the people do to overcome this situation? To introduce a fresh Constitution is the only reasonable answer. How do we do that? The first thing not to do is to ask for government permission, as it will be refused. There is no need to ask permission from any authority, the authority to do exists in the authority of the people that is backed by international law and the human right to do so. The universal problem is how to introduce a fresh constitution . --What is required?
We consider that Australian government has become destructive of these ends.