I put this up on another thread, but no one responded (:>(

With so many lawyers in our federal government, and in state governments, I find it baffling that the veracity of the law is so poor. You’ll understand what I mean once you’ve read this post.

Tim O’Dwyer points out in his OLO article of 8 July 2010 that almost half of our 27 prime ministers have been lawyers, and 10 out of 28 people in Gillard’s ministry and 17 out of 33 in Abbot’s team are legal eagles! http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10655

So why then are something like 50 000 visa overstayers allowed to continue breaching their visa conditions year after year, in an apparently permanent and politically condoned (or blind-eyed) breach of the law?

Why wasn’t onshore asylum seeking just clamped right down on as soon as there was any sign of our border-protection laws being breached?

Why aren’t speed limits policed at face value instead of a few kilometres over?

Why aren’t Queensland nude beaches denudified, given that they are technically illegal?

Why isn’t our national police force boosted so that they can properly administer the full gamut of the law, instead of being constantly stretched and unable to properly do the job?

In short, why haven’t we got a much better appreciation of our own laws? Why doesn’t government strive to make sure that what is declared in law is what applies in real world at face value, instead of there all-too-often being a quite different interpretation or even a blind-eye turned to some laws?

This is baffling to me, and all the more so given the preponderance of lawyers within our government.

Ludwig,
It is all to do with politics.

Some time back I asked the NSW Health Minister, why has not anyone ever been prosecuted for FGM crimes, as it is against the law in all states. Her reply is that there are 'cultural considerations'. We do not even keep records of any forced marriages, yet I estinate that there are something like 1000 per year.

I cannot see the situation changing unless we have a few deaths and honour killings. In the meantime we have periodical raids on cockfighting venues and people are charged. So we have higher values for roosters than we do for the welfare of Australian girls.

If the polys think there are votes in it, they will act.

In some cases I think the laws are expanded to allow more powers to police in certain cases to be used with discretion to offset another problem rather than stick to an absolute interpretation of the law. Moving-on Powers are a bit like this if there is a threat of street brawling etc.

However, I agree with your concerns Ludwig and Banjo in regard to FGM and similar.

What is worse is that 'cultural considerations' that flout the law often involve force. It is often not done on a voluntary basis so it appears forcing young women is condoned under this blanket of cultural political correctness.

From Wikipedia:
"In 1994 there were several anecdotal reports of FGC being practised amongst migrant communities in Australia.[91] By 1997, all Australian states and territories had made FGC a specific criminal offence. It is also a criminal offence to take, or propose to take, a child outside Australia to have a FGC procedure performed.[92] The incidence of FGC in Australia is unknown as it is unreported to authorities and is often only uncovered when women and girls are taken to hospital due to complications with the procedure."

Some spokespeople on this issues are calling for more education in immigration programs to offset this growing FGM problem.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/circumcising-young-girls-is-child-abuse-goward-20100528-wjhc.html?comments=175

Most people have no idea why Australia was such a good country and has now gone to the dogs. At the risk of upsetting some quite sincere people, I say you haven’t got any idea what the law is. Because we have a Queen, and a special type of republic, everything not forbidden is permitted. If a person does anything, and it does not hurt his neighbour, under English law, he was entitled to do it. No law that a jury would not enforce was ever law in Australia before the lawyers took over. That was why Claim of Right, to property always resulted in a jury trial. That preserved the freehold estates of all people. It meant that peace reigned supreme.

Julia, Julia wherefore art thou Julia. Your Workchoices was only inflicted on workers because the lawyers did not understand our system. Your Government, has almost fixed it, with its Anti Cartel Conduct legislation. Summary Jurisdiction where a dictator makes an edict, and the Dictator is a lawyer, is now banned. Off your butt Julia. The penalty for cartel conduct is ten million dollars. Lawyers have cartels in every State. They monopolise the law, and keep most people in fear. S 44ZZRA – S 44ZZRI, Trade Practices Act 1974 is excellent law. You may no longer be welcome in the Slater and Gordon Dining room, or at Bar Association Dinners, but you will serve as Prime Minister for a long time. I will demonstrate some sloppy legislation in the next post.

Instead of allowing the Australian Government Solicitor to frustrate your legislative intentions, insure they are up to speed and assist anyone who wants to, to enforce them. The Australian Government Solicitor should be assisting anyone who sees a crime committed, to have the criminals brought to account. Instead, they are obstructionist, dishonest, lazy, and many are unwilling to face the fact that there are serious criminals in government, taking advantage of unconscionable and unjust laws, and failing to enforce the good ones. Become the Boadicea of Australian Politics. Lead us out of slavery. Be brave and resourceful

The Director of Public Prosecutions is a cartel, and uses S 9 (5) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, to enforce its exclusive rights to bring criminal charges. That section says:

(5) For the purposes of the performance of his or her functions, the Director may take over a proceeding that was instituted or is being carried on by another person, being a proceeding:
(a) for the commitment of a person for trial in respect of an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth; or
(b) for the summary conviction of a person in respect of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth;
and where the Director takes over such a proceeding, he or she may decline to carry it on further.

This is not only sloppy law, its illegal. This Public Servant Thief, is authorized by an illegal Act, to acquire property from private individuals, and trash it. Of course it gives the Minister for Home Affairs property to sell. He can be approached, and the government probably was, to accept protection money from criminals.

The Australian Federal Police is almost afraid to pass wind, unless it asks the Director of Public Prosecutions first.
S 51 Placitum xxxi Constitution says: The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws.

Call for a report on every case the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken over and discontinued. Every time it does so, it should pay the prosecutor the $165,000 that the Parliament of the Commonwealth has prescribed as a penalty for attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth.

It’s a protection racket, Julia, because it protects criminals, and has been illegal since 1487. In 1487, King Henry VII had a law enacted that only a jury could discharge a criminal charge laid in criminal or civil jurisdiction. It is reinforced by S 44 Crimes Act 1914. Australians deserve better. Remove this offending legislation, and let competition shine on the Director.

<< If the polys think there are votes in it, they will act. >>

That seems to be about the size of it Banjo. No scruples. No principles. Just poll- or lobby-driven actions.

No matter how glaring the discrepancy between the law as written and general practice, our ‘illustrious’ politicians won’t go near it unless there is a very large level of concern expressed.

There seems to be no principle amongst the lawyers within our different levels of government that the laws need to be either observed as intended or changed to match accepted practices.

I think that our lawyer politicians do their profession, or ex-profession, no good at all.

And they certainly don’t do their political profession any good at all, as it is one of the most fundamental duties of our government to make sure that the laws and regulations are appropriate and properly adhered to.

Wow, isn’t FGM an absolutely horrible example of this legal duplicity.

Dear Ludwig

50,000 visa overstayers does not translate into 50,000 new Aussies.

See the DIMMIA FACT SHEET.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/86overstayers-and-other-unlawful-non-citizens.htm

Exclusion from Australia

Persons who overstay their visa by more than 28 days become subject to an exclusion period that prevents them from being granted a temporary visa to travel to Australia for three years. This exclusion period applies whether they leave voluntarily or not.

Even after the exclusion period has finished, the person cannot be granted a visa unless they repay any debt they owe to the Commonwealth, including for costs of removal, or they make satisfactory arrangements to repay their debt.

COMMENT.. sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Ludwig.. with your last post I hereby appoints you a BECK FAN :)

I think you would enjoy him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APZ3-Lcbwmc

Again all you proclaim is correct Peter and I encourage you to continue educating Australians. For far too many years Australian criminals have had it all too easy and in fact encouraged to use archaic legislation in place to commit offences, knowing full well they will walk after taking innocent lives or be given light sentencing.

Victims and their families are at the entire mercy of magistrates, judges, court clerks [who mysteriously lose evidence never to be found], some lawyers and barristers paid off, silenced or ignored.

Nothing will ever change if we remain silent or tsk tsk after hearing of yet another relative, family friend, colleague or associate innocently murdered or abused.

<< 50,000 visa overstayers does not translate into 50,000 new Aussies >>

I understand that AL.

I presume that the 50 000 overstayers are all illegal overstayers and not people whose visas have been legitimately extended, although that is not clear on the Australian Immigration fact sheet 86, to which you provided the link.

My point is that visa overstayers, without permission to do so, are breaking the law, and it seems to be an ongoing issue, which means that either the law needs to be changed in line with what is accepted practice or the policing regime needs to be improved so that the law is adhered to and those who break it cop a significant fine.

<< COMMENT.. sounds pretty reasonable to me. >>

With something like 50 000 visa overstayers always in this country? I don’t think so.

Do all those who overstay by more than 28 days get caught or do most of them just go home with no penalty or no restrictions on them returning? Again, it is not at all clear.

Why is there a 28 day grace period? Is that not virtually the same as saying that your visa expires on a particular date but in reality it expires 4 weeks later?

<< I hereby appoints you a BECK FAN :) >>

Yeah I saw that vid when you posted the link on a different thread yesterday. Seems like Glenn Beck is pretty turned on in the right sort of way.

Ludwig: << Seems like Glenn Beck is pretty turned on in the right sort of way. >>

Dear oh dear, Ludwig. Do you walk like a duck too? I mean you talk like one, and keep the company of them...

And you wonder why people are giving you short shrift?

AL, hey AAAAL, that nasty CJ doesn't like your vid or our mate Glenn, and he's giving me a hard time over it.

Waaaaaa!! { :> O

Pelican,
Thanks for posting the link to the Pru Goward article. I missed that, probably because it was not on the main news pages.

Yes FGM is a glaring example of our double standards. I have taken an interest in FGM simply because I think it is barbaric. I know that Auburn and Canterbury hospitals in Sydney have specific units set up to deal with post FGM problems and I read recently that Royal Melbourne Womens Hospital treat some 600 patients a year with problems caused by FGM. We don't know the full extent because no records are kept. Same for forced marriages.

To me it is unbelieveable that we are talking about mutilation of little Aussie girls and governments condone it.

Unless some girls die, and I wonder if a death from infection would simply be stated as such without refering to any associated FGM. Unless there are deaths then the situation will continue.

If we could make it a state election issue or some large media mob decide to take up the cause is what is needed badly

There are a lot of good lawyers, coz ya cant shoot all the dogs, just because some of em have fleas. However, they have been deliberately dumbed down, to make them ineffective, by the almost universal requirement these days to have a University Degree. They are almost universally fixated on Law as God, not Law as Justice. See Pierre Schlag: University of Colorado. http://stripe.colorado.edu/~schlag/ Law as a Continuation of God by Other Means, 85 California Law Review 427 (1997): A great article that explains why Atheists and Greens flock to the legal profession.

The trouble with lawyers, is that they are fixated on form, but short on substance. When they abolished Strict pleading, with the Judicature Act 1873 ( Imp) the lawyers returned like dogs to their vomit, to their insistence on Rules. Before anyone can get their day in court, they must comply with the Rules. They used to say every dog deserves his day in Court. However that word court, is universally misrepresented to University students, as a place with a Judge in it. That is not so, and they come out almost universally misled and deceived, ready to mislead and deceive the general public who put their trust in them.

A court is a place where a Justice sits as President, or Queen if you are a Monarchist. It is a feature of all successful republics: A la USA where any matter ( which is a flash name for a court proceeding) involving $20 or more has a Constitutional guarantee of a jury trial. With that President sit 12 people drawn from the general public, with a few exceptions. The facts are found by the twelve, not the President, and when this happens corruption is almost impossible to organize.

The most corrupt Australian State is probably New South Wales closely followed by Queensland, and the Commonwealth. Victoria is heading that way, but there are some very conscientious Magistrates in Victoria, and some gutsy lawyers. Everyone with a justice issue, should check out Victoria. It may just save the Commonwealth. Julia is a Victorian lawyer, so lets hope

Talk about sloppy law. Lawyers are not Engineers, so if the wheels fall off the cart of justice, they simply sit in the corner and cry, to keep the engineers from fixing the problem. An Engineer has looked at the Constitution, as if it was an instruction Book, for the proper functioning of an engine. The engine is the Government of the Commonwealth.

He looked at S 51 Placitum vi, and says that the Commonwealth must take over and control the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth. Just because the Statute says shall have power, does not mean they don’t have to. If they have power they must use it. The Engineer looked at S 58 Constitution, which gives the Queen power to assent, through the Governor General to all laws passed by both Houses of Parliament. He says that the Constitution falls down if it’s not applied to the States.

How much misery is inflicted by State Laws. Since 1986, the State of Victoria has not enacted any law in the name of the Queen. Can it be Australian Law? Can it be shown and enforced in an Australian Court. Between January 8 1991 and January 21 1991, the Commonwealth stopped enacting in the Queen’s Name. Is this illegitimate too? Where was our referendum, he asks. Slop Sloppity Slop.

He want to know why we have to go to a Magistrates Court restricted by State Legislation, S 100 Magistrates Court Act 1989, to a $100,000 limit, and no power to enforce S 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 which declares that any law inconsistent with the Constitution is to be declared invalid. As a court, it must be a Commonwealth Place. The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth is ubiquitous and omnipotent. The State Governor must be a delegate of the Governor General or the Constitution is defeated. He says treachery, in S 24A of the Crimes Act 1914 is defined to mean bring the Sovereign into hatred and contempt. The Engineer say the Queen, has been misguided by lawyers, and engineers should be more involved

Fantastic Peter you have knocked my socks off; genuinely!

When the Old Testament prophets, wrote about Jesus Christ, they said this: Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called. Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

That is what Engineer Almighty God said he would send, and he did. English Celtic Scholars worked this out, and adopted the teachings of this man, as their Constitution. We are supposed to have this system, because S 116 Constitution is supposed to preserve it, and we had it in 1900. We actually had it until both our lawyers and our Churchmen got sloppy and lazy. It is still a wonderful story.

Would Muslims come here if they had to become Christians. If they knew that if they offended against our laws, they would have to face the spirit of Jesus Christ in a jury. It works. Even hardened Judges, are humbled in the presence of a jury, and it worked for the English in the face of every attempt to conquer them since 1297.

Justice is a Royal Prerogative. Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second represents Almighty God, so we have atheists and Greenies, wanting a Republic. Why? So they can make us slaves. Despite their best efforts to sloppily sabotage the government, the Parliament of the Commonwealth has passed some great laws. They have also passed a lot of rubbish. There is a way to sift the rubbish from the good bits, and it was courts, not Courts that did it for us until 1970.

The Peace of Almighty God is available to us through a Magistrate because in Victoria a Magistrate can issue an injunction. He is authorized by the Parliament of the Commonwealth to do so, in S 80 Trade Practices Act 1974 and in S 12 GD of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 if a Bank or Insurance company is screwing you, and disturbing the peace. Either Tony or Julia should clarify these facts. Winners are grinners

Have you ever wondered why people with cattle have blue dogs. Without blue dogs, cattle are almost impossible to handle. It’s the same with politicians. They are wild cattle and running rampant over our rights and property, and more and more people are getting angrier and angrier.

The Prime Ministerial Candidate who promises to give the people back their blue dogs, so they can keep the politicians honest will deserve support. Politicians are a lot like most people. They like to get something for nothing. In order to do this, they press ganged State Judges and Magistrates into Commonwealth service, and then removed the blue dog laws, that allowed the people to insist they act within the law.

The blue dog laws are the laws in the Crimes Act 1914 S 13 and 15F that empower ordinary people to be policemen, and there are laws that came with the Commonwealth, in 1900, that enable the people who are so motivated to claim half the penalty provided.

To stop Police becoming wealthy people, and keep them as slaves, the Politicians have made laws prohibiting Police from collecting half of these penalties, even though, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which would immediately be accepted as law, if we had our own blue dogs, the Police cannot suffer discrimination.

Police are only human, and when Abe Saffron gave Police the equivalent of eighty five thousand dollars today in 1970 every week to let him run brothels, sly grog and gambling casinos, they took it, and Rob Askin the Liberal Premier, abolished the Supreme Court so the common informer, the Community Blue Dogs could no longer work, after getting the same amount every week. NSW is a shambles.

What the Parliament of the Commonwealth must do is provide just terms, under S 51 Placitum xxxi Constitution, to both Police and Magistrates, so they will enforce Commonwealth laws, for the benefit of everyone.

Just as an aside, the Political Party that wanted to abolish prayers in Federal Parliament, all eight of them, have no representatives at all in the Parliament today

Here’s a general thread that I started exactly two years ago on the utter duplicity between the law and accepted practice regarding nude beaches in Queensland. It turned out to be a very good discussion.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1976&page=0

It appears Peter that some of those archaic laws are still excellent laws if Australians follow up or enforce them [I was wrong generalising about some of the 1900 Laws that have created loopholes this century]as you have outlined above.

Many thanks for all of your giving revelational input; I am learning a great deal along with, undoubtedly, many other Australians.

I thoroughly enjoy learning about this Theological Law Peter, therefore if you could commence a thread, it would be appreciated most kindly. There are probably many other Australians interested in knowing more about the history of the Victorian Acts and Legislation.

Enjoy your week.

Here's one to get Ludwig's dander up:

<< Learner drivers can speed up to five times and still pass test
>>

http://tiny.cc/kw4of

;)

Thanks CJ. You’re right, that’s got my dander up.

Stay tuned for a new general thread. Rrrrgh! |:>{

Open Letter to Tony and Julia
One of you must do something about Australian Magistrates. While you allow the Australian Government Solicitor to represent you in the Magistrates Court, in Victoria and Australia and these people are ignorant and only partly educated, we will continue to have a slip, slop slap, attitude to the Rule of Law in Australia, and you are just an expensive luxury, of little or no practical use to the Australian community.

You may lead one of two alternatives, you may be an atheist and a Christian, you may both have law degrees, but until you give to us, the Australian people, a clear and practical body of peacekeepers, available to everyone in every community, you are in gross dereliction of duty. You have to pay for what you want these Magistrates to do. How in the name of the Good Lord, do you expect Magistrates to uphold the legislation you pass, if you expect them to work for nothing?

I was an observer in the Magistrates Court at level 6 Court 28, William Street Melbourne, yesterday and I saw with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears, a Magistrate commit an offence against the laws of the Commonwealth. The offence is against S 139.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, a clear and practical law of the Commonwealth, that you have a duty to see is upheld. The fact that you have been a bunch of lazy and sloppy Parliamentarians since the 7th January 1991, and have nt legislated in the name of the Queen since that date, means that no one really has to take too much notice of what you do.

The Criminal Code Act 1995 defines anyone who acts under a law of the Commonwealth, in its Dictionary, as a Commonwealth Public Official. The magistrate made an unwarranted demand on a Commonwealth Public Official. He was led astray by a Sydney Lawyer, acting for a major Bank, involved in thievery, assisted by the criminal and unconstitutional Supreme Court in New South Wales. No one works for nothing. To be continued.

The Offence is Unwarranted demand of a Commonwealth Public Official. Commonwealth Public Official is defined in the dictionary of the Criminal Code Act 1995, as an (r.) an individual who exercises powers, or performs functions, conferred on a person by or under a law of the Commonwealth. Kevin07 was a part listener, to my persistent requests to him to act within the Constitution, but he had problems with his ears, and his colleagues kicked his backside. Turnbull and Nelson had the same problem, and a good swift kick in the bum, as the old fashioned Policemen knew, fixed a blokes ears up, and stopped breaches of the peace.

A warrant can only be issued by a court. It must be served personally. It must be obtained after due process of law, and that requires a Royal Identifier on the warrant, and a deputy of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second on the bench of that court. Kevin07, and his ministers have gone part way towards, restoring the Rule of Law. They have mostly replaced the word Court, in Acts with court, because that is the way it is spelt 21 times in Ch III Constitution and a court of Judicature, must offer a jury as of right.

The Queen is of enormous practical use as the fountain of all justice. In Victoria their Constitution in S 3 provides that the laws of England shall apply to the administration of justice: But they are not paying their Magistrates to uphold the laws of Australia. That should be a Commonwealth responsibility. You should not only be paying them they same money as a High Court Justice in Chambers gets, you should also make it tax free just like the High Court is tax free.

Sometime after 2003, the Supreme Court in New South Wales eradicated the Royal Identifier, from process issued out of its Registry. It now has a symbol that looks a bit like the rough end of a pineapple, which is what a person gets as law in New South Wales. The cops still wear a Crown, but the Courts don’t

CJ, here’s the new thread that you prompted me to start:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3794

This really is unbelievable, both in terms of the principles of road safety and our rule of law!