When the Supreme Court in Queensland went bad in 1991, the State went bad at the same time. The State after the Australia Act 1986 has been proclaiming itself a Sovereign State, and Queen Anna Bligh was recently reelected, but there is a big fly in her pot of ointment. It’s called the Rudd Government.

The best friend that Corporate States ever had was the Howard Government. By doling out Liberal amounts of Federal Money, the Commonwealth was supposedly able to do what was forbidden by the Constitution, by using the legislative power of the States. This was of course dishonest, but since 1953, there has been no way a single individual can call the Corporate Governments to account.

To appease the Climate Change fanatics, the Commonwealth used the States to stop land clearing on freehold land. This stopped about 85 billion tonnes of carbon being released to the atmosphere, in the past ten years, but has ruined and severely handicapped thousands of farmers. In a book entitled The State of Fear, Michael Crichton, puts forward the proposition that a State has to keep its population in a constant state of fear, in order to survive. The cure for a State of Fear, is a fully functioning judicature system. The Commonwealth also used the States to appease the gun control fanatics. In return for Liberal money, the States banned automatic rifles.

If a person could prove to a jury a use for an automatic weapon, the person ought to have been allowed to keep it. Martin Essenberg tried to establish this principle, but was overruled, by the now disabled High Court. When Ben Chiffley said there has never been a law an Australian could not drive a horse and cart through, he was talking about a different Australia. It was an Australia where unless you were adjudged to be harming your neighbour, you could pretty much do as you liked.

Now corporate Australia tells you what you must do, and not just one corporation, but two. The long hairy nose of government intrudes into everyone business, and freedom has bolted

Same old bandwagon, eh Arjay, with the same scant regard for reality.

But I think on this occasion PtB has said all that needs to be said on the topic, and is to be congratulated for the succinctness and clarity of his analysis..

I'll await with interest your response to his rapier-like dissection of your assertions, Arjay.

Mind you, it might also be smart to take a closer look at the detail of HR1207, and ask yourself exactly how it might meet your own particular wishes, which appear to be along the lines of "less corporate influence in Govt.Business".

Perhaps, Arjay, you could explain in a little more detail what you can see as being the outcome of this - rather expensive - exercise. Apart from windfall profits to fat-cat accounting firms, that is.

Pericles,on this topic we will never agree.Mayer Amschel Rothschild 1743-1812."Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes the laws."

Peter the Believer gives us a great dissertation on the legal history but the fundamental power lies with those who create the currency,since in creating currency you in essence hold the potential energy of all society and that should not belong to a private group of corporate entities called banks.

Why is it illegal for Pericles to counterfeit money? Why is it then legal for banks to do likewise? When banks create money in their computers above real productivity, they like counterfeiters are diluting the wealth of the rest of society via a mechanism we know as inflation.To take the wealth of society and loan it back to them at a profit is theft.

If you are saying that 224 US Congressmen are wrong in wanting to audit the US Federal Reserve even after viewing the debacle of Elizabeth Coleman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUreWxKGOkY
then I really have to question your motives in wanting to supress transparency of both Govt and the banks who have created thei crisis.

Those who are challenged by my opinion that Christianity was central to our legal system, and that we have now lost it, should consider the offence created by the Parliament of the Commonwealth in the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) . It is called S 268:10 Offence against humanity: Enslavement. It carries a term of imprisonment of 25 years. It enacts into law, ,the fundamental Christian belief, that under Our God, unlike the religions derived from the son of a slave girl, Christianity cannot tolerate one person exercising ownership over another.

Because we have a Christian Constitution, with a Queen, who subscribes to the Gospels. Will you to your power cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgments. No one man or woman has a monopoly on justice. Justice requires a jury. From 1640 this was made plain, and one of the reasons the lawyers don’t want the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is it legislates against arbitrary attacks, on a persons honour and reputation. This is what all Judges and Magistrates do when they do not take a verdict, and presume to be Almighty God, for a day.

Exercises any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person includes purchases, sells, lends or barters, a person or imposes on a person a similar deprivation of liberty and also exercises a power arising from a debt incurred or contract made by a person.

This is not PtB, this is the Parliament of the Commonwealth. It means that every Judge and Magistrate is a perpetrator, when they make an arbitrary judgment, violently taking away a persons liberty or property, without first asking permission from a jury.

The English Magna Carta vested all of this power in a jury, because they did not think a Priest should have that power, and avoided the Inquisition. Both sentence and guilt was a jury prerogative. For that reason, I believe the offence is real, but not the sentence. Sentencing should be the absolute domain of a jury, not a Judge

You always seem to ignore the important bits, Arjay.

>>If you are saying that 224 US Congressmen are wrong in wanting to audit the US Federal Reserve even after viewing the debacle of Elizabeth Coleman...<<

I have absolutely no problem with the auditing of the Fed, as I have said in a number of previous posts. Nor the slightest concern as to what they would find.

Auditing is good, and entirely neutral.

It is also fiendishly expensive. So out of respect for the taxpayer, they normally perform audits on a regular, rather than ad hoc, basis.

So alongside all the wingnut conspiracy theorists, I'd guess that all the major accounting firms have been lobbying their Congressman for this too. Just call it another vested interest.

The whole thing is, I'm afraid, political theatre. My guess would be that the Bill never sees the light of day in its present form, but a whole lot of eager-beaver politicians use it in the meantime to spruik the stuff that brings them political donations.

That is after all how US politics works, is it not?

>>When banks create money in their computers above real productivity, they like counterfeiters are diluting the wealth of the rest of society via a mechanism we know as inflation.<<

You are actually half-right, but the half you misunderstand just happens to be the important bit.

When there is a hole in the bucket as big as the one that our collective careless credit created, one way to tackle the problem is to fill it with new money. That is what various governments have determined is the best way to address it.

In the final analysis, it is we who are borrowing against our future, with the assistance of the government.

One big hole is of course unfunded Government Pensions.

Any ideas how they are linked to "real productivity"?