Klass said: As an independent and sovereign people questioning a system that has been passed on from a colonial power makes perfect sense to me. He like many more educated people has not twigged to the fact that none of us are part of a Sovereign Nation while the Australia Act 1986 creates what was abolished in 1900. A de-facto system of dual citizenship has been recreated after it was abolished by referendum in 1900 by consensus between the two major political parties whose members draw salaries as members of nine separate Parliaments.

There are 51 lawyers in the Parliament of the Commonwealth who are career politicians whose power base is based in State Political Parties. The English adoptcd the New Testament as their Constitution in 1297 as the Magna Carta the Great Charter of the people, and in reliance on the words of Jesus Christ in Luke 11 Verses 46 and 52, banned lawyers from the Parliament for 498 years from 1472. The principles of Christianity are contained in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, in S 5and in S 79 Constitution where it refers to judges, not a Judge. The Australia Act 1986 in S 16 the Parliament uses the word judge, not judges in the definition of court. Sloppy Parliamentary draftsmen are at fault.

The Abbott Government promises there will be a Repeal Day in March 2014. We may get a bit of honest government and a System Restore if they will repeal the inconsistencies I have identified that have had me labelled vexatious. Lawyers cannot stand criticism, and will not take seriously my assertion that the New Testament is in fact the basis of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights legislated as law in 1981 and confirmed in 1986 as Schedule 2 to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. Eleanor Rooseveldt in 1945 first proposed the Covenant as a world wide template for peace. It vexes lawyers to think that all people should be equal before the law, and civil litigants should have the same right to jury trials as indicted criminals.