Page 9, issue 33
Don't let the Monarchy go until the safeguards it provides are secured and entrenched
The best example of Republicanism by stealth and treachery instead of the vote, and erosion of the Monarchy by apathy and stupidity occurred when the Howard government started to implement the agenda to totally disarm all Australians including the police and military.
Any who doubt that this is their real plan should take the time to read the UN Treaty the Liberals signed in 1981 (I can supply a copy). The ALP ratified it in 1983. The judiciary started doing the will of the parliament without regard for the written laws of our Monarchal system.
The High Court was called ort to decide whether an Australian citizen (Martin Essenberg) had the right to keep arms. I include actual excerpts from the transcript of Essenberg v/s the Queen 22/6/00. The judges' words are shown below with in bold Arial font.
The quoted opinions are derived from fact and written law and not from wish lists, precedents, conventions, interpretations, lies or other forms of fairy stories. In all cases the extracts are unaltered and are from our statutes. They may be quoted by A R (Tony) Pitt but they are the words of our greatest legislators. These are in Times New Roman font.
McHUGH J:........but Parliament...
can, in effect do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.... COMMENT:
This is no! true. No federal or state parliament in Australia has ANY LEGISLATIVE POWER AT ALL. They can't legislate to even set a road speed let alone legislate to put anyone to death. Our system of law evolved from the dim past when kings were mad dictators and the politicians had desires for more mad power than that held by kings.
Our politicians can write what they like. If the House of Representatives writes legolation and passes the legislation unanimously, and passes that legislation to the Senate which also passes the legislation unanimously, that legisla don is no more powerful than a secondhand bus ticket. All legislation requires ROYAL ASSENT before it can be of any effect. That safeguard was put in place for our protection. McHUGH J: No, it is not a question of an error; it is a question as to what was the power. That is the point that neither the Magna Carta nor the Bill of Rights were ever intended to be anything more than a declaration of political principle, which it was expected Parliaments would observe, it is a matter for the constituents at the ballot box......
This is clearly wrong. Even failed history students would be aware that in 1215 King John was taken to Runnymede and given a choice to SIGN or DIE. He signed the Magna Carta. The crux of the Magna Carta was a set of demands that King John had to agree to.
The mosi significant was in the preamble. It said: "We have also granted to all free men of our kingdom, for ourselves and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written below, to be had and held by them and their heirs of us and our heirs." That is not some ail) fairy political principle that our forefathers "expected" might be "observed'. It was one of the conditions which, if agreed to, would keep King John's head attached to his shoulders, h was the law we, THE PEOPLE, directed the rulers to obey.
The Bill of Rights in 1688 put the will of the people even more clearly. IT stated, "that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall *serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come."
These conditions were imposed on William and Mary as a precondition to sitting on the throne of England. King I,nncs II was able to keep his head attached n> his shoulders by fleeing to France. The Bill of Rights was not an airy fairy wish list any more than was the Magna Carta. Both were deadly serious in their intent and execution. There are no let out clauses and Messrs. Gum-mow and McHugh should not he party to fabricating loop holes lor traitorous politicians.
McHUGH J: Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are not documents binding on Australian legislatures in the way that the Constitution is binding on them. Any legislature acting with the powers allotted to it by the Constitution can legislate in disregard of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. At the highest, the two documents express a political idea, but they do not legally bind the legislature of this country or for that matter, the United Kingdom. Nor do they limit the powers of the legislatures of Australia or the United Kingdom. That being so, an appeal would have no prospect of success. For that reason, special leave to appeal is refused.
This is gross error. The Australian Constitution is clear. Para 61 states, "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth." Elizabeth II had to agree to uphold the statutes in her Coronation Oath. That is a legal and binding contract. Elizabeth can't give Royal Assent to anything that contravenes Her Coronation Oath and nor can She delegate power to the Governor General to contravene that oath by giving Royal Assent to abhorrent legislation..
shown above the "legislatures of Australia'1 HAVE NO POWERS. II they had powers, there would be no need for them to seek Royal Assent to every piece of legislation oi which they have voted in favour. It is a complex system. We used the Bill of Rights to strip the monarch of the powers to make laws but we left the monarch with the power to block legislation which was in conflict with the Statutes of The Realme. The Clause used « "That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal".
Messrs. Gummov* and McHugh should read the Magna Carta which WAS reaffirmed by the Bill of Rights, It says, " We will not make justices, constables, sheriffs or bailiffs save of such as know the law of the kingdom and mean to observe it well." The judicial \ was made independent of parliament so the politicians could not pervert the course of justice by evading existing law. Messrs. Gummow ami McHugh should know better.
When we allowed the politicians to appoint the judiciary we were giving the to\ the keys to the chook house. All Judges should ensure that our politicians and bureaucrats learn the laws and observe them well by severe penalties of those who infringe on the ordinary Australian's right to live free of government harassment.
In days of old we would have chopped off their granddaughter's head and hung the head around the jud^ necks to show them the nature of the SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT type law they espouse
We do not want Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler style republicanism and we don't want judges making up the laws as they go along. The written statutes are there to be obeyed so to are the UNWRITTEN STATUTES that are TAKEN TO BE.
The unwritten statutes are known as COMMON LAW or FUNDAMENTAL LAWS. These have even
greater power. The judges know they are there and, in the past, they did uphold them.
Fundamental rights include: The Right to Life
The ALP/Dem/Lib/Nat/Greens would like to pretend that we do not have the right to have the means of self defence in our own home. So the admit the right but take it from us by stealth.
Freedom from unwarranted search
The police trash our homes and vehicles searching for drugs, guns etc. They use the Breathalyser to conduct illegal search. It only requires one court case such as Dillon v/s Plenty to end random search in Australia forever. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Every level of government now stoops to on-the-spot fines. One cannot be compelled to bear witness against ones' self
Under the guise of contempt of court this safeguard has been taken away.
One cannot be held for more than 24 hours without trial unless dictates of distance and time justify delay.
David Hicks has been held in a US military jail for four years. He is a soldier and entitled to Prisoner of War status. The US is still bleating about the treatment handed out to US soldiers in Vietnam. They are no better.
Our education system has failed our children. From kindy to university left wing teachers have ignored the good points of the Monarchy in their haste to drag us to their socialist Utopia. They should learn from other republics. The academics didn't last long in China, Russia, Cambodia, etc. after the socialists took power.
YOU are IT. Only you can confront your local member, hand him/her this page, eyeball him/her and ask, "Will you abide by our inherited laws that limit your powers?"
We must have, in Australian law, the means by which . we, the people, can get rid of members of the judiciary who do not know our laws or observe them well.
SENATE SENTINEL - National Interest Issue No. 33 Page 9
The governments only call in consultants to share the blame.