Do or does any one think that the senators read any mail from us mugs the
ordinary people. Philip
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 7:34 AM
Subject: Senators, States, and FWD: Our Inconsequential Referendum &
Unconstitutional Monarchy - What we were meant to miss (fwd)
> Dear Senator
>
> The following message was sent two weeks ago to many Australians,
including
> your parliamentary colleagues, and the media, so perhaps you have seen it
> despite the suppression of such evidence by most parties to the "Make sure
> you know the facts before you have your say." deception and fraud.
>
> Sadly most Senators had your say before you knew the facts. Now after
being
> deceived and misled by your partisan/political/bureaucratic leaders, you
> may feel publicly committed to something most other Australians (as they
> become informed, and get time to understand) will reject. Primitive
instincts
> for personal/partisan loyalties are easily aroused by dishonourable
'leaders'.
> They can mislead you to over-ride even your (and their) sworn oaths, and
> honourable intentions, to apply laws and democratic procedures necessary
> to sustain lasting and progressive nations, and whole civilisations.
>
> The above misleading is also evident in Mr Williams, one of the parties
> to the "Make sure you know the facts before you have your say" deception.
> He is cited as an author, who wrote "The monarch is the Queen, with the
> title Queen of Australia"; but subsequently he said that for the Queen,
> being "Queen of Australia" was "a second job, very much a part-time one
> at that". Intruduction of the titular "Queen of Australia" into a
referendum
> about the 'heirs and successors" of Queen Victoria, who are the only
monarchs
> mentioned in the constitution and the UK Act which makes it law (for both
> loyal and disloyal subjects), is part of the sabotage of the constitution
> which started in 1920.
>
> The sabotage has been taken up most vigorously by the Murdoch press, for
> example the Courier-Mail of 16 October, which editorialised about
Australians
> as "subjects" which we are not (unless, like officers of the Crown, we
submit)
> and the UNimportant "titular position" which picks up Mr Williams
treachery.
> Even more misleading was the C-M's misrepresentation of the the position
> of the States, both about a 'signalled' Queensland referendum, and the
"indissoluble
> Commonwealth" created UNDER THE CROWN, and defined by the UK Act.
Stupidly,
> in their efforts to confuse, these writers even confuse themselves, for
> example by referring to the pre-amble of the UK Act as the "Constitution's
> preamble", something Canberra's propaganda says doesn't exist!
>
> The cruel truth is the above sabotage has been possible because of WW1
diggers,
> whose efforts and sacrifices (along with those from other dominions) led
> the UK to recognise WW1 as a 'rite of passage' from colony to independent
> nation. Instead of celebrating their achievements 70 years ago, by
developing
> a suitable new constitution, in honest consultation with the people of
Australia,
> successive governments have exploited the trust of decent Australians to
> reduce their own political and legal accountability.
>
> While 'Our Inconsequential Referendum & Unconstitutional Monarchy - What
> we were meant to miss' focuses on the optimistic opportunities, you as
Senators
> will quickly understand the likely reactions, both of the rats being
cornered
> in their own traps, and the loyal descendents of those diggers (and
others)
> who will want their own 'justice' to settle the fate of treacherous
authors
> of the 'republic' proposal and their supporters. The way wide public
cynicism
> and anger towards 'politicians' is fanned by journalistic 'hacks', the
duty
> of Senators over the coming weeks, months and years will be onerous.
>
> Putting it simply, Senators can join the conspiracy of silence and
propaganda,
> or you can join the growing number of decent Australians trying to
understand
> and confront the treachery behind Our 'Inconsequential' Referendum. For
> better worse, the consequences will continue beyond the terms of your
election.
> One aspect of this conspiracy of silence and propaganda, is the
anti-democratic
> abuse of the (non-binding) constitution.
>
> A century ago, when the UK Crown recognised and protected the right to
self-
> determination by colonial subjects, no colony was compelled to join the
> federation under the Crown, and each held its own referendum. Hence WA
> almost remained outside with NZ. When 30+ years later, in another
referendum,
> WA subjects voted to secede, their freely determined will was frustrated
> by our unconstitutional Commonwealth, in sharp contrast to the democracy-
> respecting and protecting Crown.
>
> Now the unconstitutional Commonwealth intends to defy the will of the
people
> of States which vote to remain in the indissoluble "Commonwealth" created
> and defined by the UK Act, and define all six existing States as "The
original
> States". While less violent than Indonesia's annexation of East Timor,
> such anti-democratic abuse of the constitution, can only add to the unrest
> and tensions already dividing the rest of Australia from the self-serving
> Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne elites. These divisions could hardly come at a
> worse time for all Australians, but specially those descendents and
colleagues
> of WW1 diggers, once again fighting for democracy in a foreign, but much
> closer land.
>
> I am looking forward to the Senate, as both a 'States' house, and our more
> representative chamber, beginning their vital and sworn duty by restoring
> the rule of law, and hence executive accountability, peace and good
government,
> and confidence in our subverted democratic system. Of course you will
> need help but you can be sure that Abraham Lincoln's words ("Give the
people
> the truth, and they will save the nation.") are as true here and now, as
> they were there and then.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed Oct 06 09:19:30 GMT+10:00 1999
> Subject: Our Inconsequential Referendum & Unconstitutional Monarchy - What
> we were meant to miss
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> According to the full page advertisement 'Announcing the November 6
Referendums'
> the Electoral Commissioner has received writs issued by His Excellency the
> Governor-General on the following proposed laws: (Most of the rest of the
> the full page advertisement lists the details the "proposed law to ...
republic
> with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President ..."
>
> All pretty boring unless you were alerted by those ubiquitous
"Constitution"
> T-junction advertisements asking "Which way do you want to go?". Surely
> 'No' to the proposed law means 'straight on', not change direction. So
> why the T-junction and no "Constitution" if we choose to go 'straight on'?
> If you want to understand, read the so-called 'consequential amendment'
> to Section 126 of the "Constitution" in context of the following. The
existing
> Section 126 and its 'consequential' amendment are shown below.
>
>
> Existing Section 126
> The existing Section 126, in Chapter VII, MISCELLANEOUS is:
> "The Queen may authorise the Governor-General to appoint any person, or
> persons jointly or severally, to be his deputy or deputies within any part
> of the Commonwealth and in that capacity to exercise during the pleasure
> of the Governor-General such powers and functions of the Governor-General
> as he thinks fit to assign to such deputy or deputies, subject to any
limitations
> expressed or directions given by the Queen; but the appointment of such
> deputy or deputies shall not affect the exercise by the Governor-General
> himself of any power or function."
>
> 'Consequential' amendment
> According to the proposed law to establish a republic with the Queen and
> Governor-General being replaced by a President, the consequential
amendment
> would be: Repeal the (existing) section and substitute:
> "This Constitution, and all laws made by the Parliament shall be binding
> on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the
> Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State".
>
>
> It is interesting to compare the above with 'covering clause' 5 of the UK
> Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia:
> "This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under
> the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of
> every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding
anything
> in the laws of any State; ... "
>
> After reading the above three quotations, its hard to avoid at least three
> important conclusions:
>
> 1. The proposed amendment of Section 126 is NOT a consequential amendment,
> but a seriously misleading deception apparently intended (at least by
those
> MPs who voted for the bill) to conceal the legal truth that since
Australia
> became an independent nation, all laws made by the Parliament of the
Commonwealth
> under the Constitution, have not bound the courts etc! (Examples of the
> success of this deception are letters like Colin Laing's of Belbowrie,
published
> in the Courier-Mail on 5 October 1999; but don't expect the Murdoch
editors
> to publish the truth after they get their copy of this.)
>
> 2. With the above very serious and misleading deception 'hidden' under
"Miscellaneous"
> 'consequences' in the the proposed law to establish a republic, even the
> 'double majority' required by Section 128 before the Governor-General
could
> present it to the Queen for assent, would not prevent a void referendum.
> The proposed amendment of Section 126 is all too clearly NOT a
consequential
> amendment. (Even if a contrary decision of the High Court was binding
here,
> the Queen has both the common law of elections, and the advice of her
Privy
> Council, and would not be so foolish as the Governor-General.)
>
> 3. Until the people of Australia can freely express their informed will
> according to Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
> Australia is and remains an Unconstitutional Monarchy, with both its
inherent
> hazards (as demonstrated by the proposed law), and the almost unbounded
> opportunities for the good people of Australia to realise the vigorous
federal
> democracy conceived on the 19th century goldfields, but subverted for most
> of the 20th century by some of the worst people of Australia.
>
>
> If you want to contribute to the rebirth of that vigorous federal
democracy
> please forward this to as many as you can and discuss it with family and
> friends. You could try to involve your local newspapers, talk-back radio
> and even voluntary organisations. And don't forget local, state and
federal
> MPs (who are probably as ignorant as you about Section 126). Your federal
> MPs should get a copy of this, although some are 'too busy' to read such
> things even if their staff do try!
>
> You are also welcome to reply to this e-mail with queries and suggestions,
> but please don't expect all the answers. The answers (including the fate
> of treacherous authors of the 'republic' proposal and their supporters)
> can come only out of the free and informed democratic process themselves,
> and will be more exciting, and liberating of our oppressed battlers, than
> anything one individual (monarchy/tyranny), or group
(oligarchy/bureaucracy)
> could even imagine, let alone achieve.
>
> Of course if you are not yet ready for so much freedom, simply continue
> to acquiesce, and the Constitution is binding. For extra protection just
> submit to the UK laws, like all those who have taken the oath or
affirmation
> of allegience to Her Majesty, including Justice Hayne of the High Court,
> who in Joose v ASIC last December, resolved the question "what law is to
> be applied in the courts of Australia?" by reference to the above covering
> clause 5 of the UK Act.
>
> Finally if you are wondering why the anonymous e-mail; its mainly to keep
> attention on the message, NOT the messenger. If you want to reply
anonymously
> and/or privately, visit the hushmail site and open an account.
>
> Thanks for this opportunity
>
> Get HushMail. The world's first free, fully encrypted, web-based email
system.
> Speak freely with HushMail.... http://www.hushmail.com
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general
discussion.
>
> To unsubscribe click here
Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
> To subscribe click here
Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
>
> For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
> For archives
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
>
