Is The Australian Government Illegal

In 1986, the Australian Constitution

became a shell.

Independent, be damned !

_________________________________________________

Kirby J says " the Australia Act 1986 is unconstitutional",

and his reasoning is constitutionally very sound.

Is our claimed Queen, under the Australia Act 1986  "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert"

***********************************************

  In June 1982, various Counselors, self proclaimed, being the Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and Premiers of the States, being: 

Prime Minister   Malcolm Fraser    Lib.     office by June 1982  ---  7yrs

Premier  :  NSW   Neville Wran QC  ALP     LLB        ~  8 yrs

Vic.     John Cain jnr.   ALP        LLB                             ~  6 yrs

S.A.   David Tonkin   Lib.         MD                                  ~ 2 yrs

W.A. Ray O'Conner  Lib.                                                   ~ 1 yr

Tas.   Robin Grey  Lib.                                                        ~ 6yrs

Q'ld  Joh Bjelke Petersen                                                     14 yrs.

   A total of 7 self appointed Australian Councillors met on 24 & 25 June 1982 to begin the formation of the "Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign , independent and federal nation", could and should be formed.

  On 21 June 1984, another meeting took place "to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation". (Australia Act 1986) This Australia Act (C'wth) was assented to by the Governor General, Sir Ninian Stephens on Dec. 4, 1985, and assented in UK to by Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of UK of GB & Ire. on 17 Feb 1986, and proclaimed by QE II in person at Canberra on 2 March 1986, and to come into affect on 3 March 1986. In 1985, the list of so called Counsellors were:

Prime Minister       Bob Hawke,  ALP  Rhodes Scholar,            15 m'ths

Premiers            NSW    Neville Wran  LLB                                    10 yrs

Vic.    John Cain jnr      LLB                                    ~ 8 yrs

S.A. John Bannon  ALP  LLB                           ~ 1 yr

W. A. Brian Burke  ALP                                     ~ 1yr

Tas.  Robin Grey                                                8 yrs

Q'ld  Joh Bjelke Peterson                                 16 yrs.

   So 4 out of the original 7 self proclaimed Councillors remained, which meant 3 new Councillors were 'created'. So in total 10 persons set themselves as Australian Councillors, and then asserted their position as an Australian Privy Council to advise QE II , Queen of the UK of GB & Ire.

  So the Queen, Q E II Queen of UK of GB & Ire., was advised by this group of men, who using the powers under s 51 xxxviii of the Australian Constitution, claimed they had a right to advise the Queen, to sign Her assent and proclaim the changes mooted in the Australia Act 1986.

  However, the said claim of power in s. 51 xxxviii is within the Australian Constitution, as Cov Cl 9 of the Australian Constitution Act is invalid in 5 ways:

    1. The Australian Constitution Act 1901, clearly states in the Preamble that it is empowered " under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  The s. 51 xxxviii, cannot and does not have affect as to the Preamble.

    2. The Australian people, under the Common Law, hold the sovereignty of the nation. 

    3. The Australian Constitution, Cov, Cl 9, recognises the sovereignty of the people in s. 128 re alteration.

          And the Preamble begins  "We, the people.....(of the Australian colonies)....... etc.   So the Australian Constitution Act [under the Queen of UK of GB & Ire.] begins with the people in the   Preamble and ends with the people [& the Queen of UK of GB & Ire.] in s. 128 re Alteration.

    4. As the Australia Act 1986 purports and does obliterate the role of the Queen of UK of GB & Ire. in Australia                

               --- that is the Queen of UK of GB & Ire., is now seen as the Head of a foreign power by and under the Australia Act 1986.

               _ _ The Queen of UK of GB & Ire. has been advised by devious so called Australian Counsellors, that Her role as the

               upholder of the Common Law and common laws the people so chose (Her Coronation Oath 1953) shall cease.

   5. The Australia Act 1986 put to the Queen, by Counsellors who by sworn Oath as members of their relevant State and federal Parliaments, viz.

        SCHEDULE to the Constitution (Cov Cl 9) : "I __  ___ do swear I will be faithful to Her Majesty, Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. {So help me God} " Or a like Affirmation.  

               These evil Councillors, have no power or authority from the Australian people, to seek the Queen, as the Crown of UK of GB & Ire., to destroy Her Oath, and thus the rule of Common Law and common laws so chosen (in Australia by Australians) and She cannot absolve herself from Her responsibility to the Australian people, without the informed consent of Her Australian people.

              These various Councillors, claiming to be backed by the members of Parliaments, have by these devious means, have not represented the true view of the the people of Australia to the Queen, and have thus made the whole plan of, federation and becoming the Commonwealth of Australia, i.e The Constitution of Australia Act, a vacant document. It no longer has its working parts : GG appointed by Queen, under the Crown of UK of GB & Ire., hence no federal Parliament can be prorogued:  No member of Federal Parliament or a State Parliament is able to swear their Oath of Office to the reigning Crown of UK of GB & Ire.: The High Court is now set up as a STAR CHAMBER, self appointed -- the High Court Justices cannot make their Oath of Office. The present situation post Australia Act 1986, is that no Judge or Justice is able the swear their allegiance to Q E II, as Crown of the UK of GB & Ire. as the said Queen has been conjoled by evil Australian Counsellors to retreat from Her position as Queen of Australia as the Crown of UK of GB & Ire, and replace it with the nominal position of Queen of Australia.

    The title QUEEN OF AUSTRALIAN is purely nominal. The Parliaments have now accepted the authority of this Queen of Australia. Where is this so called "Queen"-- is it Priscilla, Queen of the desert ? The nation is now in a condition of stateless and rudderless confusion. The efforts of these devious and evil counsellors have left Australian state and nation in complete disarray.

   No wonder, Paul Keating said we are a "banana repulic" .  Not only that we are called the "white trash of Asia".

    Now, why have we the Q E II our coins and notes. Is this the "Queen of Australia", so called? On our stamps ? Or is this the residual control of the British Australian Treasury, courtesy of the Bank of England; The Treasury of Australia resides in England.  What of our Crown lands: are the 'wastelands' -- those lands outside habitated areas - are still controlled by the Crown of the UK of GB & Ire.

  When you know that 1/6th of the lands of Earth are controlled or owned by the British Crown, much of it in Q E II personal possession, estate, then you start to laugh at how, we the people of Australia, have been sold into slavery, without our knowledge and consent.  

 Do you really think that the British establishment, behind the British Crown with so many asset worldwide would allow Q E II to wander off to Australia so as to give away one of Britain's jewels in the Crown. The mining interests of CRA (Conzinc Rio Tinto) belong or strongly attached to the British Crown, or BP Petroleum in like manner, would they and TNCs (Transnational Corp.) allow the colonial asset of the Continent of Australia to become controlled by their own colonials ? NEVER. In 1900, the British, especially the Bank of England, maintained rigid controls on the Austalian colonies, and then in the new Commonwealth of Australia.

 We the Australian people and parliaments now believe we are independent, yet no authority in Australian can tell us the date of independence, because we are NOT independent. The British authorities do not need to tell us anything, because it is part of the price for proclamation and forming the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 --- We are UNDER THE CROWN of UK of GB & Ire., and still are.

   In March 1986, the Queen of UK of GB & Ire. signed a document purporting to do certain things to grant us our independence and sovereignty. However, this attempt is Ultra Vires of the The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (UK) July 1900, which the British Parliament and Crown of UK of GB & Ire, passed into law. It simply was a great furphy which these evil Councillors thought they had consummated, and is a grand delusion of that has occupied the mind of colonial power moguls since at least 1855 when local government was granted to NSW, Victoria and Tasmania.

 However, the British version of the Australia Act 1986, is different in that it DOES NOT present the Commonwealth of Australia as as a sovereign, independent, federal nation.

  The only way the people of Australian and the Queen of UK of GB & Ire. is for the people and the Queen to mutually agree. The only way is for the Coronation Oath be transferred in a manner satisfactory to the Queen and the Australian people.  Thus, to guarantee that Common Law and the common laws are upheld and maintained in Australia. Today (2018) the Common Law courts have been abolished in the period 1986 to this day.  How then can the Queen trust these evil Councillors, going by the evidence given of what these evil Councillors are doing since 1986; to do so against that which She promised in 1953, at Her Coronation and Oath.

  Note:  Kirby J. stated in the HCA 67, 13 Nov. 2003  Appeal A. G. of W.A. & Anors v Lawrence B Marquet

               Including: Kirby's observation re invalidity of Australia Act 1986.

1                        "Not infrequently, this Court is called upon to resolve ambiguities concerning the meaning of the written law. Construed one way, the law respects and upholds fundamental rights. Construed another, it impinges upon them and diminishes them. In cases of such a kind, this Court, and courts throughout the common law world, usually prefer the construction of the written law that upholds fundamental rights. The reason for this preference has been explained in several ways – by assumptions about parliamentary "intention", and by insistence that those who make laws that diminish the basic or fundamental rights of citizens ensure that their purpose is absolutely clear so that they wear any opprobrium (and carry the political accountability) for such diminution." EQ

2                  Kirby J says the challenge using one part of the Constitution - the saving of State Constitutions -- by using another part s. 51 xxxviii, to thwart the will of the people, in this case the Australia Act 1986, is considered a very devious and dangerous action, in denial of s 128 where the will of the people is involved. and a predecedent for destruction of that 'will of the people.

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

1                 

 The federal Parliament and High Court have, by devious and unconstitutional means, have changed the whole meaning of our federation under the Queen of UK of GB & Ire. What is needed is a change or changes agreed to by the people and the Queen of UK of GB & Ire.

WE now have a group people, as MPs and High Court judges who have subverted our Constitution.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  1998 '99 and all that:      the republic debate ?

 In 1891, NSW Premier, George Dibbs, said it was inevitable that Australia would become a republic. In 1991, Prime Minister, Bob Hawke said Australia becoming a republic was inevitable. Yet, in 2018, we remain a constitutional monarchy under the Monarch of UK of GB & Ire.

 In 1998, the federal Government decided to call a "republican convention" with the intent of testing the peoples of the States and the Commonwealth by referendum, conducted in 1999, as to their opinion and desire for Australia to become a republic.

 The 'republican' convention gave "in principle" support for Australia to becoming a Republic with a President appointed by the federal Parliament.

    The result:   National vote (12,392,040)   ~ 55 % NO.

NSW 53.5% NO;   

Vic. 50.2%  NO;  

Q'ld 62.5 % NO; 

WA 58.5%  NO ; 

SA 56.4 % NO; 

Tas. 59.7% NO; 

NT  51.2% NO:   and 

ACT 63.3% YES. 

     What is more, the proposal to change the preamble to the Australia Constitution Act 1900 (& 1901) were even more emphatically denied by the people.

   From this debate, and the referendum, one can see the importance of Kirby J discussion re the unconstitutionality of  The Australia Act 1986. The 1999 referendum, giving a negative vote, to any such proposal to a republic, in fact made the Australia Act 1986, ultra vires  and thus null and void, and thus of no affect !

https://larryhannigan.com/government-federal/lawyers-sheriffs-excluded-from-parliament/

07 Lawyers & Sheriffs Excluded from Parliament

HALSBURY’S STATUTES OF ENGLAND

46 Edward III  AD 1372

80. Lawyers and Sheriffs excluded from Parliament

WHEREAS men of the law who follow divers businesses in the king’s courts on behalf of private persons, with whom they are, do procure and cause to be brought into parliament many petitions in the name of the commons, which in no wise relate to them, but only the private persons with whom they are engaged; also sheriffs who are common officers for the people, and ought to be abiding in their office, for the doing right to every one, are named, and have heretofore been and returned to parliament knights of the shires, by the same sheriffs; it is accorded and assented in this parliament, that hereafter no man of the law following business in the king’s court, nor any sheriff for the time that he is sheriff, be returned nor accepted knights of the shires; nor that they who are men of the law and sheriffs now returned to parliament have any wages; but the king willeth that knights and sergeants of the most worthy of the county be hereafter returned knights in parliament; and that they be elected in full county.

Luk_11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. 

 https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-parliament-of-australian-lawyers,5652

How many lawyers are in Australia's Parliament? Too bloody many, says five-time Walkley Award winning Australian investigative journalist Evan Whitton.(Image via thesimpsons.com)

Q. How many lawyers would be in the Australian Parliament if they had the same percentage there as they do of the general population?

A. A little less than half a lawyer.

To be precise: O.452 of a lawyer. That is, lawyers are one-fifth of one per cent of the population, and the Parliament has 226 members, 150 in the House and 76 in the Senate.

Q. How many lawyers are actually in the Parliament (not counting the Labor six making a graceful exit: Julia Gillard, Simon Crean, Stephen Smith, Nicola Roxon, Peter Garrett, Robert McClelland.)?

A. 60 (26.5%.)

Voters might find the number dispiriting. A July 2013 Reader’s Digest poll found that Australian lawyers are less trusted than police, bus drivers, hairdressers, waiters and cleaners. Of trusted professions, lawyers placed 39th, journalists 43rd (thanks Rupert), talk-back radio hosts 44th and prostitutes 46th.

Three below sex workers, at 49th, politicians ? presumably including lawyer-politicians ? did not run stone, motherless last. At 50th, that honour fell to door-to-door salespeople.

Why are lawyers so distrusted?

A couple of possibilities:

Luke 7:30 ESV / 3 helpful votes

But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

So why are lawyers barred from entering politics??????????

Hofstra law professor Monroe Freedman wrote in 2006:

... there are circumstances in which a lawyer can ethically make a false statement of fact to a tribunal, can ethically make a false statement of material fact to a third person, and can ethically engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.'

Of course, Monny got the American Bar Association’s highest award for his writings on ethics.

Lawyers are in charge of evidence in the adversary system in England and its former colonies — such as Australia, the United States and India. That is, lawyers who claim to be ethically entitled to lie have the job of gathering and presenting evidence and questioning witnesses.

Known liars and deceivers!!!!!!!!!!111

Also one cannot swear an oath of allegiance to two masters!!!!!!!!!11

Why the panic????????/

Apart from hanging for treason!!!!

This………

 https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s46.html

 Commonwealth Consolidated Acts

[Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Act] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 46

Penalty for sitting when disqualified

                  Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.

 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback             

 Larissa Waters, other Australian senator resign for citizenship violations

edition.cnn.com/2017/07/18/asia/australia-senators-resign/index.html

1.     Jul 18, 2017 - Two Australian senators from the same political party have resigned within the ... or the House of Representatives, according to the Australian constitution. ... Second Australian senator forced to resign over dual citizenship violation ... with my party and of course my family," she said at her news conference.

 Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam: What do their resignations mean for ...

www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/why-have-larissa-waters-and-scott.../8720814

1.     Jul 18, 2017 - Mr Ludlam holds dual citizenship with New Zealand and Australia. ... Under section 44 of the Australian constitution, which governs eligibility for ... or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power". Dual ... Here's a look at her politicalcareer up to now.

Greens senator Scott Ludlam resigns over failure to renounce dual ...

www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-14/senator...constitution-dual-citizenship/8708606

1.     Jul 13, 2017 - Scott Ludlam held dual citizenship which made him ineligible to sit as a ... Section 44 of the constitution disqualifies potential candidates from ... to the Parliament of Australia if they hold dual or plural citizenship. ... resignation means for the Senate and the Greens (ABC News) ..... What a week in US politics.

Dual citizenship explainer: why does Scott Ludlam have to resign ...

https://www.theguardian.com ? World ? Australia ? Scott Ludlam

1.     Jul 14, 2017 - Scott Ludlam's New Zealand citizenship has forced him to resign as a ... the Greens senator Scott Ludlam may have ended his political career. You could be forgiven for asking why, when millions of Australians hold dual citizenship, they are barred ... The constitution makes it plain that election is barred for:.

 43. Member of one House ineligible for other

A member of either House of the Parliament shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the other House

44. Disqualification

Any person who:

1. is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or
2. is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or
3. is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
4. holds any …..office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or

https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/liberal-leadership-the-business-of-being-lucy-turnbull-20150915-gjn88r.html

The ascension of Malcolm Turnbull to the top job in Australia may seem like a big deal for most, but along with his wife, Lucy, the formidable duo are used to being on top.

·        Jessica Gardner and Lisa Cox

 1) has any….. direct or indirect ……..pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;

 The Turnbulls' wealth and conflicts of interest

www.smh.com.au ? Comment ? Editorials

1.     Oct 16, 2015 - Labor's focus was the Prime Minister's money in the Cayman Islands ... Mr Turnbullstill has several directorships of private companies which ...

Liberal leadership: The business of being Lucy Turnbull

www.smh.com.au ? Business ? Markets

1.     Sep 15, 2015 - The ascension of Malcolm Turnbull to the top job in Australia may seem ... Two Australian-listed small-cap companies, Prima BioMed and .... Money and power ... the lead-up to the 2007 election to avoid any potential conflict of interest. ... "I don't have private equity investments any longer because a) I'm in ...

Malcolm Turnbull withdraws $1m from US hedge fund that exploits ...

www.dailytelegraph.com.au/...turnbull.../972c7737780fe4c98ffdde6832c053d6

Nov 28, 2016 - PRIME Minister Malcolm Turnbull has withdrawn more than 1 million ... Mr Turnbulllists all of his investments in the parliamentary pecuniary interest register. ... It is standard for privatehedge funds and superannuation firms to invest in ... political donations from — a fund that mademoney from homes that ...

Malcolm Turnbull is investor in biggest commerical property deal of the ...

www.afr.com/.../malcolm-turnbull-is-investor-in-biggest-commerical-property-deal-o...

1.    Feb 19, 2015 - Australia's second-richest parliamentarian, Malcolm Turnbull, has a direct financialinterest in what could be the biggest property deal of the ... 

2.  shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.   

But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen's Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen's navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter1/Part_IV_-_Both_Houses_of_the_Parliament

46. Penalty for sitting when disqualified

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Who wants to take a class action??????????

for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.

And they have to pay back all…..ALL….monies taken while in office!!!!!!!!!!1

Hence their need (government) to get rid of the constitution…..anyway possible

Luk_11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. 

Furthermore, God says in the Quran:

"Woe to every scorner and mocker, who collects wealth and (continuously) counts it. He thinks that his wealth will make him immortal. No! He will surely be thrown into the Crusher. And what can make you know what is the Crushers? It is the fire of God, (eternally) fueled, Which mounts directed at the hearts. Indeed, it (Hellfire) will be closed down upon them in extended columns." (Quran 104:1-9)

 Isaiah 10:2

Verse Concepts

So as to deprive the needy of justice And rob the poor of My people of their rights, So that widows may be their spoil And that they may plunder the orphans.

Luke 7:30 ESV / 3 helpful votes

But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

46 Edward III AD 1372 80.

Lawyers and Sheriffs excluded from any Parliament

Lawyers and Sheriffs excluded from any ParliamenWHEREAS men of the law who follow divers businesses in the king’s courts on behalf of private persons, with whom they are, do procure and cause to be brought into parliament many petitions in the name of the commons, which in no wise relate to them, but only the private persons with whom they are engaged; also sheriffs who are common officers for the people, and ought to be abiding in their office, for the doing right to everyone, are named, and have heretofore been and returned to parliament knights of the shires, by the same sheriffs; it is accorded and assented in this parliament, that hereafter no man of the law following business in the king’s court, nor any sheriff for the time that he is sheriff, be returned nor accepted knights of the shires; nor that they who are men of the law and sheriffs now returned to parliament have any wages; but the king willeth that knights and sergeants of the most worthy of the county be hereafter returned knights in parliament; and that they be elected in full county.

So I think that this should be looked into to. As far as old law been deleted or out of date sorry they haven't had a referendum to change anything,

The Hidden Power of private person and natural person Webinar

https://private-person.com/blog/?p=4453 Intro/Overview Webinar MANY freedom folk…youtube.com

https://youtu.be/EsofPJxN2TU