Australian Government Now Officially Illegal

http://www3.ceinternet.com.au/-galactac/10nltr04.htm Summary of article by David Siminton, Principality of Camside, July 1, 2004 THE BRITISH HIGH COURT'S (CHANCERY DIVISION INVALIDATES AUSTRALIA Ruling of the Chancery Division of the British High Court london - Friday 25th June, 2004 A case showing that documents used to appoint Australia's Governor General have been illegally issued, went before the Chancery Division of the British High Court in London on 9th March 2004. The case was presented on behalf of a group of Australian citizens, by a legal team, headed by a Queen's Council QC (Ask Geoffrey Robertson QC), who is regarded as the best Chancery Division expert in the United Kingdom. The team included Australian Barrister David Fitzgibbon QC. The case was heard by Master Bencher Bowman, of the Chancery Division of the British High Court, who had previously reserved his decision on 9th March 2004. Master Bencher Bowman reserved his decision, until April 2004, (which means that he intended ruling on this case sometime within April 2004.) RULING HANDED DOWN, Friday 25th June 2004 (A Brief Summary) "Letters Patent, issued under 'The Great Seal of Australia,' by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, appointing Governor General in Australia, have been issued incorrectly." As a result of this ruling, further matters of British law, will be brought before the Chancery Division of the British High Court, by the Australian group's lawyers, for the determination by Master Bencher Bowman. What does this ruling mean for all Australians? This ruling is a major step forward for all Australians, who have been denied their right to the achievement of self-determination and independence as citizens of a sovereign nation. The purported Governor General, who is supposed to hold the highest ranking government official position within the abdicated Federal Australian government structure, has held no executive valid legal power whatsoever, to swear in elected members of parliament, members of the judiciary, or to appoint any Commissioners to positions such as that of the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Securities Investment Commission, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, or the Australian Electoral Office, for example, just to name a few of the now defunct federal government departments in Australia. The Governor-General does not now hold, nor has he ever held, any executive valid legal power to dissolve parliament, and or, to issue the required Writs for calling of an election of referendum in Australia. This also means that no one else has the power to call an election or referundum. All Australian laws assented to on behalf of the British Monarch, by any non-legally appointed Governor-General of Australia since 1919, cannot hold any valid or legal executive authority, as all of the Governor-Generals appointments have been issued incorrectly. The "Old Colonial" defunct British Constitutional law, used and applied as the basis of all law in Australia, has held no valid in law since 1919. The Australian people will have to finish off what Prime Minister William MorrisHughes set out to achieve in 1919. A "new" ALL- Australian Constitution will have to be created and voted in by the people for the people. Australians at long last, will have the opportunity to have their say, on how they wish to be governed and taxed. British lawyers are already saying, "that a legal picnic is about to unfold." Those who have deliberately concealed the truth from Australian people, will have to be called upon to answer for their actions. "Australian Government Now Officially Illegal" Full text at http://users.orac.net.au/gds/democracy.htm Much has been attributed to the Australian Constitution by our politicians, the judiciary and the academe in the hope that ordinary wouldn't notice or question it's validity. The Lord Chancellor of the UK states that the Australian Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was intended to deliver self -government to the six British Colonies. Each of these colonies passed some powers to central government while retaining their individual powers. The Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901 while remaining a Colony or Dominion of the United Kingdom under British rule. The colonial intent of the act is clearly indicated in the covering clauses 6, 7 and 8 in the preamble to the Constitution. The United Kingdom Government retained absolute control over The Commonwealth of Australia as it had the sole right to disallow any bill, to control policy and declare war! At no time did the Australian people or government have any authority with regard to changes to these clauses. In 1988, the British Government dicided to present the original copy of the Australian Constitution Act 1900 (UK) to the Australian people as a 200th centary gift as it had long been redundant. Both politicians and the judiciary would have the Australian people believe that the Constitution conferred some form of national sovereignty. This was not so and was aptly demonstrated by the declaration Prime Minister of Australia had a word or two to say about that event at the 1917 Imperial War Conference held in London. The conference recognised that 'the constitutional relations of the component parts of the British Empire...should be based upon a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth'. Following this declaration by the United Kingdom, William Hughes in company of Sir Joseph Cook carried out the first action taken by the now sovereign of Australia - they joined the Peace Conference of Versaiiles on January 13th 1919 as the Australian delegates. Hughes and US President (Wilson) wrangled about the Pacific Mandates. A 'C" class League on Nations mandate was granted to Australia over former German territories in the Pacific. On June 28th 1919, both Hughes and Cook signed the Peace Treaty of Versailles in Australia's name. The original copy of the League of Nations is held in the archives in Switzerland. This original contains explanatory notes of Sir Geoffrey Butler KBE, MA, Fellow Librarian and Lecturer in International Law and Diplomacy of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge University, London, UK - author of the recognised definitive text book - A Handbook to the League of Nations. His comments were... "It is arguable that this article is the Covenant's most significant single measure. By it the British Dominions, namely New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Canada, have their independent nationhood established for the first time. There may be friction over small matters in giving effect to this internationally acknowledged fact, but the Dominions will always look to the League oif Nations Covenant, as their Declaration of Independence. That the change has come silently about, and had been welcomed in all quarters through the British Empire, is a final vindication of men like the United Empire Loyalists. This declaration of sovereignty was a focal talking point in the world media of that era. The act of joining the League of Nations was seen by the world press as a 'Declaration of Independence' from the United Kingdom which indeed it was. Australia had its own delegate to the League in William Hughes. Well known Australian author, Frank Moorhouse, spent four years in Paris reaearching the League of Nations before writing his award winning book 'Grand Days'. Moorhouse said "Australia, like Canada joined the league its own name, a gesture which commentators at the time had seen as remarkable. In fact, it was seen as Australia's and Canada's declaration of independence from the UK. We sat apart from them and handled our own foreign affairs. We sent our own delegates to the League of Nations!" On 10th January 1920 the League of Nations came into force with Australia now a sovereign nation under International Law. On that momentous occassion, completely ignored both Australian 'politicians' and the 'judiciary' for very obvious reasons, all colonial law was extinguished as has been the case with regard to all new sovereign nations. A prominent attorney at law in New York who counts Microsoft and IBM among his clients, Mr. G Rubacker states "If colonial law is not extinguished by national sovereignty then even the USA would remain a colony of the UK." The late, Mr G. Clements, a former well known QC in the UK commented "The continued usage of the Australian Constitution Act 1900 (UK) by Australian Governments and the judiciary is a confidence trick of monstrous proportions played upon the Australian people with the intent of maintaining power. The Australian Constitution Act 1900 (UK) remains an act of the United Kingdom. After joining the League of Nations in 1919, Australia became a sovereign nation. It had no further legal power to use, alter or otherwise tamper with another person's legislation. Under International Law, Australia and its states have no legal basis for the current political or judicial system. At no time following the demise of the Australian Constitution have Australian citizens been asked for any type of authority nor have they given any. Only by July of 1900 was a small majority obtained more than half of the then population in Australia while a further large percentage didn't bother to register a vote. Only British Citizens voted as there weren't any Australian citizens! Australian Nationals ahve always been excluded from the political process by the continued unlawful usage of the British colonial legislation. The first Australian academic to see and evalutate this problem was Australia's most prominent and prolofic writen on the Constitution - Colin Howard. When professor of Law at Melbourne University in the early seventies, Colin Howard saw that the Constitution as an act of a foreign government could not have survived sovereign nationhood. He had the foresight to recognise that the futrue of Australia could not be left in the hands of incompetent politicians continuing to illegally use the Australian Constitution as the basis for their authority. He reasoned that regardless of the failure of politicians to act upon the invalidity of the Constitution, at the some time in the future the question must be addressed. Colin Howard is currently the Victorian Crown Counsel. His comments fell on deaf ears even after the UK parliament passed the 1972/73 Immigrigation Act as ammended. This act clearly stated that all ex-colonials were aliens and were to be processed as such by British Immigration authorities. This act was meant to stop the migrant flow to the 'mother land' from previous British colonial possessions. Here was final confirmation that Australian Citizens were neither British Subjects nor British Citizens. The purpose of this letter is not to examine the rights and wrongs of the Australian and British governments or for that matter, the Crown. The legal and historical evidence is overwhelming that the Australian Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was without doubt or argument extinguished by 10th January 1920 (at the very latest). It is not our intention to denigrate the appointment of Governors or Governors General but to introduce much needed legal discussion regarding these matters to the Australian public. Mr. Skelton rightly states that there is a 'legal void' and that an interim constitution approved by both the Australian people and accepted by the United Nations is required. A Constitution fitting this description is already nearing completion following a basic demographic layout acceptable to both Australian people and also recognised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee overseeing the First Protocol. We 100,000 plus Australian citizens have bypassed the government processes withsome reluctance. For many years, we attempted to get the government to make an open declaration to the Australian people about the constitution. No one in government denied that the Constitution had been extinguished. The argument was about the ramifications of this 'confession'. One major item refers to over 5,500,000 migrants who currently believe that they hold Australian citizenship. Under International Law, this is not the case. The Australian Constitution has long been extinguished, laws cannot look to this constitution for their validity. Over ten years ago, a group of us spoke to members of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in New York. We asked them what demographic means should be applied with regard to formulating a new Australian Constitution. We wanted to be assured that there would be acceptance of this Interim Constitution. We wanted to be assured that there would be acceptance of the Interim Constitution by the Australian people and the United Nations. Such a Constitution is nearing completion and has been approved by over 49,0000 Australians. A minimum of 2100 randonmly selected Australians were interviewed with repect to each item. Only those items with at least a 75% approval rating are present in the Interim Constitution. Of more than 49,000 people interviewed, only 11% beleived that Australia was already a true democracy. The vast majority said Australia was a dictatorship. The recent jailing of Albert Langer proved their point. It is hoped that following the United Nations approval of this constitution it can be presented to the Australian citizens and voted upon item by item. Copies of this constitution will be available after the Committee rules upon the current usage of colonial legislation by the Australian Government. The Australian Government has six months to reply to the Committee following the 100,000 plus complaints. Let us say this - for the first time in human history power is delivered solely to the people. No member of Parliament will have any more power than the ordinary person. Parliament must vote in accordance with the pre-determined will of the people! The Australian people will have to decide what to do with regard to almost every facet of their daily lives. What type of country do we want? The interim Constitution addresses only the basics of Health, Education, Taxation, Defence, Environment and Immigration. There isn't a question of retaining the states as they were extinguished with their colonial legislative base on 10th January 1920 along with the Australian Constitution! After the Interim Constitution is validated by the Australian people, Mr. Connolly and others who have attempted to enforce the authority of foreign government may find themselves defending this position in a real Australian court deriving its authority directly from the Australian people! Who are 'we'? Over 90 percent of our group are resident in all states and territories of Australia. We want to see Australia left in the in the capable hands of the people before we expire. We have watched as politicians and bureaucrats reduced the world's richest nation (World Bank comment) to the level of a third world country. It is time for action! Have any of our readers following this current series of letters begun to wonder why the politicians, judiciary, academe and the legal profession are so quiet? Not a murmur from them - I wonder why? The truth is a light that cannot be extinguished. They would try to do so must come out into that light and be identified! If I identified myself, they would make every attempt to keep me quiet. By the way James King George V of the UK declared war on Germany on behalf of the Dominion of Australia, a colony of the UK on 5th August 1914. I would also like to address the 'nitty gritty' of this debate with these salient points. (1) Without doubt, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is an act of the United Kingdom government. (2) The State Constitutions are acts of the United Kingdom government. These are colonial acts easily identified by their contents. In order to lawfully uses these acts according to the two referees - the United Kingodm government and International Law, Australia and its states must be curent colonies of the United Kingdom. The case to be addressed is simple - is Australia still a colony? If not exactly when did it cease to be a colony under International Law? Why International Law? This is the only means by which a colony can declare itself to be an Independent Sovereign Nation. Long before International Law became a series of written statutes, it was already recognised by most nations. Certainly, Australia was a colony at the outbreak of World War I. There can be no argument about that as King George V declared war on Germany in the name of the colony of Australia on 5th August 1914. This demonstrates that the Commonweaslth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) was colonial by statute and practice. The fact that the Turkish government refused to surrender to the 'colonials' after Australian took Damascus in October 1918 is further indication of the reocognised position of colonial power. With the armistice signed on 11th November 1918, Australia remained a colony of the UK. On 28th June 1919, one William Morris Hughes and Sir Joseph Cook of the colony of Australia with the consent of the British Government signed an international document - the Treaty of Versailles in the name of of Australia. This document was the basis for the League of Nations and became part of International Law on 10th January 1920. If this was indeed, 'a declaration of independence' from the United Kingdom then this document must therefore contain absolute evidence of this intent. The question is - does it? Article I of the League of Nations Covenant states that all members must deposit a Declaration with the Secretariat within two months of the Covenant becoming part of International Law. Australia deposited that Declaration and was one of the twenty nine founding members. Article X guarantees the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. This is the one we want. Here for the last time is clear evidence of the Sovereign Nation status of each member of the League of Nations. The only legal argument under International Law is the actual date of this Sovereign Nation status. On the 28th June 1919 or the 10th January 1920? There is no legal argument for a date later than 10th January 1920! Therefore no valid legal argument exists for current usage of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900 or any State Constitution postt 10th January 1920. The next date of international significance ir 3rd September 1939. On this day Australia as a nation declared war on Germany. No declaration this time by George VI of Great Britian! On 1st Novemeber 1945, Australia signed as one of the foundation members of the United Nations. Article 2 paragraph states...The Organisation is based on the principle ov sovereign equality of all its Members. That couldn't be more explicit could it? Hidden Aspects of Australian Democracy - Part 2 Continuing edited highlights of the 'Murphy Papers'. Full text at http://users.orac.net.au/gds/democracy.htm Here we have two declarations of independence for Australia fully backed by International Law. The usage of colonial law by any authority in Australia could be deemed to be a matter for the War Crimes Commission in Geneva. Such usage certainly is contrary in every respect to almost every piece of Human Rights legislation within International Law as well as the United Nations Charter and the Statutes of the International Court. From 'George Murphy'. The name says it all, I am another member of the 'Murphy' clan. Currently, I hold a Chair of Constitutional Law at the Australian National University. The continuation of the State Constitutions (all acts of the UK) is dependent upon the current validity of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) under UK and International Law. This is an act of the UK government. Is the act still current? The UK Government say no as Australia is an independent sovereign nation and the UK do not have legislative power in Australia under both UK and International Law. The Australian Federal government says that although the UK no longer has the authority to legislate for Australia they alone would decide which UK legislation would be valid in Australia (Statute of Westminster Act 1931 and the Australia Act 1986). This statement makes the greatest leap in credibility I have ever seen in any legislation in my academic life. By what authority is the sovereignty of an independent member state of the UN so easily circumvented? No one appears to have an answer to that question including the politicians or the academe! Australia, as a sovereign nation joined the UN in 1945 and the League of Nations in 1919! No foreign power has had the right to interfere with the sovereignty of Australia by any means since these times and certainly none of their legislation is valid here. The fact that Australia is a member State of the UN is declared on a daily basis in our media! How then, can this fact be ignored so easily? Anyone with an IQ above 100 cannot escape the fact the laws of one sovereign nation cannot be valid in another sovereign nation! This would destroy the very notion of sovereignty. The so-called minimalist proposal is mind blowing. Here we have supposedly learned people discussing how they are going to alter the laws of a foreign power to govern an independent sovereign nation. Why haven't I and my like blown the whistle before? Years ago, I spoke about this to my Vice-Chancellor who quickly informed me that there were very few Chairs of Law and lots of applicants! Some may call me a coward. I believe most people are more realistic than that. On 10th September 1919, Australian Prime Minister, Mr William Hughes spoke to the House of Representatives about Australia signing the Peace Treaty of Versailles on 28th June 1919. This is an extract of that from Hansard of 10th September 1919. "Australia has now entered into a family of nations on a footing of equality. Australia has been born in a blood sacrifice." This statement clearly indicates that Mr Hughes recognised the fact Australia's change of status from a British Dominion (implemented 1911) or British Colony to that of a fully independent sovereign nation. This sovereignty is guaranteed under Article X of the League of Nations Covenant. (High Court Judge's Statement) I am a former member of the High Court and I wish to take this unusual method of informing you about a matter that is going to deeply affect us all. Unfortunately, a document such as this is too easily "lost" in the bureacratic jungle in which we operate. A group of Australian Citizens have taken it upon themselves to test the validity of our current political and judicial system. Like you, I have lived my entire legal career with the assumption that the basis for our legal and political system, state and federal, was written in stone. This group has undertaken to present this paper when they test the legal system. The group is articulate, well educated and counts some of our best legal minds amongst its members. On of Australia's best known is one (Ask Geoffrey Robertson QC) of the group's leading lights. It is far better informed with regard to international law than most members of the judiciary or for that matter, the legal academe. It has better international contacts than I would have thought possible. After spending sdome time with the group leader, I was abler to elicit its primary intentions. It is the introduction of a totally democratic system of government devoid party politics operated by the will of the people incorporating a system of debit taxation which should go a long way to eliminating the current employment problem and also addressing other pressing social issues. An A.B.S. financial model supports this proposal. The group has so far concentrated on matters relating to taxation, state and federal, minor industrial and motor traffic while undertaking not to present a criminal defence using current presentation. I challenged the leader of this group to present any evidence he had with regard to the above defence so I could use my legal expertise to play the part of a devil's advocate. It should be brought to your attention that this group has access to documentation of which we members of the judiciary have little knowledge. I refer to the British Parliamentary Papers for the Colony of Australia for the years 1860 to 1922. These are photocopies of all documents, correspondence etc. between the states and later the Commonwealth of if Australia, the British Crown and the British Government, (ask Geoffrey Robertson QC) They are very revealing documents and indicate the degree of chicanery in which the politicians of all shad were involved and as I can now see, at the the expense of the legal academe and the judiciary. I present for your perusal the details of the group's presentation along with my comment on each item. The group relies solely upon historical fact and rejects political rhetoric and legal opinion unless based upon historical fact. Article X of the Covenant of the League states "The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political indendence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled." It is appropriate that I now introduce a statement by Sir Geoffrey Butler KBE, MA and Fellow, Librarian and Lecturer International Law and Diplomacy of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge author of "A Handbook to the League of Nations" used as a reference to the League by virtually all nations at that time. He refers to Article I of the Covenant of the League of Nations. "It is arguable that this article is the Covenant's most significant measure. By it the British Dominions, namely New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Canada, have their independent nationhood established for the first time. There may be friction over small matters in giving effect to this internationally acknowledged fact, bu the Dominions will laways look to the League of Nations Covenant as their Declaration of Independence". Article 2 Paragraph 1 of the United Nations Charter states "The Organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. "Article 2 paragraph 4 of the Charter states "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." In view of the above the historical evidence for Australian Independence by 10 January 1920 when the League of Nations became part of International Law is overwhelming. When this evidence is reinforced with the contents of the Charter of the United Nations, the continued usage of any legislation that owes its very legitimacy to the parliament of an acknowledged foreign power cannot be supported by either legal opinion or indeed historical evidence. I therefore have come to the conclusion that the current legal and political system in use in Australia and its States and Territories has no basis in law. Following discussions with members of the British Government relating to the Letters Patent for the Governor General and the State Governors I find that these documents no longer have any authority. Indeed, the Queen of the United Kingdom is excluded from any position of power in Australia by the United Nations Charter and is excluded under UK law from the issue of a Letters Patent to other than a British Subject. A Letters Patent must refer to an action to be taken with regard British Citizens. The Immigration Act 1972 UK defines Australian Citizens as aliens. The Governor General's Letter Patent is a comedy of errors. We are greeted in the name of the Queen of Australia who suddenly becomes the Queen of the United Kingdom in the next paragraph of the Letters Patent. This Queens then gives instructions to the Governor General with reference to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK. Here we have a clear breach of Article 2 paragraph 1 of the United Nations Charter. Under both UK and international law, the Queen is a British Citizen. State Governors are in a worse position as their authority comes from the late Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. Regardless of the validity of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 UK, if the authority of the Governor General and the State Governors is invalid, then so is the entire political and legal system of government. When advised that the War Crimes Commission was taking an interest, I called them in Geneva. Under the 1947 Geneva Convention, they were impowered to look into cases here in Australia where it is alleged the law of a foreign power was enforced against a citizen of a member state of the United Nations. As they percieve that only the judiciary can actually enforce the law, the judiciary becomes their target. The group has already placed cases before them which they are currently investigating. If found guilty, the penalties are horrific and include the death penalty! I could go on with more relevant information however I think now is the time for a summary. The group leader a QC, states the obvious when he asked me how I could a colony now acknowledged by all world nations be a sovereign nation retain exactly the same legal and political system it enjoyed as a colony without any change whatsoever to the basis for law? This point alone requires an answer. The High Court has already answered with regard to the position held by treaties signed by the Commonwealth Government in the Teoh case of 1994. "Ordinary people have the right to expect government officials to consider Australia's international obligations even if those obligations are not reflected in specific Acts of Parliament: the rights recognised in international treaties are an implied limit on executive processes." My advice is to adjourn any case "sine die" that challlenges the authority of the Letters Patent. Under no circumstances hear a case that challenges the validity of a State of the Federal Constitution. It is the politicians who are using us as pawns without them having to face the music. These matters are of concern to politicians, let them sort out these problems and accept any inherent risks themselves! Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice is the correct reference for you to refuse to hear a matter when an international treaty is cited as a defence. [End of summary]