Oct 14 2007
EDITORIAL:I spoke with Nic Faulkner this Sunday morning and he informed me that his email to the Governor General needed to be addressed by the recipients staff and contacted the federal Police on duty (identifying them for future reference) at the Governors Canberra residence this morning, making them aware of the urgency of the email as it concerned a constitutional matter requiring his most urgent attention today.
There is a 15 page document that is a concise highlight of how the High Court of Australia (HCA) has by virtue of their most important position in Australian society, either intentionally, or unintentionally, brought about unfettered political power in this nation and in so doing we now have political power being wielded in this Nation in an Ultra Vires (Beyond their powers) manner.
Section 128 of the constitution states: The Constitution shall NOT be altered except in the following manner:
Now without transcribing the whole section, nothing after the above first sentence of section 128, therein contained, removes, or allows the removal, of the absolute necessity for any change to the Constitution what so ever, or how so ever, from the people of the Nation’s sole inalienable right to allow, or disallow such change. No Act, parliamentary, or other wise, in any way what so ever, can over ride this Constitutional right of ultimate power delivered to the people of the Australian Commonwealth by our founding Constitutional Framers.
In fact they clearly understood the possibility of arriving at the position we now find ourselves in today.
Date: 14 October 2007 7:07:16 AM
Subject: URGENT The rule of law and the ConstitutionMajor General Michael Jeffrey
As you are aware from my previous communications with the Office of Governor General I have raised certain constitutional matters for your understanding
In my position as a representative of the Sovereign People of Australia, I am asking for a response from you in regard to our claims that the executive instrument “the Letters Patent 1984 relating to the Office of Governor General and the amended 2003 version, were beyond power of the Queen of Australia(RST Act (Cth) 1973) to use the Great Seal of Australia, when She was not “personally present in Australia.” (Royal Powers Act(Cth)1953) Also the comment by Tony Abbott (below) should be of major concern to you and I refer to the “maintenance of this Constitution” (sec 61) as it supports our contention that the Constitution has been amended ultra vires of any authority by the Sovereign People of Australia. “It seems quite clear that the constitution can be altered by means other than Section 128 Referendum – against, I’m sure, the intentions of the founders and against, I’m equally sure, the expectations of the Australian people.”
I have also been gifted by my Elders, both Cultural and Indigenous, certain authority to act in respect of the Universal rule of Natural Law and Spirituality, as set out in Petitions tabled in the Senate 24/6/2004. The Constitution Act 1900(UK) 1901(Cth) purportedly is the law of the land and on a statutory level that is correct.
However the higher laws of Nature are of particular interest to me as they should be to you and every person on this planet.
Our Parliaments are in ignorance and act in ignorance of those higher laws that bind all mankind. Hence the predicament with “man made climate change.”
Until we understand and respect the Natural Law mankind is consigned to create more pollution and toxic waste, more dysfunctional governance all in the pursuit of “Mammon.” Are we a society or just an economy?
I have not come to you or the Commissioner and others to throw a spanner in the works, I have merely come to point out to you that when man acts outside of the LAW, then he must ultimately pay the price of the LAW, based on reciprocity The bible speaks of this LAW, it is known to the Elders and its basis is respect.
The current Parliaments in Australia are a dysfunctional mess, we have division and disrespect, with little co-operation from the political parties to govern the Australian people “without fear or favour. And both parties have sold off the common wealth of this Nation to corporate interests.
Remember corporations come under statue law, which comes under Natural Law.
We are however allowing corporations to now overrule the wishes of the Sovereign People of Australia. The decision in favour of Gunn’s Mill is not what the people of Australia want, nor do they wish our troops to be invading Sovereign Nations outside of International Law. Have we forgotten the lessons of the Nuremberg War Trials?
There is a better way!
Which ever way you choose to go, when Mr Howard comes to see you, if you issue the writs, you have been foretold that this will breach any authority you purportedly hold and as such the consequences under the higher laws will be evoked. This is not a threat or my choice, nor do I have any control over the outcomes of your decision, I am merely the messenger.
Her Majesty has been poorly advised by both Bob Hawke and John Howard when they attended Her Court at Balmoral and Windsor respectively, to act outside of Her powers. As such we the Sovereign People of Australia are petitioning our grievances and wish for you to inform Her Majesty and correct this matter. Under convention and your duties as “Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth”(defacto according to our research) and my position as Her Majesty’s subject under the Constitution, this is my request of you
I understand the difficult position you may find yourself in at this moment, however all the past mistakes can be brought to light and corrected in LAW right now and we all as Australians move forward united “under the correct authority.” Or we fail to admit our mistakes and by so doing consign our nation to living a lie, and one lie begets another and another and another.
This is your choice.
I am available to meet with you to discuss this further or if you wish to contact me on any matter, I am at your service.
On behalf of the Sovereign People of Australia
02 6685 1824
3rd October 2007 Previous Correspondence to the Governor General
From: Nic Faulkner
Date: 6 October 2007 3:23:31 PM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: Letters Patent 2003 still invalid/unlawful
The Governor General, the Acting Administrator of the Commonwealth Marie Bashir and Commissioner of AFP,
I have just visited the Governor General’s website and found the 2003 “Letters Patent”.
Please note that at Our Court Windsor is not in Australia, so the use by the Queen of the Great Seal of Australia is not permitted under the Royal Powers Act (Cth) 1953. Nor is it permitted under the Crown Office Act (UK) 1877 and the Great Seal Act 1884.
Further more I contacted the Commissioner of the AFPs office on Friday 6th October and informed them that the “Issuing of writs” for a federal election would be a criminal offence, under the Constitution. With respect to you Mr Jeffery, you have no lawful Commission of Appointment to act as Governor General in Australia as the Constitution has been breached by several Acts of the Parliament.
I write this to you today to put it on record that you have been duly notified of the position of the Sovereign People of Australia, who are part of the body politic which created the Commonwealth of Australia.
We request/demand that you initiate immediate communications with us so that we can reconcile the correct Authority under the Constitution.
May I say again with due respect, we the People have had enough of the lies, deception and obfuscation that is constantly coming from our Parliament.
There is a better way to govern this Nation and it requires our Parliament to be under the rule of law and the Constitution.
There are without doubt hundreds of thousands of people in Australia who know that the Constitution has been overridden. We are the Sovereign People of Australia.
Do not, I reiterate, do not issue writs for an election. I humbly expect you all to honour the law of this land, as it was called by the Crown “Terra Nullius”, just another porkie. The law of Gondwanna is based in reciprocity.
Sue v Hill explained
23 June 1999
HIGH COURT’S DECISION IN SUE V HILL/SHARPLES V HILL
The High Court held today that Mrs Heather Hill, who was elected to the Senate as a One Nation candidate in the elections held on 3 October 1998, was incapable of being elected.
At the time of her election, Mrs Hill held both Australian and British citizenship.
The High Court held that Mrs Hill was incapable of being elected as a senator because, at the time she was elected, she was a subject or citizen of a foreign power, the United Kingdom.
Section 44(i) of the Commonwealth Constitution disqualifies a subject or citizen of a foreign power from being elected. The High Court decided that the United Kingdom is a foreign power for the purposes of this section.
The High Court also held by majority that provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 which provide for it to sit as the Court of Disputed Returns to decide electoral disputes gave it jurisdiction in the case.
The Court decided that there should be a recount. Submissions will be heard tomorrow for the purpose of considering the future course of the proceedings.
The High Court’s decision today has no direct implications for the referendum to be held in November this year on whether Australia should become a republic.
The Government will take the decision into account in its ongoing consideration of the operation of s.44 of the Constitution.
I have asked my Department and the Australian Government Solicitor to advise me further on the implications of today’s decision