Sir, since you have so far failed to give any of us any details of what it is you are talking about we are unable to comment, let alone discuss or refute whatever your arguments are.
Perhaps my ability to understand English is at fault here but I find what you have to say confusing. I have shown my colleagues what you have to say and they also find it confusing.
You did make some statements that the High Court would reject - but I believe you are aware of that.
If you wish to begin a debate about the issues you raise perhaps you could start a new thread and outline your arguments in detail so that people can understand what you are trying to say?

QUOTE
I suggest that this last correspondent needs to do a course in Constitutional Law.
Ken, he is misleading you.
Posted by Communicat, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 4:57:00 PM
END QUOTE
I appears to me that you attacked my previous post considerably, and as such I seek you to explain yourself.
It is not for me to explain it as after all you were the one who attacked my posting.

I am well aware that many lawyers/judges are in this FANTASY LAND being educated in legal studies on LEGAL FICTION, and perhaps this may have been what caused you to attack my post. As you attacked my posting I am entitled to seek you to clarify as to what you criticised and set out what you view is the alternative.
Whatever your collage’s may or may not perceive is not my concern, in particular if they have the same kind of LEGAL FICTION understanding.

I did not attack your posting but you did mine in a very brief but considerable manner.

As a “constitutionalist” I do not need to be given some garbage of LEGAL FICTION in some purported “course in Constitutional Law”, as I have proven my worth in the Courts, and proven to have been correct!

It seems to me that unlike myself, you are hiding behind some faceless identity and seek to attack upon the credibility of another person but lacking the ability and the guts to prove yourself and your credibility.
It serves no one, but perhaps your own ego, to attack another person from behind a assumed identity too scared to let people know who you really are. At least I have never done so, as I for one have no need to hide behind a fictitious identity.
As I stated previously, “PROVE ME WRONG” and failing this perhaps have some guts to apologise for your unsupported attack upon me.

In my view, it is sad that people with your kind of conduct hiding behind some fictitious screen name seem to have this misplaced kind of modus operandi as exitement.

What is “Australia citizenship”?

Australian citizenship is derived from State citizenship which is a political rights (includes franchise) it is not and never had anything to do with “nationality”!

What is the nationality of a person born in the Commonwealth of Australia or naturalised?

Constitutionally a person born in a State/Territory is a “Subject of the British Crown and as such has the British nationality.

Who is the Head of State?

The British Monarch Queen Elizabeth II.

What is the constitutionally valid method to appoint a Governor-General?

A Governor-General can only be appointed upon the recommendation of the Home Office at 10 Downing Street by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II the British Monarch.

Is the Commonwealth of Australia a country?
No, as like the European Union it is a “political union” between the different countries (British dominions) known as States, being WA, SA, Victoria, QLD, Tasmania, NSW.

Can the Commonwealth of Australia become a republic?
No, the Framers of the Constitution made clear the Constitution would not allow the Commonwealth of Australia to become a Republic.

Can the Federal Government deny an Australian a passport?
Not as to prevent the person to leave the Commonwealth of Australia unless ordered so by a Court of law.

Has the Commonwealth of Australia any constitutional powers to detain refugees in Commonwealth Detention Centres?
The Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to detain any person, as it has no legislative powers as to “civil rights” etc, but must hand over any person for this to a State (see Section 120 of the Constitution).

Has the Australian Federal Police any powers to arrest a person in a State?
The AFP has no constitutional powers to operate within a State jurisdiction, as only local police can do so.

Is compulsory voting in federal elections constitutionally valid?
No. The Framers of the Constitution specifically refused to make registration and voting compulsory and without referendum to amend the constitution to allow for compulsory voting it cannot be permitted. And On 19 July 2006 I succeeded in Court on this constitutional ground having refused to vote.

Who is the head of the Federal Government?
The Governor-General assisted by his Ministers.

Is the Commonwealth of Australia racist?
Yes, Section 51(xxvi) approved by all Colonies(now States) provide for racism. The Racial Discrimination Act 975 is unconstitutional as it is not a legislation regarding a “coloured race”.

Can a person loose “citizenship”?
Yes, if the Commonwealth of Australia has enacted a special race legislation against a specific race then all persons of that race are automatically by this without “citizenship”, hence loose their rights as to franchise with this also.

Has the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to define/declare “citizenship”?
No, it is a State right and while since 1948 the Commonwealth of Australia simply legislated for Australian citizenship (commonwealth citizenship) it was never formally approved for this by referendum.

Can a State amend its own Constitution and/or refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia?
Not unless it is approved by way of State referendum to alter the “limits” of the State (see s123 and 128 of the Constitution).

Can the Commonwealth of Australia enforce its own laws against a “citizen”?
No, the framers of the Constitution specifically stated that Commonwealth law could only be enforced through a State Court by judicial decision. Therefore a decision by the minister of Immigration to deport a person is and remains a nullity unless so enforced by a State Court order by judicial determination!

Why is it all done so wrong?
After federation the High Court of Australia (albeit unconstitutionally) denied Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates to be used as to seek to circumvent constitutional limits, and not until 1992 did the High Court of Australia permit the usage of the Hansard in that regard. Meaning that for all those decades students in legal studies, lawyers, etc all had it done wrong being basically brainwashed with LEGAL FICTION. Their problem is that now being faced with what is LEGAL REALITY their brain somehow cannot operate on this normal level and so they just continue to rely upon LEGAL FICTION.

Just prove me wrong!

Sir,
I suggested that you might like to start a new thread if you wish to debate the issues you have raised.
I believe that would be the most appropriate method of beginning a discussion.
You obviously feel strongly about many issues. May I suggest that you raise one issue at a time so that others will read what you have to say and then be able to respond to it?
No one is going to trouble to try and respond to posts that are lengthy or raise multiple issues. You are doing yourself and everyone else no favours by continuing in your present manner.

hi kenny,

im poojah from India!
Why do u wanttt to no bout the kangaroo land.
ill tell u all bout India
hayoh rama hare krishna.
bye kanna