Are licenses required under Common Law of England

Read the excerpt below from the Imperial Laws of England, which are still in force, and cannot be repealed without a referendum.

Does this conflict with state legislation? 

See (Constitution Section 109 – Inconsistency of laws).

In the early days driving licenses were issued to drivers for commercial purposes (see Sect 107 of the Commonwealth Constitution, outlined within p936 of the Annotated Constitution by Quick and Garran (1901) e.g. goods or passenger transportation, private people aren’t required to have a license for private travel. Section 92 of the Constitution grants us free travel within the Commonwealth.

The 1911 and 1913 referendums in regards to nationalising Monopolies were not carried.

The Statute of Monopolies 1623 prohibits monopolies, therefore why do corporations like VicRoads have a monopoly on the roads? 

Refer to Northern Territory v Collins [2008] HCA 49 (16 Oct 2008), Patents case.

Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 – SECT 8

Division 4-Monopolies

[1623-4] 21 or 21 and 22 James I c. III ss 1, 6

An Act concerning monopolies and dispensations with penal laws and the

forfeiture thereof.

1. (1) Forasmuch as your most excellent Majesty, in your royal judgment, and

of your blessed disposition to the weal and quiet of your subjects, did in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred and ten, publish in print to the whole realm, and to all posterity, That all grants and monopolies, and of the benefit of any penal laws or of power to dispense with the law, or to compound for the forfeiture, are contrary to your Majesty's laws, which your Majesty's declaration is truly consonant and agreeable to the ancient and fundamental laws of this your realm.

(2) And whereas your Majesty was further graciously pleased, expressly to

command, that no suitor should presume to move your Majesty for matters of

that nature.

(3) Yet nevertheless upon misinformations, and untrue pretences of public

good, many such grants have been unduly obtained, and unlawfully put in

execution, to the great grievance and inconvenience of your Majesty's

subjects, contrary to the laws of this your realm, and contrary to your

Majesty's most royal and blessed intention to published as aforesaid.

(4) For avoiding whereof, and preventing of the like in time to come, may it

please your excellent Majesty, at the humble suit of the lords spiritual and

temporal, and the commons, in this present parliament assembled, That it may

be declared and enacted.

(5) And be it declared and enacted by authority of the present parliament,

That all monopolies, and all commissions, grants, licences, charters and

letters patents heretofore made or granted, or hereafter to be made or

granted, to any person or persons, bodies politick or corporate whatsoever, of or for the sole buying, selling, making, working or using of any thing within this realm, or the dominion of Wales.

(6) Or of any other monopolies, or of power, liberty to faculty, to dispense

with any others, or to give licence or toleration to do, use or exercise any

thing against the tenor or purport of any law or statute.

(7) Or to give or make any warrant for any such dispensation, licence or

toleration to be had or made; or to agree or compound with any others for any

penalty or forfeitures limited by any statute; or of any grant or promise of

the benefit, profit or commodity of any forfeiture, penalty or sum of money,

that is or shall be due by any statute, before judgement thereupon had.

(8) And all proclamations, inhibitions, restraints, warrants of assistance,

and all other matters and things whatsoever, any way tending to the

instituting, erecting, strengthening, furthering or countenancing of the same

or any of them.

(9) Are altogether contrary to the laws of this realm, and so are and shall be utterly void and of none effect, and in no wise to be put in use or execution.

6. Provided also, and be it declared and enacted, That any declaration before

mentioned shall not extend to any letters patents and grants of privilege for

the term of fourteen years or under, hereafter to be made, of the sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures within this realm, to the true and first inventor and inventors of such manufactures, which others at the time of making such letters patents and grants shall not use, so as also they be not contrary to the law, nor mischievous to the state, by raising prices of commodities at home, or hurt of trade, or generally inconvenient: The said fourteen years to be accounted from the date of the first letters patents, or grant of such privilege hereafter to be made, but that the same shall be of such force as they should be, if this act had never been made, and of none other.

Legislation source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/iaaa1980240/s8.html

The Annotated Constitution (by Quick and Garran) is available for download from an original digitised copy of the book (1056 pages , 76.5MB)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B21_coIgIYu2Tml3eGRjTXNRMG8/view?usp=sharing


 

Source Supplied.

Are fines lawful?

Read the excerpts from the Imperial laws of England that are still in force in Australia and cannot be repealed without a referendum.

It states that there are instances where fines are considered void and unlawful, when they are issued without a conviction (ie. court case, or trial by jury). Does this conflict with state legislation?

See (Constitution Section 109 – Inconsistency of laws)

The legislation below simply states that you can only be fined after a valid court conviction. 

Also bear in mind that courts must comply with Chapter 3 of Australia’s Constitution (plurality of judges and a jury of your peers, for the indictment of any offence).

Note that the Infringement’s Court is not a constitutionally recognised court, as it is a computer.

Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 – SECT 8

PART II TRANSCRIBED ENACTMENTS Transcribed enactments

8. Transcribed enactments

[1688] I William and Mary Sess. II (Bill of Rights) c. II

12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons

before conviction, are illegal and void.

Legislation source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/iaaa1980240/s8.html

Please find in the link below a full copy of the Bill of Rights (1689).

http://www.clrg.info/wp-content/uploads/Bill-of-Rights-Act-1689-UK-from-WA-Premier-and-Cabinet-site.pdf

See also the Port of Portland v State of Victoria High Court case, where WA Attorney General confirmed the Bill of Rights, on page 5. Whereas all 7 justices confirmed the Bill of Rights Act (1688), and Victoria’s Imperial Act Application Act (1980) on page 6 paragraph 13.

Port of Portland Pty Ltd v Victoria [2010] HCA 44 (8 December 2010) 

Also regarding any forfeiture of property refer to Attorney-General [NT] v Emmerson [2014] HCA 13 (10 April 2014), drug case, where only a court of competent jurisdiction can forfeit property.

So, can these binding High Court cases relate to seizure of animals, livestock or motor vehicles under any Act, regulation, rule or alleged by-laws?



Source Supplied.

Bill Shorten's $14 Billion tax grab

RETIREES who earn more than $75,000 from their super and working-age adults on more than $250,000 will be targeted by Bill Shorten in a new tax plan if Labor wins the next election. 

 

In the second major Budget policy announced by Labor, the Opposition Leader will today outline plans to save about $14 billion over the next decade by squeezing more tax out of wealthy retirees and the super contributions of the rich.

A total of 170,000 Aus­tralians would be hit by the proposals, which Labor claims would save $1.9 billion over the four years from the next election and $14.3 billion over 10 years.

Mr Shorten will argue that tax perks are ­unsustainable and give a disproportionate benefit to the rich.

“These changes are good for the future integrity of Australia’s pensions and superannuation system,” he said.
“These changes are all about putting fairness back into the system.”

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says the tax proposal promoted fairness and integrity. PIC: Mike Dugdale Source: News Corp Australia

 

Superannuation income for most people over 60 is tax-free but, under Labor’s plan, earnings above $75,000 a year would be hit with a 15 per cent tax.

This would affect about 60,000 retirees who have super ­accounts with balances above $1.5 million.

Labor tried to impose a tax on super earnings of more than $100,000 a year in its last Budget in 2013 but this was opposed by the Coalition and legislation did not pass Parliament.

The proposed tax would come in at a lower level but would not affect full or part pensioners because the $75,000 level was above the pension income test.

In the second part of his planned tax grab, Mr Shorten will vow to cut the existing level for concessions on super contributions from $300,000 to $250,000.

This would mean that ­people who earn more than $250,000 would see the tax on their super contributions rise from 15 per cent to 30 per cent.

About 110,000 Australians who earn more than $250,000 would be stung by the proposal.

news.com.au  22 Apr 2015

Another criminal in office.

These people are literally in office unlawfully, and should be charged for (alleged) treason.

This is something the corproate media does not want to expose?

It was revealed by the mainstream media that in Tasmania over the past 30 years the judiciary was in office unlawfully, therefore making any ruling UNLAWFUL, and not requiring it to be adhered to.

See article:

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/tasmanian-magistrates-not-sworn-in.html

Grieving parents of Jessica Cleland call for cyber bullying crackdown after their daughter was bullied to death

A family portrait photo of Jessica Cleland.

 

THE heartbroken parents of a teen they say was bullied to death are furious that her tormentors remain unpunished. 

Grieving Michael and Jane Cleland are angry that the two teenage boys who tormented their 19-year-old daughter have not been charged or even questioned by police.

As the first anniversary of Jessica taking her own life approaches, her devastated family have called on Victoria’s Government and police to treat cyber bullying more seriously.

In Facebook messages the vivacious, sensitive Jessica was called a “f...ing sook” and even more offensive terms, and was told she was hated by those she considered friends.

She was bombarded with nasty messages across social media platforms the night ­before she took her own life.

EDITORIAL: FROM ONLINE TAUNTS TO TRAGEDY

Coroner Jacqui Hawkins said in her report in October: “The circumstances of Jessica’s death highlight the important role that social media and other communication technologies can play in young people’s lives. ”

Ms Hawkins found that online bullying was particularly traumatic as there was no escaping it.

“I am satisfied that Facebook and text messaging were problematic for Jessica because easy access to the internet on her phone meant that she was exposed to potentially upsetting communications 24 hours a day ... online chat and SMS create an environment where it is easier for individuals to say hateful and hurtful things without facing the immediate consequences.”

Jessica’s older sister, Amy, said: “You could tell when they were messaging her because she would become really withdrawn.”

The Clelands feel that they have been let down by the system and are particularly disappointed with the police’s failure to fully investigate the online bullying that led to Jessica taking her own life.

“Jess meant a lot to us; this has turned our family upside down,” Mr Cleland said.

“For them to not do anything is like Jess meant nothing to anyone .

“What we would like to see happen is that if someone is cyber bullying somebody and they cause something like this, then they should be held ­accountable for it.”

Jess's last photo pasted on facebook the night before. Picture: Jay Town

 

Mrs Cleland said the bullies needed to appreciate their actions could have fatal consequences. She likened cyber bullying to culpable driving.

“If you accidentally hit someone in your car you can get manslaughter,” she said.

“What’s the difference if you bully someone and cause them to take their own life?

“They keep saying they’re going to have a big push on cyber bullying and try to knock it on the head, but it seems like it’s too much hard work.”

Family and friends said Jessica was a happy, outgoing young woman who had not shown signs of depression nor mental illness before she was bullied by two former friends.

They said the Kilmore teenager was excited about a new job working with horses during her gap year.
But her demeanour changed dramatically when two former friends started abusing her online through sites including Facebook and Snapchat.

The parents have told the Herald Sun the bullying and “mind games” caused Jessica to withdraw from her circle of friends — even refusing to confide in her older sister.

On Easter Saturday last year Jessica told her mum she was going for a run on land next to their property.

Later that morning a worried Amy called her parents after being made aware of an Instagram picture Jessica had posted with the caption: “I love this place and I am never going to leave.”

The spot where that photo was taken is where Michael discovered his daughter’s body. She was cold to the touch and it was too late to save her.

Despite the coroner’s ­report referring to the bullying as a precipitating factor in her decision to end her life, there have been no charges and no inquest.

The family hope some good can come from their terrible loss and that authorities start treating cyber bullying as seriously as other forms of bullying.

“Social media is only going to get bigger and bigger, and this problem is going to get worse if something isn’t done about it, if we don’t get on top of it now,” Amy said.

“We are hoping that something like this can’t happen again and maybe prevent someone else from going through it.

“Bullies have got to be accountable for their actions.”

Close friend Sally Kurzke said Jessica was a fiercely loyal and sensitive friend.

“You could tell that it (the bullying) hurt her,” she said.

“If you ­attacked her she wouldn’t fight you back, she was so concerned about what other people thought.”

Grieving parents Jane and Michael Cleland with Jess's sister Amy (left) and her best friend Sally (right) holding a photo of Jess. Picture: Jay Town

 

Cyber bullying expert and former police officer Susan McLean said Victoria Police’s failure to seize all of Jessica’s mobile devices would have deeply compromised the ­investigation into the teenager’s death.

“It’s a dereliction of duty; we need police members to pull their fingers out and ­investigate cyber bullying properly,” she said.

“We’ve got good laws, they’re just not well applied.

“The police should have seized all her devices and had them forensically examined.”

Ms McLean was also critical of the police’s failure to seek a warrant and compel Snapchat and Facebook to produce all communication, including deleted messages.

She also believed that the police erred in not interviewing the two teenage ­tormentors named in the coroner’s report.

“The family have every right to be upset; this was a suicide and police need to investigate everything,” Ms McLean said.

“They must take statements from anyone relevant to the case.”

Victoria Police refused to say if the two teen males had been interviewed or whether police would reinvestigate the case.

“It is not appropriate for police to detail every step of the investigative process,” a police spokesman said.
“However, the brief of evidence, once completed, was handed to the coroner in order to ­assist with the ­investigation.”

If you are in need of help, contact Lifeline on 13 11 14

heraldsun.com.au 17 Apr 2015

This is how the law is set up in Australia by the (corrupt?) law makers.

You can get away with bullying someone to the point where they commit suicide, and not even get questioned by police.

Looks like it's open slather on the weak..

Thank you Australian law makers.

Democrat lawmaker proposes euthanizing the disabled

Under UN Agenda 21 the disabled and elderly become useless eaters.

 

Democrat lawmaker proposes euthanizing the disabled (Video) | Washington Weekly News

New Hampshire state Rep. Michael Cahill thinks if his Republican colleagues are unwilling to raise taxes, the state should consider offing the liabilities in society.

“Since we are refusing to raise revenues to fund needed programs, to fund services to disabled, for example, have you looked at euthanasia?” asked Cahill, a Democrat, during a legislative debate on the budget Wednesday.

House Speaker Shawn Jasper quickly called Cahill out of order and called his comments “inappropriate.”
Senate President Chuck Morse says any new taxes are completely off the table — a stance progressives, of course, don’t like.

“It’s not often that all of my colleagues in the Senate can agree upon one thing, but today I think we can all agree that we must set aside this reckless Republican budget that just came over from the House,” Democrat Andrew Hosmer tells New Hampshire Public Radio.

Meanwhile, Cahill blamed his emotions for his outburst suggesting the state kill the disabled.

washingtonweeklynews.com  6 Apr 2015

So one of the questions that should also be raised, considering that Henry Kissinger is decrepit and in a wheelchair, should HE also be euthanised?

On the right hand column, see poll question on whether you think Henry Kissinger should be euthanaised?