Their is now a magazine INVESTIGATE (see
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/news.htm) that is reporting a
constitutional bungle eighty years ago may have left Australia, Canada and
New Zealand without lawful Governments. The crisis affects only the three
former British Dominions, because of the way they gained their independence
from the UK.
This is however "old news" but more importantly it is a constitutional lie.
INVESTIGATE Magazine has taken up the 'Murphy' argument. The argument
appeared on a web site about two years ago from an anonymous people
claiming legal qualifications; even that of being a high court judge. (For
further details see my web site www.rockroll.com.au/watchman - NOTE Dr.
David Mitchell, Tasmanian barrister, has personally questioned the High
Court judge who is alleged to have provided his sanction to the Murphy
argument and the judge denies all knowledge of it.)
The argument is basically this,
Australia was recognised as an independent nation in 1920 by the League of
Nations. As an independent nation our Constitution, binding us to Britain
was invalid, and the government has been illegal ever since.
Thus http://www.investigatemagazine.com/news.htm states,
"But on January 10, 1920, sovereignty had just been transferred from the
British Crown to the people of New Zealand, but the transfer of power was
not legally ratified by the colonial New Zealand Government. There was no
switch-over. All the old laws and political machinery continued.”
The web site also states that
"Constitutional experts say that failure has huge implications. Legally,
all laws in existence in New Zealand up to that point ceased to exist,
because they were old colonial laws.”
This is a good theory but it is not the law. The law is that even on a
military takeover all existing law remains in force until changed by the
new sovereign. Nevertheless, as there are those who will not believe this,
I have placed at the end of this document three constitutional authorities
that state that The National Watchman’s interpretations is correct. If only
Murphy would declare his real name and cease from verbiage and use authority!
The critical words on the web site are,
"Under international law”
It is now apparent that this whole argument is part of a well orchestrated
campaign by the internationalists to undermine the Constitution of the
respective countries.(Canada, New Zealand and Australia).
In Australia this argument is being pushed by The Institute of Taxation
Research. The Executive Director of this group is Mr. Ian Hinke. At a
1999 Victorian meeting where he was the primary speaker he was introduced
with the following credentials.
i. A director of a major knitwear manufacturer; David Keys Australia
ii. A former board member and Deputy Chairman of the privatised Energy
Victoria
iii. A senior policy advisor to the Minister for Energy and Minerals and
iv A consultant to the Prime Minister’s Office.
And it was said by the compare that Mr. Hinke talks regularly with the
Minister of Industrial Relations over the dinner table.
Is the above the credentials of a man who sponsoring the interests of
Australia or does it seem like the credentials of a globalist ? (do you
think that privitisation, Ala. privatised Energy Victoria, is good for
Australia?)
It would seem to me that those sponsoring the Murphy arguments are a group
of elitists who champion international law, the destruction of the
Australian Constitution and thus represent corporate, and not your,
interests. Why would they be doing this ? Some insite can be gleaned when
INVESTIGATE magazine states,
“That means the Treaty of Waitangi also ceased to have any legal standing”
Translated this means that indigenous people are reinstated with full
ownership of New Zealand. (Similarly for Australian and Canada !!!) Like
the Australian ‘native title issue’ we see the Fabian methodology in place.
First destroy the existing order before you install a new one.
The internationalists seek to undermine the Australia Constitution with
these frivolous arguments, and hence destroy the sovereignty of the
respective Crowns. It is the Crown that is preventing the internationalist
getting free, unassailable access and ownership of the mineral wealth of
these three countries.
The reader of this message should note simply how bad the whole argument
is. It has already been struck down by the High Court in several cases
(Joosse v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [1998] HCA 77 21
December 1998).
AND in the matter of Kevjen Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of Queensland , 4 th
August 1999, No S 6694 of 1999) Justice Muir again stated that this
argument is not the law of Australia. However he added the following,
"I trust the lawyers involved in this matter have given due consideration
to their obligations to the Court and to their client. I hope that the
applicant has proceeded notwithstanding clear advice that its contentions
have no substance, are bound to fail, and are a waste of its time and money".
This is about as close as a judge can go without declaring a those
declaring those presenting the case to be professionally negligent!
Now Taxation Research Institute and the other internationalists can say
that all the above is wrong and that the High Court is wrong. However the
reality is that their fundamental premise is that Australia is not a
sovereign country and that it gained it sovereignty from recognition by the
United Nations or like body.
Thus the proponents advocate that the truth will only be found in an
international court (the Australian High Court having already rejected
their arguments). And they quote ream and verse of United Nations law to
prove it. If this is the case then you, and the Taxation Research Institute
must declare yourselves for what their advocacy implies - that they are,
internationalists, globalists and part of the New World Order.
My writing in the future will be making the above very clear. This being
said I agree that the Constitution is deficient in some respects but this
is only to say that it was made by man. Nevertheless it is a document
adequate for it purposes. What is wrong is not the Constitution but the
fact since its inception UN-Australian elements of society have attempted
to destroy it.
Like a car that has been thrashed, abused and never maintained by a bad
driver it is not the car that it use to be. But there is no car that can
stand this sort of treatment for too long. While the car may fail we should
never say that there was something wrong with it; we must look the
perpetrators of its destruction.
Kerry Spencer-Salt B.E., LL.B (Hons)
The National Watchman
Australian Community Organisation
P.O. Box 136, Surry Hills NSW 2010
Phone : (02) 9360 0610
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website : www.rockroll.com.au/watchman
=================================================
THE LAW ON A CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY
The Australian High Court
=========================
The accepted law is that upon acquisition of a country by a new sovereign
the old law is not removed or diminished bit remains in force until
modified by the new sovereign. The common law 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
Chitty On Prerogatives
======================
It is “fit that the conquered country should have some laws; and ,
therefore until the laws of the country thus acquired are changed by the
new Sovereign, they still continue in force”. Chitty A Treatise on the
Law of the Prerogatives of the Crown Butterworth London 1820 at 30;
Legal Definition
================
"The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of arms,
exercised by an independent power which reduces the vanquished to
submission to its empire...The intention of the conqueror to retain the
conquered territory is generally manifested by formal proclamation of
annexation, and when this is combined with a recognized ability to retain
the conquered territory, the transfer of sovereignty is complete. A treaty
of peace based upon the principle of uti possidetis (q.v.) is formal
recognition of conquest....The effects of conquest are to confer upon the
conquering state the public property of the conquered state, and to invest
the former with the rights and obligations of the latter; treaties entered
into by the conquered state with other states remain binding upon the
annexing state, and the debts of the extinct state must be taken over by
it. Conquest likewise invests the conquering state with sovereignty over
the subjects of the conquered state. Among subjects of the conquered
state are to be included persons domiciled in the conquered territory who
remain there after the annexation. The people of the conquered state
change their allegiance but not their relations to one another."
Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. (U.S.) 176, 15 L. Ed. 891. "After the
transfer of political jurisdiction to the conqueror the municipal laws of
the territory continue in force until abrogated by the new sovereign."
American Ins. Co. V. Canter, 1 Pet. (U.S.) 511, 7 L. Ed. 242. Conquest,
International Law. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary
----------------------------------------------------------------
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/public-list@neither.org
