Communicat, prove me wrong!

As I succeeded in a 5-year legal battle on all constitutional issues in Court it vindicated my position in that regard.

If you view I am wrong, then no doubt you will set out, using the statements of the "Framers of the Constitution" why you deem I am wrong!

A general response of that a person is wrong, without setting out what you refer to also itself indicates your comment is not particularly helpful!

You are entitled to your views, as I am, but when you attack another poster then at least do this with credibility to support your criticism and not merely rely upon LEGAL FICTION you may subscribe to.

I could not post again until this morning but look carefully at what you have written sir. If it was correct then all non-received Australian law would be unconstitutional and there would be many other limitations on us. These do not exist.
There was a reciprocal act in the United Kingdom signed at the same moment. The issues you raise were addressed and dealt with.
Constitutional experts and the High Court seem to believe that Australia is an independent country capable of making its own laws. (I was certainly taught that by Prof Leslie Zines.) Does Westminster rule us? I think not.

commcat, the fed constitution is a defective document in many respects, but the legal profession has no interest in pointing this out to the electorate. even if they did, politicians are well served by the present state of affairs and will make no substantive changes.

and if the general public wanted a better document, they are powerless to change it. so most of them very properly don't waste time on politics.

the result is a nation ruled by bandits, over-seen by an emasculated crown, and endured by a cow-populace whose ignorance and culturally conditioned submissiveness makes life at the top possible for a class of people notable for lack integrity, and not over endowed with management skills either.

Hang on Demos - I was not defending the Constitution (it IS defective - nobody anywhere has yet written the perfect Constitution). The issue we were discussing was quite different. Our mutual friend would, it seems, have it that we are not able to make our own laws, that all governments have been illegitimate and we are not legally able to take our place in the world. If this was actually so the ramifications would be breathtaking. Fortunately for us he is mistaken and, although not alone in his beliefs, noone is going to take him terribly seriously...however I do feel rather concerned for the student who started this thread.
Now Demos you do not like the status quo apparently...happily this is still enough of a democracy for you to be able to state your views here and elsewhere...please do it responsibly so that students like Ken can continue to ask questions and get a diverse range of views.

"Communicat" you attacked my posting and I challenge you to prove me wrong!

Currently, there are three court cases going on all using my books about constitutional issues, since I succeeded on 19 July 2006, after a 5-year legal battle, and despite a judge specifically ordered the DPP to set out if he agreed or dis agreed with each issues and if he disagreed to state why he disagreed, and was given three months to respond to this, the DPP failed totally to do so. The trial judge now has to decide if in view of the DPP failing to comply with the specific orders issued by him all proceedings are to be aborted on the basis the court has no jurisdiction, such as because not a single lawyer/judges/politician is validly appointed.
As the judge previously made clear to the DPP that the issues raised had to be addressed before the Court would be able to invoke jurisdiction, if at all!

So far, in more then 50-years not a single lawyer/judge has been able to prove me wrong in any of the constitutional issues I raised, because I use the statements of the Framers of the Constitution to back up what I claim!
I invite anyone to prove me wrong, not with some nonsense of LEGAL FICTION but to prove me wrong with credible material!
"Communicat" pursued that I ought to do constitutional law, but as a "constitutionalist" the last thing I need is some "lier for hire" to seek to brainwash me with nonsense!
Even professors in law of universities have so far been unable to prove me wrong, so "Communicat" the challenge is to you to do better!
After all, you seemed to attack my statements!

Oops, "lier for hire" ought to be "lair for hire".