Dear Kerry, "The referenum had no status in law"? Only by a referendum was there a Draft Bill of 1897. That is a fact. The law is what the people is the law. The Draft Bill said the Constitution could not be altered except by referendum. That is a fact. For a Parliament (Imperial or Domestic) to impose any law (including the Constitution 1900) without the consent of the People is not Democracy - that is Tryanny. Any law which is a bad law must and will be rejected by a jury which is a tribunal of the People. The "sign(ing of) the Covenant of the League of Nations is an HISTORIC and not a LEGAL fact"? Kerry, I think you've lost the plot. If something is a fact, it is the truth. It's not just the Murphy letters which "claim that when sovereignty is proclaimed all colonial law ceases in international law". That is what "sovereignty" means......no foreign laws imposed on a sovereign state!! "the accepted law is that upon acquiaition of a country by a new sovereign the old law is not removed or diminished but remains in force until modified by the new sovereign"? What, like Julius Caesar conquering Gaul? When the High Court talks about "the general rule was that the laws of the country continued after the conquest until those laws were altered by the conqueror" one must accept that judges in the High Court are perverse and extremely suspect - their rulings are not to be taken with any credulity. "law is a continuos thread until changed."? Signing the Covenant of the League of Nations changed our colonial laws. It extinguished them. "The passing of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act was recognition of England's continuing authority"? Australia did not adopt the Statute of Westminster 1931 until 1942 for the reasons I explained, ie: to get our troops back to defend this country against the Japs. That was a matter of expediency. The Statute of Westminster is, in reality, a furfy/ a bluff because they knew Australia was indeed a sovereign nation but wouldn't admit it. "effect on the State Constitutions"? All the States' Constitutions have the Crown of the UK as the "legislature" (not the Houses of the Parliaments) vested with the executive power to make laws, ie: the same as it has federally. Therefore, no Crown = no power to make laws. Kerry, no amount of legal double talk changes reality. Australia is in a Constitutional Vacuum. It's about time we installed one and one which will protect the People against corrupt politicians and judges. Yours sincerely, John Wilson. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, October 25, 1999 6:37 PM Subject: Your draft as requested with commentary >AUSTRALIA�S CONSTITUTIONAL VACUUM > >The Draft Bill to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1897 >wanted Australia to be able to make and enter into treaties >which is the function of a sovereign, independent and fully- >governing nation. The Parliament of the United Kingdom said >�No� and kept Australia as a colony, made this and other >alterations and passed the subsequent Act of 1900 which was >never put to a referendum of the Australian people. > >[The referendum had no status in law. It is the Act of the >Imperial Parliament that created Federal Australia. They could >have done it with not referendum at all!!] > >Australia signed the Covenant of the League of Nations (Articles >1-30 of the Treaty of Versailles) and took its place in the >Assembly as an independent nation over which foreign laws >could never again be imposed. This meant that the UK Act to >constitute the Commonwealth of Australia was made null and >void. Australia has not yet written its own Constitution. > >[Yes, it is true that Australia did sign with the League of Nations >in 1920 as an independent nation. This however is an >HISTORICAL and not a LEGAL fact. The Murphy Letters >extend this to claim that when sovereignty is proclaimed all >colonial law ceases in international law. > >However the accepted law is that upon acquisition of a country >by a new sovereign the old law is not removed or diminished but >remains in force until modified by the new sovereign. The >common law, as stated by the Australian High Court, is that > >"[i]n the case of a conquered country, the general rule was that >the laws of the country continued after the conquest until those >laws were altered by the conqueror. The Crown had a >prerogative power to make laws for a conquered country >although that power was subject to Laws enacted by the >Imperial Parliament. The same rule applies to ceded colonies, >though the prerogative may have been limited by the treaty of >cession". ( Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 >Justice Breenan J at 35; See also Justice Deane and Gaudron at >79) > >Law is a continuous thread until changed.] > >In 1931 the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Statute of >West Minister which was �An Act it give effect to certain >resolutions passed by Imperial Conference held in the years >1926 and 1930...that no law hereafter made by the Parliament >of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions >as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request >and with the consent of that Dominion. > >Because Australia was already independent, Australia ignored >the Statue of Westminster as being relevant. > >In World War II Australia forces were in Europe were in >Europe and Africa under the command of the UK Parliament. >However , in 1942 Australia came under the threat of a >Japanese invasion . The UK Prime Minister, Mr. Winston >Churchill would not release the Australian troops to return to >defend their country. The Australia Prime Minister, Mr. John >Curtain, rather than openly declare that the Australian >Constitution was invalid from the time of the signing of the Treaty >of Versailles, passed the Statute of Westminster Act Adoption >Act in order to circumvent Mr. Churchill�s hold . Australian >troops returned. > >[The passing of the the Statute of Westminster Act Adoption >Act was recognition of England�s contining authority ] > >The Australian Acts of 1986 were another ploy to disguise the >fact that there has been no Australian Federal or State >Constitutions since the sign of the Treaty of Versailles. > >[Even if your arguement is correct how can it have any effect on >the State Constitutions ?] > >The Referendum for 6 th November , 1999 is over a �false >instrument�(a defunct document) and an attempt by politicians >to not only hold onto their illegitimate authority (no constitution = >no Parliament) but to increase their power over the people. > >Written by J Wilson PO Box 4520 North Rocks NSW 2151 > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
