UPP Contd

 

Home

CONSPIRACY  
www.conspiracee.com 

Health v medicine  
www.cellsalts.net
  
www.soiltheory.com

Constitution  

Australia's Constitutional position today  

UPP Constitutional objectives  

 

UPP  

Mission statement  

The Rights of People   

Do you know that ...  

Freedom / tax havens  

The Lima Declaration -- an overview 

 

UPP Contd

Constitutional change   

Where did it start? Who is pushing it along?  

Why a referendum?  

Why a new preamble?  

What are the options?  

Three constitutional alternatives  

The "Alternative Three" proposal  

Brief -- What is Alternative Three?  

How does an Alternative Three vote effect the result of the government run referendum?  

Summary of the Alternative Three proposal  

Why vote Alternative Three? 

Establishment's trap already set  

Federal Parliament set to steal your right to freely choose your political status   

Some traps of 1999 referendum  

Contact Information  

 

NESARA

US History  

Guggenheim Foundation  

US is a corporation  

American Union  

 

Australia 

Australian government  - legally invalid 

Constitution defunct 

What next? The issues  

United People Power  

  The Lima Declaration  

PM's powers 

Government tyranny 

"National security" 

Trial by jury 

One Nation 

Harold Holt's murder [external link] 

Port Arthur massacre  

  Port Arthur (v2) 

  Why not gun control? 

  Gunlaws 

  Manchurian candidate

  Dr Peters / Dr Mullins 

Save Australia Alliance - Tony Pitt 

Taxation 

Foreign debt 

Bracket creep 

Stamp duty on houses  

Fascism in Australia (CEC)  

Illegal taxation  

The Hilton bombing - a case of political terrorism? 

Jean-Paul Turcaud / Telfer 

Andrew Wilkie  

Principality of Camside 

Principality of Rangeview  

Fortress Australia 

Omega

 

 

 

 

 

 

Australian govt ] Australian constitution ] United People Power ] Tyranny of government ] Trial by jury ] Port Arthur massacre ] Gunlaws ] Harold Holt ] One Nation ] PM's powers ] Save Australia Alliance ] Hilton bombing ] CEC ] Taxation ] Bracket creep ] Foreign debt ] Jean-Paul Turcaud ] Andrew Wilke ] Rangeview ] Fortress Australia ] Omega ]

 

Up ]

 

Constitutional change 

There is a push by elements other than the general public to force the so-called denuded and isolated document referred to as the Constitution to a referendum.

The elements behind it are pushing what is loosely called a "republican" vehicle. They have the ear of the popular media and the government.

The type of republic that is being promoted is left to the imagination of the individual. Leaving the people with a pig in a poke proposition. They rely on deception as the tool with which to accomplish their hidden agenda, trading all the time on the fact that different people develop different images of what a republic is.

There can be no doubt that the so called republicans (not the supporters but the instigators) have a set agenda, an establishment agenda! This vagueness is in fact a trap, well set, to trap the gullible and unwary.

The opposition to the Republicans is the Monarchists-cum-no-republic team and Constitutional Monarchists, who as far as we can determine stand for no change to the existing Constitution.

The question is what do they understand to be the existing Constitution? see "Establishment's trap already set".

Where did it start? Who is pushing it along?

Where is the push to change the Constitution coming from? Academia, elements of the legal and fraternity, anti-royalist activists. Or is the establishment money-power driving the activity.

The push came to shove under Whitlam, then again during the period of Hawk and Keating all greedy for increased power. The underlying philosophy had changed. It was not so much the distaste for our Anglo-Celtic beginnings but rather the modernised drive for a one-world government system that fired the boilers of the new pushers.

Adding to the push and what has become the major reason for the 1999 referendum, is the populations increasing knowledge as to the illegality of the present establishment/government system resulting on a number of High Court challenges to the governments claimed authority to govern, challenges mounted mainly in the area of taxation because the savings here available to fund the enormous legal costs of the challenge.

It is apparent from the establishment's actions that they see that the whole system could come tumbling down over night, resulting in anarchy and the establishments main concern, a loss of power.

The rush to over come the developing inevitable climax, revolves around getting a totally legal Constitution in place as soon as possible then moving to make legal all the laws passed by the illegal resume that has been operating as Australian government since 1920.

The reality is that it should be the people who are pushing for a fresh Constitution for many of the same reasons but in the main to bring government under the control of the people and re-establish lost ground including their fundamental legal rights.

The push has now got the constitutional change wagon up over the crest, and it is poised to roll on down past the finish line, unstoppable, and at ever-increasing speed, until it passes as a blinding flash through the gates of permanent, non-reversible change, the people have a duty to demand control of this wagon and where it is heading and at what speed it travels.

The so-called conservatives have recently jumped onto the wagon in fear they may will be left behind in the eyes of the internationalists who have a vested interest in this long planed change and its outcome.

The Australian people themselves have not been part of the push for a Constitutional change, rather believing that if the government stuck to the existing rules (Constitution) all would be well.

Unfortunately the people have been kept in the dark about the ever gradual change that has already taken place, placing Australia in very deep water Constitutionally. ( See Australia at Crossroads for a chronology of events)

It is now certain that Australians will be asked to make the changes required by an elite establishment. Who see the opportunity to gain not only permanent but totally legal dictatorial control.

All political factions will do as their parties bid. An attempt to set Australia in place as a State of the World Federation of States - World Government, is part of the agenda. At first under the smoke-screen of ASIAN membership, regional government leaving Australians out-voted by between 200 to 1 or 1,000,000 to 1 depending on whether China is in or out. In other words our Australian vote wonít count.

It can be easily argued that the existing Constitution has not served the Australian people well. Australians have lost considerable ground while government has been supposedly under itís control, or rather lack of control. At first in the early part of the century but increasingly so since the early seventies.

The existing Constitution has been found wanting, unsuccessful in controlling the Federal Parliament and the High Court alike. The evidence is monumental and is everywhere.

Change is in the air, sprayed in, as if from a pressure pack can. Everybody realises we need change and as a result are ripe to fall for anything. The hype possible as a result of the turn of the century hysteria, aided by the Olympics will create the opportunity for the establishment to create sufficient euphoria in he Australian physic that they will fall for just about anything. The establishment will run us all into ruinous debt in an attempt to create such euphoria.

Why a referendum?

When did the people ask for one?

The truth is the people never asked for a referendum. The whole idea is that of the establishment.

The idea of a referendum was brought about by an increasing need for the establishment to make legal what it had been doing in governing Australia without proper authority. The authority they claim, came to an end on 10 January 1920, Their actions are the same as driving a car or flying a jumbo jet after the licence to do so had been cancelled, only much, much more serious.

The facts related to our "non-existent" constitutional position have been kept from the population. If you have ever wondered why there has been all but unlimited funds spent to educate the population on all manner of things from basket weaving to deviate sexual practices and drugs; and not one cent spent on constitutional issues, well you now know why: it is all in the effort to steal from you what is rightfully yours, from constitutional control of government right through to the water that rains from the sky - even your life - when it suits the establishment.

Gradually it has become apparent to the questioning sections of the population that something is amiss, illogical and unexplained things such as the Queen suddenly becoming the Queen of Australia in 1973: then a Prime Minister signing a "Royal" Letters Patent in 1984; then the same Prime Minister sending troops to war without the consent of the Parliament or the Governor-General, when the "Constitution" reserves this responsibility exclusively to the Governor General.

Without going into more detail here, it is evident that Australia, is in a constitutional never- never land; and as the population is becoming aware of the mess, it becomes urgent to tidy it up.

The situation that has developed is that the people are slowly waking up to the massive constitutional fraud, or rather the unconstitutional fraud; reality is that the constitution is without authority, but it remains to suits the establishment. It stands as a smoke screen to hide the fraud.

What the establishment had put off for eight decades now faces them square on; and they had to move to make legal what they had been doing - at the same time hold onto the dictatorial power that they had usurped in1920. There was only one way to accomplish this task, that would be to put to the people, via a referendum, that section of the original constitution that they had been waving around as their authority; and trick the people into making it a totally legal document.

If it was possible to divide the population over the proposed changes, using the two-team barracking system that is successfully employed in elections, then the establishment could control the debate as they always do. By stifling debate and promoting team support, they concentrate the peoples' attention on other than the main game, long exploited political trickery -- that works.

The two teams established to hijack the debate are - Republicans v Monarchists, both assisted in building up support bases, followed by a test run, called a Constitutional Convention election. The division proved totally successful. With the two teams commanding the attention of the general public, the scene was now set for the referendum, the real issues being locked out of the debate.

What they intend, is to have the existing denuded constitutional document approved by the people. This will be accomplished in the following manner, a Yes vote approves the document under a President and a No approves it under a Governor-General. The double-headed penny trick.

If we fall for the trickery, we saddle Australia with unlimited, dictatorial government, because this single document was never designed to operate on its own, it was only functional with the backing of the Letters Patent and the Laws of England, Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus etc. This now totally isolated document offers no protection whatsoever for Australians against over zealous or dictatorial government.

Why a new preamble?

If we adopt what is distractingly referred to as the "Constitution" at the November referendum - we will have a Constitution that does not have a preamble. (It has no longer has a fundamental base).

This situation arises because what we refer to as our constitution is just one section of a British Act of Parliament. The preamble of that Act is the statement of intention and principles at the beginning of the Act. The section identified as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution is Section 9 of this British Act. Section 9 has not a separate lead statement, - a separate Preamble.

The government plan is to take section 9 of this British Act to Constitute Australia and breathe fresh life into it via a referendum, making it, as it was in the past, a document with legal force, as the Commonwealth Constitution. Detaching Section 9, to stand on its own, as the Constitution without a Preamble brings about a need to introduce a Preamble to this section, and so the need to have one approved at referendum becomes essential.

A major problem with what is proposed is that the people do not understand what is going on and that there has been no effort by government to advise the people on the underlying agenda.

To add to the dilemma, the government has announced that the Preamble they intend putting to referendum will have no effect on law-making or on High Court decisions and as a result we should not be concerned too much about the Preamble wording. It is essential to note that we are not being asked to adopt the very fine Preamble at the beginning of the British Act, which would be totally appropriate as it was originally intended to be the preamble to our Constitution.

The outcome of such a referendum will be that the electors have fallen into well-disguised trap. As a result we, the electors, will have inadvertently chosen one only of the six documents that make up our original Constitution, stuck in a Preamble that provides no intention, no aspirations, no direction, no principles on which to base our nation or any future constitutional determinations. The Australian electors will have inadvertently given this unworkable hotch-potch their approval.

The reason government is going down this path is that, it grants unlimited power to government, where not even the founding principles are clear. In fact they are nonexistent.

It is terribly important, essential, that we consider the fact that this one single document, one of a set making up the rules (law) for government of Australia under a Monarch, is a document that was never intended to be used on its own. In isolation from the other documents of the set it offers no protection whatsoever to the people and it renders the people powerless. For instance the single document provides for a Governor-General, but the Governor-General's duties were defined in a Letters Patent from Queen Victoria. This Letters Patent is the key that unlocks the constitution and allows it to function as it was designed and entrenches the much needed checks and balances. This 1900 Letters Patent details the essential divisions of power.

Are we going to adopt an incomplete and non-functional document, a sham, as our constitution? Are we going to adopt a document that grants unlimited, dictatorial power to government?

Are we going to adopt a document that makes no reference to the fundamental rights of the people or to the foundation of our justice system - no reference to our right to life, liberty and property? A document where the long trusted and essential divisions of power are missing? A document bare of our aspirations as a nation, bare of principles, bare of a philosophy?

A yes vote will openly approve the above trickery, a no vote will inadvertently do the same

Are we insane? - I hope not. 

There is an Alternative called Alternative Three, check it out.

What are the options?

There are five options

Option 1

A NO vote, - The Monarchists' or No-Republic option, Will deliver what the question sets out it will deliver and we donít know what the question is at this point of time. It could make unlimited government totally legal.

Option 2

A YES vote, - The government agreed republican option to change the name of the Head of State from Governor General to President, also includes an open cheque for government to change the constitution to suit themselves.

Option 3

The "Alternative Three" Option, to offer a fresh Constitution based on the existing Constitution addressing all the areas where there is evidence that the existing Constitution fails to impose proper limits on government. In addition, empowering the people, while retaining that part of the existing system that people have faith in.
Option 4 Refuse to vote for any of the above options, then you will have cast an informal vote which will assist one of the above three, but all beyond your control.
Option 5 Donít turn up to vote on the day, this will assist one of the first three options, in that your number will not be included in the total turnout to vote, this reduces the number of votes required to get a majority and could realise your worst hope, plus you will be fined.

Options one and two - YES or NO - have the same bottom line. Which is, no change from the fast failing existing system where the people have no say, an oppressive system that will become totally legal having for the first time, inadvertently, fraudulently received the sanction of the people at the November referendum.

Options one and two, a Yes or No, are part of a trick to have one only of the documents making up the 1901 Constitution accepted as the whole constitution, when it never was the whole constitution. A document that without the supporting documents is an open licence for a dictatorship, irrespective of what the name of the Head of State is. The referendum trickery is about having this single document, that offers the people no protection and no rights, finally acceptance by the people without the people being informed or knowing that they are being trapped.

The existing Constitution became unenforceable back in 1920 when the Commonwealth of Australia (not the states) declared and were granted independence, only one of many important events in Australiaís changing constitutional position, changes that have been effectively kept from the peoples' knowledge.

The possibilities that the referendum will introduce will not be clear until the wording of the questions is known. Only people easily fooled could make up their mind which option they will vote for without knowing and understanding the wording of the questions.

A preamble is a statement of the inheritance, principles, aspirations and philosophy of the nation not a wishy-washy gaggle of words, that leaves the philosophy of a select group the option of imposing their own philosophy on the nation.

The trickery afoot is only possible with an uninformed people.

Three constitutional alternatives   

It would appear there are three Constitutional alternatives.

One, being sold as, stay as we are, No change, with government totally outside the people's control.

The only way we can stay as we are is to reject all the proposals, then we automatically stay as we are (without change).

People should not be conned into voting NO, thinking that things will stay as they are because they will not, the reason being that a NO vote will approve the very much denuded document being waved around as the Constitution without the essential support documents that originally made it function as probably the best constitution in the world.

Two, to accept a change of name for the Head of State but otherwise, No change---The republican agenda makes it easy to transfer control to aliens in the UN as planned.

Three, putting in place "Alternative Three" a peoples Constitution, to secure the people's proper and permanent control of the Federal Parliament, the High Court, the Executive and all arms of the Australian Government system.

"Alternative Three" is about being prepared - having at the ready - when the time comes - a fully prepared peoples' Constitution, consisting of fresh Constitution based on the existing Constitution, that will truly make the people of Australia a self governing people.

United People Power is dedicated to increasing the knowledge of the people in order that a well-informed people are in a position to make a well-informed decision in November 1999.

The "Alternative Three" proposal

The Draft Proposed Fresh Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

As approved at public conventions Bathurst NSW, Adelaide, S.A., Brisbane QLD., Bendigo VIC.

Is available in book format from United People Power Inc PO Box 270 St Marys NSW 2760.

Brief -- What is Alternative Three?

United People Power The Power of One United.

Alternative Three is a project of United People Power.

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?

1. A draft Constitution. ------ The Alternative Three Draft is now published.

2. The means of getting electors to a referendum. ----- Already in place for November 1999.

3. The method of voting to be used. ----- Simply write Alternative Three across the ballot - paper provided.

4. Informing all Australians of the Alternative Three option. - This is largely up to you now -that you have the knowledge.

To introduce a Fresh Constitution is as simple as exercising your right to a secret ballot at any referendum, it matters not what other issues are to be voted on at the referendum, the people have a universally accepted right to do so and there is absolutely nothing government can legally do to prevent this event from taking place and being totally bound by the outcome should a majority vote in favour of the fresh Constitution.

If a majority donít vote in favour, then a powerful message will still be delivered to government on any reasonable number of votes and at the same time the broader population will made alert to the possibilities - we believe that it would be only lack of awareness that would see the Alternative Three Fresh Constitution not receive majority support.

How does an Alternative Three vote effect the result of the government run referendum?

If a majority cast a vote for Alternative Three then the government's proposition has failed. - If less than a majority vote Alternative Three then this number of votes counts against the YES proposition, or if you like adds to the NO vote. Therefore people opposing the proposed republic have nothing to lose and everything to gain when voting Alternative Three.

Knockers will say that a vote for Alternative Three will be declared informal, this is not legally possible as the legislation covering referendums, as amended in 1998, clearly sets out that an informal vote is one where the voters intention is not clear. This is why it is important to not answer any of the government's referendum questions and vote clearly Alternative Three or A3 on both the republican and the preamble ballot papers.

An Alternative Three vote in fact takes on a position where the people are totally rejecting the government's proposals, -- proposals that are bound by the rules of the legislation and the Constitution itself. The only rules that apply to a vote for Alternative Three is that the vote is cast in a totally fair and properly supervised situation. These requirements are met by the procedures in place for the referendum. Part of the authorisation is the absolute necessity to use the officially issued ballot papers and write clearly across them, as opposed to using separate ballot papers is that the officially issued ballot papers are properly recorded and beyond dispute that may be raised by any authority.

Republican supporters are not disadvantaged by any of the procedures, because a vote for Alternative Three is a vote for a republic, a different republic to that proposed by government.

The Alternative Three Fresh Draft Constitution, is the Constitution of a republic where the people elect the Head of State and it retains the absolutely essential checks and balances that we inherited from the English monarchal system, it also retains the concept of a crown and a privy council, reproduced in an elected body called the Australian Constitutional Crown Council (ACCC), which is charged with the same duties, limits and responsibilities as a monarch under the English system, with one important difference in that the people can ensure that the ACCC will do its Constitutionally defined duty. It also builds in, by listing in the Constitution, all the Laws that enshrine the fundamental rights of Australians such as Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus - this is something remarkably absent from all of the government's proposals.

The detail of the Alternative Three proposals is available in the draft Constitution, a copy of which may be obtained from United People Power for $5 posted. Also available are two other booklets setting out the history/ background of legal rights in Australia, titled "Magna Carta Sabotaged" and a booklet titled "Australians for Constitutional Democracy". $5 each posted.

A Constitution Kit including all of above is available by mail or by phoning 1902-26-85-11 for $22.50 posted including the cost of the phone call from anywhere across Australia, which by arrangement between UPP and your telephone service supplier the cost will be charged to your next telephone account.

Summary of Alternative Three

The proposal called - Alternative Three - introduces what may be a new concepts to a lot of people. Be assured that the principles involved are as old as the concept of democracy itself. In fact what is proposed is but for seven items, exactly what was publicly debated and intended when the 1900 constitution was drafted.

The seven exceptions also rely on the system as originally intended, but with final control going to the Australian people, as opposed to the Monarch, Governor-General or the parliament. We deal with the exceptions in our Autumn 1999 Booklet. We also detail them right here, up front, so as misunderstanding is hopefully eliminated.

Most people will be aware that the Monarch acts only after receiving the advice of her Privy Council. (Assuming the Monarch retains some authority within our system.) The Alternative Three proposal presents a variation to this concept; where the Australian people elect a 25 member "privy council" and this elected "Australian council" in turn elects from the 25 councillors, one to fill the position of Governor-General, who would then be the Head of State, answerable to the people. (The election process is strictly defined in the A3 draft constitution)

It is proposed that this new body be called the Australian Constitutional Crown Council (ACCC) and that the ACCC's duties are spelt out in detail in the Fresh Constitution, as are the Governor-General's duties, whereby their function is to act as the peoples' watchdog and to uphold and enforce constitutional rule.

Exception number two: the proposal to list in the fresh Constitution, the title of all the fundamental laws on which Australia was built and on which Australians rely for their inalienable rights and justice system, such as Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus etc. This advance leaves no doubt as to what the foundation law in Australia is or what the legal basis of the peoples' liberty and justice are. (No such guarantees exist in the government proposals.)

Exception number three: is the transfer from the parliament to the people the right to propose changes to the Constitution, proposals that then go to referendum.

Exception number four: is the introduction of citizen initiated referendum (CIR) which has three arms to it, - which allows citizens using a constitutionally set procedure to bring about a referendum to either, initiate a new law, or to veto an existing law, or to recall a person from holding a government office.

Exception number five: is the tighter specification of all sections of the Constitution setting clear principles and clear direction to the parliament.

Exception number six: is the tightening up of the oath of office, including mandatory swearing of allegiance to Australian and its people, with the addition of penalties for breaking an oath or breaching the Constitution.

Exception number seven: is that the Fresh Commonwealth of Australia Constitution shall not be a contract between the States as was the original constitution; but rather a compact between the Australian people; and as such comes under the ownership and control of the Australian people, which it has never been in the past.

Immediately we the people, solve the Commonwealth Constitutional problems, we must look to doing the same with the State Constitutions, making them effective and the property of the people.

 

Why vote Alternative Three?

 THE REFERENDUM

6TH NOVEMBER, 1999

YES

NO

BALLOT PAPER
Referendum on proposed con ----

DO YOU APPROVE -----etc, etc
Directions to voter

Write yes or no in space -----
write here

Alternative Three or A3

Most Aussies would rather go to the footie than take an interest in the thing that most effects their lives - the Constitution.

The Government is more than happy with this attitude as it puts them in total control.

Whether you vote Yes or No, government WINSÖ you and I - LOSE.

The WORLD BANK rates Australia as, per capita, the asset-richest country in the world. Politicians are selling off all of our tax-purchased assets to foreigners. Still our foreign debt is exploding at $4m per hour*. The Commonwealth Mint is printing money at the rate of $2.7m per hour. Personal debt increases at 15% p.a. The real unemployment figure is around 25% and the true inflation rate is hidden by government in similar manner.

90% of industry is foreign owned as is 85% of the grocery trolley and yet 90% of our countryís Annual Budget comes from your PAYE Tax.(Foreign owned business pay virtually no tax.)

*Reserve Bank Bulletin November 1998.

United People Power P.O. Box 270. St. Marys N.S.W. 2760. Ph:(02) 9623-6177. FAX: (02) 9826-1670 or (02) 9623-7133.

Health, aged care, education, police and defence budgets are being squeezed to death.

The ecology of our country and its people are basically being ignored. Youth suicides are per capita, highest in the world. There have been 500,000 Australian refugees, Australians from country to Cities and crime and drugs are out of control and increasing.

In July before the Federal Election, amendment 125 to the Electoral Act very quietly ensured you lost your direct choice and the demise of small parties and independents.

The Acts for the Preamble and Republic have already been prepared, - you have no say.

The Act presumes to give the Preamble no effect and yet you are being asked to vote on it, if it gets approval the high Court will have no option but to give the preamble effect. - Trickery?

The people who without flinching gave you all of the above, are saying things have never been better and are asking you to vote YES to give them even more power. A YES gives the government a blank cheque to change the Constitution to suit themselves, check out the Act.

The popular Media is responsible for the day to day information supplied to Australians and is supporting the YES vote. Discount this by the fact that the media's main source of income is from large multinational organisations, banks and government.

The Monarchists, it seems, are shut off to the fact that we have been a republic since 1920 and remain driven by misinformation and blind loyalty in the belief that somehow the monarch protects our rights, when this protection faded in 1920, then to be finally to be cancelled totally by the Australia Act 1986, which the Queen signed into law on the Royal Yacht in Sydney Harbour finally abdicating her role as protector of our liberty and justice (rights).

Some may not realise that when Australia became a foundation member of the League of Nations in 1920, under those terms, it became an Independent Sovereign Nation and again in 1945 upon joining the United Nations both times with the assent of Great Britain.

Queen Victoriaís Letters Patent 1900 established the power of the Governor General under the Constitution. These Letters Patent remain an essential part of the Constitution, cancelled in 1984 under the signature of RJ Hawk making our Constitution a lame duck. It is this lame duck that the government is looking to the people to approve in the November referendum. Just such an approval will flow from either YES or NO votes as both approve the lame duck either with a Governor-General or a President, - the main trick in a very tricky referendum.

You may have noticed High Court overruling our Constitutional rights and in fact reading rights into the constitution where none exist; and the Prime Minister despatching the armed forces (ie. declaring War) rather than the Governor General (Crown). Adding to the lame duck problems is the fact that the lame duck constitution has never received the peoples approval, the sole reason for the referendum.

Australia is not a Monarchy. A NO vote will give Monarchists exactly what they have been getting since 1920 and will legitimise the 80-year lie, which is fast approaching a Dictatorship.

Both a YES and a NO vote will have the same effect.

Alternative Three or A3, ó under the Constitution and the Act, is formal as long as the voters intention is clear.

If you tick or mark either box, on either of the referendum papers you are voting for a lie and sealing Australia's fate as a dictatorship. If you mark your paper A3 you are voting to give the people the right to their own Constitution - a universally accepted right.

If 10% vote Alternative Three or A3, the YES or NO vote would then need 56% to gain a majority. - If A3 was to receive 20% the yes or no vote would then require 62.5% to win. If neither get the numbers then and only then will the status quo remain unchanged. Donít be fooled, - every vote that is not a yes counts against the yes option.

The referendum needs a majority of all voters in four of the six states and nationally (double majority) to succeed and a hung result will leave us with the status quo still in place but without the establishment's much needed peoples' approval of their very deceptive lame duck. At worst it will be a forceful demand on politicians to listen.


Establishment's trap already set 
http://www.ja.olm.net/succeed/

As a result of Australia becoming an Independent Nation on 10 January 1920 The Commonwealth Constitution became "redundant". As a result Australia became a republic operating on a redundant constitution without consultation with or the approval of the Australian people.

The establishment chose not to address the constitutional issues when it should have been addressed in 1920, leaving to a later date hoping that the Australian people would be more amenable to government generally than they had indicated they were at the time.

Suitable conditions had not arrived until now - as we approach the turn of the century. Aided by years of propaganda and a virtual nil constitutional awareness throughout the community.

The stage had been set to introduce the establishment's agenda. Which is to have the document that is waved around as Australia's Constitution accepted by the people at referendum, when this so called constitution has been denuded of five supporting documents and the brace of Laws of England the served to limit government and in so doing guaranteed the inalienable rights of the people.

To accomplish the establishmentís agenda, it is essential that they polarise the community loyalties and concentrate their attention on two opposing propositions.

The normal ruse is employed, where people are recruited to take opposing side in a strictly two sided affair, the objective is to control the debate within the totally staged differences between the opposing sides, locking out all alternatives.

This process is normally in the establishment's bag of tricks with controlled "opposing" political parties, playing the always successful divide and conquer game using party loyalties.

The plan worked to perfection in the 1987 Constitutional Convention Election. Polarisation won the day.

Federal Parliament set to steal your RIGHT to freely choose your political status.

Legal position

The referenda questions set in recently passed Commonwealth legislation and passed into law violate the rights of every Australian.

What is planned is not simply a change to the so-called Constitution but a completely new Constitutional arrangement which it is planned to trick the Australian population into inadvertently accepting at the November referendum.

The government have chosen, what is being promoted as two alternatives, when in fact they are both the same the only difference being in the name of the Head of State, where if this name is to be president then the government is handing itself a blank cheque to alter the document at will, but it is the same document. The people in the view of government have no choice outside of the two alternatives they chose to present. This approach is contrary to International Bill of Rights

The parliaments actions in passing these Referendum Question Laws attempt deny the Australian people the international right to self-determination in accordance with international commitments freely entered into by the federal government when agreeing to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 23-3-1976. Articles 1 and 2 and 18(3).

The people have a right to determine how they agree to be governed, government is as it should be and must remain, by agreement of the people, not by force of government. No Country or government may use force of any kind against the people and must accept its obligations to protect their rights. UN Charter: Articles 1(2) - 2(1), (4) & (7) - 4(1)

The charade of pretending that Australia has suddenly become independent being used to assist in tricking the Australian people into accepting one of the two government alternatives is criminal, as it is fraud committed on a grand scale. Article X of the League of Nations Charter to which both Britain and Australia were foundation members later confirmed in July 1945 under Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, Articles 1(2) & 2(1).

The government have no power to impose conditions on the constitutional arrangements. It is obvious that they intend to bluff the people into a position where they will be forcibly encouraged to vote against their own best interests and in doing so, abandon their most basic human right, that of determining the rules under which they agree to be governed. It is totally fraudulent of the government to go to the people on the pretence that they will be amending a document that is the legal constitution of the country, when at best it was prior to 1920; and then only legal when used in conjunction with a number of other documents which were essential to give it legal life and make it operational.

Under international law and Australia's willing commitment to it, the Prime Minister, nor the Governor-General, nor the State Premiers, nor anybody else in the world have a legitimate or legal power to dictate the form of government the people should have, with or without the approval of the Australian parliaments, nor do they have the power to determine the method of determining the position of Head of State, or how one should be chosen. It is only the will of the people expressed in free choice at referendum may a new form of government and a Head of State be determined. Free choice has been removed when the only options are between two alternatives designed by other than the people.

Confirmation of Australia's Constitutional position which has been a well kept secret is gradually coming to hand. In the Bega Magistrates Court on April 1,1999, a senior Government solicitor stated that, "the Constitution does not exist". Later verified in the High Court at Brisbane, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns in the matter of Heather Hill, when the court concluded that "Britain is a foreign power".

The pretence that has been sustained since 10 January 1920 is coming apart.

The climax to this eighty-year old fraud, is to bluff the Australian people into accepting a denuded, inadequate document, a document that on its own, without its companion documents will establish an immovable dictatorship in Australia.

A more explanatory booklet is available from Alternative Three, for $5 posted, title "Australians for Constitutional Democracy".

Some of the traps set in the November 1999 referendum 

Trap number one.

A yes or no vote will deliver unlimited government to the establishment by the fact that either vote will grant the people's approval for the existing document commonly but incorrectly referred to as the complete Constitution. This document is only one of the six documents that make up the 1901 Constitution, on its own it is not a functional document. The result of voting either yes or no will see this non-functional document as the officially approved constitution, either with a governor-general or with a president. The trap - the establishment donít care which way we vote, either way the establishment get a legal document that allows them to govern with unlimited power having received the people's irrevocable approval. Making Alternative Three the only option.

Trap number two.

If the republic proposition gets up - a yes vote, it gives the establishment a blank cheque to rewrite the constitution to suit themselves. - Again Alternative Three is the only option.

Trap number three.

All the above traps include a constitution deprived of the base protection of the Laws of England. The people are being asked to approve a constitution that not only allows unlimited government but government that is not bound to observe the heritage (inalienable) rights of - or the system of justice that the people ultimately rely on. - Again Alternative Three is the only option.

Trap number four.

The preamble, the proposed wishy-washy words offer nothing and at the same time leave the constitution without a proper preamble, which means the people who ultimately have to determine what the Constitution says are without a philosophy by which to be guided. This means that the philosophy of those determining the meaning of the constitution is the one that will be used. It will be the job of this same body to determine the peoples' rights and what type of justice they are entitled to, as neither are defined in the constitution. - Alternative Three has a worthy preamble.

* * *

What the establishment is angling for is approval of a document that exercises no control whatsoever over the Australian government and at the same time guarantees the people absolutely no protection against over zealous, or dictatorial government. --- Alternative Three offers the exact opposite.

The great difficulty the people have in bringing about any change to the existing constitution or in putting forward a fresh constitution is threefold. First: the money required to promote ideas runs into millions. Second: The cost and the logistics of gathering all the electors together to vote are prohibitive. Third: The verification - legitimacy of the ballot result would be difficult to obtain without the machinery that is already in place and will be available at the November referendum. It is therefore essential that the people use the opportunity provided - whenever it is provided.

If you support either the republic, or the no-republic teams, you have been again suckered into one of the establishment one of two option traps. Division designed to control the debate and the outcome to the absolute advantage of the establishment. It is the same two-football-team-trap set at each election, which has reduced Australians to a cleverly divided non-thinking mass. The Constitution debate must be above party politics and the division it brings with it. The Constitution is the set of rules designed to control the politicians, for this reason we must be doubly cautious of every word of their input.

There is no doubt that the establishment will do all within their power to condemn the Alternative Three proposals, the best way they can accomplish this it to impose a media blackout - if the people donít see it on TV then it just does not exist. If you want your say to count in the referendum you will have to do your share in the promotion. Every word, every handout, every donation will assist.

What is your freedom worth to you - whatever its value donít leave it until it is too late to alert everybody across Australia to the trap that is being set for them.

Time to think - time to have your say - as opposed to doing what the politicians dictate.

Contact Details

Web: http://www.ja.olm.net/succeed/ 

For your copy of the draft peopleís Constitution and supporting information, or bulk copies of these documents contact 

Alternative Three PO Box 270 St Marys NSW 2760, Ph: 02-9623-6177 
Fax: 02-98261670.   E-mail: succeed@tsn.cc

The People's Constitution is ready, available for your inspection and approval, from Alternative Three at $5 a copy posted. A full Constitutional Kit is also available for $20 posted

Written and authorised and printed by Joe Bryant, 418 Roper Rd St Marys. NSW 2760 -

  Copyright © 1997  United People Power  All rights reserved.

succeed@tsn.cc

 .