|
Australian
Reform Party Secretary: |
"Accountable Representation for the
People" Nov 2006 Understanding the law The issue
of a 'People's Mandate' relates to advancing the position that the People are
Sovereign over the Parliament. The government of the day is the servant of
the Sovereign People who create it. A petition by the People to the
government is but a plea, and carries no weight other than to inform the
government of the views of a group of people. A 'People's Mandate' is quite
different in that it is a direct order or instruction from the Sovereign
People to their servants, the government, to do or not to do a specific
thing. A government ignores a 'Mandate' at their peril, for if a direct order
from the majority of the Sovereign People in the affected area (in this case,
the shire) was to be ignored, the government have ceased to be the servants
of the People and have usurped power and authority not vested in them. Any
government who were to commit such an act would abdicate their role as the
government of the People. 'The
supreme, absolute and uncontrollable authority remains with the people.' and
'The members of that body are called the "sovereign people", and
every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of the
sovereignty.' Ref P286, The Annotated Constitution of the Land Rates
& Taxes High Court
Rulings must be enforced by law, 1903 Judiciary Act Section 15 High Court
rulings -‑ Mabo & Others ‑v‑ Quote from
Quick & Garran. "Not
all enactments purporting to be laws made by the Parliament are binding, but
all laws made under, in pursuance of, and within the authority conferred by
the Constitution, and only those, are binding on the courts, judges, and
people. A law in excess of the authority conferred by the Constitution is no
law; it is wholly void and inoperative, it confers no rights, it imposes no
duties, and it affords no protection. Few know that our laws were taken from (5) There
is Federal law Paragraph
51 of the Australian Constitution limits Federal laws, if 51 does not
specifically delegate a power to the Commonwealth then the House of
Representatives cannot make laws on those matters. If laws are made they are
of no effect and need not be obeyed. Half of the Federal laws have no effect. There is
State law The
States were autonomous, so no single entity could get power but they are
subservient to all of the above as reaffirmed in the Legislative standards
act which states: S4 of the
Legislative Standards Act 1992 as "Fundamental, Principles" which
are the principles relating to legislating that underlie a Parliamentary
Democracy based an the "Rule of Law"; One
of those principles is that legislation should "not adversely affect
rights and liberties retrospectively". This means
that freehold land acquired under a previous act must continue to have the
same rights and privileges that existed under the land act irrespective of
amendments to the act. The land, water, air and trees were yours and still
are. The Government cannot take your right to use the water, trees, lawfully
it is yours to use as you see fit. They do not have a say. Full force
of the Australian Constitution is outlined. The Annotated Australian
Constitution by Quick & Garran provides us with laws a plenty to prove
that the States cannot take control of the soil, water, buildings and
vegetation on freehold land and fee simple land. Victorian
Legislation The Acts
Interpretation Act 1954 defines enactments in force and includes (pages 8 ‑‑
s9 Para 6) (a) A British or NSW act that is in force in as.ppp
This means that the Magna Carta 1297 and the Bill of Rights 1689 must be
interpreted as written. They are in force and listed as such in the Imperial
Acts Application, No 70 of 1980. Every other state has similar legislation
listing the enactments that can't be removed. The Acts
Interpretation Act also limits the power of the current Government. At page 8
-‑ 9 para 9 (1) a. it stipulates that, an act
is to be interpreted as operating to full extent of, but not to exceed,
parliaments legislative power. What does
it all mean? It means the
Politicians cannot seize property, to take control of your property, even if
they make laws to that effect. The laws are not valid,
it means that the politicians are subservient to the will of the people. Land held
in fee simple was handed down by King James and is incorporated in the
"Coronation Oath"; the Queen can't ascend the Throne unless she
agrees to uphold the Oath. The full
Supreme Court of NSW held that feudal system of land tenure, and with it the
principle that land is held "of the Crown" was part of law of (444) Quia
Emptores 1290 and the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 were part of the English law
received into "Land
held in fee simple of the Crown may be assured in fee simple without license
or fine and the person taking under assurance shall hold the land of the
Crown in the same manner as the land was held before assurance took effect. Section 37
provides: All
tenures created by the Crown upon any grant in fee simple made after the
commencement of this act shall be taken to be in free and common socage
without any incident of tenure for the benefit of the Crown. In Section 29
of the Queensland Land Act 1974 states that a person holding a parcel of land
is assured under fee simple tenure of all the rights of "disponer", and that terminology the disponer is referring to the Crown, so all the rights of
the disponer are transferred to the disponee which is the purchaser. That is binding on the
Sovereign, Heirs and Successors. So when we
look at that in total the Property Law Act tells us that our freehold land is
created in fee simple, its created without benefit to the Crown, other than
the aforementioned reservations, that as the owners of that property we hold
that property without license or fine and we are also assured that each time
the land is transferred that all of the rights of the previous owner are
transferred to the new owner. I know at
times we all complain about paying stamp duty, in fact the payment of stamp
duty is in fact a payment contrary to fee simple tenure because it is a title
without benefit to the Crown and without license or fine. The transfer of
land title cannot bring about a fee, note fee simple. Stamp duty is in fact a
fee. Trying to understand the law in However, in putting it into a simplified
format it amounts to the following: The main laws that flowed to Subsequent to the
establishing of the States and the Commonwealth Constitution each state
adopted a format called the Acts Interpretation Act 1954
which defines enactments in force and includes (pages 8 ‑‑ s9
Para 6) (a) A British or NSW act that is in force. This means
that the Magna Carta 1297 and the Bill of Rights 1689 must be interpreted as
written. They are in force and listed as such in the Imperial Acts
Application, No 70 of 1980. Every other state has similar legislation listing
the enactments that can't be removed. All of these laws are still enforce today and must be obeyed, although the various parliaments DO NOT ¾ this does not make them right. Simply put, contrary to what the governments like to tell
the people, the people are SOVEREIGN, not the parliaments and this is
categorically shown in the Annotated Notes of the Commonwealth Constitution
1900 by John Quick (a founding father) and Robert Garran his legal secretary
at the time, quote “at page 791 “The federal Parliament and the
State Parliaments are not sovereign bodies; they are legislatures with
limited powers, and any law which they attempt to pass in excess of those
powers is no law at all, it is simply a nullity, entitled to no
obedience.” The Chief Justice of the
High Court further reinforces it; the Hon.
Murray Gleeson in his book "The Rule of Law and the Constitution"
(ABC Books 2000) stated at page 6 "the sovereignty of our nation lies
with the people, both as a matter of legal principle and as a matter of
practical reality". With all these laws still in place
it is up to the people to stop the governments from taking away our rights
and putting the governments back into the correct position of being our
servants and this MANDATE is but a first move in that direction. It should be
pointed out that at no time nor under any circumstances will this produce
adverse repercussions to anyone signing the MANDATE. THE MONEY ¾ WHERE WILL IT COME FROM This realistic comment was echoed after the end of the
First World War, when Sir Denison Miller said, as reported in the Australian
press on 7th July, 1921, “The whole of the resources of Australia
are at the back of this bank, and so strong is this Commonwealth Bank
Whatever the Australian people can intelligently conceive in their minds and
will loyally support, that can be done.” The Hon. King O’Malley, who had maintained a keen interest in Australian politics over the years, was stirred by what he saw as yet another attempt to emasculate his beloved Bank. Although over 80 years of age, King O’Malley vigorously entered the 1939 ‘Save The Commonwealth Bank Campaign’, publishing a little booklet in which he demonstrated that he was still capable of the type of language for which he was famous during his campaign to have the Bank established. He wrote, “I trust that good and patriotic
Australians will swear by the altar of their gods, the tombs of their
Ancestors and the cradles of their children, that they will never vote for
Parliamentary candidates whose secret mission is to destroy the Commonwealth
Bank ... and whose brains, if extracted, dried and placed in the quill of a cocksparrow and blown into the eye of a bee, would not
even make him blink.” In 1960 the Reserve Bank took over the role of Central Bank from the Commonwealth Bank. Like other trading banks, the Commonwealth Bank is today governed by Reserve Bank controls. The Federal Government could direct the Reserve Bank to adopt a completely different policy to that which results in ever-escalating debt, crushing taxation and insidious inflation. For example, interest rates could be reduced to the point where they were sufficient to meet the administration costs of creating and administering credit. New money could be made available as a credit, instead of a debt, for financing consumer discounts as a major part of an anti-inflation policy. But none of these and similar steps will be taken until a more enlightened public insists that the disintegration of Civilisation can only be halted by a reversal of present credit policies. Eventually this must happen. When history is written, the name of D.J.AMOS, a
distinguished IF YOU GET A REJECTION Suggest that the person
consider this ¾ when
this mandate is completed and everyone in the Shire gains the benefit of NO
RATES ¾
wouldn’t you like to be able to say that YES, you were part of it? There can be no
repercussions for you by signing the MANDATE.
Authorised by: |
