----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Secretary@Monarchist. Org. Au <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Richard Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Reform Party <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Phil Cleary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Graeme Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Clem Jones Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Bill Sweetwater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Arthur Tuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Antony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Adam Keam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Michael Darby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Kerry Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Tony Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Richard Ackland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 'Queensland Times' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 'Queensland Radio' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Qld Country Life <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Omega@Onaustralia. Com. Au <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; McGuinness, Paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mannwest@Attglobal. Net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Liberty Australia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Kerry Spencer-Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Info@Reclaimaustralia. Net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fortress@Ozemail. Com. Au <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Corpaff@Newscorp. Com. Au <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Auntie info <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 5 November 1999 2:04 PM Subject: When NO means NO and YES means NO to a Royal Republic > Hi, and apologies to you who may have already seen the following, but I > think its worth re-sending with a few comments. Not so much about the > 'Wonderland' scenario, which describes our present defiance of the 'Rule of > Law' as much as the future, but how the 'House of Representatives' became so > unrepresentative, and what can be done to improve it. > > While we don't know how many Senators or MHRs would be willing, if free, to > represent the 8-10 million "inherently intelligent" Australians who would > prefer a popularly elected president or Governor-General, it is obvious that > none of the parties seeking executive office are likely to allow their MPs a > free vote on any such bill. The only possible escape from this Catch 22 is > for enough 'free vote' MPs to be elected to parliament. How can that > happen, specially given the undenied criminal role of the AEC? (see JCEM > inquiry submissions on 1998 election, like Nos 70, 81, 85, 102, 213, 224, > 225, and 228) > > Also I hope you'll all agree with with John Hewson (AFR today) that "All the > appalling dishonesty, exaggeration and misrepresentation has to be flushed > through the system. The process of educating the electorate that revealed a > most disturbing ignorance of our process of government had to begin." Now > it has begun, but how will it end? > > > The following was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu 4/11/99 3:49 to these > Senators & others including the Sydney Morning Herald: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Dear Senators and others > > I'll keep this brief, but you'll be pleased to know Mr Reith's office has > acknowledged the following. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:03:41 +1000 (PST) > Subject: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Peter. Andren. MP@aph. gov. au, Peter. Reith. MP@aph. gov. au > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When No means NO and YES means NO > According to Malcolm Mackerras, of the 148 MHRs, you the only two willing > to represent the 6-8 million "inherently intelligent" Australians who would > prefer a popularly elected president. Robert Manne has made the same point, > and added some important insights to this anti-democratic referendum. > > If Leonie Kramer's proposal for popularly elected Governor-General was added > to a preferential ballot paper listing all four 'constitutional candidates', > the combined first preferences for the currently excluded candidates, could > reach 10 million, but would one more MHR join you both? How can a 'House > of Representatives' be so unrepresentative? Perhaps your colleagues on > the JSCEM can answer that. > > Yet a YES majority, even in a single State, will be misrepresented (possibly > to the UK and the UN) as a legitimate expression of a people's free (under > threat of fines) and informed will! If nothing else, the 1999 referendum > confirms the case for ballot formats which allow rejection of both/all > options > (eg cross out either or both printed YES and NO). > > As "inherently intelligent" Australians, you have by now had your fill of > the Clayton's Republic 'debate', so I'll try to keep the rest of this > 'humourous'. Please don't read any further while your humour is spent, or > if you haven't read my previous e-mail(s) like 'Our Inconsequential > Referendum & Unconstitutional Monarchy - What we were meant to miss'. Come > back to it later, what-ever your YES/NO preferences, and what-ever the > result on Nov 6. Also my apologies for a rushed message, but after the > latest efforts to con 'real republicans', by conceding defeat while linking > a promised future 'direct election' to YES, despite Malcolm Mackerras > devastating evidence, I am getting aroused by the still growing hypocrisy of > our misleaders. > > > A Royal Republic?? > If the 'Republic' referendum is genuine, it requires the UK to make > (Australian) lies into (UK) laws! That is why Professor Clements criticised > as nonsense, the idea that the wording of the Australian Constitution could > altered to form the basis of a future republic. If this seems incredible > and/or confusing, see George Williams op ed article in the (Nov 1) > Australian. Ostensibly about the preamble(s), it publicly exposes the fact > that amendments are to be enacted by the UK. What-ever happens, our > 'constitution' will still be UK law with the QV preamble, as well its > definitions and its Sec 5!! (Hereafter 'Sec' refers to the sections of UK > Act, and 'sec' refers to the sections of Sec 9 of that Act. This should > avoid unnecessary confusion.) > > What else are the proposed amendments to secs 126 & 127 as consequential > changes of a miscellaneous nature, but proposals to make lies into laws? > This is obvious when we think about it, which is exactly what more and > more people are doing, despite the (paid?) silence of our 'elites'. Also > making lies into laws is already done in Australia. Thats what judges like > Justice Wilcox tried to do in Sep 1998 (and has so far succeeded), and most > lawyers not only live with it, they make good livings from the confusion > created when lies are laws! > > A YES 'Double majority' for a 'Royal' Republic will need to somehow be > UNcrowned during 2000, and we can expect countless QCs to join less regal > lawyers, to trot out more lies, as well as those being working on since even > before the proposed amendments to secs 126 & 127 were drafted. > > Legal 'Consequences' of a 'Royal' Republic 'Double' majorityThe words of the > UK national anthem (God save the Queen): "Frustrate their knavish tricks, > Confound their politics" (with thanks to Albert Langer's article 'Confound > their politics' in Quadrant, May 1998) are the best answer to the 'Royal' > Republic nonsense, but lets dig deeper, as even a single YES result will > force more people, including UK MPs and the UK public, to think about it, > but the more likely YES 'single' majorities will leave plenty of 'worms' out > of the can. The best result would be if the (non-Murdoch) media rubbish the > whole nonsense, which is far greater than secs 126 & 127. > > As the next step (according to law), it (the proposed law) "shall be > presented to the G-G for the Queen's assent". If he submits it to Queen > Victoria's successor according to UK law (in accord with his oath of office) > she is bound to act on the advice of the UK parliament. If (contrary to > law) he submits it to the titular (uncrowned) Queen of Australia (in > betrayal of his oath of office under the Crown), she not bound to act on the > advice of the UK parliament, but nor can she enact the proposed law! > > Some Political 'Consequences' of a 'Royal' Republic 'Double' majority > The nonsense is more obvious about States, where the Crown (of the UK) will > still hold fundamental land and mineral titles! These are already > contentious issues in WA and Qld, where the people are all but certain to > vote NO! Just imagine the divisions in the indissoluble "Commonwealth" of > original states under the Crown, as our leaders, like the G-G, continue with > the farce of pursuing Professor Clements 'confidence trick of monstrous > proportions' to its legal conclusion, if the other four states and an > absolute majority vote YES!! (we'll need to keep our sense of humour if Oz > is to stay 'a decent country' while this result exposes the 'monstrous' > incompetence of our elite leaders and their 'confidence trick'.) > > Other Pertinent Facts and Consequences > In 1900 UK law created an indissoluble "Commonwealth" of original states > under the Crown; WA subsequently joined after a 2nd referendum reversed > the colony's original NO result. 30+ years later WA held a 3nd referendum > which reversed its previous YES, and re-asserted the original NO result. > Despite this free choice, informed by 30+ years (cf East Timor's enforced > term in Indonesia) experience within the Commonwealth, the UK (GeoV?) > acquiesced to the Commonwealth, and let the WA application lapse, > over-ruling the people of WA. > > If reasons for this betrayal of the people of WA were ever published, it > would be worth seeing them, and would be pertinent to the situation which > will exist if WA again vote NO, this time to the UK amending Sec 9 of the > UK law as proposed by the Commonwealth. According to the proposed > 'consequential' amendment to miscellaneous sec 127 (original repealed in > 1967), their free choice, now informed by nearly 100 years experience within > the Commonwealth, will again be over-ruled. This time by the UK making into > law, the lie that the proposed amendment to sec 127 is a 'consequential' > amendment! > > Double Definitions Defy Democracy > Because definitions needed to interpret a law are not consequential but > essential, they are properly made before the undefined terms are introduced. > Hence "The original States" in the UK Act are defined in Sec 6 of the UK > Act, before, not after Sec 9. The proposed amendment to sec 127 of > subsequential Sec 9 of the UK Act, as a consequential amendment, would add a > 2nd and different definition of "The original States", into the same Act! > What a wonderful World! Lewis Carroll called it Wonderland! It would leave > WA still in the indissoluble "Commonwealth" of original states under the > Crown, despite voting NO 60+ years ago, and also, after New Year's Eve 2000, > in the subordinate, consequential, and miscellaneous "Commonwealth", > despite voting NO in 1999. This could be our own Y2K bug, creating as much > work for Oz and UK lawyers next year, as the digital one did for computer > programmers this year! > > For the above to get (albeit implicitly) on to a Murdoch oped page, may > itself be evidence of God saving the Queen by frustrating knavish tricks, > and confounding their politics! Lets hope its read in UK, by Oz expats > and on Fleet Street. If you know any there, or even Oz lords with seats > in the House of Lords, please help them (and God) to save the Queen. Also > take this to any (UK or Oz) lawyer and/or MP (before New Year's Eve 2000) > for an opinion. Is the Queen one who makes lies into laws, or will she > be saved by God & others? > > Seasons Greetings and HAPPY NEW YEAR - 'YES' says it could be the best in > 100 years of Oz > > 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]
