Hi Ian,
I agree with you that it would be very difficult to impossible to get valid rulings
from
courts of law. They have consistently shown that they are 'honest' to the extent that
once they are bought, they stay bought. John Wilson has systematically established
this
beyond any reasonable doubt, as have others such as Martin Essenberg who have
demonstrated
that judges are prepared to deny fundamental rights granted by both the Constitution
and
by Magna Carta.
When subcontractors and even the contractor to the people refuse to abide by the
contract,
the only recourse left is an appeal to the people whose contract it is. Since the
people
have been kept deliberately uninformed of the terms of their contract and the rights
given
to them therein, the GST issue seems to be an excellent opportunity to get their
attention and get some action from them, while feeding them important facts that they
really need to know.
I suspect that once their Constitutional knowledge reaches a critical point (not sure
where), then they will first demand more knowledge, and then demand that their
contract be
obeyed. At that point, there is a lawful way to get rid of all recalcitrant
executives,
politicians and judges. This is a necessary FIRST STEP in dealing with the real cause
of
every serious present day political, environmental, economic problem on a worldwide
basis.
Since you presumably received the GST circulars second hand, did you receive the
associated three (four page) documents related to the Constitution. If not, and you
are
interested, I could send them to you. If yes, and you would like any of the other
references I gave, I am quite happy to send them to you.
I personally don't regard the loss of all Parliament made law and all High Court
rulings
over the last hundred years as being any great loss. Most of it was highly suspect and
such as we didn't need, and there would still remain British Common Law going back
thousands of years. Any of the Parliament made law that might have any usefulness
could
be sustained by Executive emergency powers until such time as it could be legitimised
by
our first genuine lawful Parliament.
The restoration of our Constitutional Contract would also be a good time to restore the
rightful role of judges and juries to all trials, and get rid of the unconstitutional
'adversary system' that has plagued British courts since it was set up by the
moneylenders' agentur in the late 1700's to early 1800's. The adversary system was
created
solely on mercenary grounds to benefit the criminals and not the victims of crime. This
little revolution is well described in Bret Dawson's book "The Evil Deeds of the
Ratbag
Profession". If you haven't seen it and are interested, it can be obtained by
contacting
Brett Dawson PO Box 32, Wombye, Queensland Australia 4559 Fax 07 5442 2373 email
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
John
Ian Green wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> I was not trying to make the point that we were legally voting for or
> against the GST, but so far as elections run specifically on particular
> isses are concerned, the election was run on the GST issue, which gives it
> more of a mandate than has been given on virtually any isse in Australia's
> history. However, you may well make the point that at no time in Australia's
> history have the people given legal mandate to any law or set of laws made
> by the government, because the whole government is invalid. I'm not going to
> argue with you on that.
>
> I'm not saying that the GST meets your criteria for valid law, but only that
> when compared with other laws that we have, it is as much supported by the
> Australian people as most other laws. I absolutely agree that "The people
> are the ultimate source of all political power." I wouldn't have started the
> Direct Democracy Forum if I didn't.
>
> "Show me anywhere where any SIGNED CONTRACT exists where it says that the
> people EVER
> agreed to [any law]. Legally, such a contract must involve the signatures
> of the all the
> people of Australia and their contracting Queen."
>
> I am interested in your argument on the legal basis of the GST (or the
> associated "New Tax System"). The main problem I see is that under that
> criteria there may be little if any law remaining valid in Australia if your
> challenges were upheld against all of our laws equally, and the legal system
> seems to stray on the side of order, and status quo, and will validate the
> invalid in order to preserve that.
>
> If you can mount a legal challenge to any of the tax law (especially on
> section 55), the constitution, or any other law, I will be very interested
> in the result and I wish you luck!
>
> Regards,
> Ian Green
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Direct Democracy Forum
> http://ao.com.au/ddf/
> http://www.DirectDemocracyForum.com/
>
> "Every person a member of the legislature!"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 March 2000 11:56 AM
> To: Ian Green
> Subject: Re: Australia Wide Demonstrations on GST
>
> Ian,
> I find your reasoning on the GST to be a trifle inadequate.
>
> Show me anywhere on the ballot paper where it says that anyone was voting
> for a GST at the
> last Federal election. I thought that legally we were choosing the possibly
> least
> unwanted representative out of a group of unwanted representatives for a
> single electorate
> and for a single state.
>
> Show me anywhere on any ballot paper since 1900 where it says we were voting
> at a lawfully
> called referendum for a previously unconstitutional Westminster System of
> Government, or
> a previously unconstitutional Prime Minister. If you can't, such things
> don't even have a
> nominal lawful existence, let alone a genuine legal existence. At these
> polls we were
> rather voting for a single person or a small group of persons of highly
> dubious value to
> hold positions in Parliament where their sole duty was and is Legislative
> (ie lawmaking
> within clearly pre-specified limits).
>
> Even if you hold to this technically incorrect argument of a Westminster
> System being
> acceptable within our Constitutional Contract, how does a much less than 50%
> primary vote
> and a less than 50% preferrenced vote for an unconstitutional political
> party translate
> into an Australia-wide endorsement for the GST? The votes of people who
> rejected the
> preference system were in turn rejected by the Electoral office, so even the
> near 50% vote
> is quite misleading. The Electoral Office has presumed to place itself
> above the people
> from whom it ultimately receives its very limited authority, and this may
> make its actions
> subject to prosecution under the Treason Act 1351.
>
> The people are the ultimate source of all political power. Were we asked in
> a lawfully
> called referendum about the GST? From the feedback I hear, we would have
> voted no, if
> asked. Even if we had been asked at the last election, Howard and his
> cronies clearly
> don't have the lawful constitutional authority to ask us, any more than
> would Beazeley and
> his cronies. On many separate legal grounds, they hold de facto positions
> only, and
> certainly their positions are not de jure (legal). They were not even
> lawfully sworn in
> by a Governor General who had valid Letters Patent to grant him such
> authority from the
> Queen.
>
> Show me anywhere where any SIGNED CONTRACT exists where it says that the
> people EVER
> agreed to a GST. Legally, such a contract must involve the signatures of
> the all the
> people of Australia and their contracting Queen. Even in their current de
> facto positions
> of authority, Howard and his cronies are at best subservients to the people.
> Their clear
> legal duty, even in this de facto position, is to obey the will of the
> people and not to
> obey the will of the money lenders. They have no lawful authority to impose
> upon us what
> we do not want. Our Constitution fully confirms our traditional rights as a
> Sovereign
> People who have merely contracted out the routine aspects of our Government
> to a Chief
> Contractor / Queen..
>
> Oh, just one more thing, the GST legislation defies the Australian
> Constitution on a
> number of grounds, the least technical of which is Section 55, which says
> that laws shall
> deal with one subject of taxation only. To impose taxes on both goods and
> services in one
> act of Parliament, is clearly unlawful. For politicians to defy the
> constitution would
> seem to render them liable for prosecution under the still valid Treason Act
> 1351.
> Perhaps somebody cares enough about the Law to see this important law
> enforced on the
> matter of GST, though the Treason Act 1351 could easily be enforced on
> endless other
> Constitutional breaches as well. Even back in 1900 we had two separate
> unconstitutional
> Prime Ministers (William Lyne and then Edmund Barton) and an unlawfully
> large number of
> Ministers of the Crown (nine cf seven) appointed, before there was even an
> elected
> Parliament.
>
> John Harris
>
> Ian Green wrote:
>
> > Hi Noel, and John,
> >
> > We had an election on the GST, and the GST won. So there is little
> > justification for the statement that the Australian people united, do not
> > want it. (Though clearly the 'pro' and 'anti' are both close to 50%.)
> >
> > However, what we did not necessarily vote for is the 48.5% withholding tax
> > that comes with the "New Tax System" package. I would have no argument
> > against people such as yourself campaigning for civil disobedience on the
> > registration of everyone who might receive a payment from a business or
> > suffer a 48.5% withholding tax (regardless of the industry one is in).
> > Example, a university student or a retiree mowes a lawn for a small
> > business. Neither are required to register for GST because of having less
> > than $50,000 p.a. turnover, but the withholding tax rule states that
> unless
> > the small business registers for the Australian Business Number any
> business
> > they deal with can withhold 48.5% of any payment owing to the small
> > business. Likewise, the student or retiree is under the risk that the
> small
> > business will, because they have an ABN, withhold 48.5% of the total
> payment
> > from them, because they don't have an ABN.
> >
> > According to the leaflets that came recently inserted in the local
> > newspaper, the only exclusion from this requirement is consumer to
> business
> > transactions, because the consumer is not expected to be registered for
> the
> > ABN and therefore don't have a mechanism for submitting the withheld taxes
> > to the government on a regular basis. Is this another case of government
> > assuming that all Australians and Australian businesses are like them (in
> > their corporate and government offices), earning at least $50,000 p.a.? Of
> a
> > certainty, in places like Geelong, that is the exception rather than the
> > rule.
> >
> > Another *surprise*, is that every company must also register for the ABN,
> as
> > if the ACN (Australian Company Number) were not enough. This requirement,
> is
> > also at pains of the threatened 48.5% withholding tax. The fact that the
> > vast majority of businesses in Australia have not yet registered for an
> ABN
> > is evidence enough that this is a surprise to those who thought that only
> > those businesses with more than $50,000 p.a. turnover are required to
> > register for the GST and that this was the only reason to register for an
> > ABN. When we read the fine print, we realise that the ABN and GST
> > registration are two entirely separate matters. The ABN is simply the
> > government's tax surveillance mechanism, like the Australia Card proposal
> of
> > thirteen years ago.
> >
> > Maybe you can follow this up?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ian Green
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Direct Democracy Forum
> > http://ao.com.au/ddf/
> > http://www.DirectDemocracyForum.com/
> >
> > "Every person a member of the legislature!"
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Noel Mc Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, 27 March 2000 7:53 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Fwd: Australia Wide Demonstrations on GST
> >
> > >X-From_: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Mar 26 20:22:14 2000
> > >Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:17:27 +1000
> > >From: John Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
> > >X-Accept-Language: en
> > >Subject: Australia Wide Demonstrations on GST
> > >
> > >Dear Undisclosed Recipient,
> > >At a recent conference, the idea was formulated that there should be
> > >orchestrated
> > >Australia wide, peaceful statements in every town and city stating that
> > >the people do not
> > >want the GST (on 10-12AM, 8th April this year). Perhaps you have already
> > >heard through the grapevine? Attached are two single page pamphlets that
> > >could be used
> > >either intact, or in modified form, for these demonstrations. The legal
> > >basis for these
> > >demands has been outlined in earlier documents on the Constitution that
> > >you should have
> > >received.
> > >
> > >Best wishes,
> > >John Harris
> > >
> > >
> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
