In Melbourne, yesterday the 8th July 2010, a lawyer for the first time I know of argued that Australia is one country, has one Queen, and that because of the Constitution, the rule of lawyers, who have expanded their cartel, from Magistrate to High Court is illegal and unconstitutional.

The Labor Party enacted some pretty hot legislation, towards the end of last year, reenacting the anti Cartel legislation in the Statute of Monopolies, with a $10,000,000 penalty for breach. Trouble is that there has been no court, as opposed to Court, willing to award this sum against the main users of lawyers, criminals, the Banks and big corporations. It is in the Trade Practices Act 1974 and those who aid abet counsel and procure, a lawyer to persuade a Court, to break the law, can now be held accountable.

Since Ah Yick v Lehmert (1905) 2 CLR 593 said that a Magistrate and a High Court Justice in Chambers, exercise the same Judicial Power of the Commonwealth, and that S 39 (2) Judiciary Act 1903 gives a Magistrate the same power in Original jurisdiction, as a High Court Justice, it is only a matter of time before the Commonwealth can be held accountable for its failure to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth. The Magistrates in Victoria, have the same power in Equity, as a Supreme Court Judge, and by their Rule 35.04, can grant the injunction authorized by S 80 Trade Practices Act 1974. This is frightening the Commonwealth, but in our World Best Practice democracy, this really restores the balance of power back to the people.

A Magistrate and a High Court Justice, can both give directions for the further conduct of a matter. In Victoria, a magistrate can either decide the matter himself, or refer it to either the County Court or Supreme Court, for trial with a jury. They have only to accept that a Summons, is the same as an indictment, information, or presentment, and all of a sudden, the rule of lawyers will end and corruption will be abolished

The trouble with lawyers is they are often, as Julia says she is, atheist. The first and most successful rebel lawyer was Jesus Christ. With an IQ they say was about 200, and a deep understanding as a Rabbi of the Old Testament, Christ offered an alternative to the ruling Jewish Lawyer Class, and gave a few hints along the way, that have been picked up by all successful societies since. The first hint was not to judge people. Matthew 7;1:6, reflected in the Magma Carta, as the Roman Catholic English Scholars embraced Christianity. The second hint was to install a Magistrate with all the power of Almighty God. A request to a court is still called a prayer, to this day.

So Jesus Christ said: Ask and it shall be given to you, seek and you shall find, knock, and it will be opened for you. These wily English, in 1363, in an Imperial Statute, enacted, and had not repealed, in 1900, gave a Remedy in Chancery for breach of Statutes. 36 EDW III Ch 9. If any man feeleth himself grieved, contrary to any of the articles above written, or others contained in divers statutes, will come into the Chancery or any for him, and thereof make his complaint, he shall presently there have Remedy by Force of the said Articles and Statutes, without elsewhere pursuing to have remedy.

The Chancery, in 1363, was a common law court, run by the most educated person in the community, the Priest. He had the same power as a Magistrate has today, except that Magistrates get really uncomfortable without a lawyer, representing people before them.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 has the word court, uncapitalised and generic, in Ch III 21 times. This Statute governs all others. S 2 of the latest reprint of the Judiciary Act 1903 includes the definition of Appeal. It includes an application for a new trial, and any application to examine and call in question the proceedings decision or jurisdiction of any Court or Judge. These two combined, give representative democracy a new meaning

Peter, the problems with Lawyers is not that they are atheist (which is a pretty big call BTW.) it is that they are combative rather than cooperative.
Lawyers are trained to line up all arguments for one side or another and fight. The idea of compromise, optimum solutions (win-win) is anathema.
Perhaps if we had a French style inquisitive legal process our politicians wouldn't be so polarising?

Representative democracy is a unique Christian concept. Countries that have adopted it, are governed by a rule of law unequalled in any society. All Christians are equal before Almighty God and when Jesus said, in John 5:22 and 23, For the Father ( Almighty God) judges no one, but has vested all judgment in the Son. That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Jesus knew he was doomed to die. The separation of powers in the Constitution, derives from that section.

To comply with God’s will, the English decided that God was a three part God. In every Christian Church, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are revered as the Triune God, God in three persons, Holy Trinity. This is universal, and catholic. To create a court, in which Gods will be done on earth as it is in heaven, the Judge represented the Queen, who represents Almighty God. The two or more gathered together, from Matthew 18:20 Jesus is with them in Spirit; To be safe the English picked 12 to gather in a court, and that was legislated into law.

Those 12 had absolute power of life and death. The Judge was only an administrator, because as a Christian he was not allowed to judge others. To examine and call in question the legality of Statute Law, the English invented the feigned issue. The object of a feigned issue, was to establish as fact, if the law in question came within the scope of the Constitution. It is still possible in Queensland, and was a cornerstone of representative democracy. Lawyers had the task of throwing stones at Statute Law, and if it was illegal destroying it. They have fallen down on the job, both in Parliament and outside its walls.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is enacted as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. If our lawyers in Parliament accepted its enactment, Christian Principles would prevail, in every State

So now the Christians are claiming democracy and law as their own! You obviously haven't studied the Dark Ages when Christianity ruled absolutely.
Granted, a few Christian *ideals* went into civilisation, but these ideals were largely inherited from predecessor religions and apply to most historical philosophies. Ideals are one thing, excess wealth due to knowledge are the sole means to achieve the freedom to implement those ideals.
Next you'll be claiming that Motherhood and Apple Pie are Christian!
"If all you have is a hammer, you see the world as nails."

J S Mill: "Or is it perhaps suggested that if we had more tradespeople, miners and factory workers in our parliament we would be much better off than we are now?"

Why have you turned this conversation into a class thing? The workers v the professional classes, the latter represented in this instance solely by lawyers.

You sound as if you have some stereotyped notion of the sophistication and intelligence of workers, as opposed to lawyers.

I'd have to be waterboarded before I'd waste my vote on either major party. If the over-representation of lawyers in these parties is what is leading them to their escalating idiocies then get the lawyers out, is what I say.

Is your name really J S Mill?