It is essential that people not react to Howard's Aus-division-of-the-global-4th-Reich legislation with FEAR. These powermongers have little if any power themselves..... Don't be fooled by the prop-agenda!

John Howard's Anti-Terrorist laws are void; and any such laws passed by the States are similarly void


"Just look at us. Everything is backwards. Everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information, and religion destroys spirituality." - Micheal Ellner

Commentaries on the legality of proposed legislation

Australia has no major laws that are not derivatives of English Law and all of our major laws rely on British court precedents for interpretation and implementation. These laws and our Constitutional Monarchy system create a situation where, even if Howard and all State Premiers vote unanimously on the Anti-Terrorist laws, and every ALP/Dem/Lib/Nat/Green party hack also votes unanimously on their laws, and even if such laws are given Royal Assent, those laws are still void.


Do ancient inherited laws overrule State and Federal law?

Ponder this precedent dragged up from the 17th Century and used in the High Court in 1991.

Dillon v. Plenty (1991) 171. CLR 635: The case in a nutshell - Police enter farmer Plenty's property to serve a summons on Plenty's daughter. She isn't there. They are told that they are trespassing and ordered to leave. They don't comply. Plenty assaults the officers with a piece of wood to convince the officers to leave. Big trouble. He is charged with assault and convicted. After a long legal battle the High Court of Australia admits the police did trespass. The assault charge is dropped because the force used was appropriate. The High Court awarded Plenty $167,000 in damages and the officers did not damage a weed.

The starting point is the judgement of Lord Camden LCJ in Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029 at 1066: "By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing. If he admits the fact, he is bound to shew by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him."

As Lord Denning MR said in Southam v. Smout (1964) 1 QB 308 at 320, adopting a quotation from the Earl of Chatham: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter - all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. So be it - unless he has justification by law."

These laws are there to protect us from our own government, police and bureaucrats. All Australians should be taught, lest these laws fall into disuse, and men like Howard, Beattie and Co start bending the rules as Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler and Mao did. These are the facts.

Politicians are Immune

State and Federal politicians who write such laws cannot be sued or prosecuted because they have immunity. The Bill of Rights 1689 states: "The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;" The Bill of Rights is still in force in Australia (Findings - Constitutional Commission) so the politician's immunity only exists for what they say or do inside the walls of Parliament House.

Public Officers are vulnerable

Police officers, jailers, judges, magistrates and public officials have no such immunity under Statute Law. Under the Nuremberg Convention obeying orders is no defence. Officials must obey superior law which is; "all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come." (Bill of Rights 1689). Note: The words, "in all times to come" are a sunset clause. This clause makes the Bill of Rights an entrenched law, one which cannot be amended or repealed until the sunset clause expires.

Our rights must be upheld

There is one other Bill that is entrenched. That is the Magna Carta 1297 which is in force for ever, "the men in our kingdom shall have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights and concessions well and peacefully, freely and quietly, fully and completely, for themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs, in all matters and in all places for ever". Note the sunset clause which stops the Federal or State governments passing legislation to the contrary.

What laws prevail?

All governments tend to go crazy and want to totally control people, tell them what to think, who to vote for, and put dissenters away. This is hard when we have trial by jury under the Australian Constitution: "80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed." Howard's mad desire to jail people and hold them without trial or even access to legal representation is also a crime against humanity and International Law. Trial by judges appointed by Australian political parties for their allegiances is unacceptable.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Howard's Anti-Terror laws are in breach of nearly every provision of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that pertain to legal rights. This declaration states: "Now, therefore, The General Assembly Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction." -  http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Howard's law sets back the evolution of justice by 800 years to the dark ages where mad dictators freely destroyed men's liberties and lives. Many of our soldiers died fighting to keep our country free of communism, fascism, and dictatorship. Our children shouldn't have to die freeing Australia from Howard's Nazis.

Failure to ensure justice

Howard has allowed David Hicks to be mistreated, tortured, held indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay, and denied Australian and United States justice. Howard has ignored the Geneva Convention and allowed Hicks to be denied Prisoner of War status. If we expect Australian soldiers, captured by Muslims, to be treated with mercy and dignity then we must treat those we capture accordingly.

Mercenaries

Any civilian or foreign soldier in Iraq is a mercenary, a paid killer, an invader - trespassing on the soil of Iraq. David Hicks was there out of conscience - not for money. Whether we agree with his conscience matters little. Mercenaries have no such conscience.

The US has 11,000 green card marines on active duty in Iraq. These are not US citizens. They are lured into the military by promises of college education, post-service career and fast-track US citizenship. (New Dawn magazine Sep-Oct 05)

Tit-For-Tat

We must never reach the level of animals. Soldiers are victims of their own political leaders who order them to invade. We see video clips of villagers hacking captured US pilots to death with sticks and hoes, pouring petrol on them, dragging them broken and burning though that streets, still hacking, stabbing and spitting on the mutilated corpses. One can understand their anger and grief as the villagers hold up their bombed, burned and mutilated children so the world can see what our troops do to them. We are there. They are not here. It is their country.

Illegal invasion

Howard sent our troops to Iraq illegally. He has no power to send any troops anywhere and he cannot legally appoint Cosgrove or anyone else as the Commander of Our Armed Forces. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. No Iraqis were involved in 9-11. Bush wanted oil. The Australian Constitution states: "68. The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative."

Perspective

When Howard talks about his party or even the Parliament being the Government, he misleads the people. Our forefathers opted for a system of government where nobody had total power. In 1688 they gave Parliament the power to write legislation and took that power away from the Crown by legislating, "That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;" (Bill of Rights 1688). But they also took from the Parliament any power to pass a Bill into law. That power was reserved to the Crown.

There was good reason for this safeguard. All of our entrenched laws are held in place by the Coronation Oath 1688. It is an enforceable contract. No monarch can ascend the throne without swearing this oath to uphold the Statutes of the Realm which include the pidgeon-pair partner of the Coronation Oath 1688 i.e.- the Bill of Rights 1688 which confirms all Common Law and previous Statute Law rights.

Laws in place forever

The clincher that Howard's Anti-Terror laws are void lies in that summation of the Bill of Rights 1688 which states, "And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation be non obstante of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament." This means nothing could be changed after that sitting of parliament in 1688.

True Government

The Royal Prerogative is exercised by the Governor General. The Australian Constitution requires that: "61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth." All of Howard's legislation is as good as a second-hand mintie wrapper without Royal Assent.

Under common law

We have the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness (as we perceive happiness). The only limitation under common law is that our rights do not allow us to impinge upon the rights of others.

We cannot be compelled to incriminate ourselves. That means we do not have to answer any questions other than our name and address. Our spouses cannot be compelled either as we are one in law.

Trespass is illegal. If any officials asks to enter you say no. The laws that prohibit trespass are more powerful than the petty laws that say they can. The bureaucrats don't want us to know or test our laws. (Refer Dillon v. Plenty)

All public officers should be aware that no local, state or federal law can stop them being prosecuted and heavily fined under common law or entrenched law.

You cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself. That means you do not have to give your records.

Nobody can search your vehicle, person or property without a warrant. It is all bluff. They ask, "Can we come in." You do not say, "No." - You say, "Not without a warrant." You cannot be searched, using this excuse. You cannot even be breath or drug tested.

Under statute law

We cannot be put to trial "on the word of a bailiff alone without independent and reliable witness". That means neither a police officer nor any official can cause us to be put to trial without a complainant as witness.

We cannot be "dis-seized of our freehold" (our property).

We do not have to prove our innocence. The Crown must prove guilt.

Proof that not all laws are legal

Quick & Garrans - Law Reference Book (It is the Expanded Australian Constitution) says: "Not all enactments purporting to be laws made by the Parliament are binding; but laws made under, in pursuance of, and within the authority conferred by the Constitution, and those only, are binding on the courts, judges, and people." A law in excess of the authority conferred by the Constitution is no law; it is wholly void and inoperative: it confers no rights, it imposes no duties; it affords no protection. Norton v. Shelby County, (1886) 118 US 425; see note & 447 "Power of the Parliament of a colony."

What is binding?

Quick & Garrans "The [Constitution] Act itself is binding without limitation or qualification because it is passed by the sovereign Parliament, but the laws passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, a subordinate Parliament, must be within the limits of the delegation of powers or they will be null and void."

To be valid and binding they (the laws) must be within the domain or jurisdiction mapped out and delimited in express terms, or by necessary implication, in the Constitution itself.

What is not granted to the Parliament of the Commonwealth is denied to it. What is not so granted is either reserved to the States, as expressed in their respective Constitutions, or remains vested but dormant in the people of the Commonwealth."

What does it all mean?

It means the politicians cannot make laws that impinge on the operation of any Higher Laws. It proves that we the people are the controllers and custodians of our laws. It means that any laws made outside the limits set by the Australian Constitution are not valid laws. It means the politicians are still subservient to the will of the people.

Laws unused will be abused

There is one problem. If you do not stand up and demand that politicians obey superior law then they will not obey any rule of law. It is up to you to make sure every Australian becomes aware of the laws politicians do not want us to know about.

The role of the jury

The jury is not there to decide whether a prisoner is guilty of an infringement of the written law. In 1670 the Crown lost that fight. William Penn (Quaker) was guilty under the King's Law. The Church, the King, the Parliament, the Mayor, the Army and the Judges demanded a "guilty" verdict. The jurors were starved, drenched with urine, smeared with faeces, fined, jailed and brutalized. They said "not guilty" because the law was wrong. That case set the standard and ended the power of the government forever. That is why Trial by Jury is a sacred right. No jury should ever sit without having full knowledge of their duty as jurors.

Our laws can be enforced

Public officers who think they can get away with implementing Howard's Anti-Terror laws should read Dillon v. Plenty. This case showed how useless Statute Law was when tested against Common Law. There is no immunity. But - If victims are unaware of their rights and how to redress wrongs Nazi style government officers will get away with abuse and our children will inherit the evil government our forefathers fought and died to cure.

The downside

The judiciary has been gradually stacked with men and women of doubtful merit – persons chosen on their loyalty to the government of the day and not their allegiance to the oath of office they must swear. Herein lies a problem. When political parties appoint judges the whole independence of the judiciary is compromised. In the fifties and sixties the chosen (as in the British Foreign Office) were invariably homosexuals who could be blackmailed into any action required by the behind-the-scenes controllers of politicians. Gay behavior has become so commonplace the chosen now are more often paedophiles. Of the five paedophiles known to ARCOSS (Police Paedophile Taskforce) in the Queensland government in the 90's, only two have been charged and jailed.

Appointment of judges

Political Parties should not select judges. The Australian Constitution says: "72. The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament - (i.) Shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council:"

The criteria the Governor General must meet is outlined in the Magna Carta: "(45) We will not make justices, constables, sheriffs or bailiffs save of such as know the law of the kingdom and mean to observe it well."

Our judiciary does not know the laws nor do they observe them well.

Legislation is not automatically irreversible

When the Governor General becomes aware that any Bill is in breach of our laws it is his duty to withhold assent. If he makes an error and gives Royal Assent to an evil law, it is his duty to notify the Queen. She must repeal the Law. The Australian Constitution says: "59. The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known."

Another downside

The major parties have convinced Buckingham Palace that the Queen must only appoint a Governor-General upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Australia. That is like giving the fox the keys to the hen house. The Governor-General is there to vet legislation. He is not a rubber stamp. He must sack the parliament if either or both Houses become corrupt.

Sir John Kerr was the last honest Governor-General and, despite media lies and brain washing, he did what the people asked and gave them a chance to re-elect or sack Whitlam and his bunch of crooks. We sacked them by our votes in a free and open election. It remains to be seen whether Sir Michael Jeffery is a lame duck Governor-General who toadies to the Liberals and passes illegal laws. If you do not send this information to him outlining his duties and the laws he must consider then he can claim that he didn't know he was betraying the people of Australia by passing Howard's Anti-Terrorist laws.

His email is:  governor-general@gg.gov

Action

Responsibility rests with you. Will you tell your children, your friends, even your enemies, beware - John Howard's Anti Terrorist Laws are a danger to our society. Print this, copy it, post it, fax it, and email it everywhere. Do not stop until Howard and the pathetic premiers are exposed as the enemies of the Rile of Law, the wondrous laws that our forefathers bequeathed unto us.

A. R. (Tony) Pitt, 79 Ferry St, Maryborough Qld 4650 - Ph 07 4122 1412 - Email:  PaToPitt@bigpond.net

www.interthai.net/enslegis2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&...

Did you know that the Government defines you as an Enemy Subject?

"There is a theory known as the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (TCD) which holds that the mind involuntarily rejects information not in line with previous thoughts and/or actions. Brace yourself, the following message may be entirely different from anything you believed to be true heretofore. If you are unaware, you are unaware of being unaware." - Merrill Jenkins

You are an Enemy of the State

Since the introduction of the Amendatory Act on March 9, 1933 to the U.S. version of the Trading With the Enemy Act October 6, 1917, the United States government has formally been at war with the sovereign men and women (private citizens) of that nation.

Not surprisingly the Commonwealth of Australia has followed suit with its version of the Trading With the Enemy Act September 9, 1939. Both the U.S. and Australian versions use the legal-fiction artifice of the "right to presume" on your behalf. In doing so they assign every new born baby with a nom de guerre via the information obtained on the form for registration of births. The registration of live birth document is in-fact an admiralty/maritime commercial contract known as a bottomry bond. From that moment in time - and without you being aware of the ramifications - you willingly perpetuate the existence of your nom de guerre, the fictitious all-capital letters Trade-Name depicted on your birth certificate.

Nom de Guerre

Nom de Guerre: (noun) a fictitious name used when the person performs a particular social role; a pseudonym, an alias; literally a war name; hence, a false name, or one assumed for a time.

Under International Law, all parties to a cause must appear by nom de guerre, because an "alien enemy cannot maintain an action during the war in his own name". See Alien, Wharton's, Pennsylvania Digest, § 20.94 and the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd. ed., Clarendon Press (1989).

It is by international doctrine that the use of a nom de guerre would indicate a state of war. Is it by the government's use of personas through fictitious names, with the enforcement of obedience (admiralty jurisdiction) by vi et armis (a kind of trespass accompanied by force and violence) that we can know that the government, public law, public servants are waging war against the sovereign men and women.

The facts in this matter seem to bear this out. An exhaustive description of this "economic war" against the sovereign men and women of the united states of America (original jurisdiction) by the United States of America (corporate) can be found in the Digest of International Law, Volume 10, and pages 95-127. It is here that we will find that the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the Treasury - all of which are in agreeance with the unlawful administrative orders of the President - conduct an "Alien Enemy Program"; the sole purpose of which is to unconstitutionally seize the properties of all men and women, militarily, with the aid of such maritime hypothecations as a bottomry bond.

Bottomry Bond

A bottomry contract may be written out in any form which sufficiently shows the conditions agreed upon between the parties; but it is usually drawn up in the form of a bond which confers a maritime lien (q.v.). The lender may transfer the bond by indorsation, in the same manner as a bill of exchange or bill of lading, and the right to recover its value becomes vested in the indorsee.

Roman Novation

We must address the scheme that was known to the Romans as "novation", which simply meant the remodeling of an old obligation and then substituting the old debt for a new one. As novation is nothing other than when the Romans militarily conquered a Nation, they assigned to the citizens, thereto, a "persona". This role, that one assumed or displayed in public or society - as distinguished from the inner self (volition) - when brought before the Roman courts was required to seek counsel. As a persona is without the corporal hereditaments required to defend itself. These courts were in actuality nothing other than King's Bench, Consular, Military courts that were operating under admiralty/maritime hypothecations.

I only mention this because of all the parallels that have been drawn into our currently predicament from the various corporate governments of today. Personas, i.e. masks, are created to hide from view the sovereign man or woman. Under the "Alien Enemy Program" your nom de guerre is used internationally to address your persona.

www.interthai.net/enslegis2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&...