For 109 years, the lawyers have ruled supreme. Like a case of HIVAIDS, lawyers for the first 109 years of the existence of the Commonwealth have been buying and selling people, and since 1927, started doing it without reference to the law.

The first lawyer rebellion occurred in South Australia, where S 5 of the Juries Act 1927, took juries out of civil courts. No one followed until 1970, when the New South Wales lawyers persuaded the Parliament of New South Wales to repeal the common law. This campaign was funded by Abraham Gilbert Saffron, and would have failed, had the Commonwealth been diligent fighting organized crime.

I am reminded of the Book of 1 Kings:18. You all know the story, where 450 prophets of Baal, got into a competition with the prophet of Almighty God. Both built an altar. Both called down the fire of their God, upon the sacrificial bull. Elijah let them play all day, and then took some very precious water, there was a drought on, and dowsed his bull. Zappo, it was instantly burned and he then had the false prophets killed. Then the Lord made it rain, and the drought was broken.

The poverty plague that afflicts Australia and the money drought that is causing all the problems with hospitals, schools, Police and every other government service, can be fixed, with a simple declaration of the meaning of S 79. If it is clarified, then the stream of justice will no longer run sullied with the blood of innocents, and the enormous burden of nine governments and innumerable local councils. Rules of Court will no longer authorize Judges to deny justice, and the exclusive brethren of the great deception will shoulder their just load. The correction, like an earthquake is long overdue. The word judges means ordinary people like us, not lawyers.

There are 45 legally qualified members in the House of Representatives. Each one of them should have s 79 Constitution on their notepaper. Earn your tucker you lot. Kevin is not a lawyer, but he has lots of mates who are

Hip Hip Hooray, chuck your hat in the air, break out the champagne, and celebrate.

The decision of Lane V Morrison ( 2009) published yesterday by the High Court, in which all Justices concurred, is a win for Australia’s homeless, oppressed, and the 1,000,000 odd victims of State oppression without a remedy anywhere in sight. God bless the Navy.

The Chief Justice and one other stated as follows: The noun "court" is used in varied contexts and in many senses. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following meanings, among others: "a princely residence, household, retinue", and "an assembly held by the sovereign", a use which gave rise to the terms "the 'high court of parliament'" and "'the king's courts' of justice".

Note the absence of a Capital C. For a long time, even before Kevin Rudd was opposition leader, letters have been written to him pointing out the civil conscription into Military Justice, carried out by the States since 1986, and in New South Wales and South Australia earlier was ruled illegal by the “Kable Principle” in 1996. This was ignored and a series of replies written by underlings, has been in denial of the principle stated in S 23A Constitution, ( but so as not to authorize any form of civil conscription). What is the difference between an Army Officer exercising arbitrary judicial power, and Commonwealth Officer doing the same. Not one iota in fact,

Two phrases defined by the High Court on Wednesday are of note. high court of parliament and kings courts of justice. Not a capital letter in sight. The high court of parliament is not a Sovereign Court, as they seem to think, and a king’s court of justice, cannot be a delegate of the King, or an assembly held by the sovereign, and constituted by one man or woman.

We owe a real debt of gratitude to our serving and past service personnel. In this instance a naval officer has identified and put down a problem afflicting his civilian fellow subjects of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, inflicted by Liberal Governments in most instances

Senator George Brandeis, blames the previous Army Minister for the shambles exposed by yesterdays High Court decision. The stinking thinking that led to this shambles of a Court, is so deeply rooted in the Liberal Party and its born to rule mentality, that it sees nothing wrong with exactly the same type of Court, inflicting punishments day after day week after week on civilians.

Punishment is punishment, and a Judge is a disciplinarian figure, whether he wears an army uniform, a suit and no wig as the Judges of the Federal Court, or a mediaeval clown suit, like the Judges of the Supreme Court. This shambles resulted from the politicization of Bill Keelty as Australian Federal Police Commissioner, because as he was directed to fight the war on terror from external threats, he was not allowed to fight the internal terrorists made criminals by the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth).

Terror as a form of government is not new. The whole purpose and object of the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) was to make people fear the judicial power of the Commonwealth. In fact the terrorists should be afraid, very afraid. To make people terrified of its power and authority the States have abolished civil juries, and we are expected to be walking around as a quivering mass of compliant jellyfish.

The NSW Land and Environment Court can inflict fines of up to $400,000 without any jury trial, on an Australian, just because he or she is resident in New South Wales. That is terror. A single Federal Court Judge can make you bankrupt, since 1966, and that is Liberal Party terror. You remain an outlaw practically for life after one of those monsters is set on you by a lawyer.

When the Liberal Party created the Federal Court it gave it power to appropriate the money for juries directly from the Federal Treasury. That was good, but it also gave them the same powers held unconstititional in Lane V Morrison. To ensure they never get challenged, all Federal Judges have made rules to exclude most from access

The only thing that can stop Kevin Rudd from declaring the law in respect of S 79 Constitution after Lane V Morrison, will be organized crime. Organised crime has split Australia into nine separate patches, each with its own Courts and Judges. New South Wales was Abe Saffron’s patch. This should do.

JUSTICE REFORM BILL 2009

Short Title: JUSTICE REFORM ACT 2009

Long Title: An Act to clarify S 79 Constitution and S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.

Whereas the Australian Constitution provides in S 79 that the federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as the Parliament prescribes, and arguments have arisen between the peoples of Australia as to the meaning of that section; To remove all doubt be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth as follows:

1. This Act binds the Crown in all its capacities.

2. In every instance in which a member of Australian society approaches a court wherever constituted in any part of the Commonwealth, or the external Territories and Norfolk Island, a Judge must not refuse any request for relief, in a contested matter, must not dismiss any application, and must not make any arbitrary judgment whatsoever, but must empanel a jury if either party requests such relief, and carry out the verdict of the jury and not otherwise.

3. To remove all doubt, this Act applies throughout the Commonwealth notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State or of the Commonwealth, or in any Rules of Court.

4. Nothing in this Act is taken to prohibit any Judge or Magistrate making a judgment by consent of all parties obtained in writing.

5. Failure to abide the provisions of this Act is taken to be an offence against S 43 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) as enacted, and a Statutory penalty of $33,000 may be recovered in any court, unless a jury shall refuse to order its imposition.

6. This Act takes effect upon receipt of the Royal Assent

PtB,

Your post of Thursday, 27 August 2009 at 4:28:31 PM caught my eye. You used an expression very similar in its wording to one used in the Constitution. That expression, as used by you, was: "( but so as not to authorize any form of civil conscription)". You had, in the phrase preceding your use of this expression, claimed that it was used in Section 23A of the Constitution.

There is, and has never been, any Section 23A of the Constitution.

Nevertheless, I knew where a parenthetical qualification as to a provision of the Constitution, worded very similarly to the words you quoted as constituting a principle, was to be found. To avoid any possible confusion, it needs to be made clear that what you probably meant to refer to was what I think is described as placitum (xxiiiA) of Section 51 of the Constitution. This reads:

"51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-

(xxiiiA) The provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:"

This placitum was inserted into Section 51 of the Constitution, according to the marginal notation, by Act No. 81 of 1946, subsequent to the referendum with respect to this alteration held on 28 October 1946. And thereby hangs a tale, but before I tell it I would like to confirm your understanding as to the existence of any Constitutional prohibition of civil conscription other than that of placitum xxiiiA, which placitum if anything seems to imply that there otherwise exists such power of civil conscription.

More directly addressing the topic of this thread, given that the High Court, not the government of the day, normally settles questions as to the interpretation of provisions of the Constitution, and that the Constitution may only be altered subject to Section 128, how do you see Section 79 being clarified?

S 51 Placitum (xxxiiiA) simply declares the existing law, and civil conscription was never allowed under the common law. The act of civil conscription is an act of taking of property, in fact the use of a persons body, and since the Constitution is binding on the courts judges and people of every State notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State,it is banned to State Parliaments too, because the servant can have no greater power than his master, and the power of all State parliaments is delegated power, not Sovereign power.

Section 51 Placitum xxxi makes sure that any taking of property should be on just terms, but Rules of Court and some Legislation, now allows the Federal Court to refuse to grant just terms.

The proposed draft Bill is simply a declaratory Act,and could as easily be done by an application for a declaration in either the Federal or High Courts, if those two places allowed anything offered for filing to be filed. Currently they use Rules of Court made under delegated authority, to actually break two positive Federal Statutes, S 28 and 43 Crimes Act 1914, but because of the politicisation of the Australian Federal Police,by John Howard and others, no Judge or Registrar has ever been charged.

If Commissioner Tony Negus is a genuine Police Officer, he will facillitate the issue of Court Attendance Notices upon any Federal Court Registrar who refuses to file process, under the Crimes Act, and we could see the justice system restored to functionality.

The right to a trial in a court with a jury is a political right, and hence denial of that right is a breach of S 28 Crimes Act 1914.

Thank you for your comments.