Draft Letter To The Governor-General and the Queen -
for the dismissal of Constitutional Traitors in the Public Service of Australia
Fax of Governor -General: 02 62 81 37 60
This is a draft of a suggested letter to write to the G-G to provide the information for the sacking of public servants and Court staff, who are enacting enforcement of Section 109 Constitutional (CACA 1901), State Parliament legislation onto Australians, that has been ORDERED by the Australian High Court's "Metwally" (1984) to be unconstitutional since 1901.
It is a pointless exercise asking for "Constitutional Challenges" to ask the Courts and judiciary in Australia at the moment for the High Courts "Constitutional RIGHT to ignore invalid legislation as ORDERED by the High Court in "Metwally" (1984). All Court staff and judicial officers as well as All Attorney-General's as well as the Governor General's (most of whom have been Oligarch solicitor's), have been educated on a diet of TREASON for 112 years, since 1901, and will not obey the People's Constitutional 1901 (with comments such as "I do not accept that").
They collude shamelessly to deny Australians the rights the Constitution 1901 gave the people in 1901, against the hostile and treasonous Oligarch's of the U.K., who tried to sack Queen Victoria.
They have tried to sack the Monarchy, from Australia as well, ever since 1901.
It took 13 years to establish Canberra as the One Seat of Power in Australia (S. 125 CACA 1901) exclusively (S. 52 CACA 1901), and by that time the Oligarch's had replaced the colonial Parliaments, with State Parliaments, that both Canberra, the Governor-General, and the Queen are "ceremonial roles" only, from an unknown Constitution 1901. (It took World Was II for Canberra to establish the "right to Levy and distribute the tax revenue" of the Constitution 1901, (S. 81 and 82 CACA 1901), from the State Oligarch's).
Australia is now a member of the UN Security Council, and it will be unthinkable for the Security Council to have a member whose people are openly slaves to the rule of TRAITORS (S.24AA(1)(a)(i) 1914 Crimes Act), is that right???. (Treason is still on the books in S. 108 CACA 1901, in the 1900 Crimes Act where the Oligarch's in the "state parliaments" and Federal Parliament, can't remove it without a S. 128 CACA 1901 Referendum).
A petition to the Security Council, by thousands of Australian's, should force the Governor-General to exercise the S. 61 powers of the Constitution 1901, to prorogue all Treasonous "state parliaments" and their "local councils", so that it will not be necessary to apply for ORDERS concerning High Court ORDERS re S. 109 CACA 1901, because state "legislation" will not exist, as it was legislated for by the Constitution 1901.
Open Letter Written Without Prejudice
(the date)
Governor General of Australia Fax 02 628 1370
Government House ATTENTION Governor-General
Dunrussel Drive
Yarralumla ACT 2600
Dear Governor-General,
1. I direct your attention to s.61 Constitution 1901 which states:
"The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable ... by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth".
2. The Constitution 1901, ORDERS that it is you DUTY to make sure the laws of the Commonwealth are observed, as well as those of the Constitution 1901, is that not correct? The Constitution 1901 does not ORDER the Courts to do this, it is the role of the Queen and yourself, to "execute and maintain" the Constitution 1901.
3. It is the role of the Courts to OBEY the Constitution 1901, as ORDERED by Clause 5 Preamble CACA 1901, but OBEDIENCE has no power to correct invalid legislation, that does not have the authority of "this Constitution 1901" ; that is why the High Court in it's Constitutional role bestowed by Section 76 (i) Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 (CACA 1901), ORDERED in the University of Wollongong v Metwally (1984) that
"s,109 of the Constitution deprives the State law of it's validity with the consequence that he or she has the Constitutional right to ignore it". "... the Australian Federation was and is a union of people from whom the artificial entities called Commonwealth and states derive their authority". (page 19 para 3).
"... all laws made by the Parliament ... under the Constitution" makes clear the supremacy of the Constitution - the only federal laws which bind judges as well as others are those authorized by the Constitution" (page 13 para 5).
"Section 109 is invalidating and destructive ; it has no reconstructive aspect. It's operation is automatic, and does not require judicial order". (page 13 para 7).
"this Court has performed it's allotted function under the Constitution of ensuring that, whatever governments might say or Parliaments might seek to do, the citizen cannot be subjected to an obligation under state law which is contemporaneously inconsistent with an obligation under Commonwealth law to which he is also subjected". (page 21 para 11).
4. a) This is why Sections 58,59 and 60 CACA 1901, empowers both the Queen and the Governor General EXCLUSIVELY with the role of policing the laws of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, to ensure that they pass the tests of the Constitution 1901.
b) The role given to yourself by the Constitution 1901 pursuant to the above, is not the role of the Courts, but is the "mechanism" by which the role of the Queen and the Governor-General is given by the authority of the Constitution 1901, to "execute and maintain the Constitution 1901, and of the laws of the Commonwealth" wouldn't you agree??
5. Section 52 CACA 1901, describes the EXCLUSIVE powers of the Parliament, which includes since 1901, "matters relating to any department of the public service the control of which is by this Constitution, transferred to the Executive Government of the Commonwealth". (Section 52 (ii) CACA 1901).
6. a) Would you agree that since 1901, with the operation of s.109 CACA 1901 as described above, and with the ORDER of the Constitution 1901, described above, no employee of any public service in Australia can be under any form of employment, except that of yourself as Governor-General, as ORDERED by the Constitution since 1901, in Section 67 CACA 1901 , which states "the appointment and removal of all other officers of the Executive Government of the Commonwealth" (referring to the public service of Section 52 above), "shall be vested in the Governor-General in Council..."?
b) Legislation of the "states parliaments" claiming to be employers of a "public service", has been invalidated since 1901, by Section 109 and Section 70 CACA 1901, upheld by the ORDER of the High Court's "Metwally" (1984) since 1984, so why is not the Governor-General's office obeying the Constitution 1901, in the matters of hiring and firing of the public service, as ordered by the Constitution's 1901 Clause 5 Preamble since 1901, TO WHICH YOU ARE SUBJECT TO BY SECTION 2 CACA 1901???
c) When the High Court's "Metwally" (1984) ORDERED that it is intolerable for Australians to be subject to both state and Commonwealth law, and that the Constitution 1901, prevailed in all matters relating in your case, to the employment of the public service, why have the orders of the High Court not been obeyed by you as the Governor -General since 1984??.
d) Since Section 76 CACA 1901 ORDERS the role of the High Court as the PERSON EXCLUSIVELY empowered to police the Constitution 1901, with regard to the employment of the public service, why hasn't the ORDERS of the High Court been enforced by yourself???.
e) Since the public servants of the "state parliaments", so involved, cannot plead that they are employees of the "state" ; because since 1984, the Constitution's High Court has ruled in "Metwally" (1984) that s.109 CACA 1901 invalidates all state parliament laws since 1901, so the employees in the public service cannot use any state legislation to justify their behavior, would that be correct???
f) Since Clause 5 Preamble CACA 1901 ORDERS not only yourself (being subject to the Constitution 1901 by s. 2 CACA 1901), but the "people of every state and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any state ..." leaves any public servant, claiming to be employed by the legislation of the state parliament, without any defence whatsoever, with regards to an application to yourself for dismissal, (pursuant to S 67 CACA 1901), because Clause 5 Preamble CACA 1901 ORDERS obedience, and disobedience of the Governor-General, is not included as an excuse for the "state public servant" not obeying the Constitution 1901 in Clause 5 Preamble CACA 1901 is it???
g) This is why I sent the WRIT OF LEVY OF PROPERTY, which contains the following information:
(i) It is "authorised" by "legislation of a state" which s.109 CACA 1901, has invalidated since 1901, as ORDERED by "Metwally" (1984) and s. 76(i) CACA 1901.
(ii) a) It claims as a "Court" the "Local Court of NSW", which does not comply with s. 71 CACA 1901, which requires the "judicial power of the Commonwealth" to be under the control of a Federal Court (s. 77(iii) CACA 1901.
b) The Writ also cites for authority "The Land and Environment Court of NSW", also very blatantly claiming the legislation of a state parliament , that is again invalidated by S.109, S.71 and s. 70 CACA 1901.
c) The colonial "state" Courts, operating in 1901, were given Federal jurisdiction by the Constitution 1901, by ORDER of Section 77(iii) CACA 1901. This applied in 1901 to the District and Supreme Courts, which were established before 1900. As stated in "Metwally (1984) s.109 CACA 1901, has acted to invalidate state parliament legislation since 1901, so these Courts are not permitted by Section 109 or Clause 5 of the Preamble of the Constitution 1901, to use the judicial power of the Commonwealth pursuant to Section 71 CACA 1901, on matters involving law that has been invalidated by s.109 CACA 1901.
d) The laws the colonial parliaments used before 1901, were made "Constitutional", by their inclusion in Section 108 CACA 1901.
e) The colonial parliaments did not have legislative authority ever, they were administrative only, for the laws legislated by the U.K. Parliament, for use in the colonies.
f) This U.K. legislation, having been made "Constitutional" by these laws inclusion in s. 108 CACA 1901, meant that the laws in force before 1900, became not only "Constitutional" law, but "Federal Commonwealth Law" as well, ; just as the Courts of the District and Supreme Courts, became "Federal/Commonwealth" law as stated in s.77(iii) CACA 1901.
ALL OF THIS HAPPENED IN 1901.
g) Both the U.K. laws of the colonies, and the courts of the colonies, having been placed beyond the authority of any "colonial parliament" to legislate against ; both the colonial law having been placed beyond change by s.128 CACA 1901 (unless the people approved), how is it possible to believe the "state parliaments" had any Constitutions", as stated in s.106 CACA 1901???
h) This is why "Metwally" (1984) ruled against "state law" as stated in s.109 CACA 1901, because claiming such law exists "is a legal fiction", and the High Court's Order gives "the Constitutional right to ignore it" (ie "state law", as already quoted).
i) SInce 1901, both the public service of Australia, (s. 52(ii) and s. 67 CACA 1901) EXCLUSIVELY and the judiciary (s. 72(i) & (ii) CACA 1901), are hired and fired by the Governor-General. The Governor-General also hires and fires all members of the defence forces (s.68 CACA 1901) as well as the "police forces" of the states (s. 119 CACA 1901). NB The Constitution 1901 does not permit any state to"to raise or maintain any naval or military force" as ordered by s.114 CACA 1901.
j) Since Clause 5 Preamble CACA 1901 demands "This Constitution shall be binding on the courts, judges and people of every state and of every part of the Commonwealth ..."
it is incumbent on ALL PEOPLE, to be educated and know their role in the Constitution 1901, to maintain the "laws for peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth" as ORDERED by the Constitution 1901 in s.52 CACA 1901.
k) (i) Section 52(i) CACA 1901 gave "the seat of government of the Commonwealth EXCLUSIVELY to "the Parliament" of the Commonwealth, and "all places acquired for the Commonwealth for public purposes". How is it possible for the "state parliaments" to retain "seats of Parliament" in their old colonial buildings??
(ii) Section 52 CACA 1901, also deprived the hostile, lawless Oligarch's, of a public service in 1901, as well as a (s.114 CACA 1901), and with no judicial officers for their courts (s. 72(i) CACA 1901). How then would it be possible for these hostile Oligarch's to administer anything against the PEOPLE, who united in 1901 to get rid of them, by having ONE PARLIAMENT (S. 1, 58, 59 & 60 CACA 1901), EXCLUSIVELY (s. 52 CACA 1901), AS THE SEAT OF POWER (s.125 CACA 1901).
(iii) a) The Writ of Levy of Property was issued by a "judicial officer" named DEPUTY REGISTRAR (their name) , who for employment authority, is employed by the "Governor-General in Council", as authorised by Section 72(i) CACA 1901.
b) The Writ of Levy of Property, by (their name), is TREASON against the Constitution's Section 115 CACA 1901, which states, "A state shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts".
c) The issue of the Writ upon property, is clearly condemned as the crime of Treason (Section 24AA(1)(a)(i) 1914 Crimes Act), against Deputy Registrar (their name) and the removal of this Public Servant, is within the powers of the Governor-General only, as ordered by Section 72(ii) CACA 1901, for the crime of Treason against Section 115 CACA 1901, as well as Clause 5 Preamble CACA 1901, and s.109 & s.70 CACA 1901, as ordered by "Metwally" HC (1984) ORDERS I have "the Constitutional right to ignore" this invalid "state law".
d) The WRIT FOR LEVY OF PROPERTY, was served on me by a member of the Courts, operating as a Sheriff, being a member of the "courts", as stated in Clause 5 Preamble CACA 1901, which informs these people "This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the courts ...", which obviously includes the staff of the Courts, which includes the Sheriff, I submit, as his presence is required in the Courts, as part of their operation. The Sheriff's name (name) and Id No , and where the person is employed.
e) (i) Despite the enclosed WARNING displayed prominently for the Sheriff to read, (name of public servant) told me (name) would be back with a Warrant to Break and Enter my property without my permission, and the Warrant would be issued not by a Court, as ORDERED by the High Court's Plenty v Dillon (1991), but by the solicitor (name) acting as a "legal repesentative" for the "Plaintiff" (the council name).
(ii) (Name) Sheriff, was completely uninterested in the Constitutional rights stated clearly on the sign of No Trespassers allowed, without being in compliant with Plenty v Dillon HC (1991) ORDERS of The Queen must be a party to the proceedings, unless no entry is possible. The said Sheriff said he would be taking away to the Council's possession, any items that my daughter could not produce a receipt for to prove her ownership ; he was not interested in any Centrelink statements that she is the registered owner of assets on the property for the purpose of Centrlimk records.
f) The presence of the name (name of Council and ABN No.) on the Writ of Levy of Property, activates Section 128 CACA 1901, which ORDERED "local councils have no establishment or continuance" SINCE 1988. The fact that they are now using an Australian Business Number Registration, cannot restore their "establishment or continuance" because these two terms mean just that, NOT IN ANY FORM, since 1988.
g) There is absolutely no legislation that establishes, Australian Registered Businesses, to practice as a "Local Government", because neither the laws of the Commonwealth, nor Section 128 CAAC 1901, has permitted "local council governments" to be permitted by the Constitution since 1901, and by ORDER of the People's Constitution 1901, pursuant to Section 128 CACA 1901, since 1988.
7. Clause 5 Preamble CACA 1901, binds everyone as "this Act" to make it a personal responsibility of every person, to assist the Queen and the Governor-General in their responsibilities, "for the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth". (s. 61 CACA 1901).
8. If the persons named in Cause 5 Preamble CACA 1901, will not be bound by the Constitution's ORDERS, then the powers invoked to deal with this matter, given EXCLUSIVELY to yourself, as already stated, must come into action, otherwise what is the point of any law at all???
9. This matter has nothing to do with a dispute in a Court, as might be claimed, this letter involves "the execution and maintenance of this Constitution" CACA (1901), and it is my submission, that "this Constitution" has ORDERED that it is your EXCLUSIVE duty, to act to do so, and deal with those I have named as being offenders against the Constitution 1901, according to the ORDERS of the Constitution 1901, that I have directed your attention to.
10. This matter needs your URGENT ATTENTION, because if a "Warrant" as threatened is carried out, then my severely disabled daughter, and myself, as her elderly Centrelink approved permenent carer for thirty years, will be rendered homeless and utterly destitute, and everything we have, including clothing and legal papers, will be the EXCLUSIVE possession of the said council (including all our Identity Papers), PERMANENTLY. This was done to us by Tamworth Council in 2003. To this day, my Deeds or any Identity papers, and possessions have not been returned, this includes ALL family photos. This was done without a Court ORDER of any description by a Tamworth Sheriff, Council staff, numerous police and two ambulances, which is a RIOT situation.
11. We were made homeless and destitute by the same solicitor (name) named above, because he was also the solicitor of my former land-lord (Name), who made an application for an approval for a boarding house to (name of council). Within the space of a few weeks we were given an eviction notice, without any reason, and evicted by two Sheriffs, with a "Warrant" issued by (landlord's name) without any warning. The land-lord and family members walked in with the Sheriff's and 6 police officers, and was given our belongings also.We were evicted with no Reference, to allow access to accommodation. The landlady told the court she returned some of our belongings, after she "recycled them" first, and because she declared the recycled items she kept to be "rubbish" (which included legal papers, identity papers items, also the Council's Summons), the Tribunal did not order her to return them.
12. The threats of theft contained in the letter (dated) by (name) (enclosed) stating "We have been contacted by (name of council), who have informed us they are planning on forcibly removing the shipping container and transportable offices from your property".
When these threats are made without justification or any authority whatsoever, this is a blatant threat the LAW could call "TERRORISM". Is this "terror" to become the future operation of "law" in Australia???
My father fought the Japanese and the Gestapo to preserve the peace and prosperity of Australia in our present time, and I hope it will be your conviction that I should receive your help to do so.
Yours faithfully,
_________________________________________
(your name).
