When the colonies of Australia decided to form a Commonwealth, the idea was promoted by lawyers, and the Commonwealth was supposed to be the pre-eminent political authority. There were two supremacy clauses in the Constitution, S 109 and Covering Clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.

In the past twenty three years, the Parliament of the Commonwealth has enacted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 and in 1995 enacted changes to the Trade Practices Act 1974 that are designed to promote competition, and the peace welfare and good government of Australia.

S 78 Judiciary Act 1903 gives lawyers a monopoly on representation in the High Court, S 39 Federal Court of Australia and some State laws give lawyers a monopoly on being Judges and Magistrates, and lawyers decide who can be allowed to come into court.

Can the Government of the Commonwealth continue to allow State Registered lawyers exclusive practicing rights in Commonwealth Courts, or is it time they made lawyers obey the law too. Should there be a National Lawyers Exam, with graduation as the only qualification required

From the ivory tower of the High Court down to a solicitor in a country town, every move made by anyone depends on a lawyer. There is a lawyer in your local courthouse exercising feudal power of freedom or imprisonment over you all. Someone said that sixty percent of members of Parliament are lawyers. I have not checked that out, but there are huge numbers of Liberals are lawyers.

The Parliament of the Commonwealth has passed laws making it a criminal offence to attempt in any way not specifically defined in the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) S 43, to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. It says that the offender shall be guilty of an offence. Shall is a mandatory word, and means must, so are all lawyers criminals.

What we must ask ourselves and lawyers must examine their souls to find out, is what is the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Is it a different course in criminal matters than it is in civil matters? Are there two courses of justice one for alleged criminals and another for ordinary sinners, or should all be treated the same. The Parliament of the Commonwealth is ambiguous about its intentions. On one hand it passes laws for the general public to obey, but has also passed laws that allow a lawyer/public servant to stop members of the public prosecuting an offender if he or she is a lawyer. I talk of S 9.5 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. Bob Hawke was not a true lawyer, but he was Captain of the Ship when that law was passed.

The first thing a lawyer does when faced with a prosecution in the still readily accessible Melbourne Magistrates Court is call the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions is a lawyer, and takes over and discontinues all attempts to make use of s 80 Constitution, by committing a lawyer to trial. Is he a criminal too? Are lawyers sacred.

Hey have you seen the movie The Devil's Advocate?

I think you'd love it!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118971/

When the Labor Party enacted the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) and it was tested in the High Court in 1915, in Kidman v the King (1915) 20 CLR 414, the High Court held it was a valid enactment and simply restated the law in force in 1900, when the Constitution was enacted. When the Labor Party enacted the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) it provided that it have a five year delay in coming into force, extended by Darryl Williams for a further year until the 20th October 2001. It has been in force for eight years and not one lawyer has accepted its force.

It may be that we have a government within a government that makes one law for you and me and one for themselves. Walk up Martin Place in Sydney and on the left and right are huge offices occupied by law firms. Walk down William Street in Melbourne and the same applies. Are these law firms in a conspiracy to defeat justice? If so why are the Police and law enforcement agencies not chasing them, with the same vigor they chase speeding drivers.

S 42 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) sets out the elements necessary to commit that offence: Conspiracy to defeat justice. It carries a penalty of five years imprisonment, but any smart lawyer would know that the option in the Statute of Westminster 1275, should be applied, and the option of a fine accepted. For the purposes of this offence absolute liability applies. There is a note: For absolute liability see S 6.2 Criminal Code.

Lets look at absolute liability: If a law that creates an offence provides that the offence is an offence of absolute liability, there are no fault elements for any of the physical elements of the offence and the defence of mistake of fact is not available. These should not be hard to prosecute at all. However there have been no prosecutions at all as far as I know. We need a Steve Fielding to start asking some questions, that need answering: Maybe from Xenophon

would this mean that the lawyers for the crown state of new south wales D.O.C.S. ,

by stating in a court case that their department has lost or destroyed evidence such as log books ,that of misconduct records log book , isolation cell record log books , and excursion log books, of daruk boys home , of which proves a victims truth that what he has stated in his court case of the abuse he suffered at daruk boys home , he is not beleaved because the goverment has had these records destroyed so the victim could not get justice,

when this victim did not even know the goverment had these records destroyed ,

so why has the state goverment lawyers and the judges found in favour of the state and not the victim ,

even though they addmitt these documents have gone missining ,

if D.O.C.S had nothing to hide about daruk boys home why destroy these records ,

of which proves the victims case
,,

this just proves a cover up has been done by the state of new south wales D.O.C.S its lawyers and the judges preciding on the court case ,

by not giving the victim justice because of the coruption within in it own courts the sydney supreme court and the goverment lawyers for D.O.C.S , who were the state lawyers for D.O.C.S

these documents the goverment have destroyed proves that of over victims who were in these records as well ,

regards huffnpuff

Huffnpuff, you are so right to think this is wrong. Yes all the above suspects are guilty, from the Judge to the State solicitors, and there is not a thing anyone can do about it while Kevin Rudd shilly shallies, and refuses to make sure that the Commonwealth leads by example, and provides courts so that the Constitution can be enforced, and Commonwealth law be given a meaning again.

What KR ought to realize is that there can only be one judicial power of the Commonwealth, in a country such as ours and all pretenders are simply fraudsters. The New Testament commandment, that you shall have no other Gods but me, deriving from the first written Constitution, given to the Jewish people by Moses and Almighty God on Mt Sinaii, should apply in Australia because we have a written Constitution. A copy of it and some relevant additional resources are available on the net, after a group in Melbourne requested ready access to its history and antecedents. The website that carries it is http://www.community-law.info/
The Commonwealth has made all the law necessary to make Australia a great Nation, but there is a nasty fifth column doing its very best to frustrate the efforts to govern by Canberra. There are a few things need to be clarified before the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth), is truly an effective Act. One is that the definition of Commonwealth entity, needs to make it very clear that every one of us is a Commonwealth entity. An entity is defined in the Queensland Acts Interpretation Act 1954, to include a natural person, and that needs to be made clear in the Commonwealth Act.

Currently the definition includes the Commonwealth and Commonwealth authority, but it needs expanding, to include everyone who has been granted Commonwealth authority to prosecute, in ss 13 and 15F Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth).

We had high hopes that he would be diligent. He may not be as powerful as we would believe. While he got a magnificent mandate to reform Australia, he has missed out the important parts so far