sensitive people, people who get hurt by words, facebook wannabe lawyers who are just online legal studies students, 'free man' theory promoters, lawful rebellion protagonists, and many others who we do not care about...
'Conspiracy theory' content contained within
(i.e. NO case law for facebook legal studies patrons to hijack as their own)
So, we (the people) are apparently told that we live in a democracy, which according to Black's law dictionary 2nd edition (1910) conflicts with living in a monarchy (as we have a Queen), but that's another post or dozen which could be entertained at a later point.
Damn you Sue v Hill damn you!
Anyway, we are also told that we have laws (yes silly, more than one - 'cause no harm') that MUST be in accordance to the supreme document called the 'Australian Constitution', so much so that a court, aptly named the High Court of Australia, has been set up to make sure that ALL laws abide by this Constitution.
The herd populace can even challenge the law that is used against them, from e.g. an unlawful parking fine, in this place called the High Court of Australia.
BUT the plot thickens....
ALL Australian courts must be enacted lawfully, meaning their empowering document, their respective 'Act' must have the correct process to be in circulation.
An example of an alleged 'court' in Victoria, where the slaves get fined unlawfully from, is one that's called the 'Infringements Court'. This is not a legal nor lawful court, as it does not have an empowering document creating its existence, namely the "Infringements Court Act (of whatever year it comes into existence)".
Conversely the High Court of Australia, has its empowering document called the High Court of Australia Act 1979.
Remember that all 'laws' (read Acts) must be in line with this document called the Australian Constitution.
Chapter III of the Australian Constitution also defines how the judicature is to function, including the High Court.
Now, as an example we move along to this law (Act) defining the existence of the current High Court called the High Court of Australia Act of 1979.
We will also note that laws (once again Acts) are to be passed once they obtain royal assent, that being by the current UK monarch, in this case Her most excellent majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
We are also told, via a piece of legislation, that laws submitted can be given royal assent by the Governor-General.
The Australian Government tells the people that Sir Zelman Cowen was put in office as Governor-General from 1977 - 1982, i.e. the time when the High Court of Australia Act 1979 was put into 'force', see illustration below:
Why was this Act put into 'force'?
Why was it not in 'circulation', or 'enacted' or to a much lesser extent in 'operation'?
This Act was put in by the 'Australian Government', not the de jure (based on law) government as described in the document called the Australian Constitution.
Is this why this 'Act' is in 'force'. Has it been forced upon the people?
Do YOU know where the High Court of Australia Act of 1979 fails to be enacted 'lawfully'?
No comments:
Post a Comment