Australia is not a representative democracy. The dictates of the party room override the wishes of the parliamentarian's constituents. In a representative democracy the wishes of the constituents are taken into account. Except for the issues specified in the party platform on which the government was elected every vote in parliament should take into account the opinion of the constituents the parliamentarian was elected to represent, the good of Australia and the conscience of the parliamentarian in addition to the dictates of the party room.

Party politics are redundant - obsolete.... and we're overdue in investigating what really defines a "democracy."

Party platform promises are often broken so the public are regularly duped and maverick politicians are ostracised by the party and do not win pre-selection if they "misbehave" on behalf of his/her consitutents or for the common good.

Democracies have only one advantage over other forms of government: they can correct their mistakes. But if we are going to learn from our mistakes we must be allowed to commit them, and not 'protected' from them by a biased minority. How can it possibly be right for a senator from Tasmania, with a constituency of 50,000 electors, to have the same say in the government of Australia as a senator from NSW with 650,000? Keating had it right: 'unrepresentative swill'.

Tuesday, 3 March 2009

Our Ref: KJII.L.14/09 (as amended)
Your Ref:

By: Registered Post (confirmation by e-mail)

Attention: Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC
Governor-General of the United Kingdom of Australia

This is an open letter published internationally.

To Quentin Alice Louise Bryce, Companion of the Order of Australia, Governor-General of the former Commonwealth of Australia; I have not previously had the occasion to introduce myself - it is now appropriate that I do so formally; viz: I Declare, according to Law, I am: JAMES THE SECOND, by the Grace of God, King of Australia and His other Territories, Head of the United Kingdom of Australia.

Greeting.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the English Crown itself is a ‘corporation sole’ (as distinct from a corporation) that represents the legal embodiment of the Executive Government, which in English law is a legal entity consisting of a single (sole) incorporated office, occupied by a single (sole [the sun personified]) man or woman. This allows a corporation sole (usually a religious corporation but not necessarily) to pass vertically in time from one office holder to the next successor-in-office, giving the position legal continuity with each subsequent office holder having identical powers to his predecessor.

In the late seventeenth century, Stewart Kyd, the author of the first treatise on corporate law in English, defined a ‘corporation’ as:

“A collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence,” op.cit.

Continued...

Corporations are brought into being within a legal framework or body of law that specifically creates them as legal personalities. Typically, corporations are viewed as a fictional person, a legal person, or a moral person, as opposed to a natural person. Thus, once created, corporate statutes typically give corporations the ability to own property, sign binding contracts, pay taxes in a capacity that is separate from that of its shareholders, who are sometimes referred to as “members.”

According to Lord Chancellor Haldane:

“...a corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own; its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of somebody who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation, the very ego and centre of the personality of the corporation,” op.cit.

You will agree that the ‘Australian Imperial Crown’ (The Crown) existed in Law as a legal fiction or simply a mental concept - similar to that described by Lord Chancellor Haldane above. In other words, The Crown existed in Law, but not materially as a corporation sole in fact.

This is no longer the case.

I Declare: The Crown in Australia has passed into being as a corporation sole according to Law. In order to achieve this, I have evoked a special legal framework - vested in the policy of the Law in both statute and the common law of Australia and the United Kingdom (Law [as referred to herein, as distinct from: ‘law’]) - to bring The Crown into being as an existing legal personality in fact and Law.

Thus, I Declare I am the King of Australia according to Law.

With respect to the forgoing matters, I refer in part, yet without limitation whatsoever, your attention to the following matters, facts, and things. Specifically, I draw your attention to Clause 2 of the Preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (The Constitution) as generally cited, and other relevant matter, viz:

What the current economic downturn has taught, is that Democracy is just a franchise, like KFC or Maccas, that is
foisted upon humankind by evolving Economic systems.

These economic systems continually fail for they are weak representaions of theromdynamic laws. They seek Low-Entropy(order/profit) without the necessary understanding & management of its complementary High-Entropy(disorder) component.

Consequently, Disorder is 'hedged' around and accumulated 'under-the carpet-of-civilisation' in ecogloomic machinations not unlike a child solving a Rubik's Cube:Hoping to get all the good squares on one side and the bad ones on the other.

The desire for 'freedom from all restraints'(democracy), 'unboundedness', is no different from hunger or thirst and thus economic interests can & do capture the democracy market as easily as the food or auto markets.

The problem is that the Rubik Cube of humanity, although solvable, does not have the property of PERMANENCY like a plastic toy. Everything in humanity decays by the second law of thermodynamics and so too does our pathetic attempt to abey that decay and create permanent order via primative economic models.

Take Iran:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25703953-7583,00.html

Just as Nth Korea is China's insurance or Hedge Fund (Rottweiller if you will) against intrusion of unwanted foreign userpers(disorder for the Chinese), Iran may be our insurance policy or Hedge Fund against disorder in the form of thermodynamic oblivion.

The economic modelling concept of deferring RISKS to weaker elements of the human race such as 'future generations' &the poor, is on the rise since the current downturn began.

Democracy is just an instrument to shift RISKS from rich to poor people. The NSW 'undemocratic' 7E conservation instrument' that burdens Blue Mnts property holders with dead investments to offset big Labor developers in say Huskisson is a perfect example of rich offloading RISK (environmental responsibility) to poor, right on our doorstep.

There are better economic systems, better possibilities for the Human race. But they involve 'abhorrent' concepts such as:

Zero population Growth & sustainability: 'living-within-our-means' for the benefit of all Australians not just the increasingly lazy & sleazy rich who own our media with "democracy-for-sale" propaganda assaults like this:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/834345/debate-on-migration-needed-academic