In meetings throughout Victoria groups of people are meeting to discuss the Constitution and its utility in a modern Australia. One of the most attractive promises made by Kevin Rudd was to govern Australia as a constitutionalist, and that promise probably more than his workchoices promises attracted more votes and shifted more seats than anything else.

The effect of these teachings on the Constitution on the people who attend these meetings, which must compete with television and cold nights are almost electric. The failure of the Rudd Government to insist we are governed under its authority, and that its benefits are made clear to all could be the Labor Party’s Achilles heel. How many of our fellow travelers on OLO actually have a Constitution and are familiar with its contents?

Properly understood, the Australian Constitution is probably a world best practice document for good governance, and deserves to be promoted and understood by everyone

Dear Peter,

You're the expert on this subject.
I admit that I don't know much about it
at all. However I don't see how this is
going to come up as an election issue
unless someone raises the issue of the
Republic.

Can you explain please why you consider it
an important issue to be raised in this
coming Federal Election?

I for one would appreciate knowing more on this
topic.

The answer PTB is no, no it should not be.
No it will not be.
And as much as it should be resolved it will never be an election issue.

It never WILL be an election promise, but it should by the right of Australians to change any specific element via referendum.

I've only read a little bit, mostly the roles of governors, some powers (and separation of), and how they are elected or appointed- it's all well and good, minus the roles and election methods, and the fact that all powers ONLY go between the two houses, GG and sometimes High court- never, say, automatically put to referendum. In fact, it goes on quite a bit in areas of conflict between houses as far as allowance of errors and blocking policies/supply before any attempts to step in (largely at the relevant body's own discretion) to fix it.

In short, it's our democratic model that needs an overhaul- the criteria for allowance to vote, become a politician, and most of the conduct of governors are more or less reasonably good- it's just that the whole thing was conceived with only a very limited democracy and public accountability in mind (superficial at best)- instead requiring extra bureaucracy to substitute.

Are there any elements you're interested in, in particular, Peter?

The Australian Constitution is a powerful document an one person has already beaton the commonwealth and states on constitutional grounds.

Link to some of his information

http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

It is interesting that the leading Ruddite on OLO very firmly suggests that the Constitution should not be an election issue. That is probably because we have not had an effective Constitution since 1986, when in a frenzy of jingoistic and emotional Nationalism, an Act called the Australia Act 1986 was passed.

Because we have repealed the Constitution in practical terms, the minority of lawyers, thirty of whom are currently sitting as Labor Members in the House of Representatives, are actually wagging the Commonwealth dog, by taking advice from lawyers who are largely ignorant of its contents, and content to see organized crime run the country.

There are some very good men and women in the Rudd Government. There are also some very dangerous ones, who are quite happy to see organized crime continue to benefit from the destruction of the rule of law in this country. It does not really matter what the Parliament of the Commonwealth enacts these days, it is irrelevant because its laws are currently ignored completely by the eight competing political entities, given equality with the Commonwealth by the Australia Act 1986.

But for the Australia Act 1986 the three hundred thousand or more people in New South Wales who have lost their licence to drive due to the imposition of fines, by the State Government, would have their prayers answered and be able to apply for and get a Commonwealth Licence under the Constitution, and no longer be criminals in the eyes of the New South Wales Police.

Currently in Victoria, people are starting to wake up. The Constitution and Trade Practices Act 1974 are in reality effective and beneficial legislative enactments, and the Criminal Code Act 1995 is a real howler. The abolition of the right to sue on a Statute, repealed at the insistence of Abraham Gilbert Saffron, in New South Wales effectively neutered the Constitution as a relevant law in New South Wales, and organized crime has flourished in that State ever since. I think that the Whitlam slogan, Its Time should be resurrected, and the Constitution made a major issue

This extract from a Textbook printed in 1962, was retired from the University of New South Wales after 1970, when the Constitution of Australia was suspended in that State and the Supreme Court Act 1970, became the Constitution of New South Wales. More of it may be found at www.community-law.info The Judicial Process.

THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
HENRY J ABRAHAM
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Oxford University Press 1962
NEW YORK
AN INTRODUCTORY ANALYSIS OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, ENGLAND AND FRANCE.
CHAPTER VII
JUDICIAL REVIEW:
I THE SUPREME POWER ( page 251 )
DEFINING JUDICIAL REVIEW
Certainly the most controversial and at times the most fascinating role of the “courts” in the United States in general and of the Supreme Court in particular is the exercise of the power of judicial review. It is commonly viewed with equal amounts of reverence and suspicion. In its full majesty and range it is a power that the ordinary courts: i.e. those that are part of the formal judicial structure – of merely a handful of other countries in the world possess with varying degrees of effectiveness; among these are Australia, Brazil, Burma, Canada , India, Pakistan, and Japan, of whom most have federal systems of government. It is all but axiomatic that the practice would be found more readily in federal than in unitary states. Briefly stated, judicial review is the power of any court to hold unconstitutional and hence unenforceable any law, any official action based upon it , and any illegal action by a public official that it deems—upon careful, normally painstaking, reflection and in line with the canons of the taught tradition of the law as well as judicial self restraint—to be in conflict with the Basic Law, in the United States its Constitution. In other words, in invoking the power of judicial review, a court applies the superior of two laws, which at the level of the federal judiciary of the United States signifies the Constitution instead of some legislative statute or some action of a public official allegedly or actually based upon it.

Tony Abbott has a law degree, but has never practiced as a lawyer, as far as I can establish. He is a devout Roman Catholic, while Kevin Rudd delights in being photographed on the steps of a Church. What they need to realize is that the Constitution, by having the Queen or Her Majesty in its words forty times, is in fact a document that to be fully understood, has to be set against the Holy Bible. Lawyers talk about the separation of powers, the beautiful concept that the Legislative, Judicial and administrative functions of government should all be separate, to ensure Church and State do not become one and the same.

What the Constitution was designed to do was make Australia into One Nation. It was designed to make Christianity the dominant religion, as a non sectarian ideal. The clause that did this was S 116. The Chapter that deals with the Judicature, is Chapter III. That was inserted to make the Constitution the paramount law, and put the Judiciary and Courts beyond the powers of the States to alter or change. S 116 is in the section entitled the States, Chapter V.

The separation of powers comes out of the Holy Bible, in John 5:22 and 23, and the Queen is important because She has to swear to uphold the Gospels as Law, before taking office. Every Judge and Magistrate is supposed to represent Her. S 24 of the Australian Courts Act 1828 bring in the Laws of England as does S 3 of the Constitution Act 1975 in Victoria. In English Law, the Queen represents Almighty God. She is the Chief Magistrate according to the 20 volume Oxford Dictionary.

Hawke as a PK ( Pastors kid) had a distrust of religion, but his Government introduced S 15AB in 1984, into the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 the Statute that tells us how to read the Constitution. This allows the Holy Bible to be used to understand the Constitution, and work out where the motivation for its enactment came from. Every piece of property depends on the Constitution

I said that all property depends on the Constitution. The Australia Act 1986 was designed to repeal the Constitution, and create a United States of Australia, as nine separate republics. Republics always fail, because they do not guarantee the property rights of those inside them. When the powers are not separated into the three arms of government, the system becomes communist. Gangs rule and organized crime flourishes.

The fiction that democracy depends on a two party State, is rebutted by the Constitution. The Constitution is the guarantee of democracy, and the misinformation spread by lawyers that a Statute is not to be challenged in any Court, except the High Court, is misleading. We all depend on the rule of law. Without the Rule of Law we get the rule of lawyers. The Australia Act 1986 gives Australia the Rule of Lawyers, and instead of One Almighty God represented by the Queen, we have 1500 little Gods, representing the nine separate States, called Judge and Magistrate. These are timid little Gods, all drawn from the ranks of lawyers, a minuscule point two five percent of the population, but they rule us all.

People who lived between 1970 and 1975, could not believe the way Australia destroyed itself in that period. A lawyer from the New South Wales Bar became Prime Minister in 1972, and saw no problems with the rule of lawyers established in New South Wales. The High Court was already isolated and made nugatory, since 1953, so we had no Constitution to control our politicians.

As an election promise one or other of the two potential candidates, should promise to make all Magistrates delegates of the Governor General under power granted to the Queen by s 126 Constitution, so that the Commonwealth is represented in every local court, instead of being irrelevant, and only present in the High Court. The Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth will be applied for universal benefit, as required by S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The States will not be happy. We will be governed well.

LORD CHATHAM on the ENGLISH CONSTITUTION
One of the furphys that is central to the secularist religion, which is really a throwback to the pre Christian Paganism, existing before Jesus Christ came and brought the Word, was that the English have no Written Constitution. The evidence is that this is totally untrue. In 1215 the English adopted the Four Gospels of the Holy Bible as their Constitution, and instead of accepting the Pope in Rome, as representing Almighty God, appointed their King. The rest is as they say History.

I quote the definition of the Rule of Law given by Albert Venn Dicey (1835-1922):
“… every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen. The Reports abound with cases in which officials have been brought before the courts, and made, in their personal capacity, liable to punishment, or to the payment of damages, for acts done in their official character but in excess of their lawful authority. [Appointed government officials and politicians, alike] … and all subordinates, though carrying out the commands of their official superiors, are as responsible for any act which the law does not authorise as is any private and unofficial person.” (Law of the Constitution.)

Lord Chatham lived about 1770, when Captain Cook discovered Australia and his arguments on the English Constitution are reproduced here: http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=365

Because Chatham was not heeded the English King lost His American colonies, and the English then needed to colonise Australia to give the country somewhere to send their convict/slaves. The Irish and Scots were particularly troublesome, and many of the convicts were Roman Catholics. These were transported, as they were disrupting the English way of life. Because slaves work at only one quarter of the speed of freemen, a ticket of leave scheme was introduced, and a money value was placed on their sentence, which they could work off. If fellow travelers on OLO want to know more on why the Constitution is so important ask some questions

the electing of.. trustee..with loyalties to the two party franchise..the two party system...its like no choice
one party..or the other ..wins

in voting i figure
we are voting..for which of the two parties..will be trustee..over us their trust

[imagine the servants..lording it over the trust..[ie us]

we elect them..to rule FOR OUR BEST INTRESTS..but instead they abuse/tax/police..us...let us elect a trustee/making us wards of the state

they rule it over us....when by their own constitution
they are there/constituted to ensure us and our possesions saftey..

meant to be serving the common weal/..for us..[ie they/should not stand over us]..we are limited/disempowered../obligated to chose/..vote...a trustee..to lord it over us..[the trust..we only have a vote asto wether..its the left/or right hand..[labour or liberalie's]..who...slap's us...next

the same public servants..WHO ARE SUBJECT to the act...who have subverted the 'system'...while ever increasing..their powers via acts...under the constitution empowerments..when the true constitution at federation...was designed/constituted to limit theirs

they are..as a trustee...the acts create powers..for those subject to the act..ie..the public servant..[and those seeking benifits under the act/..under the constitution..as servants have lower standing than us who they seek to lord it over/with lawyers creating laws..and other lawyers/called judges judging us under civil statute...there to limit civil seervant abuses

we in applying to vote/get licence..or simply wed or register a birth fall..under..the act...via lawyer trickery..we fall under..the act..TOO

..its clever how the servant..[under the act]..has bound us..under their act..and not them...claiming powers/benifits...under the act

further..i would mention..that item one..[of the fed con...accords legislative power...to the commonwealth...!

ie the states/..noted to join-together..to form it..in the preamble...accorded legislative powers to be vested IN THE FED

the first item..accords legislative to be vested in the constituted/fed..[thus all states legislations...[since federation]..are void

"DOES any ACT..HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY..OVER THE TRUST OR THE TRUSTEE"

we the people..are the trust...[us and our estates...
we supposedly ..set up a constitution/trust/govt/public SERVICE.....to protect us...and limit the powers of the elect/elected/govt..the trustee ...

yet we have armed policers/..working for the state..policing policy/..via acts/supposedly under constituted authority//lol.....judged by magistraights...[not judges]..[also working for the state..judging statute/obligatory only on the servant/under the act

..despite the magna cartya charter[where no freeman..can testify againmst himself/..ie the testimony from two parties,,[who actuially witnessed an injury...is the minimum standing..required in court/criminal juristiction

the other is contract..thats how we got conned..we beged for permission/under the act..acts binding the servant..not us

binding to citisenry/ie servants,,[as opposed to a freeman]servants..who's poweers to act..on our behalf ..are limited by the conditions of the trust document..[the constitution]..and acts written..under the terms of the constitution.

.acts that give power and rules for those gaining the powers
yet designed..to limit..the extent/affect..of their powers

the servant is empowerd to act...by the constitutrion..thus they are [under the constitution/..via acts created under the constitution's authisation

when any one applies to gain powers..[under the act]...they fall subject to all the acts...acts deesigned to limit the powers to act..of the servant..[under the act]

see the act is in affect a trust/document[written on behalf of imbisiles/lunatics..[as hrh wrote for we have need of their estates
...those under the act..are trustees..[under the act]..not us..the imbisiles and lunatics/..wards of the state

the act binds them...not us

if by applying unbder the act..we become subject to the act
in affect trustee..of our own trust...its a convoluted trick...designed purely to do the nastey/oppresions..they are doing..by making us/fall..under the act..designed to limit their permissions to act for us..they/the servant have lorded it over us...by trickery and deception

its complicated..i simply lack the ability to frame the question's correctly..are we trust or trustee..if by aplying under the act..we become subject to all their acts..where is the informed concent..

as to wether it should be a fed election issue..look at the past referndumbs...nearly all have failed..for good reason..we the trust basiclly have been decieved..dont get taught the constitution/in schools

courts arnt constitutional..we cant plead guilty..[legally/ie magna carta]..but by making us sign forms..created by acts....declaring our birth place/date...as true/correct..we lie/commit fraud...UNDER OATH/..signed sealed

..and the law presumes..we wouldnt lie....except to seek advantage..lol

..thing is we dont know/as fact..the true details of our birth..[for we were children/at the time..but are required/told..legally to lie..to fall/under their acts..[acts..they stand under....not us

they need licences..to use commonwealth property..[see we dont need a licence to travel..only to do business,,[look the act..is under the transport act..[look up what transport mean..[it means basicly carry goods/passsengers..for proffit

dito a vehicle..needs regestration..but a vehicle..transport's goods[the definition again..is under the transport act...

worse..its under state acts..[when legislation..is a fed franchise!

see how there are two basic courts/criminal/..where there is an injured party..seeking damages..and civil...[ie contract law...we been conned into contract juristiction...via applying to fall under the act...ie by app-lie-ing tobe doing business..under acts..[acts that legislate safe business practices]..not population control/policing

yes its logical..to have licences/rego etc..but..there is no authority..under any constitution..for us to have them...!

..unless we are/fall under the act..ie/civil servant..or doing busines/trade...and then only via/a federal act..

states surrendered that right with federation..!

its so clever..lawyers writing laws..[for generous public-service super/pensions..that only..other lawyers..working for legal aid..or huge cash retainers..

under acts..only other lawyters can comprehend..and yet other lawyers...made judge to judge them...lol

WHERE IS THE SEPERATION OF POWERS?

over half/..of the elected reps..are..or were lawyers..!

OUG is asking some good questions, that deserve highly considered answers. One is that so many referendums have failed. Even though they failed, only six out of forty-six have succeeded, they confirm that we actually do have a Constitution and want it kept in all its glory.

One under God is what we should be. The present immunity from suit granted by Statute to Judges, so they cannot be sued in their own Court, is a serious breach of the separation of powers, and the introduction of Roman Law. Under Roman Law the Emperor was God, but he had numerous other Gods who ruled with him.

At Easter we should be reminded, and if you go to any Christian Church, you may be told that Jesus was offered Roman Citizenship, but because He had asked his Father, and been told NOT to have any other God than Almighty God himself, He refused. We are told that he refused the opiates offered, and suffered the full rigours of the Crucifixion. Getting killed like that was no picnic. We’re also told that a full eclipse of they sun occurred between twelve and three on that fateful day, an earthquake shook the area at 3 PM, and the curtain in the temple, that had hitherto been in place to keep ordinary people from God and justice, was ripped from top to bottom.

In under 300 years the Roman Empire collapsed. The Good Christian Leaders of England decided to adopt Christianity as their religion and constitution, and required the King to abide the Gospels. To keep the King or Queen available to everyone, and have justice available to everyone without fear or favor, English Law requires every Judge and Magistrate to be a delegate of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second. To be worthy of that honor, they are required to keep the trust. The Trust is unique to English Law. We are all beneficiarys of the Trust created that became the Commonwealth. Go to Church this Easter, and on Sunday celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Pray for the justice He brings to everyone

Were the English nutters, or is the Constitution they adopted straight out of the Holy Bible. I have an 1827 Bible published by Bagster, and dedicated to the English King, and a 1972 King James Version published in the United States with Black Stars opposite every Constitutional paragraph in the Old Testament.

The first is at Genesis 12 Verse 3, where Almighty God is talking to Abram: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curseth thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. God passed that trust to Sarah, in Genesis 17 Verse 19; And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call him Isaac and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant , and with his seed after him. The Next Black Star is next to Genesis 49:10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Shiloh is accepted by Biblical scholars as representing Jesus Christ. To Jesus Christ was the gathering of the people. The English took that to mean a gathering of twelve disciples one from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, and transformed it into a jury, a gathering of the people, as the ultimate Sovereign in English law.

The next Black Star is in Psalm 34:20 He keepeth all his bones, not one shall be broken. It was usual at a crucifixion to break the leg bones, to speed death. Jesus did not have his legs broken. Psalm 35:11 states False witnesses did rise up: they laid to my charge things that I knew not. Psalm 41:9, Yea mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, which did eat my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. Psalm 49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave; for he shall receive me. Selah. The Black Stars continue, but the English established the longest lasting government in history

Peter the Believer (or is it Peter Vexatious?) asks the question

"Should the Constitution be a federal election issue?"

There can be no doubt but that it SHOULD be, of necessity, given that Kevin Rudd has already proposed what amounts to a Commonwealth takeover of the States' health systems. As to whether it WILL be is at least in part dependent upon the willingness, and indeed fitness for public office, of representatives in the Parliament (and especially amongst the Opposition therein) to question whether the Commonwealth Parliament has the necessary power given it in the Constitution to legislate in this respect.

To all reports Tony Abbott, as leader of the Opposition, has indicated that the Opposition will co-operate with the government with regard to the passage of any legislation that may be necessary to effect this takeover.



There may, however, remain a problem, and it looks like its a Constitutional one.



Peter the Believer has stated in his post of Saturday, 3 April 2010 at 5:43:50 AM that "..., only six out of forty-six [referendums] have succeeded, ...". One of those six he claims is that referendum held in 1946, along with three others that failed on the same day, known as the 'Social Services' referendum. That referendum purported to permit the insertion into the Constitution of placitum xxiiiA to Section 51, a section of the Constitution that lists the powers of the Parliament.

Placitum xxiiiA to Section 51 says:

"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:"

It can be seen that legislation necessary to effect such takeover of the States' health systems as is proposed would depend upon the powers set out in placitum xxiiiA.



The problem is that the 1946 Social Services referendum has been incorrectly reported as having passed, when in the terms of Section 128 of the Constitution that sets out the conditions necessary for passage of referenda, it did not in fact do so.

I would like to talk about a limited change to the constitution as an election issue: Replace the current States (and state governments) and local councils with 25 new regions (3 Senators per region) across Australia. I am interested in what you think about my thoughts on this. I believe that there are 3 parts to such a discussion.
Firstly, 1.Why Change? Then 2.What changes would be needed? and then 3.What would the benefits be?

So to begin with the Why Change. I think that these are the drivers
1. Reduce the cost of government: a. remove the duplication across 5 state governments all having duplicated public service departments delivering the same basic services, b. Remove the duplication that occurs down through the current 3 levels of government within Australia, c. Reduce the number of politicians
2. Simplify and reduce the cost of the current governmental revenue raising and sharing process within Australia
3. Standardise legislation across Australia to make compliance easier. Eg standard road rules
4. Reduce the potential for corruption within government
5. Decentralise population growth away from the current capital cities. Eg high $ and environment cost of putting more than 3 million people into a coastal city such as Sydney
6. Protect and enhance the interests of all areas of Australia, not just the capital cities.
7. Abolish the current ‘Local council rates’ because it is not a ‘user pays’ system
8. Stop the continual high cost legal fights between states and federal government over National Resources

I will list the 2.What changes would be needed? and then 3.What would the benefits be? in a later post if people are interested.

i can agree with bill..that we need to rethink things..govt/AUTHORITIES/juristictions/..need to be rewritten..ammendments simply wont cut it..anymore

we need a federal legaslative body..that makes all laws..need to educate people of their god given rights..[like thou shalt not take oath..especially in writing..for light or transiant cause..and not under juress..[nor in ignorance]

that the courts need to be reassesed...according to proper juristictions/authorities..[ie retaining the importance of having 2/witness testify to personal injury/..or real public dangers/..including..but not limited to fraud/theft...assults

the states need to go...or be increased..[any big city becomes a state..and other compatible areas united...that oversee the acts of councils...who deliver services...all govt services..[from courts/prisons/police/hospitals/sewage/water/roads/social security/pensions]

big centralised govt is to be avoided..fed minesters basicly audit the lower levels..and provide funding..per capita..and as need reveals

the city size states..ideally should be half the total states..present size..and council's doubled..the fed is too bloated..but as things stand at present..do have the rights..to do anything states are constituted to do...if only via the higher/courts precedance..that has ruled that they can

the enphisis should be on service delivery/auditing/finance..not where govts lend from the fed...indeed states cant/shouldnt be allowed to borrow anything..

[we do have a sovereign debt...look at the states,...who have indebited their trust with enormous debt/so much so they are selling off the peoples assets/../while doubling the charges for their service's and selling them off

its...a huge scam..verging on treason..simply in serving their mates...they commit gross abuses...of course membership..of a party should be seen..as the treason it truelly is...party loyalty is it serving the people...or the party line?

It should be an election issue Peter, but the powers that be won't let it happen.I think that corruption runs through both the major parties.Just look at the stimulus packages for the schools,they were given to annointed large conractors who probably donated to the Labor Party.We have building costs blown out by 400% and 500%.The small building contractors are not seeing this money,hence the local communities don't benefit but they will get the tax bill for Kevin's stimulus borrowings.

These large profits then end up in the share and property market inflating their values.It is all about the big end of town.

We desperately need a another political party that does not take corporate donations.The middle class is shrinking and we are becoming more like India.There must be enough like minded people to begin a new paty that truely represents the will of the people.

On reading the contributions by Peter, Arjay and OUG, it's pretty clear why the Constitution is not a federal election issue.

While it's certainly crying out for fundamental changes, those who are most vocal about it tend to do so from the raving frootloop extremes of the political spectrum. A pity, really.

G'day to one an all,

I was linked to this site from another forum on an issue that is unrelated to this thread's scope. I found thread that I was sent to quite interesting and thought I'd have a look around at others herein when I came across this one. As a result of thread I was compelled to join the forum.

I have frequented forums of interest including political forums from all over the globe since 1994 and have to say that the caliber of numerous posters in this forum is outstanding and exceptional - especially in this and other thread's that Peter the Believer has posted in. Peter, you have a wonderful and brilliant mind, and as such, regarding your passing comment on another thread pertaining to your reluctance of revealing who you really are, I would suggest that it is 'they' who would need to watch out for you, and not the other way around. I know what I'm talking about, their days of glory in being able to do so as the well please to anyone who annoyed them are long over, compliments of the speed of our today's communication age and networks. They couldn't even pull off 911 in total secrecy, and that's why we haven't had a repeat event though similar were planned to occur since. It is more the other users of such forums with ill intent and opposing views that one needs to worry about if they know your true identity. I could tell you of many different such situations that I've personally witnessed and more that I've read about over the years. Peter, it's the lunatic you don't know and that doesn't like you that can bring it to in ways that you would never have expected and not so the lunatics you do. We live in a world where sick people abound even on forums, though gladly they are not the majority, it only takes one.

cont...

Regarding what I mentioned about the authorities coming after someone they didn't like, I can give you a prime example that is currently unfolding. There is a user on an Irish Freeman forum that is an Australian who no lives abroad and who is currently in the midst of a seemingly outrageous legal situation. I noticed this man a couple of years ago on Canadian Freedom forum whose name slips my mind but I believe it was on Menard's or one that he frequented then. I was not on that forum very long because it didn't have many Australian's and the one's that it did simply weren't on the ball back then. So after making contact with man via private messaging on that forum, I thought that he seemed a little too vexatious so I stopped going there. But what's strange about him is that he again made mention of something that we discussed in private and when I recently asked him in the open forum if he was the same person that spoke to about 2years ago in the Canadian forum, he said that he wasn't. But I can assure anyone that he was. If I can recall exactly what forum I met him on back then, and what me password was, I should be able to access the private messages I refer to and the posts he made, but I can't recall just yet, but I will in due course.

cont...

Here is a post of his that explains his situation:

"I guess many here already know me but some will not.

My background and linkfest is here:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42

My docs I used to refuse the jurisdiction of the Australian Federal Magistrates Court is here:
http://freemanireland.ning.com/forum/topics/globalmans-documents-to

You can read my stories at those places but the summary is that I was given the pleasure of the corrupted Australian Family Court and Australian Federal Magistrates Court (as well as the Irish Family Court).

I detailed the process in my interview on TNS Ireland which you can go and listen to as well.

The result is that I have now got two common law cases running in Australia to try Federal Court Magistrates Louise Henderson and David Dunkley for common law theft of the proceeds of my property, namely my house.

It is my opinion that defense is one thing, but there will be nothing like throwing a magistrate in jail or taking all their property off them to prove and provide a real example that we are not to be trifled with.

Any man who lives in Sydney who is willing to be a jury member against either of these two people please let me know here.
http://freemanireland.ning.com/forum/topics/global-mans-progress-with-the

I did a strawman recapture and the docs in my links were used to establish the contracts between myself and my strawman and they were proven to work in the AFMC.

I am writing a book about all this and will make it available for free when I am done.

If any man here would like to assist me save some of the estimated 4,000 men per year who kill themselves from the abuse of the AFMC please email me. I think it's about time we stopped the needless slaughter of Australian men. If you agree, please assist."

cont...

Now this guy claims to have walked into the Federal Court in NSW and was able to refuse jurisdiction over him by the court. He claims to have the entire proceedings on video. He is now seeking 12 men to stand as jurors in a court De Jure to try TWO Federal court judges in Sydney. I messaged him asking for a copy of the video or a link to view it. Here's what he replied with:

"Hi Karl,
http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=701&p=6522&hilit=cox#p6522

Shaefer Cox suggests that outlawry is the solution to what to do to people who do not wish to make remedy. Also, he suggests that incarceration is NOT the way to go...the way to go is to propose that whoever performed the violation of rights make all efforts to make up the violation. This would mean transfer of property or being required to work for the person that they injured such that the injury was remedied as close as possible.

Incarceration does not actually do anyone any good and I tend to agree with that.

As for the video. I do not give it to people I do not know as I am protecting my identity from the wimminz who would ruin my business. I have given it to Vince on the Irish Free Man site and he has seen it to verify that what I say is true. There would be great value to other people in releasing the video, and I am getting a transcript to release, but it would very likely ruin my business if done now.

cont...

So I replied to that and he then replied as follows:

"Hi Karl,
I only saw the Shaefer Cox video recently.....but the jury has the option of selecting the punishment and the free men have the option of proposals to the jury. I see no reason why I should be 'the decider' as George W put it.

I am perfectly happy to send them to jail. I am perfectly happy to shoot them. I am perfectly happy for them to pay a massive fine. I'll let Louise and David figure out which one they want to do. Many men are very concerned about my level of expressed happiness to shoot and kill these two people. They fear that will create a 'backlash'. Sure, I don't WANT to shoot anyone but if they will not submit to the rule of law then they choose to be outlaws and outlaws don't have a right to life. That's what an outlaw is. They are outside the protection of the law and must then look after themselves. Anyone who does anything to them can not be prosecuted by the common law nor the admiralty law either by the way.

I have already written to Rudd/McClelland and told them that I believe lawful assassination is an option that we can then put to trial under the common law so there's no taking it back. They don't need to read the forums. I'm saying the same thing on registered mail to rudd/mcclelland! LOL!

cont...

No...I don't think they will shoot me. I have also told them I have put money with 'friends' such that if I am incarcerated or have a 'fatal accident' my friends know who to 'visit'. Indeed, these people had better hope that I am not careless and have a fatal accident all by myself!! LOL!! It's called 'a life insurance policy'. They take me out? Things go pear shaped for the minions. It's real simple. Benjamin Fulford can take care of the high level people. I can take care of some minions.

Really. If we are not prepared to pull a gun out and shoot someone to death who is violating our rights and does not recognise the rule of law then we are slaves. The promise of force has to be delivered on. Period. You can't beg your tyrants for your freedom. You tell them you are sick and #@%king tired of being a slave and you tell them to back the #@ck off or die. That's how it works. Appeasement has never worked. It's that simple.

cont...

So, we do our trial, we get a results. And we go from there.

You can not see david dunkleys face very well on the video as the court was quite wide and I only had a flip video camera....and you can not hear his voice well...but I am getting a transcript to post into various places.....

We will see how we go...all I need is 12 men willing to risk their lives by sitting on the jury. A big ask, but if men want to be free without a civil war it is necessary.

Best Regards

GM"

cont...

Now it is obvious that this man has a few issues, but I would like to know other people's opinion here on what he is attempting to do regarding De Jure trail of the judges.

In regards to Peter's question:

"Should the Constitution be a federal election issue?"

If votes were truly counted, and we didn't have bipartisan, I would agree, but we would be beat before it could begin on both counts. I do not beleive that any of our election votes are truly counted, only by referendum can we be more certain of our opinion's validity in being voiced, and that's because they have to keep a hard copy of our votes. Even then, it can also be rigged if they really wanted it to because there is no identifier to establish the individual voter.

cont...

karl [i just did a quick download of many of your links...and am getting round to reading them

one frequent link is http://freedomfiles.org/extortion.html
that i have clicked on about 5 times...but nothing uploads...so if you could post/repost it in full at the freeman forum..it would be appriciated

i got lost at the thinkfree site...after logging in there got sent to general section

the logo at the freedom site looks familior...and im hoping its not me who has upset you...anyhow the sam radio shows are playing now..so i go to listen and read...anyhow a lot to read...see you around

Like I said...

Peter the Believer,

Two years ago almost to the day I posted the last of six comments attracted by George Williams' OLO article 'Frozen Continent', an article focussing upon the difficulty of effecting Constitutional change. I began that post with these words:

"I don't like the telling of half-truths, especially
with respect to matters touching upon the Constitution.

I must confess to having come very close to telling one myself,
in my first post in this thread, in claiming "In the nigh on
62 years since those 1946 referenda, seemingly not an iota of
recognition of the falsity of this claimed outcome on the part
of any representative or political party!"."

See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7187#110254



Two days earlier I had posted an explanation on that thread as to why the 1946 Social Services referendum had not in fact been passed when regard was had to the provisions of Section 128 of the Constitution, the Section dealing with alteration of the Constitution and referenda. That explanation may be of some use to you in checking out my somewhat bald claim to that effect in my post of Saturday, 3 April 2010 at 8:02:34 AM to this topic. The checking out of the validity of my claim is, I am assuming, the reason for delay in your responding to a post that provides a definitive answer to the question posed in your topic title. That earlier post to the 'Frozen Continent' thread can be found here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7187#110112

So far, the silence from supposed Constitutional experts like George Williams has been deafening. I am most interested in your view in this respect.

I do recall having checked that the votes as recorded on page 65 of the Commonwealth of Australia Year Book for 1946-47 were the same as on a certification of referendum results by the Commonwealth Chief Electoral Officer of the day held in the Australian Archives. They were.

I cannot understand how, unless it was the sheerest bluff, the referendum was recorded as having passed. Did no one check the figures correctly?

One gentleman has expressed an opinion that the referendum to allow the assumption of responsibility for Social Security to be assumed by the Commonwealth was not passed. My research indicates that every State and 54.39% of the electors voted yes. This means it was passed, but the two other questions asked at that referendum failed. This is published on a CD Rom available free of charge from the Australian Electoral Commission.

S 128 Constitution says that a Majority of States and a majority of electors must approve a referendum. That means that four States and a majority of electors must approve. This was achieved.

We do not need violence. We need respect for each other and a reasoned and logical approach to the Constitution. The same CD has the Constitution on it, it is available at Austlii Document Collections and online at Comlaw. That it is mostly observed by breaches of its provisions should be a major concern to all thinking Australians. It is a marvelous document, but it needs to be taught, thought about, deconstructed so that its meaning can be teased from its words, and the rules set out in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 applied to every Act in the Commonwealth, no matter what legislative assembly it emanates from. The Rules in the Judiciary Act 1903 should not be allowed to be made nugatory and useless, by Rules made by lawyers, outside the four sides of the Constitution.

To understand it properly, a person really needs to be a regular attendee at a Christian Church, and understand the principles it is supposed to stand for. That is mutual respect and consideration for each other. It clearly has jury trial enshrined in its fabric by s 79. The word judges, uncapitalised means you and me. We are the judges, and we should be able to have our judgments tested in a jury trial with twelve of our fellows as judges, not a State appointed lawyer as happens now. The Deed of appointmet as judges is the Crimes Act 1914 and the courts should recognize that

Peter the Believer rightly draws attention to an error in my post of Saturday, 3 April 2010 at 8:02:34 AM, in which I used the words "... that referendum held in 1946, along with three others that failed on the same day, ... " when he said:

"My research indicates that every State
and 54.39% of the electors voted yes.
This means it was passed, but the two other
questions asked at that referendum failed."

There were, of course, only two other referenda than the Social Services referendum held on 28 September 1946, not three, as I mis-stated. I am, however, afraid that Peter the Believer's research has been too superficial if he thinks that the Social Services referendum passed in every State, as he claims. By way of explanation, he goes on to recast the provisions of Section 128 of the Constitution thus:

"S 128 Constitution says that a Majority of States
and a majority of electors must approve a referendum.
That means that four States and a majority of electors
must approve. This was achieved."



No it [the Constitution, that is] doesn't say that, and no, it wasn't [achieved, that is].



What the relevant words of Section 128 of the Constitution does say is:

"And if in a majority of the States a majority of
the electors voting approve the proposed law, and
if a majority of all the electors voting also approve
the proposed law, it shall be presented to the
Governor-General for the Queen's assent."

The phrase 'all the electors voting' includes those who may have voted in a manner that at the counting of votes may be determined as being informal. The effect of this is that an informal vote at a referendum has the same effect as a formal 'NO' vote, because it is a vote cast by a voter that does not express APPROVAL of the proposed law.

Checking the arithmetic, you will find the 54.39% 'YES' vote nationally is only of the FORMAL votes cast. 228,859 informal votes cast by VOTERS have been ignored!

OUG,

I couldn't post till now, exceeded my limit of 8 posts per thread per day yesterday.

I'll message the guy and get him to come over and post himself.I think he's more upset at the the judiciary's lawlessness and lack of accountability than really wanting to kill anyone.He's had a rough ride with his ex as well and that hasn't made things any easier,stress like that can make you very ill.I hope he can find his peace with God sooner than later,I genuinely feel sorry for the man.

I'm not sure what you mean about upsetting me, and tThey seem to have pulled down that link.

As the basis for checking the arithmetic with respect to the three referenda held on 28 September 1946, I have before me photocopies of pages 64 and 65 of the Commonwealth of Australia Year Book for 1946-47, which pages contain the official results of those referenda and a record of the numbers of electors who voted, both by State, and in total for the Commonwealth. I have little doubt the same figures are shown on the AEC CD-ROM disk that Peter the Believer has used.

The 2,297,934 'YES' votes recorded for the Commonwealth on the Social Services referendum represented 54.39% of the total of 4,225,082 formal votes cast. Had the 228,859 informal votes cast by electors who voted been included in the total vote as the Constitution requires, then the correct result, nationally, would have been passage of the referendum with a majority of 70,963 'YES' votes, representing a 51.59% 'YES' vote by all electors voting. In all, 4,453,941 electors voted, and a majority of all electors voting, Commonwealth-wide, in the terms required under the Constitution, would have been constituted by no fewer than 2,226,971 'YES' votes.

It is easy to see how Peter the Believer's mistaken belief that the Social Services referendum passed in all States may have come about, because a superficial examination of the tabulation of results shows that in all States the 'YES' vote exceeded the formal 'NO' vote.

However, when the majorities as required in terms of the Constitution are similarly calculated on a State by State basis from the table of results shown, it becomes apparent that the Social Services referendum secured a majority of 'YES' votes, of all electors who voted in each State, in only NSW, Victoria, and Western Australia. The referendum thus failed to secure a majority of 'YES' votes in the terms required by the Constitution in a majority of States, and consequently failed the 'double majority' requirement of the Constitution for passage.

Rudd and Abbott, on the health issue, are in Constitutional quicksand!

All the best Karl; until a person experiences fighting against Acts and legislation, courts and judges, involving wrongdoings by the legal or political fraternity; most people do not become involved for many reasons [very sadly]. I came to understand that life is indeed short and people have their own problems daily to get through.

Been there done that ten years ago and it cost my family and self [children included] 8 wasted years of our lives that cannot ever be bought back. Our story at the time would [have been informed]made all of the current affairs programs and dollar wise could have assisted to pay costs for fraud and set ups involving a certain state. Preferred not to bother as the old saying goes: one can fight government but one will rarely win [over wrongdoings done to them personally or in business].

I am amazed by the lack of response. Nothing to say, Peter the Believer?