|
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." -- John Adams. THE UNLAWFUL STATE DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ORGANISATION AMENDMENT BILL 1999
Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under despotic government than the observance of the great principle known as the "Rule of Law" (meaning Reign of Law). That means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed beforehand. While every law restricts individual freedom to some extent, under the Rule of Law, the government is prevented from stultifying individual efforts by ad hoc action. The individual is free to pursue his personal ends knowing that government will not be used to deliberately frustrate his efforts. The exclusive reason why men unite in a commonwealth and place themselves within a governments and away from the freedom of nature is the preservation and use of their property, which in the free state of nature is uncertain. Certainty of the standards of right and wrong and the common measure to decide all controversies has to be the intention of government; the great end of men entering into society being the enjoyment of their property in peace and safety. Society cannot continue to exist if its government takes the lives or properties of its citizens, for its power is limited to the protection and preservation of that property. It has no other end and can never have the right to enslave or impoverish its subjects. Unconstitutional Sections. The following sections are beyond the powers of Parliament to legislate and beyond the powers of the Governor to grant assent to. (2) If an approved development scheme states a particular use for a particular parcel of land in a State development area, a person must not use the land for another use. Maximum penalty—1,665 penalty units (To control and limit a mans use of his property is slavery). (3) An approved development scheme may impose conditions on a particular use for a particular parcel of land in a State development area. (4) If an approved development scheme does not state a particular use for a particular parcel of land in a State development area, a person must not use the land for a use unless—(a) the use is one contemplated by the approved development scheme; (To control and limit a man’s use of his property is slavery). (5) The co-ordinator-general may impose conditions on a use approved under subsection (4). (To control and limit a man’s use of his property is slavery). (7) A person using land in a State development area must comply with any condition imposed under subsection (3) or (5) on the use of the land. Maximum penalty for subsection 7 —1,665 penalty units. (To control and limit a man’s use of his property is slavery). "Authorised use" for land, means a use of the land authorised under a development approval, or an instrument taken to be a development approval under the Integrated Planning Act 1997. "Alternative lawful use" for land, means a lawful as of right use for which the owner of the land can use the land. "Approved use" for land, means a use of the land approved under section 55(4). (To control and limit a man’s use of his property is slavery). ‘Limitations on compensation under s 55C: ‘55D. Despite section 55C, compensation is not payable— (b) for anything done in contravention of this Act. 25. (Imposing conditions on property is unlawful; taking possession of that property due to the breach of the unlawful conditions is larceny; not paying compensation is compounding the theft).
Deciding claims for compensation: 55F.(1) The co-ordinator-general must decide the claim for compensation within 60 business days after the day the claim is made.‘(2) In deciding the claim for compensation, the co-ordinator-general must— (a) grant all of the claim; or (b) grant part of the claim and reject the rest of the claim; or (c) refuse all of the claim. (Imposing conditions on property is unlawful; taking possession of that property due to the breach of the unlawful conditions is larceny; not paying compensation is compounding the theft). ‘(3) However, the co-ordinator-general may decide the claim by giving a notice of intention to resume the interest in the land under section 53. Amendment of s 78 (Power of Coordinator-General to take land) Clause 12.(1) Section 78(1), from ‘Without limiting’ to ‘following purposes’ ‘In addition to the power to take or otherwise acquire land under section 53, the co-ordinator-general may take an estate in fee simple in land for any of the following purposes.’ (2) Section 78(1)— ‘(f) an infrastructure facility that is— (i) of significance, particularly economically or socially, to Australia, Queensland or the region in which the facility is to be constructed; and (ii) is approved by the Governor in Council, by gazette notice, as having that significance’. ( The property is always significant to the owner putting someone else’s significance over the owners and removing his property and giving it to another which is larceny, and not paying compensation is compounding the theft.) (1A) In considering whether the infrastructure facility mentioned in subsection (1)(f) would be of economic or social significance, the potential for the facility to stimulate any 1 or more of the following must be taken into account— (a) agricultural development; (b) community well being; (c) economic growth; (d) employment levels; (e) industrial development; (f) resource development; (g) technological development. (Planners usually say that anything can be done to the individual in the name of development, so long as the democratic essentials are not affected . But some democracies have been as oppressive as the worst dictatorship. Democracy is not a limitation or an excuse. Theft by the State is still theft and when the State steals from its subjects it destroys its own society in two ways, by promoting that theft is acceptable, and as people see property being removed, it will destroy their will to own and improve it.) (1B) Subsection (1)(f) applies even if the taking of land by the co-ordinator-general is for conferring rights or interests in the land taken on a person other than the State. (Taking from some people and conferring it on others is robbery and pillage. Attempting to legalise it in parliament is fraud) ‘Ensuring reasonable steps are taken to otherwise acquire land ‘78A.(1) This section applies if a proposed taking of land under section 78 is for conferring rights or interests in the land on a person other than the State. ‘(2) The co-ordinator-general must not take the land unless the co-ordinator-general is satisfied reasonable steps have been taken to otherwise acquire the land. (If they offer 10 dollars or 10 million, if there is no sanctity in the ownership of property. What’s the point of any one obtaining it except for the one entity that controls it, the State? The law has to apply equally to all. No absolution for the State, or we live in tyranny).
The Native Title Act 1993 ONLY EFFECTS Leased Land. This EFFECTS YOUR FREEHOLD LAND. Relationship with native title legislation: ‘78B.(1) For the taking of land under section 78(2) and the payment of compensation for the land taken— (a) the process mentioned in section 78(2C) must be carried out in a way that is consistent with the Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 and the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth); and (b) if the Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 or the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) states a process in relation to the taking or payment, that is in addition to the process stated in the Acquisition of Land Act 1967, the additional process also applies to the taking or payment; and (c) the Land and Resources Tribunal is the independent body for the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth), section 24MD(6B). ‘(2) For a proceeding the tribunal must decide under subsection (1)(c); the tribunal is constituted as a standard panel under the Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999, section 39(2)(a). (Taking property and conferring it on a selected minority is still theft by the State, even if they attempt to compensate, when a powerful group removes people from their property, money does not make it morally correct. Theft makes it morally incorrect). Power to use, lease or dispose of land: 79A. The co-ordinator-general may, to give effect to a purpose mentioned in section 78, (Native Title) do any or all of the following— (a) lease, or agree to lease, to any person land taken, or proposed to be taken, under section 78; (b) sign an agreement with any person to carry out, own, operate and maintain any works or development on land taken, or proposed to be taken, under section 78; (c) sign an agreement with any person in relation to works or development for land taken, or proposed to be taken, under section 78 (Native Title); (d) sell land taken, or agree to sell land to be taken, under section 78.’ (Leasing, selling, and operating stolen property is not an enterprise that governments should be advocating. Dealing in stolen property is a crime under the criminal code. These actions would easily be recognised as dealing in stolen property by the general community, destroying all trust in Government). Division 6—Investigating potential infrastructure facility Purpose of division 6 ‘91A. The purpose of this division is— (a) to allow persons authorised by the co-ordinator-general to enter land to investigate the land’s potential and suitability for the development of an infrastructure facility mentioned in section 78(1)(f) "associated person", of an investigator, means any of the following— (a) if the investigator is a corporation—the corporation’s chief executive, secretary or directors; (b) the investigator’s employees or partners who are individuals; ( This section acknowledges that non-government authorised by the co-ordinator-general are to commit trespass to assist in the selection of properties to be stolen from land holders and conferred on selected groups or individuals).
The Governor Should Be Asked to Remove Assent or Repeal the Un-constitutional Sections of This Act. The following sections are beyond the powers of Parliament to legislate and beyond the powers of the Governor to grant assent to because :-The Queensland Constitution 1867, 1978 Section 2 states:- Within the said Colony of Queensland, Her Majesty shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the said Assembly to make laws for the peace welfare and good government of the colony in all cases whatsoever. (Her Majesty is the power, the assembly advises and consents to laws for the peace and welfare and good government. Theft of property by the government from the people is not good government. Therefore the above Sections of the Act is un-constitutional). The Queensland Constitution 1867, 1978 States in Section 11a Office of Governor. (1) The Queens representative in Queensland is the Governor who shall hold office during Her Majesty’s pleasure. (2) Abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor shall not be effected by an Act of the Parliament except in accordance with Section 53. Section 53 of The Queensland Constitution 1867, 1978, specifically protects Section 11b of that same Act. 53 Certain Measures to be supported by referendum (1) A Bill that expressly or impliedly provides for the abolition of or alteration in the office of governor or that expressly or impliedly in any way affects any of the following sections of the Act namely- 1, 2, 2a, 11a,11b, 14, and this section 53. (No referendum has altered these Sections so they still apply). Section 11b Governor to conform to instructions. (1) It is the duty of the governor to act in obedience to instructions conveyed to him by the Queen. In the Royal Instructions to the Governor (Appendix 1) it states in VI Governor to take advice of Executive Council- If in any case he shall see sufficient cause to dissent from the opinion of the said Council he may act in the exercise of his powers and authorities in opposition to the opinion of the Council, reporting the matter to Us without delay, with the reasons for his acting. VII Description of Bills not to be assented to- The Governor shall not except in the cases hereunder mentioned, assent in Our name to any Bill of any of the following classes:- 4. Any Bill the provision of which shall appear inconsistent with obligations imposed upon Us by Treaty. 5. Any Bill of an extraordinary nature and importance, whereby Our prerogative or the rights and property of Our subjects........., may be prejudiced. Powers in urgent cases- .................in which case he is authorised to assent in Our name to such bill, unless the same shall be repugnant to the law of England, or inconsistent with any obligations imposed upon Us by Treaty.
The Governor Has No Power to Assent To Unconstitutional Legislation So the Act is Unlawful. It is evident from the above that the Governor has no power greater than the Monarch, that the power of assent from the Monarch is conditional and cannot overstep the Royal Instructions in these regards. 1. He has his own power of Veto if in his opinion the Bill is contrary to the peace and welfare of the State of Queensland. 2. That a Bill is inconsistent with obligations imposed on the Monarch by Treaty. 3. Our prerogative or the rights and property of Our subjects may be prejudiced. 4. That a Bill is repugnant to the Laws of England. Restraints on the Monarch Have to Apply to the Governor Too. Number one is self evident and has been previously discussed. Theft of subjects’ property by the State is contrary to the peace and welfare of Queensland. Number two is more than likely the most powerful restraint on the Governor, but is a little more obscure. One of the Treaties imposed on "Their Majesties" is Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta. 29 "No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold or liberties ... but by the lawful judgement of his peers, and by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right."38. ......And we have granted unto them on the other part, that neither we, not our heirs, shall procure or do anything whereby the liberties in this charter contained shall be infringed or broken; and if anything be procured by any person contrary to the premises it shall be had of no force, nor effect." Magna Carta is not just an Act of Parliament that can be repealed by a subsequent Act. It predates Parliament by many years. It is imposed as a condition of a Treaty between the people and the Monarch. Magna Carta itself has been re-enacted in the English Parliament over thirty times. The most recent re-enactment was in the Queensland House of Assembly, in the Imperial Acts Application Act No. 70, 1984. These famous words were also repeated in another Treaty imposed on "Their Majesties" in the Petition of Rights of 1627, Charles the First. It additionally states in Section 4: "..it was declared and enacted by the authority of parliament, that no man of what estate or condition that he be should be put out of his land or tenements, not taken, nor imprisoned, nor dis-inherited nor put to death without being brought to answer by due process of law." And again in Habeas Corpus 1640 Charles the First: V " That neither His Majesty, nor his privy Council have or ought to have any jurisdiction, power or authority, by English Bill, petition, articles libel or any arbitrary way whatsoever, to examine or draw into question, determine or dispose of the lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods or chattels of any of the subjects of this Kingdom, but that the same ought to be tried and determined in the ordinary court of justice and by the ordinary course of the Law." All of these refer to people who have committed a felony of some type, not just trying to defend themselves in an appeal to an Integrated Planning Court. Note: These rights were imposed on Charles I as treaties, contracts to govern not just Acts of Parliament. King Charles was finally tried and charged with breaching his Coronation Oath and lost his head because he broke that Coronation Oath. And again in another Treaty imposed on "Their Majesties" the Bill of Rights 1689 "And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgement against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied; All of which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedoms of this realm." "That all Grants and promises of fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void." The Bill of Rights also acknowledges all these previous charters of liberties. It was imposed as a Treaty on William and Mary before they were crowned and subsequently affects all there heirs and successors. This document is where the parliaments get their special parliamentary privileges. Any threat to these and parliamentarians rush for a copy of the Bill of Rights. British Parliament Remembers !!! The Bill of Rights 1689 For many years parliamentarians have considered that their legislation was beyond question; that they could legislate night into day or wrong as right, but with the increased interest in Constitutional matters due to the attempted republican coup d’état, more people have recognised the mechanism of Constitutional constraint, although unspecified in the Constitution, is never the less firmly embedded. The case of Pepper v. Hart was referred to in the Imperial Parliament and caused The Speaker of the House of Commons to issue a reminder to the Courts and all other persons of their duty to take notice of the Bill of Rights, confirming that it is an operative Statute (Hansard, 21 July 1993). She said, "This case has exposed our proceedings to possible questioning in a way that was previously though to be impossible. There has of course been no amendment of the Bill of Rights... I am sure that the House is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the Courts." The reference to the fact that there has "of course" been no amendment to the Bill of Rights is because all Crown servants from the Governor, Member of Parliament, Public Servant are all bound by their Oath of Allegiance to the Monarch as the Monarch is bound by that Treaty and they have pledged their Allegiance to the Monarch. Then they are bound to respect its provisions and not bring the Monarch into disrepute by breaching the treaty in the Monarch’s name. All other persons are obliged to respect it by the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689. Parliament does not have authority to remove the "rights" of the subject that it protects. All individual MPs are bound by their Oath of Allegiance to respect the rule of law and these treaties are a major part of it. Attempts to overthrow the laws and Constitution are treason. Existing rights may not be taken away. The only method by which the Constitution and the rights that it protects could be changed would be by revolution. For this to occur, all Crown servants would have to be persuaded to take a new Oath of Allegiance to someone or something else.Bills repugnant to the Laws of England cannot receive assent as the Monarch agrees to uphold them at the Coronation with the Coronation Oath, with the words: " Discipline and Government thereof, as by Law established in England ,......Maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel.... To keep your Majesty ever mindful of the Law and the Gospel of God as the Rule for the whole Life and Government of Christian Princes, we present you with this Book, the most valuable thing that this world affords... Here is wisdom. This is the Royal Law; these are the lively Oracles of God.... Amen." The book she is given is the Bible. This book is the foundations of the Laws of England. Theft is well covered in the Ten Commandments and many other parts of the Bible. Government Theft is still theft, if it gives the proceeds to itself, or even when it steals and gives the proceeds to private entities. The Law of the Land is not statutes but refers to the Reign of Law or Rule of Law as in the Coronation Oath. The Coronation Oath itself is a continuation of a ceremony began in the Old Testament (King Solomon, King David). The Magna Carta was adapted from the Coronation Oath of Henry the I by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Dublin’s Stephen Langton. No parliament or governor can have more power than the Monarch, who is the source of executive power. The Treaties, Oaths and Laws of England bind the Monarch and so surely binds her servants. Queensland Constitution Also Makes This Act Unlawful .The Queensland Constitution 1867, 1978 Section 40 states: "The entire management of Crown Lands and all revenues thence arising to be vested in the local Legislature..." But further down it states: "This provision not to affect any previous contracts of Her Majesty respecting any such lands nor any vested rights which have arisen........nor any vested right or interest...... Provided that nothing herein contained shall affect or be construed to affect any contract or to prevent the fulfilment of any promise or engagement made by or on behalf of her Majesty with respect to any lands situated within the said colony.........nor to disturb nor in any way interfere with or prejudice any vested or other rights which have accrued or belonged to the licenced occupants or lessees of any Crown lands within or without the settled districts under and by virtue....or order or orders of Her Majesty in Council issued in pursuance thereof." After reading that, have a look at any Crown Freehold Title. It is a Contract - a promise from their Majesties in perpetuity to your heirs and successors in perpetuity. Section 40 of The Queensland Constitution 1867, 1978 protects that title, and this is another mechanism which declares the STATE DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ORGANISATION AMENDMENT BILL 1999 unconstitutional.In Respect of which the Parliament has Power to make Laws. In The Australian Commonwealth Constitutional Act, Section 9 Sub-Section 51 placitum xxxi, it states: "The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make Laws." Many would read this and say, "Well, there it is in the Federal Government. If they can do it, so can we." Well, the Federal Government cannot do it. There are other provisions. Firstly the words: "On Just Terms." What is "Just"? If it’s a house, is it just the going rate? Well that might be fair enough if it is un-occupied, but it’s not JUST to give people the going rate. Tell them to pack up and find somewhere else. All houses are not ‘just houses’, most of them are homes, most farms are homes. Homes have a value that is not tangible in monetary terms. They have an intrinsic value, memories, shelter, something worth fighting and dying for. Overcome all of this Justly before looking further into these words."In respect of which the Parliament has powers to make Laws". This acknowledges all of the above Constitutional limitations and includes many more. The Federal Parliament can only make laws with powers which are given to it in the Commonwealth Constitution, nothing else. That is why Sub-Section 51 commences with the words "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution," and then comes another group of restrictions, "to make laws for the peace, order, and good government" and then it lists the subjects. If the Act is not for the peace, order and good government, then they do not have the power to propose it to the Governor - General. As just terms is also in that same list of powers, none of the other powers can override just terms . The Governor-General is also bound by the same Oath of Allegiance, and the same Royal Instructions so he cannot condone theft, by the State, of the people homes and property. The Monarch has not the power to do it, so neither can Her servants. If we fail to build a nation of free men, we must always try again. The surpassing principle is a policy of freedom for the individual, not power for the State. Ron Owen
Notes . On page 576 of Quick and Garren’s celebrated Annotated Constitution it states:"In 1866, a ministerial crisis occurred in Queensland. Owing to serious financial embarrassments in that colony, Ministers had tendered to the Governor (Sir G.F. Bowen) their advice that in order to sustain the public credit, there should be an immediate issue of inconvertible paper currency, in the shape of legal tender notes, to an amount not exceeding 200,000 pounds. The Governor demurred to this proposal, in so much as he was expressly forbidden by the Royal Instructions, which are part of the Constitutional Law of the colony, to assent to any Bill of this nature. He distinctly declared that in no event would he give the Royal Assent to any such Bill. On the 13th of May 1931, the Premier of NSW Jack Lang was sacked by the Governor of NSW, Sir Philip Game, for "defiance of the Law." In the early 1930's Winston Churchill made an Appointment to see George the VI and pointed out that the South African Parliament legislation, requiring the compulsory fingerprinting of Indians, was contrary to their rights and Freedoms. The King withdrew assent and the Act was void. |
Appendix 1.jpg