So, I saw the story about gun stores that were forced to shut down due to new "rules" now saying they are banding together and going to sue the state government
'I can't pay bills': Gun dealers set to sue police over ban on sales
...and it made me think about our individual rights and freedoms.
Obviously every situation is going to be different but lets say I am walking down the street and decide to just sit in the sun on the bench, the media have told us this is not OK, the "rules" are you can only be out if your going to work, supermarket, pharmacy or exercising. So if I am fined, what legal basis is there for the fine and can I fight it legally in court?
This is a tough one, unfortunately legal and lawful are two different things, the political parties (parliament) believe they can make whatever Act and Statutes and pass them of as law. The question is, where do they get their authority from, to enforce it as law and is it constitutionally passed as Law?
The political parties (parliament) authoritie to make such Act and Statutes, (whenever they please) derived from the 1986 Australian Act
Now a little history lesson
1901 Commonwealth Constitution UK
Was created by "We the people" by the will of the people at Federation.
The Commonwealth Constitution sits "under Us" as it's our constitution. It's sovereign, as we are and it's the will of the people expressed by referendum, how the politicians (parliament) get to govern us. For us, not over us.
P791 commonwealth constitution 1901 " Says"
The federal parliament and the state Parliaments are not sovereign bodies; they are legislatures with limited powers, and any law which they attempt to pass in excess of those powers is no law at all it is simply a nullity, entitled to no obedience.
Also Pg 676 says the parliament is not supreme
Also Pg 794 Australia Parliamentary is not like the British parliament which are semi sovereign.
So some how, and I'm yet to figure it out, the Labour party "Bob Hawk our priminister" in 1986 (who was a duel nationalist with Israel) managed to pass The Australian Act, taking us into being a independent nation without consulting "we the people" without a referendum??, then deciding he could change my state WA, western Australia constitution. Change!! And from as far as I have researched, sec 106 alter in accordance with our constitution (which has not been done). This boggles my mind, cause the constitution is Law and I'm not sure what part of the law didn't the political party understand at that time.
The law is we the people, not we the political party, there is nothing from what I can find that gave them the authority to do so. Queensland in 1929 took out it's upper house 🤔 How?? Even Whitlam was sacked, for going behind the will of the people, but history seems to repeat. Also in 2005 Wayne Stewart Martin changed the oath of elegance to the Crown/ Queen Act, and the wrote a new WA state constitution. Huh?? So we dont have anymore any officer's of the Crown, police, judges politicians, everyone!! So under what authority do they all serve under NOW??
This link below is the current fileing to the courts of England to explain/ rectify the matter, and 28 days have passed.
commonwealthofaustralia.org
So this is by far no legal advice that I'm offering and saying, as I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a builder that has stumbled across the commonwealth constitution with my own infringement I'm battling, but the evidence/ truth can never disappear.
So as I see it, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong?
My WA state parliament with limited powers make Acts and Statutes to enforce police to be set up as road blocks to stop you from traveling interstate, stop you for traveling without there few reasons of travel, stop you/your business from working, and to excessively hinder your free will as sovereign to my constitution? This surly sounds like Federal not a state issue at all, so I say No!! They can't tell you what to do. You do have a considerable amount of leverage to contest it.
The issue is, will it be a legal judicial system under the Australian Act? Or a lawful one under the Comenweath Constitution 1901??
I haven't yet been confronted by a police officer yet
If they are even a police officer, cause legally they have been changed to public officers by the political parties, I'm not going to go there, but you can look up the meaning of public officers and who does it refers to.
Not saying I'm 100% correct and I'm always keen to learn the truth.
Cheers.