A group of law researchers have been conducting research into law matters to do with the Constitution as researched with the help of members at the Institute of Tax Research Pty Ltd and lately under the guidance of a prominent court litigant and law researcher.
We come to this juncture to evaluate what stands before us as an offer of remedy to the disallowance of some financial schemes that have the effect to minimize payments in tax obligations. The Tax Commissioner did not offer this deal that is currently on the table out of the goodness of his heart nor the pressure applied to or by politicians. It came from the ruling of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the matter of Dunn where the decision of "net gain" was decided. This is an offer according to law as practised.
What's on the table?
When we evaluate the remedies available to us as that what the Tax Commissioner's decision to accept or reject our offers, we must understand that the Commissioner is bound by statute to pursue all tax obligations as defined by law. It is the law, that we must look to, that the Commissioner's decision turns on.
It is my belief, from the research that others and I have conducted, that the Commissioner of Taxation does not have the lawful authority that is set out in the Constitution, taking into account and attention to detail, the Crown and Australia's so called sovereignty.
Here I want to point out, quite clearly: This is not a Monarchist/Republican argument, but a matter of the Constitution is and the way law works!
With a great many other citizens, I have come to realise what should have been recognised by the legal profession, that: The Australia Act 1986 and the fictitious entity, the Queen of Australia, is unconstitutional and unlawful.
The Federal "Government" conducted in 1999 a referendum in a manner that will be seen to be fraudulent and treasonous! It will be shown to "fix" the problems that I have touched on.
The attempted fix was, to have the people agree to the unauthorised amendments of the Constitution, through the proposal put by the question for an "Australian" preamble. The voters were to commit to the Constitution as it then stood! As the true situation was not publicly discussed, the people had no idea that, were it to succeed, the Constitution might have become lawful. But the proposal failed, and unconstitutional acts and unauthorised amendments of the Constitution are still without recognition of referendum, as require by section 128 of the Constitution, and therefore are not LAW!
Hence, the appointment of Crown officers, under the Australia Act 1986 and the Queen of Australia, cannot have been done according to law and those officers then do not hold the valid authority to occupy those Offices! This would include the Commissioner, his Deputies and lower tax "officials".
THE RUSE
So what is it that created this gapping error in the law that we practice?
It is the Australia Act 1986 and the use of the title, created by the Hawke Government, "Queen of Australia " to assent laws and appoint Crown Officers! It withdrew the authority of the Parliament of United Kingdom in affairs of that within Australia.
So you are wondering -"By what manner did we get landed with this duck called the Australia Act 1986 that allows authority to flow from the Queen of Australia?".
Section 51 subsection 38 of the Constitution is the manner that the government in Canberra attempted to change laws outside the framework of the Constitution.
The argument sounds contradictory, does it not, that the Australia Act 1986 and the constitutional amendments were passed by use of the Constitution itself? Not at all when you examine section 51 (xxxviii) carefully.
This provision reads; "The exercise within the Commonwealth , at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia:"
Now, on first glance, it seems quite straight forward and proper that if the Federal Parliament and the State Parliaments concerned, "agreed" to a proposal to create law in Australia, they could exercise the power of the Parliament at Westminster. Yes, no? Well, it seems that is what the learned and practiced legal advisers to the Government in Canberra seemed to been halucinating. Whatever were they on?
You, as untrained in the ways of the laws of the Constitution, are not expected to crack this code unless -------- you have passed English at high school and Maths at primary level!
The passing of the Australia Act 1986 was mirrored in United Kingdom by an act titled "Australia Act 1986". The "Commonwealth" is defined in the Constitution as the Commonwealth of Australia. Now I ask you, class, is that what "within the Commonwealth" allows? ------- Strike 1
When the Federal Parliament "concurred" with the States that were involved (and they were all of them), the state parliaments were bound by the "Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865" which spelt out the extent to which they could make laws repugnant to that of the United Kingdom. The states, at that time, still had colonial constitutions! Now, again class, does " at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned " permit their participation of state parliaments that disallows the authority of the Parliament of United Kingdom from having lawful effect in Australia?. Strike 2.
"at the establishment of this Constitution" (This took me a while before the penny dropped.) This is a reference to the next point so as to mean; once you take the "contract" between the people and the Crown into consideration, you may do such. They are "after 1900" as well as the limitation upon the Parliament of Westminster to effect changes within Australia because of the words in the Preamble "have agreed" and "Be it therefore enacted".
Now here we have to add and subtract. "of any power ..... be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom ". The underline is the clue! If you take all the powers that the Federal Parliament may enjoy and all the powers that the states parliaments enjoys and add them together you have a sum of powers. Right? So they are not the powers that this clause in the sentence are referring to.
This sum of powers are subtracted from those enjoyed by Westminster, as at the time after 1900, and you have the net powers to be excersised. The states' parliaments, having colonial constitutions, were given the power to change their own constitutions, so this power would have been subtracted from that of the power enjoyed by Westminster. Well that's OUT! if it were a game of baseball because That's the third strike ! But there's more; since the Westminster Parliament never had the power any way without breaking the "contract". Strike 4!
But we have put the cart before the horse. All subsections need be read with the opening head clause at section 51. "The Parliament shall , subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: "
The word "shall" is imperative and is read as must so as to be binding to be lawful.
The next phrase is the killer application and must be the main reason to attempt to "fix" the Constitution by referendum of 1999. Cheeky buggers!
"subject to this Constitution" contains Section 128.
Section 128 reads, "This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:-- " and then it goes into the mechanics of a majority of the voters in a majority of the voters in a majority of the states in conducting a REFERENDUM. It contains a must in "shall" and a limitation against all changes except as provided for in this section. Strike 5!
Background
In understanding the law we must firstly understand two fundamentals; that we are Crown Subjects and that we live in Australia under the rule of the Constitution as our fundamental law. These two areas of law are not appreciably understood by the law profession and the common people alike. I wish to outline how over the passage of 70 years the rule of law has been corrupted! Within the remedy to the corruption of our law will you find the relief from the unlawful rulings that we all seek.
Here I wish to outline the matters of the Crown as recognized by the Constitution, the Crown's subjects and the rights that they enjoy which are not contained in any Australian statute, the Constitution and the nature of this agreement between Queen Victoria and Her people . Under this relationship I would want you to understand and question the application of three far reaching statues supposedly affecting the nature of the relationship between the Crown, Her subjects and the contract.
-
The first statute comes from UK where the parliament of empire, enjoying the votes of her dominions in the League of Nations needed to pass the Statute of Westminster to appease other European members of the League.
-
The second is the Royal Styles and Titles Act of 1953 which created a title for the Queen as her position in Australia in relation to the changing nature of the British Empire known as the Commonwealth of Nations.
- Lastly, there is the Australia Act 1986 passed at the concurrence of all the States with the supposed effect of the two preceding statues. It is this Australia Act 1986 that I wish you to examine most thoroughly as we ask the courts to rule whether, in fact and in law, if any law passed by the Federal Parliament or any appointment of Crown Officers by that Parliament were lawful.
To readily understand that there's a problem in our practised law we need only hold the Constitution , a document of Westminster, a foreign parliament, in one hand and our claimed sovereignty in the other. Now international Law and the Charter of United Nations both state that both cannot co-exist at law!
You cannot use the law of a foreign power in a sovereign country.
So where is the ruse? Is it that the Constitution died on attainment of sovereignty? Or is it that the passage of laws claiming to effect sovereignty are unconstitutional and therefore void. Either way something is crooked! Not only is it that the remedy to the aberrations of law is the answer for relief to these unlawful tax rulings but more importantly it is our duty to know and uphold the law, valid law, as Australian citizens and protect the rights of all Her Majesty's subjects resident in Australia. We would then enjoy the best legal system in the world and we have a duty to our children to safeguard that.
The Crown
The Queen is referenced and Her Court defined by the Preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) where it states;
"Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of Great Britain an Ireland"
and
"Be it therefore enacted by the Queens most excellent Majesty , by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by authority of the same"
This is the Preamble that the government attempted, by the second question in the 1999 referendum, to have an Australian preamble put in its place. The authority does not exist in Australia to alter this statement of defining the Queen, the people and the agreement.
The Queen, as referenced by the Preamble, is cited in these clauses preceding the Constitution. Lying outside the Constitution they cannot be altered by within Australia, as they are of a document that is property of the UK Parliament;
"The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth."
(s1)
"A governor-general appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure , but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him." (s2)
"There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the governor-general" (s3)
"......... or such person as the Queen may appoint to administer the Government of the Commonwealth ....." (s4)
and further in the un-amended section of the Constitution citing which Queen shall instruct the Governor General;
"The Queen may authorize the governor-general to appoint any person, ............. subject to any limitations expressed or directions given by the Queen"(s126)
The question need be asked to the High Court if in fact and at law whether the appointment by the Queen of Australia of the Governor General, who appoints other Crown Officers of the Commonwealth, is constitutional and lawful!
