|
To Joe Bryant Alternative Three To a Republican Revolting not a Revolting Republican Dear Joe Firstly I apologise for whatever it is I have done to you, which upsets you enough to make your disparaging remarks. As you intimate that it was the "last time" you are going to reply to me I can only assume that it is because I supported you in all of your endeavours before you created "Alternative Three" (except when put up and flew the U.N. and Aboriginal flag at Marlborough in the early nineties) and have not supported you since then. I hope it is only that, as I see very little wrong in disagreeing with someone else’s opinion but if it is anything else I am sorry as I have always respected your abilities and strength of character. I have always thought of you as a friend not an enemy. I have never tried to damage you. I believe that debate is educational for both parties and is a mutual educational service that we can do for one another. A long time ago wise Chinese philosopher said "If you are thinking a year ahead, sow a seed. If you are thinking ten years ahead, plant a tree. If you are thinking one hundred years ahead, educate Otherwise engaged trying to improve myself Secondly I must apologise for not being at this Brisbane forum that you mentioned I unfortunately didn’t know that you was going to be there or had anything to do with it. That alas is not my excuse. A man called McDermott phoned me at the beginning of this year and asked me to speak at a meeting he had planned for later in the year. I explained to him that I was still crippled from an accident that I had occurred in July 98. That I had burst a disk between my vertebra, I was initially paralysed below my chest, hospitalised and spent four months looking at the ceiling, I had progressed using a walking frame, medieval racking and spending hours hanging by the ankles. I told him I expected to have full recovery in the future and to phone me nearer the date. The next thing I heard about the affair was some weeks ago Ray Smyth from "Christians Speaking Out" phoned me and said I was on the speaking list for a meeting in Brisbane someone had posted him a copy and he was considering to give it a plug in his newspaper "Its Time". I got the phone number of the organisation who’s name I cannot recall, phoned Mr McDermott and reminded him in no uncertain terms that "He had promised to contact me before including me". He agreed that he did recall that was how the previous conversation had been concluded. I explained that I had not fully recovered and that I was unable to stand for more than five minutes at a time and transport over long distances was very difficult. I asked him to take my name off the list as it should n’t have been their in the first instance. He agreed and I left it at that, apparently by your comments my name was not removed from the list and the above was not explained at the meeting. I can only apologise for the above but I am sorry that I did not see you there. Thirdly I must apologise for the delay in replying as even though you say I do not know what being busy means, my work has to be my pleasure as I do nothing else but eat and sleep and both of them are strictly rationed. Unfortunately this was not on the top priority. I would have preferred to ask you in person the questions, that you have omitted to answer but as you say that was your last time to reply. So I can only guess your reasons why you quote from "The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Constitution" by Quick & Garren for substantiation in your third line of "The Concept of a written Constitution" and yet deny the procedure described in the chapter "The Federal Movement in Australia" pages 79 to 261 which lists the forty year history of Australia’s many referenda, conventions, debates and involvement in writing and framing the Australian Constitution which Quick and Garren were involved in. I can only guess your reasons for not fully explaining that the only amendment that was made to the draft Constitution by the Imperial Parliament was at request from Her Majesty Queen Victoria herself to allow appeals to the Privy Council in sub-section 74. With the words "this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council". A right to petition the Crown from the good old Bill of Rights, I seem to remember you espousing that right, maybe in your old loyalist days. What are the FACTS There are very few real facts that can be established as such. Most of what are called facts are opinions. To call a High Court Decision for instance a fact is nonsense. If you can read what someone said in the transcript or judgement that may have happened, but if that judgement or opinion are just someone’s opinion that is all they are not a fact. Courts and Parliaments constantly over turn their own decisions so basing a fact on any of their doings is untenable. If you accept that Captain Cook claimed ownership of Australia for the Crown we have something that we mutually agree on. If you accept that the Crown which was Queen Victoria at the time gave Royal Assent to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitutional Act of 1900. If you accept that document as the document which founded and set the guidelines for the Federal Parliament If recognize that we have three things we mutually agree on, we can progress from there but if you do not accept them it means that Australia is only a land mass, that it was never owned by the Crown, never a federation of States and the courts and parliament have never legally existed. So forgetting the fiction that Australia as a country does not exist, we recognize those three points, then if you wish to still advance the anonymous Murphies Furphies opinion you have to come up with a point of time when either there was a revolution, an invasion or the Crown surrendered its ownership of Australia. If neither of those things have happened and I think you would have to agree that is the case then the lawful situation has not changed since the Commonwealth of Australia Act Constitutional Act received assent. Receiving the title of Queen of Australia, no matter whose legislation bequeathed it, does not change the legal ownership of Australia.. A parliament of any of the British Commonwealths could bestow the title Empress of India or remove such a title it makes no difference to our Constitution or our legal position. The Constitution is a higher base of Law than what gets churned out of parliaments .No signing of a treaty, with the League of Nations or the UN changes the ownership of Australia or even your Crown land titles. The League of Nations and the United Nations has no power whatever that affects the ownership or law in Australia. If the Australian Politicians wish to support treaties that they have signed with any international bodies they have to pass legislation themselves here in Australian and it has to receive the Royal Assent. "If, the Federal Legislature could change the Constitution it might transform itself from a subordinate law-making body into an organ of sovereignty; it might destroy the federal system altogether, and substitute a consolidated form of government. A Federal Legislature is a mere creature of the Federal Constitution; it is a mere instrument or servant of a federal community; it is an agent, not a master. The Constitution is the master of the legislature, and the community itself is the author of the Constitution" (The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Constitution, by Quick & Garren,p988) Australian Politicians have the power to make treaties under Section, Sub -Section 51 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitutional Act, but no treaty they sign can affect the Crown ownership of Australia, just check it out on your deeds and title all land Freehold lease whatever all belongs to the Crown we lease it off the Crown in some cases with the terms "Pay a peppercorn a year if demanded" and of course the Crown does not need peppercorns so your title deeds are protected until of course the traitors make us into an illegal republic. Then no one knows who may own the land but there is one thing for certain you won’t. No letter from a Monarch, if it even exists, can renounce all the "indissoluble" ties to the Crown of the United Kingdom. Even if the Monarch abdicates, the Crown cannot divorce itself from Australia, they take an oath to protect us on their Coronation, they cannot remove themselves from our Constitution. Even if the Monarch gives assent to the legislation installing a Australian republic she or he would be in breach of their Coronation Oath (swearing to protect the Dominions in other lands) and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act ( indissoluble under the Crown of UK). If the Monarch gives assent to a republic it is an abdication and the next monarch takes their rightful place per our Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. ''The political machine triumphs because it is a united minority acting against a divided majority" When you asked for a list of the breaches of our Constitution I answered your request. When you asked for the limits in our Constitution I answered you but you then brought up quite correctly that there is no enforcement or permanent penalties within the Constitution, that is because at the time of its inception and up to date, there has been ample legislation, originally with successive Treason Acts which were incorporated into the Crimes Act 1914 which does enforce the Constitution. Section 86 Conspiracy Section 86 Conspiracy to defraud, Section 88,Buying or selling offices, a, b Section 42 Conspiracy to defeat Justice, Section 43 Attempting to pervert Justice, Section 44 Compounding Offences, Section 35 Giving False Testimony, Section 30c Advocating or inciting crime or Advocates or encourages (a)the overthrow of the Constitution, (c) the destruction of property, Section 29 Destroying Commonwealth Property. Section 28 Interfering with political liberty. Section 24 Sedition, Sabotage, Treachery and Treason by tending the destruction of the Sovereign and levying war against the Commonwealth. I would n’t advertise this too much if I was you as at the moment, you would be as guilty as these republican politicians. Also the State Criminal Code of 1899 still enforces the Constitution by suppling penalties for politicians crimes, Sections 44 Sedition . Section 54 55. 59 Member of Parliament receiving bribes. Section 87.(1) Official corruption Section 88 Extortion Section 91. False claims by officials Section 92.(1)Abuse of office Section 123.(1)Perjury Section123A.Perjury—contradictory statements Section 118. Bargaining for offices in public service Section 193.(1) False statements in statements required to be under oath or solemn declaration. (Such as parliamentary courts) Section 195A.Contradictory statements—false statements or declarations Section 441.Fraudulent falsification of records Section 442M.(1)Custom of itself no defence Section 541.(1 )Conspiracy to commit crime All of the above could be applied to most of our Australian politicians by any in the land who wish to make a private complaint to a Magistrates Court. That is why it is not necessary for enforcement provisions to be inserted in the Constitution. If they were there it would make no difference, because unless the people themselves have the spine to enforce the law as Stephan Langton and the Barons at Runnymead, or Oliver Cromwell, the politicians will just keep on abusing the system and grabbing more power and more wealth. When you asked for the second time where you had made the statements referring to democracy prevailing against the Constitution I realised that you had not bothered to read your own quotes from your document that I had high lighted in bold and put in blue text. Where you said "3 The right of the governed to draft a fresh set of rules under which they agree to be governed", and " In democratic nations the people are required to give their approval to the nations constitution. As Australia claims to be a democratic nation it must meet the now universally accepted standard in this area." and if it ignores the will of the people the Constitution is inadequate". Those were the words in your paper I was referring to which I included with my question as I wished you to elaborate on why you had come to this conclusion. I believe that all legislation contrary to the Constitution is null and void. No legislative Act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers, may not only do what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. The Constitution intends the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution has to be preferred to the statute. Most literate people are aware that:- 1. All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. 2. It cannot be presumed that any sub-section in the Constitution is intended to be without effect.3. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.4. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. 5. When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of our constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.6. Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be.7. Under our form of government, a Constitutional Monarchy, the legislature is not supreme...like other departments of government, it can only exercise such powers as have been delegated to it, and when it steps beyond that boundary, its acts, like those of the most humble magistrate in the state who transcends his jurisdiction, are utterly void.8. If the legislature clearly misinterprets a Constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right. Convention is not Law. 9.Where the meaning of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose or intent NOT MANIFEST IN ITS LETTERS. 10.An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. I suppose I can add personally to these general presumptions that I particularly believe that prohibition on freedom of speech, the freedom from un-warranted search, prohibiting a person the right to self defence, go beyond the bounds of logical reason in that it attempts to control a man's freedom by legislation, and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes. A prohibitive law strikes a blow at all the very principles upon which our civilisation was founded. It is impossible for the state to lawfully diminish the rights of the people. They are immutable. States do not confer rights so cannot remove them. They illegally inhibit those natural rights but can never deny them forever. Most freedom loving Australians believe that the Constitution is true and cannot be subverted and disregarded. For the last fifteen years, conniving politicians who do not believe the above to be true, but believe that they alone should have total power in the Nation, have united across the party barriers to steal power. The abuse of the Australian Constitution by Australian politicians is legendary as before the first Australian Parliament had its first sitting, Governor General Lord Hopetoun appointed not one but two Prime Ministers, even though there was no Constitutional provision for one. There was illegal incursion of a Cabinet system, the reversal of the sub-sections on Banking, Currency, Taxation, Trial by Jury, Race, Civil Conscription, Aid to the Civil Power, Immigration, and the Acquisition of Property. The Monarch used to select and appoint the Governor General as per the Constitution, the Governor General is supposed to select and appoint the Justices to the High Court. When the watch guards owe their allegiance to a corrupt appointment, what hope do the little people have? As you are aware hundreds (many still sitting) of members of Parliament have sat in parliament illegally, due to being a Citizen of a Foreign Power, acknowledging allegiance or obedience, or adherence to a Foreign Power, entitled to the rights and privileges of a Foreign Power, Holding an office of Profit or a Pensions payable by the Crown, Direct or Indirect pecuniary interest, Taking any Fee or Honorarium (position) for service rendered to any person or State, or is Attainted of Treason. The last one includes all republican members of parliament. As under Section 42, all elected representatives and Senators have to take an Oath of Allegiance, or if they are not Christian they may make an affirmation. Under the definitions of Treason in Section 24 Crimes Act 1914, all republicans have broken that oath. All under the most elementary definitions of the Act are Attainted of Treason and should no longer sit in Parliament.
Contempt for our Constitution by our politicians has gradually galloped into the gargantuan proportions which now cannot be described as anything less than Revolution from within. Fortunately we have a fine example of our republican future in the history of Ireland. There, a group of revolutionary republicans, starting from the bottom instead of the top, took to the streets in the Easter rising of 1916. Most of their best men were killed and the rising put down. (Sir Rodger Casement was tried and hanged for Treason) Michael Collins was assassinated by Eamon De Valere, an intellectual who became the President of the Irish Republic. Civil War broke out, and the Republicans took the bigger, poorer area. The Monarchists took the smaller more industrialised northern area. The Civil War has lasted for over eighty years. At the moment the Republicans feel that the will to keep fighting has waned in the north and are ready to reap victory, settle the scores for the final time, and enjoy their complete republic. Any who object to their form of Government will either have to live with it, fight or leave. Why else the big rush to disarm the Australian nationalistic loyalists before the republic is proclaimed? Why does Jerry Adams, the Irish republican, visit Australia’s republicans such as Jim Soorley, the Mayor of Brisbane, Turnbull, Keating? The message for all is loud and clear. He considers us another republic, another breakaway from the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and our republicans want to show him off as the winner who took a jewel from the English Crown and gave it to the Pope. When the republic is proclaimed in Australia, many who rightfully object will congregate and stay loyal to the Constitution. The republicans will have to try and destroy them and so the Civil War will begin. Many of us are all just lost. We say "please God, tell us what is right, tell us who is true, tell us which path we must take." Is it right to physically resist tyrants? But now there is no truth, no justice. The rich win, the poor are powerless. The courts turn truth into chains which bind the innocent. We become tired of hearing people lie, and after a time we become to expect it. From then on we become dead inside, we think of ourselves as victims, and because we think of ourselves as victims, we become victims. We think we are weak, so we become weak. We doubt ourselves, we doubt our beliefs, we doubt all our institutions and we doubt all law. Today we have to resist a revolution, so then the people have to be a part of the law. Providence has called on all of us. We have to be the law. The law is not a book, not the lawyers, not a marble statue or the trappings of the court. All these are just symbols, symbols of peoples desire to be just. They are in fact a desperate prayer, a fervent and frightened prayer. A Christian Minister once said "Act as if you have faith, and faith will be given to you". If we want freedom and justice to prevail, we need only to have faith in law and act with justice. I believe that there is justice in all of our hearts, and eventually you will do your duty as and when it is required.By Ron Owen. |
