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

Everyone probably including Kevin Rudd seem to be intimidated by lawyers in Australia today. It seems to be that because they made a hostile take over bid from inside to take over Australian Government, while simultaneously making the same push in Britain, that everyone is terrified of them, and no one at all seems to want to do something about them.

The greatest enemy of good government is the legal profession. If they were loyal to their country, or even honest, they would admit that their takeover has been less than beneficial. The enormous amount of resources wasted every year running nine separate Parliaments all passing laws that oppress individuals and enrich the legal profession, should have been prevented by the enactment in 1900 of the Australian Constitution.

Because the legal profession is virtually a government within the government what the Parliament of the Commonwealth does is practically irrelevant. I have cited with approval the amendments made to the Trade Practices Act 1974 in 1995, that should have seen homelessness abolished and ended by 2000, but the election of a lawyer led government saw that frustrated. It is not even the lawyers who sit on the High Court who really govern. It is faceless men who pull the strings by which they dangle.

We all debate here about relevant issues, but none of what we say is of any importance because none of us has any possibility whatsoever to do anything about our concerns, because as huffnpuff says, they, the lawyers cartel, control all the umpires. Over the past six years I have been in every State and made applications to every Court except the Family Court, and seen the systematic degradation of all the people who would seek justice. I have seen it in the Family Court too, and in the last 12 months we saw a little girl thrown off a bridge by a frustrated father, all because he could not see any way to vent his fury at the lawyers. He went mad, and so many do the same. They lie, they cheat and they govern us

PtB,

Do civilian Justices of the Peace, who are not lawyers, have reserve powers to arrest or cause to arrest wrongdoers? Do they have any judicial power over and above witnessing signatures?

O.

The haste with which Kevin Rudd moved to guarantee the big four banks deposits, to ensure that the monetary system did not collapse, is probably the reason he has refused numerous requests so far to repeal S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, and have the Governor General disallow Order 46 Rule 7A Federal Court Rules. The monetary system would come under enormous pressure if the Banks were required to obey the law as made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. The banks lobbied to be exempt from the Trade Practices Act 1974 and were accommodated, but the Parliament of the Commonwealth at the same time enacted the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001.

This would be a marvelous enactment to protect consumers from the banks, if it was freely enforceable. It is not. It gives concurremt jurisdiction to the courts of the States and Commonwealth, in all financial matters including banks and insurance companies, and provides draconian penalties for breaches, but the whole Act is controlled by a Minister. However Chris Bowen sponsored amendments to the Act and in Act no 116 of 2008, changed the word Court to court to comply with S 79 Constitution. This is a positive step in the right direction, although he has not in fact changed it throughout the Act, just in respect of unconscionable conduct.

There is an institution that dates back to 1533. It is called the Office of Notary Public. In 1533 the Pope was stopped from appointing Notaries, by the Parliament and Henry VIII and the right to do so was vested in the Archbishop of Canterbury. This ancient Office is in force throughout Europe and the United States, and it is currently being exercised in New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia sometimes by appointment from Canterbury and sometimes by appointment by the Supreme Court.

There are a gross number of frauds now being perpetrated on banks customers, by dodgy solicitors, some of whom are not even registered by State Governments through the Law Society. It should be mandatory for a Notary Public to witness mortgages.

G'Day All, Huffnpuff I can understand your frustrations. I have all the paperwork of my Son's case where there has been Alterations of Court file documents, the Solicitor that was sacked by the parents that turns up as the Child representative, the care application in the wrong name, The charge of No Adequate Provision dismissed 15-7-1997 the same Magistrate on the 16-7-1997 then stating there is no contention by the applicant that Adequate Provision is not being met for the child,the care application signed by a trainee D.O & not even a delegate of the D.General & a NZ'der handling an Aboriginal childs case, the witnesses all in-laws & a couple of nieghbours, outright perjury, the list goes on. Representations from both my local & federal members & the Ombudsman & ICAC says that there is nothing to investigate.Thanks for your time.Dave

On the 16th October 2001, the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) came into effect in Australia, and its provisions can give every Australian back his freedom. The Act provides definitions in its Dictionary that are part of the Schedule that a Commonwealth public official includes anybody entitled to take action under an enactment. A Commonwealth public official includes any person who holds or performs duties of an office established by or under a law of the Commonwealth and an individual who exercises powers or performs duties conferred on a person by or under a law of the Commonwealth.



The two laws reproduced here are laws of the Commonwealth.

Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) S 13 and 15F

Unless the contrary intention appears in the Act or regulation creating the offence, any person may:

(a) institute proceedings for the commitment for trial of any person in respect of any indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth; or

(b) institute proceedings for the summary conviction of any person in respect of any offence against the law of the Commonwealth punishable on summary conviction.

CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 15F
Civil rights not affected

Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any person aggrieved by any act or omission which is punishable as an offence against this Act to institute civil proceedings in any court in respect of such act or omission.

The further law that applies is the definition of Commonwealth entity, in the Dictionary. Once you claim your right to be a Commonwealth public official, you become a Commonwealth Entity, and all the protection of the Commonwealth Criminal Code descends upon you. The benefit of Ch 7 Criminal Code, devolves upon you, once you become a Commonwealth entity, and you can insist on the Proper Administration of Government. This is not something that is not happening now, because lawyers are administering the government. If you are interested in becoming a Commonwealth public official, have a look at the website of www.communitylawass.or

The lawyers of Australia are not all bad. They are by and large a monopoly profession, but every now and again one bobs up, like Sir Maurice Byers, at 78 and takes on a controversial case, on behalf of a downtrodden, and much put upon individual.

If a case is properly put and argued, most lawyers in practice recognize where the justice of the case lies, and will go along with the decision made. However when a decision is obscure as so many of them are, often being seen to decide a different question to that originally asked, then it can take years before a significant decision is accepted as a true statement of the law.

Bryan Pape, a State Rights Barrister and law Lecturer from Armadale, recently got the reasons for the decision handed down against him by the High Court in April, to allow the Commonwealth to pay taxpayers a bonus. That bonus gave lots of people an incentive to lodge their Tax Returns, come clean and collect $900.

There are seven Justices on the High Court and while I do not believe they are doing a superb job, sometimes they do a good job, and five out of seven pontificated on the effect of S 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth). Two failed to mention it, but it is significant because they recognize that the Parliament of the Commonwealth is not a completely Sovereign body, and what they make as law can be wrong if it is not within the confines of the Constitution. The real problem is so few lower courts recognize they also have this power.

One such case is Yanner V Eaton, a case where a Queensland Aboriginal took a crocodile for food, and was charged under Queensland law with taking prohibited wildlife. This was when Rob Hulls was a legal aid solicitor in Mt Isa, Queensland took it to the Court of Appeal, and they directed a conviction. Hulls won in a High Court Challenge, on the grounds that S 15A and the Native Title Act overruled Queensland Statute when in conflict

The Dollar is what will eventually cause all lawyers to obey the law again. Before 1970 when the lawyers of New South Wales mounted their takeover bid for all power to sell and deliver justice, and the Parliament in New South Wales gave them their wish, anyone could sue for breach of Statute Law.

When all other States including the Commonwealth, which is a Federal State, followed suit and abolished that right, civil jurisdiction ceased to be a way that bad laws could be tried and tested, and if illegal thrown out. The entity or court that could disallow bad laws was a court constituted as a Court of Judicature. Such a court until 1970 offered four different methods of trial, one of which was jury trial, and a jury on the trial of a feigned issue, could rule as a fact that a Statute was not Constitutional. Since then Parliaments, and we have nine of them have been like wild cattle, or a young man spreading wild oats, and there are enormous conflicts between some State Laws and their Federal Counterparts, and if the Statute Book was a garden it’s full of weeds.

You all know I am a Christian, and the original Rules were that if it was against Biblical Teachings a Statute was illegal. The Rules made since 1970, no longer allow this argument to be advanced, and Australia is the poorer for it. Almighty God is a patient God, and often leaves stupid humans for periods of up to forty years to stew over their errors. Another significant period Biblically is seven and seventy. It will be forty years in 2010 since New South Wales abolished jury trials as of right. It is twelve years since the High Court said this is illegal. In 2006 the High Court confirmed again it is illegal and again in 2007.

The dollars that the State no longer collects from its sinning citizens who break Statute Law, are part of the reason they are perpetually short of money. When lawyers are obliged to obey the law, States prosper.

Peter - you are right on re the Criminal code Act 1995. Our legal team (pro bono) are using that in matters relating to govt theft of land ownership rights. We ran our approach by Keating who gave us the thumbs up.

Lodged in Federal court once, returned almost immediately. Fixed it up, relodged, took 3 weeks to come back this time under "wrong jurisdiction"!

Waiting for the third return, will lift it to the High Court. They are running scared of this Act.

The key is that under this Act, no one is disputing the legislation or protesting govt legality in general. But it is aimed squarely at the public servant who uses legislation to commit a crime. Use an Act to steal from me and it is an automatic sentence.

And you also did not clarify that while a person enters the court as an entity, they bring with them common law, and can then open any law as their right. They become, in effect, a sovereign in that court.

The problem with lawyers is they never learned or understood the Constitution. The Constitution of the United Kingdom from 1215 was the Holy Bible and remained so until about 1950. Then the British Lawyers started writing what I call the Satanic Verses, and Australia started soon after. On the 1st January 1953, the Satanic Verses aka the High Court Rules 1952 came into force, and one Rule, Order 58 rule 4 Subrule 3, ensures that when a person goes to Court he or she must worship Satan.

Jesus Christ warned every Christian against Lawyers, in Luke 11 Verses 46 and 52, and for 498 years, the English heeded this message and excluded them from Parliament. In 1870 under pressure from a very wealthy Jewish Lobby, after Roman Catholic subjects had started to be readmitted into English Public Life, lawyers were allowed back into the English Parliament, but the Imperial Act excluding them was still in force in Australia in 1900. The Act excluding Lawyers and Sheriffs, is 46 Edward III AD 1372.

When lawyers started to take over Australia for their own enrichment, after being funded in their takeover by the banking industry, in 1949, our Churchmen were asleep at the wheel. They did not see that by the Rule cited above, access to court was now in the hands of lawyers. The Federal Supreme Court ceased to exist and a Satanic Council of Exclusive Brethren was created. It is still called the High Court, but cannot now claim to be the Federal Supreme Court, the court of the Supreme Being, Almighty God, and to observe the provisions of the Holy Trinity.

Fraser completed the corporatisation of the High Court in the High Court of Australia Act 1979 and you go to a company wholly owned by the Commonwealth, when you think you are going to a court.

Sue M is right, Paul Keating’s government put the cat right among these pigeons in the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth). Are they pigeons or geese. What we really need is a fox, to make a meal of them

Any time Kevin Rudd wants to keep his promise to end homelessness, all he has to do is ensure lawyers obey the law. While he ends homelessness he will ensure that all property in Australia is safe for the subjects of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, in Australia who trust in Almighty God, and entrusted KR with government of this great nation.

That is still the great majority of Australians, and is about the figure of the latest opinion polls in favor of KR. As they say we are waiting. The lawyers in the Parliament and advising the Unions of Australia say the remedy is in legislation. To really fix the problem the remedy is to make lawyers obey the law, and to ensure all legislation is tested cheaply and promptly for its legality against the benchmark, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.

Kevin Rudd is both a Christian and a Constitutionalist. He was heard to say shortly before he became the leader of the then Opposition, that Parliament must stay within the Constitution. Rudd was already positioning the Labor Party to become the Party of Christians. As a regular church attendee his credentials as a Christian Leader are impeccable. How long can a Christian Leader tolerate the kind of law Australians have had to endure under the Liberals. The liberals referred to here are those in his own Party, and those in the now opposition, where the only difference is a Capital letter.

The Prime Minister needs to slightly amend the Acts Interpretation Act 1901( Cth). It says that any Act inconsistent with the Australian Constitution is invalid. Today in Australia there is no way of testing this cheaply, or at all, while Reg 6.06 and 6.07 High Court Rules 2004 remain as laws. Kevin should propose and add in S 15A these words. Any person aggrieved by any contravention of the Constitution, may sue for a penalty of $100,000 in any court, and such trial must be tried with a jury and not otherwise. Split the proceeds 50/50 with the Crown and watch the money roll in

The reason why the English system survived so long was that Almighty God aka the Crown, was always willing to enter a Private Public Partnership, and share the wages of sin 50/50 with anyone who would take up the offer. This is S 42 and 43 Acts Interpretation Act 1954, in Queensland, and it is a pity the proposed amendments to s 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) are not yet in place. They should accept by S 118 Constitution, the terms of that partnership are in full force.

They say:
42: Any person may take a proceeding for the imposition or enforcement of a penalty, or the making of a forfeiture order, under an Act. 43: (2) The court that imposes the penalty, or makes the forfeiture order, may order that not more than half of the amount recovered be paid to the party prosecuting.

Add 259 Duty of judge and jury Supreme Court Act 1995, which says:

(1) It shall be the duty of a jury to answer any question of fact that may be left to them by the presiding judge at the trial.
(2) But nothing herein or in any rule of court contained shall take away or prejudice the right of any party to any action to have the questions submitted and left by the judge to the jury with a proper and complete direction to the jury upon the law and as to the evidence applicable to such questions.

All Kevin the Christian has to do is set the penalty. It used to be set at 500 British pounds, in 1640, for any Judge to sit without a jury. This is in the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 16 Charles 1 Ch X. which is still in force in Victoria. I have suggested it be set at $100,000 for a first offence, and $200,000 for a second one. In 1640 three offences and the Judge got the sack.

It is now clear that S 79 Constitution, guaranteed jury trial in all cases. This will keep the bastards honest, and lawyers humble before God

This reminds me of Anzac day, and the Last Post. This is what our Diggers fought to preserve in two world wars, only to have it stolen by Menzies and the Liberals with a bit of help from their fellow lawyers on the High Court.

Paul Keating’s government was a truly Christian Government and when they passed the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth), they even said how to find the formula to work out how much the sinner should pay. The formula is in the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth). In S 4B it states that for each years imprisonment the amount levied should be $6,600. So for an offence against S 268:10 Enslavement the penalty is 25 times $6,600.

My maths tells me that it works out to $165,000. not enough to break a Judge but it will sure bend him to God’s will. For a corporatised High Court, each Judge should pay that, and the High Court five times that. That works out at $1,155,000 from the Judges and $825,000 from the Court itself, while it remains as a Corporation. That will feed a lot of homeless people and make accommodation readily available to them.

There are fifty Federal Court Judges, and at $165,000 each day they sit without a jury, breaking S 79 Constitution, and are permitted to do so by the Corporation the Federal Court of Australia, its penalty is $825,000 then the homeless should very soon be housed. Paul Keating’s government was so Christian it even provided that the evidence admissible against these Judges included their Reasons for Decision. S 129 (5) Evidence Act 1995, (Cth). Add the Family Court Judges and Federal Magistrates and there is a virtual bonanza waiting for Hillsong, St Vincent de Paul, the Salvo’s and Anglicare to collect.

Making lawyers obey the law will result in an enormous boost to the economy, probably greater that the Rudd stimulus package. Remember; ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, and every Judge State or Federal shall go to higher authority, before he throws a prayer out of court

Peter - I think you and I might have differing opinions as to what defines a Christian. And going to church is NOT a definition. I have sat in churches with people that walk out the door backstabbing a friend to the rest of the congregation. I have been in so-called Christian ministers' home, who have done the same and worse. Use prayer to manipulate, create doubt about others through the "unsaid" concerns and "worried" faces, etc.

There have been more people hurt by the ungodly INSIDE a church than out of it from my observations. After all satan also knelt in the courts of God.

I see nothing Godly about Kevvy, or Keating's cabinet for that matter.

But that doesn't mean Almighty God can't still use them in some way.

It is the "fruits of their tree" that shows what they're heart is really like, and Ruddy's fruit for all private land-owners is very sour and full of canker.

Miranda Devine attended a Book Launch with Tony Abbot and Malcolm Turnbull and wrote a report in the SMH here.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-remaking-of-the-mad-monk-20090729-e1ip.html

She reports two interesting facts. Both are Roman Catholic and both are lawyers. It was a fact of American Political Life, that being a Roman Catholic was enough to stop a person being elected President of that country, until John Fitzgerald Kennedy was elected, after 160 or more years.

However the conjunction of lawyer Roman Catholic should not diminish their intelligence, and no one suspects that is the case, but these two leaders have one thing in common further than their lawyer/Roman Catholic credentials, they are both Liberals, and languishing at the very bottom of the Polls, in fact any lower and they are pathetic.

The Liberal Party took the Christian vote for granted in 2007. John Howard at best made a halfhearted appeal to 200,000 Protestant Christians on the same night Kevin Rudd made an impassioned plea to give the Labor Party a chance to be a good Christian government. Rudd easily won the contest, and the election, and looks like doing so again.

If these two will only obey the law, and insist their fellow .25% of lawyers do so, then it could be that the turn around in their fortunes could be astronomical. At the moment we have an atheist government in every State and Territory including the Commonwealth, and I would suspect that the 65% of Australians who claim Christianity are uneasy about that.

Kevin Rudd makes a big thing of attending Church not only here but wherever in the world he is, and he has much to be thankful for. Aside from Miranda Devine, and the appellation of Tony Abbott as the Mad Monk, very little is written about Christianity and politics. A Queensland man has produced an audio on the Constitution, that claims it is a Christian Document. You may listen to it here.

http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=477

The Liberals could hardly be doing worse than they are now. The Lawyers/Liberal Party should obey the Constitution itself, and start making the Government face its Christian obligations

It used to be in my family that Labor meant Bad and Liberal meant Good, and if you cut my wrist the blood that would come out would be Liberal Blue. This ended when I started to study law, and realized the enormity of the fraud foisted upon a hapless Australian population by an increasingly arrogant and out of touch Liberal Party.

The Annotated Quick and Garran Australian Constitution that Senator Harris used to cause such consternation in the Senate with, by quoting from it, says nothing at all about s 79 Constitution. In 1900 there was nothing to be said. Everyone knew that jury trial was a right, that a Court of Judicature was a Justice with a jury, and the heading on Ch III Constitution was The Judicature.

The Labor Party in Queensland took a leaf out of the Liberal Book, in 1991 and made a single man or woman a Judge, and when the people complained enacted the Supreme Court Act 1995, that should have repealed it, without repealing it. It has this section in it, and it should be conclusive because it comes out of the Judicature Act 1976 (Q) an Act in place in 1900, safely tucked into the Australian Constitution, in S 118. It says and it is worth repeating:

SUPREME COURT ACT 1995 - SECT 259
259 Duty of judge and jury
(1) It shall be the duty of a jury to answer any question of fact that may be left to them by the presiding judge at the trial.
(2) But nothing herein or in any rule of court contained shall take away or prejudice the right of any party to any action to have the questions submitted and left by the judge to the jury with a proper and complete direction to the jury upon the law and as to the evidence applicable to such questions.

If the Liberal Party is the party of lawyers, it should take the cudgels to Labor and insist they obey the law in every State and Territory. We are one country, and One Nation

It is ironic that the mastermind of the downfall of One Nation, as a Political Party with clout, Tony Abbott should now be in opposition and facing three terms of Labor Government, unless he has an epiphany experience. He will know of the experience of St Paul on the road to Damascus, and the 180 degree turnaround in St Paul’s life, when he decided to throw his lot in with Jesus Christ.

The Liberal Party still has a lot of goodwill, and could swiftly cash in on it, if it embraces the fundamental philosophy that underlies the Australian Constitution. The only difference between the New South Wales Labor Party wallowing in the dumps at bugger all support, with even its true blue supporters like Belly, writing them off, is that Rudd claims to be a Christian. He goes to church, he loves his wife, he has a family, and is doing all the right things, while the Liberal party embraced atheism, and legislated to make it the State Religion.

When Jesus Christ rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, the donkey was simply doing its job, and could hardly have known the crucifixion would follow soon after. If Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull want to emulate the triumphant entry into Jerusalem by Jesus Christ, they should emulate him, and realize that hitching their wagon to Jesus Christ will change their fortunes. Kevin Rudd realized that, and the result was astounding.

Abbott in particular should know all the scriptures that say Jesus Christ will be the Government, starting in Genesis 49:10, continuing through Isaiah 9 verse 6, and culminating in the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp), where the Gospels are incorporated into the Constitution. They may be Roman Catholic but they should realize the Scriptures are the key to the Lodge. Jesus Christ inspired the Anglican Catholics to put Rome in its place. Australian Catholics should realize that the important part is Christianity, not sectarianism.

The ironic thing is that Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull could save Nathan Rees, by turning the tables on Rudd by campaigning as true Christians