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