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..