There 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�subscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject�bscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
