Sue Maynes has been fighting to restore our nation to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitutional government for many years. She has fought hard and valiantly, and along way she has learned so much that we all should know.
Advance Australia / CIRNow is re-publishing two of her articles here. They are well worth reading, and when you have finished please share them with everyone you know…..
Where is the Commonwealth of Australia?
By Sue Maynes
Most people think the de jure Cth no longer exists. That is very clearly not true.The Parliament of the Commonwealth makes laws.
The Government of the Commonwealth makes those laws work.
The Judiciary of the Commonwealth check the validity of those laws where questioned.
Simple to understand.
In order to carry out its responsibilities, the Government creates departments. At some stage, apparently in order to streamline government, those departments can be privatized and private companies pay extremely large amounts of money to lease those departments with the view of making even larger amounts of money. (Hence the importance of census info-gathering.)
So government is ‘streamlined’, still operating to make the laws work, making vast amounts of extra revenue with minimised costs — apparently fulfilling their responsibilities.
At all times, those privatized departments – now known as agencies – are governed by legislation and compilated enactments affected by the Parliament.
Can you see where it all fits into the constitutional guidelines?
Now where it gets dicky is with reference to the people who are OF the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth itself is a COMMON LAW body, created in common law, operating in common law, hence the people are contracted to it in common law, with the Constitution being a common law legal instrument.
And because the agencies are no longer government departments, the Constitution has no ability to enforce YOU to use these private agencies.
It becomes exactly the same thing as you choosing to shop in Woolies or Coles. Your choice.
Except you aren’t told you have a choice as to whether you deal with one of these agencies. You aren’t given a choice of going private or staying public with the de jure Cth. You are instead, coerced into a belief that you HAVE to deal with these bodies and MUST do as you are told. At no time are you told ALL the contractual facts.
So something goes wrong and you find yourself being punished OR questioning a part of what has been done.
You go to court expecting a common law situation, where in you can be heard. And you find the direct opposite. All the court is interested in is whether or not you had a contractual agreement and whether it has been breached.
How many of you have said “but…constitution, etc, etc.” Only to find the judge responds with such comments as “get that rubbish out of my court; that has no authority in this court; I don’t care what you think you have…” and etc.
And quite naturally, we all think the Constitution is gone, destroyed. Because we don’t know – have NEVER been told – that we have contracted OUT of the Constitutional protections by getting a privatized contract.
As you all understand now, entering into an agreement with a privatized quasi-government agency or quango, means you have agreed to step OUT of your constitution protections and have the dispute adjudicated in UN-bound admiralty.
Definition of Quasi-government: A quasi-public corporation is a company in the private sector that is supported by the government with a public mandate to provide a given service.
Definition of Quango: Quangos are arms-length bodies funded by government departments but not run by them. They are given power and paid for by government departments.
And YOU were never told that is what you were agreeing to. However – the good news. Because the Commonwealth is still in power, and because we are still people of the Commonwealth, we have the right to access our common law protections and they are still in power in these deceptive courts.
In the admin courts, a coram (judge) MUST operate fairly and within the guidelines of the admin adjudication. They must operate in Procedural Fairness.
Definition of Procedural Fairness: A dispute resolution concept which provides a person with a fair process in resolving disputes. The concept requires transparency, equal communication and fairness in allocation of resources used to resolve the dispute. Also called procedural justice.
YOU have to prove the coram and/or decision was not procedurally fair and therein lies another deception. Because that relates to whether or not the coram acted within their legislative requirements. It does not mean the corman must take into account human ‘moments’, but must OPERATE the process fairly.Now if you protest a ruling by lifting your case into a superior court, it stays in the admin process, so you are no better off.
However, if you can take your case, as a NEW case, to a common law court, and dispute the procedural process as unjust, you may have a win. In the common law courts, your protest is called a Breach of Natural Justice. Which means that IF any ordinary man or woman would have found the handling of the case or the judge’s attitude was not fair, was dishonest, was operating in favouritism for one side or the other – then YOU have not been tendered justice – then the case is of no value and must be fully or partly overturned.
Now consider that carefully folks. Even in this administrative entrapment, common law has the final authority.
Has it gone? No.
Is it available to us all? Yes.
Is it easy to access? No.
And therein is where the research is focusing, because Parliament are tightening access. Parliament are working hard to hide it from us and prevent it from providing justice to us all.
In effect, the Parliaments of Australia are breaching both procedural fairness AND Natural Justice by enacting legislation that has locked common law behind bars too.
All they need now is for the People to agree to a republic – and common law won’t just be locked out of our reach – it will be dead and buried.
Save the Commonwealth and we save justice and ourselves.
Sue Maynes on the Australia Act
I have been reading up on the Australia Act – which you & I have all been led to believe was the act in which Britain ditched Australia.
That – is completely incorrect.
in 1931, after the economic disasters of WWI & II – the British Parliament enacted the Statute of Westminster. This act gave permission to all the colonies and dominions of the Empire, to be able to make law, which would usually breach English law. In effect, the Empire no longer existed in its original form, at that point. Instead the Commonwealth of Nations became the new version of the old empire.
Australia enacted the Statute in 1942.
So when Elizabeth ascended to the throne in 1953, she became Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations – not an Empire. It did not exist at that time. As such, each of those nations has the legal right to refer to her as Queen of Aust, Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand and etc.
However, none of us have understood that the Crown was head of state for each colony prior to Federation. WE the people are not the sovereigns in each colony – she is. The colonies agreed to unite IN the Federation, and as such became States.
After the Statue allowed the Cth to move away from our Constitution, the States were in a predicament where they were part of the Cth BUT were being forced to obey the new Westminster Aust Govt. So after quite some years of dispute, the Hawke govt created the Australia Act, which gave permission to the States to go back to their independent colonial status.
In effect, that left ONLY the People in the Cth – which is why govts since Whitlam have been pushing for a Republic – because THEY can’t get rid of the Constitution , but WE can agree to leave it.
That clearly did not work – so they use the agreements between us and the foreign Australian Govt to control us, pending our agreement to their Republic.
Consequently, the Australia Act, gave the States permission to ignore our Constitution as well. Now the States had always been in a situation where they only had to obey a Cth enactment. If there was not one, then the States had their own powers. We have all overlooked that. They only had to obey OUR C th enactments.
The Australia Act gave them permission to ignore the Constitution too.
All done without telling the people, without providing clear factual knowledge to us all, without asking our permission or constitutional agreement.
Britain didn’t ditch us folks. They gave the Cth permission to breach English rules – not including the Constitution. Which is why the Cth set up the Australian Govt to run the deception.
Then the States were given permission to do the same, through an act that used the Statute of Westminster as its basis. The States could not harm the Constitution either, but they could go back to their independent colonial status, which is why every State reworked its State Constitution AFTER the Australia Act.
The politicians wanted us to believe England was at fault, to hide the deception. If they had to deceive us folks – that nothing about it was for our benefit.