2007 Australian Federal Elections - Nic Faulkner Independent Candidate for Richmond Representing Sovereign People of Australia

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend

Letters Patent relating to the Office of Governor General 1984 proof of invalidity, no authority to issue writs for election.

Email received 5th October 2007.

Nic Faulkner
Independent Candidate for Richmond
Representing the Sovereign People of Australia

Governor General, Commissioner of Police, John Howard PM, Kevin Rudd MP the Commonwealth Attorney General, the Commonwealth Electoral Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Senators, MP's,

I am contacting you in my position as an intending candidate for the seat of Richmond.
As you are aware I have previously brought several questions of Constitutional Law to you all in your positions.
I have attached research for your reference.

I first stood for Parliament in 1995 and realised my work required me to understand the Constitution, its history and it's interpretation by the High Court.
This research included documents from Parliamentary Library, National Archives, Hansard, the High Court of Australia and the authoritative works of Quick and Garrans Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth 1901.
Many things I found in my research could not be reconciled with history, legislation High Court rulings and the Constitution Act 1901.

“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.”
Tony Abbott MP (Member for Warringah, House of Representatives)
This comment should put our position to you very clearly. It should be a starting point for any investigations of our claims, once Mr Abbott has explained his comment the rest will fall into place.
This statement alone, is enough to evidence that the Constitution has been tampered with outside of the scope of the Founders and the Sovereign People of Australia intended in the compact with the Crown in establishing the Commonwealth of Australia, under the Act 1901.
But wait, there's more!

Hansard Hof R, 30 September 1921 at page 11631.
The Hon. Billy Hughes, PM and Attorney General, in quoting the opening words of the 1921 Imperial Conference, Lloyd George PM of the United Kingdom stated
“In recognition of their services and achievements in the War the British Dominions have now been accepted fully into the comity of the nations of the whole world. They are signatories to the Treaty of Versailles and of all other Treaties of Peace; they are members of the Assembly of the League of Nations and their representatives have already attended meetings of the League: in other words, they have achieved full national status, and they now stand beside the United Kingdom as equal partners in the dignitaries of the British Commonwealth. If there are any means by which that status can be rendered even more clear to their own communities and to the world at large, we shall be glad to have them put forward at this Conference.”
“In these words, the Prime Minister of Britain, the President of the Conference, set out in clear and unambiguous language the concept of a partnership of free nations, all equal in dignity and responsibility, to which the Conference subsequently formally and officially set its seal.”(Hughes).

By comparison to the following, Callinan, Gaudron, Kirby J and Gleeson CJ in Sue V Hill 1999, responding to the position of the Commonwealth Solicitor General in intervening for the Petitioners, and advancing the evolutionary theory of nationhood, purportedly under sec 51 xxxix Implied Nationhood Power.

“The evolutionary theory is, with respect, a theory to be regarded with great caution. In propounding it, neither the petitioners nor the Commonwealth identify a date upon which the evolution became complete, ….. . Nor could they point to any statute, historical occurrence or event which necessarily concluded the process.”

“The truth is that the defining event in practice will, and can only be a decision of this Court ruling that the evolutionary process is complete, and here, as the petitioners and the Commonwealth accept, has been complete for some unascertained and unascertainable time in the past. In reality, a decision of this Court upon that basis would change the law … .” Callinan J p70,71

“At the very latest, the Commonwealth of Australia was transformed into a sovereign, independent nation with the enactment of the Australia Act.” Gaudron J p40 @173

“I know this is an eccentric and personal view but I have always wondered what the UK Parliament was doing enacting law in 1986 in relation to Australia.” Kirby J.

“ The Commonwealth of Australia, as such , had assumed international personality at some date well before the enactment of the Australia Act. Differing views have been expressed as to the identification of that date ….. Gleeson CJ @ 85

The Constitution Act 1901

Section-61 of the Constitution
Executive Power
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.

The Royal Styles and Titles 1953 was purportedly enacted under the authority of sections of the Statute of Westminster (refer 2nd reading speech by PM Bob Menzies).
In 1953 it was found that the Queen had no Constitutional powers or functions for Her visit to Australia as they had been delegated to the Governor General, under the Constitution and Letters Patent 1900(issued by Queen Victoria), as the Queen's representative in the Commonwealth.

Royal Powers Act 1953
An Act relating to the exercise by the Queen of Powers under Acts of the Parliament
1 Short title [see Note 1]
This Act may be cited as the Royal Powers Act 1953.
2 Exercise of statutory powers by the Queen
(1) At any time when the Queen is personally present in Australia, any power under an Act exercisable by the Governor-General may be exercised by the Queen.
(2) The Governor-General has the same powers with respect to an act done, or an instrument made, granted or issued, by the Queen by virtue of this section as the GovernorGeneral has with respect to an act done, or an instrument made, granted or issued, by the GovernorGeneral himself.
(3) Nothing in this section affects or prevents the exercise of any power under an Act by the GovernorGeneral.
(4) In this section, references to the GovernorGeneral or to the Queen shall be read as references to the GovernorGeneral, or to the Queen, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

In 1973 the Royal Styles and Titles Act was enacted.

3

An Act relating to the Royal Style and Titles

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 [see Note 2], Her Majesty, by Proclamation dated 28th May, 1953, adopted, as the Royal Style and Titles to be used in relation to the Commonwealth of Australia and its Territories, the Style and Titles set forth in the Schedule to that Act:

In Sue v Hill 1999 the High Court found that the RST 1973 was purportedly enacted under sec 51xxxix matters incidental
Mr Bennett. Commonwealth Solicitor (transcript)
“The Royal Styles and Titles Act is an Act passed in 1973, part of the process of recognition of the Queen in relation to Australia.
Gaudron J: Under what head of legislative power was that enacted?
Mr Bennett: I suppose 51 (xxxix), your Honour. It is incidental to the nationhood power.
Gaudron J: The nationhood power is implied. There is no 51(xl), is there?
Bennett: No your Honour there is not.
Gaudron J: Does 51 (xxxix) take you the distance? It is either under the implied nationhood power or it is not, is it not?
Mr Bennett: Yes. Your Honour, section 51(xxxix) can be read, I suppose, as “any power” as including any or all powers.

Section 51 (xxxix)
matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or in either House thereof, or in the Government of the Commonwealth, or in the Federal Judicature, or in any department or officer of the Commonwealth.

“In section 51, and in various other sections of the Constitution, certain legislative powers are conferred on the Federal Parliament It was not necessary, and it would not have been appropriate, in framing the Constitution, to crowd it with minute details and elaborate specifications of power, or to declare the means by which those powers were to be carried into execution. This, however, is obvious: that every grant of power draws after it others not expressed, but consequential, incidental, and vital to its exercise; not substantive and independent, but auxiliary and subordinate.

This sub-section has been introduced in order to give express authority to deal with the words of machinery, procedure, execution and “ways and means” and is a direct authority for the exercise of all necessary, incidental or implied powers, to enable the Federal Parliament to carry out the great provisions of the instrument of government. As such, it is a distinct enlargement of power, and adds fullness and elasticity to every specific grant.
The powers of the government are limited, and its limits are not to be transcended.”

“Powers vested by this Constitution.”
Having drawn attention in a general manner to the scope of this sub-section, and illustrated its authority, we now proceed to note several of its features which require separate treatment. It must be observed that this sub-section comprehends matters subsidiary and contributory to the execution of any power granted “by this Constitution.”
Quick and Garran p 651.

In 1975 the Solicitor General for the Commonwealth advised PM Gough Whitlam that the Letters Patent 1900 was of superfluous and of questionable use.(refer to legal advice and statement tabled by Hawke )
Work began on updating the Letters Patent and continued on through the Fraser then Hawke Parliaments.
It is to be remembered that the Constitution and original Letters Patent 1900 delegated all Constitutional powers and prerogatives of the Queen to the Governor General as Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth.
These powers and prerogatives include giving the Royal Assent and the use by the Governor General of the Great Seal of Australia.

In 1984 PM Bob Hawke went to Balmoral with an Executive Instrument, the Letters Patent relating to the Office of Governor General and the Great Seal of Australia.

This then is the problem.

The Royal Powers Act specifies that

(1) At any time when the Queen is personally present in Australia, any power under an Act exercisable by the GovernorGeneral may be exercised by the Queen.

It is obvious that Our Court at Balmoral is not in Australia, and therefore the advice that PM Hawke gave to Her Majesty was beyond his authority and ultra-vires of the Constitution and the Act 1900(UK) and 1901(Cth).
Given that the Royal Powers Act 1953 states "when the Queen is personally present in Australia", the use of the Great Seal of Australia at Balmoral UK, by the Queen
is ultra vires of any authority.
It follows that the tabling of the Letters Patent before the Parliament was beyond the authority of the Parliament to note and pass, without any statement being read by the PM as to their validity and need.

“And all laws”
The words “under the Constitution” are words of limitation and qualification….
Not all enactment's purporting to be laws made by the Parliament are binding, but those laws made under and in pursuance of, and within the authority conferred by the Constitution and only those are binding on the courts, judges and the people. A law made in excess of the Authority conferred by the Constitution, is no law; it is wholly void ….. what is not so granted to the Parliament of the Commonwealth is denied it. What is not so granted is either reserved for the States as expressed in their respective Constitutions, or remains vested but dormant in the people of the Commonwealth. Quick and Garran p346.

Conversely, when Her Majesty sits in at Court in the UK, She is bound by UK Law.
UK Law states the Queen must issue Letters Patent, Commissions etc. under the relevant Oaths, Offices and Seal's Acts.

In 1988 the Constitutional Commission delivered its findings in 2 volumes.
Terms of Reference
(a). Among other things to report on the revision of the Constitution to “ adequately reflect Australia’s status as an independent nation.” 2.130
“The development of Australian nationhood did not require any changes to the Australian Constitution.”
But at 3.111
”Any law which changes the meaning or operation of the Constitution is a law to alter the Constitution. A law to alter covering clauses 2, 5 or 6 might clearly alter the operation and meaning of the Constitution. It could therefore not be enacted pursuant to section 51 (xxxviii).”

”now an alteration means any change in the shape of amplifications, additions, omissions or modifications of old matter in the Constitution.” Quick and Garran p 985.

The Australia Acts were purportedly enacted under sec 51xxxviii, this is at odds with the finding @3.111
This is supported by the following comments
Kirby J: (transcript) Your reference to 1986 is a reliance on the Australia Acts, including the Act of a foreign country and an Act of the Australian Parliament, without the sanction of the people you say that altered our constitution.
Mr Finch: No your Honour, we say that that concluded the process …

Mr Finch: If the constitution were found to be of a different effect, then what we say about the affect of the Australia Acts would, in effect, I suppose, amount to an assertion that the Australia Acts had amended the Constitution.
Callinan J: Yes, which I think is what Justice Kirby was effectively alluding to.

Furthermore Quick and Garran state
… the Australian Parliament and the people have a general power to amend the Constitution and it may have been considered wise and prudent that, coupled with a right so great and important, there should be a reminder, placed in the forefront of the deed of political partnership between the federating colonies, that the union, sealed by the Imperial Parliamentary sanction, was intended by the contracting parties to be a lasting one, and that no alteration should be suggested or attempted inconsistent with the continuity of the Commonwealth as an integral part of the British Empire. p 294.
“Under the Crown.”
It might be contended with great force that such amendments would be repugnant to the preamble; that they would at least involve a breach of one of the cardinal understandings or conventions of the constitution, and, indeed the argument might go so far as to assert that they would be ultra vires of the constitution, as being destructive of the scheme of the Union under the Crown contemplated in the preamble. p295.

Our finding at law is that no current Commission of Appointment, under Letters Patent authorising the Governor General to Act as Her Majesty's Representative in the Commonwealth exists.
Furthermore no authority exists for the "Queen of Australia" using the Great Seal of Australia to revoke the Letters Patent 1900 issued under the Great Seal of the Realm.
Clause I 1984 Letters Patent. " We revoke the Letters patent dated 29th October 1900, as amended, and our Instructions to the Governor General dated 29th October 1900, as amended."

This being the case, no authority exists to issue writs for a Commonwealth election under the Electoral Act or the Constitution Act 1901.

In reference to the above information:
Question 1) Can you provide evidence and authorities of when the Commonwealth of Australia became an independent Sovereign Nation, under International Law and "under the Constitution"?

Question 2) Can you provide legislation, annotations and authorities that evidences that the High Court findings that sec 51xxxix are "implied nationhood powers" and do not breach their Chapter III powers "under the Constitution", ie contrary to Quick and Garran's annotation regarding 51xxxix?

Question 3) Can you provide evidence and authorities that the Queen "in right of Australia" can use the Great Seal of Australia when She is not present in Australia, contrary to the Royal Powers Act(Cth) 1953?

Question 4) Can you provide evidence and authorities that prove the Solicitor Generals legal advice in 1975 regarding the 1900 Letters Patent was not based on
the removal of the words United Kingdom from the Royal Styles and Titles Act (Cth)1953. Which left the Executive authority to an entity not recognised by the Constitution Act, nor approved by the People under section 128 of the Constitution.

Question 5) Can you provide evidence and authorities that the Queen can use the Great Seal of Australia, to revoke the Letters Patent 1900 issued by the UK Chancery and signed by Queen Victoria under the Great Seal of the Realm, contrary to provisions of the relevant the Oaths, Offices and Seals Acts (UK), the Coronation Act, Bill of Right etc.?

You are all, in your personal and official capacities being put on Notice that any attempt to issue writs, before this issue is resolved will be breach of the Treason Act and the Constitution Act 1901.
We the Sovereign People of Australia have tried on many occasions to have these matters heard before the High Court, we have not been allowed to present these matters to the Court, by way of its rules of vexatious and frivolous actions.
This is in contempt of the Peoples rights under the Constitution and our rights at Common Law and Constitutional Law to bring matters to the Crown that breach the above Acts.
We the Sovereign People of Australia demand that these questions be validly answered prior to any attempt to issue writs for a federal election.

We require you to furnish answers and authorities to the 5 above questions,

This is a most serious matter.

My phone number is 02 66851824, I will expect that you all acknowledge receipt of this letter and will either contact me for clarification of the points raised and showing how you will attempt to rectify the lack of Executive authority in the Commonwealth.

Nic Faulkner
Independent Candidate for Richmond
Representing the Sovereign People of Australia

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIC FAULKNER'S RESEARCH DOCUMENT

This paper has been written to highlight the inconsistencies, anomalies and contradictions by Justices of the High Court and by such authorities as Sir David Smith, Secretary for 5 Governors General, Rt Hon. Gough Whitlam, Professors at Law, Members of Parliament and other eminent people.
No paper on constitutional law would be complete without an extensive examination and reference to the authoritative works of Commentaries on the Constitution of the Commonwealth 1901 by Quick and Garran, as a precise interpretation of the Constitution clause 9, contained within the whole “Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia.”

The comment of Justice Callinan in Sue v Hill (H.C.A.) 1999 below, has lead to a number of questions which demand an objective perspective of constitutional history. The only way to achieve this was to work from Federation onwards to discover if and when new heads of power were granted, expanded and or assumed.

”now an alteration means any change in the shape of amplifications, additions, omissions or modifications of old matter in the Constitution.” p 985.

About the Author

Nic Faulkner stood as a Democrat in 95 in Ballina, for Mayor in 2000, as an Independent candidate for Richmond 2001 and Ballina in 2002. He was unable to lawfully nominate, for the 2004 federal election, since the decision of the H.C.A. in Sue v Hill. As Kirby J stated “ there are possibly millions of Australians, who will be affected by this courts decision.”

I have brought these matters before the Governor General, Members of Parliament, the Courts and the Federal Police, the questions raised in this paper must be answered, or we would contend that an agenda to obfuscate, distort and misrepresent the truth has been engaged in.
Current Position of the High Court “The petitioners (and the Commonwealth which supports them) acknowledge that at the time of Federation the United Kingdom was unquestionably not a foreign power. One of their primary arguments on the central question whether the United Kingdom is a foreign power is that, as time has passed, circumstances have changed, and the United Kingdom, by a process of evolution has now become a power foreign to Australia (the "evolutionary theory"). It is upon that argument that I wish to comment.

The evolutionary theory is, with respect, a theory to be regarded with great caution. In propounding it, neither the petitioners nor the Commonwealth identify a date upon which the evolution became complete, in the sense that, as and from it, the United Kingdom was a foreign power. Nor could they point to any statute, historical occurrence or event which necessarily concluded the process. There were, they asserted, a series of milestones, for example, Federation itself, the HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sowaa1942379/" Statute of Westminster Adoption Act (Cth), the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth) and the Australia Acts HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/1999/30.html?query=title+%28+%22sue+v+hill%22+%29" \l "fn385#fn385" [386] but neither the last of these nor any other enactment was said to be the destination marker of the evolution.

The great concern about an evolutionary theory of this kind is the doubt to which it gives rise with respect to peoples' rights, status and obligations as this case shows. The truth is that the defining event in practice will, and can only be a decision of this Court ruling that the evolutionary process is complete, and here, as the petitioners and the Commonwealth accept, has been complete for some unascertained and unascertainable time in the past. In reality, a decision of this Court upon that basis would change the law by holding that, not withstanding that HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" the Constitution did not treat the United Kingdom as a foreign power at Federation and for some time thereafter, it may and should do so now.”

“I would therefore be inclined to hold that the evolutionary theory which has been advanced in this case, having as it does the defect of uncertainty as to events and conclusion, should not be accepted or applied here. However on neither that nor the other arguments relied on by the parties and the Commonwealth is it necessary for me to express any concluded opinion in view of my agreement with McHugh J on the issue of jurisdiction.” Callinan J p 70,71.

Questions arising from the Doctrines of “Evolutionary theory of Nationhood” and “Legal Positivism”, as espoused by the High Court of Australia.

Are the Australian People sovereign?
On what date and by what Instrument was the Legal Sovereignty transferred from the Imperial Parliament.

Who is Australias’ Head of State?

Has Australia become a quasi republic by default?

Background information
The following events and documents can be used to trace the some of the milestones on the
“evolutionary theory of Nationhood.”

The Proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia, Letters Patent and Instructions, Royal Assent and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901.

Commentaries on the Constitution of the Commonwealth 1901 Quick and Garran.

Resolution IX of the 1917 Imperial War Cabinet.

Hansard, H. of R. 30 September 1921 Page 11630. Imperial Conference.

Balfour Declaration 1926, from the Imperial Conference.

Statute of Westminster 1931.

Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth)

Royal Styles and Titles Act (Cth) 1953

Royal Styles and Titles Act (Cth) 1973

Legal opinion Cth Solicitor General Maurice Byers 1975

Letters Patent and Instructions relating to the Office of Governor General 1984

Statement tabled relating to the Governor Generals Letters patent

Australia Acts Cth and State 1986

The Final Report of the Constitutional Commission 1988

Sue V Hill (HCA) 1999

Constitution Alteration Bill Cth and State 1999

In 1988 the Constitutional Commission delivered its findings in 2 volumes. The commission was set up to Terms of Reference (a). Among other things to report on the revision of the Constitution to “ adequately reflect Australia’s status as an independent nation.” 2.130

“The development of Australian nationhood did not require any changes to the Australian Constitution.” But at 3.111

”Any law which changes the meaning or operation of the Constitution is a law to alter the Constitution. A law to alter covering clauses 2, 5 or 6 might clearly alter the operation and meaning of the Constitution. It could therefore not be enacted pursuant to section 51 (xxxviii).”

This paper will show that the above statements are in conflict with each other in regard to the “evolutionary theory of Nationhood” and the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) and its Adoption (Cth) 1942(backdated), why? The Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 and the Australia Acts State and Commonwealth 1986. 3.111 must also apply to these Acts.

Are the Australian People Sovereign?
According to the High Court of Australia, “Since the enactment of the Australia Acts 1986, sovereignty now resides in the People of the Commonwealth by way of Section 128,”

Before attempting any definition of sovereignty, it is advisable to call attention to the necessity of avoiding confusion between four distinct uses of the word:-
legal sovereignty of the British Parliament, political sovereignty of the Australian people, titular sovereignty, sovereignty of the Queen and delegated sovereignty, the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901.

“The opening words of the Preamble proclaim the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia is founded on the will of the people ……. Although it proceeds from the people, it is clothed with the form of law by an Act of the Imperial Parliament.” p 285.

“As the primary meaning of the word is a legal one, it is best to begin from that viewpoint.”
“In the Constitution of the Commonwealth of course there is no absolute sovereignty, but a quasi- sovereignty which resides in the people of the Commonwealth, who may express their will on constitutional questions by a majority of electors voting and a majority of the States.”

“These safeguards have been provided, not in order to prevent or indefinitely resist change in any direction, but in order to prevent change being made in haste of by stealth, to encourage public discussion and to delay change until there is strong evidence that it is desirable, irresistible, and inevitable.” p 985.

What some have said.
“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.”
Tony Abbott MP (Member for Warringah, House of Representatives)

“The Australia Acts 1986 …. Referendums were not required because no change was being made to the wording of the Constitution, …… I advised and believed that, as everyone knew that the 1986 Act was making profound and fundamental constitutional change, and was intended to do so,….
Leolin Price Q.C. London

“There is a considerable debate now as to whether the ultimate foundation for the Australian Constitution is the will of the people.”
Hon Justice Kirby AC CMG (H.C.A)
”Is Our Constitution Safe”, Nick Hobson DFC AFC

Mc Hugh J: (trans. S v H) It is a question of identifying sovereignty. Sovereignty is basically a political concept. I appreciate it is a legal concept in a sense, but sovereignty must now reside in the Australian people, although prior to 1986, in my view it resided in another place.

“Political Sovereignty”:
The legal sovereignty of the Parliament (UK) is undoubted; but the Sovereignty of Parliament, a principle of transcendent force and importance which superseded the sovereignty of royalty, is in reality, if not in name, rapidly tending to become a fiction, like

that of the regal sovereignty, which for a time it supplanted; it is gradually giving way before the idea of sovereignty of the electoral body, or the sovereignty of the people represented by
the electors … the movement in favour of the referendum which finds it place in this Constitution as a means for the alteration of the organic law tends in this direction. p327.

On what date and by what Instrument was that Sovereignty transferred from the Imperial Parliament?

Hansard Hof R, 30 September 1921 at page 11631 in a speech by Hon. Billy Hughes, PM and Attorney General, in quoting the opening words of the 1921 Imperial Conference, Lloyd George PM of the United Kingdom stated
“In recognition of their services and achievements in the War the British Dominions have now been accepted fully into the comity of the nations of the whole world. They are signatories to the Treaty of Versailles and of all other Treaties of Peace; they are members of the Assembly of the League of Nations and their representatives have already attended meetings of the League: in other words, they have achieved full national status, and they now stand beside the United Kingdom as equal partners in the dignitaries of the British Commonwealth. If there are any means by which that status can be rendered even more clear to their own communities and to the world at large, we shall be glad to have them put forward at this Conference.”

“In these words, the Prime Minister of Britain, the President of the Conference, set out in clear and unambiguous language the concept of a partnership of free nations, all equal in dignity and responsibility, to which the Conference subsequently formally and officially set its seal.”(Hughes).

By comparison to the following, Callinan, Gaudron, Kirby J and Gleeson CJ in Sue V Hill 1999, responding to the position of the Commonwealth Solicitor General in intervening for the Petitioners, and advancing the evolutionary theory of nationhood, purportedly under sec 51 xxxix Implied Nationhood Power. This head of power does not exist in the text of the Constitution.

“The evolutionary theory is, with respect, a theory to be regarded with great caution. In propounding it, neither the petitioners nor the Commonwealth identify a date upon which the evolution became complete, ….. . Nor could they point to any statute, historical occurrence or event which necessarily concluded the process.”

“The truth is that the defining event in practice will, and can only be a decision of this Court ruling that the evolutionary process is complete, and here, as the petitioners and the Commonwealth accept, has been complete for some unascertained and unascertainable time in the past. In reality, a decision of this Court upon that basis would change the law … .” Callinan J p70,71

“At the very latest, the Commonwealth of Australia was transformed into a sovereign, independent nation with the enactment of the Australia Act.” Gaudron J p40 @173

“I know this is an eccentric and personal view but I have always wondered what the UK Parliament was doing enacting law in 1986 in relation to Australia.” Kirby J.

“ The Commonwealth of Australia, as such , had assumed international personality at some date well before the enactment of the Australia Act. Differing views have been expressed as to the identification of that date ….. Gleeson CJ @ 85

“And all laws”
The words “under the Constitution” are words of limitation and qualification….
Not all enactments purporting to be laws made by the Parliament are binding, but those laws made under and in pursuance of, and within the authority conferred by the Constitution and only those are binding on the courts, judges and the people. A law made in excess of the Authority conferred by the Constitution, is no law; it is wholly void ….. what is not so granted to the Parliament of the Commonwealth is denied it. What is not so granted is either reserved for the States as expressed in their respective Constitutions, or remains vested but dormant in the people of the Commonwealth. p346.

Who is Australias’ Head of State?
Section 61.The Executive authority of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor General as the Queens representative.

“Delegated Sovereignty”:
In all the constitutional Acts passed by the British Parliament conferring the right of self-government on the British colonies; it is expressed or implied that the sovereignty is vested in the Queen …. The Queen shares with the Houses of the British Parlament in the sovereignty of the British Empire, the Constitution Acts of the colonies of Great Britain are illustrations of this delegation of sovereign power. p327

It is in the Crown, and not the Parliament that the legislative authority is according to constitutional theory, directly vested p301.

“I have some difficulty with this argument of yours that the ”Queen” in the Constitution means the Queen in Her capacity as one of the branches of the Australian Government.” Mc Hugh J.

“It is right to say that this alteration in Her Majesty’s Style and Title was a formal recognition of the changes that had occurred in the constitutional relations between the United Kingdom and Australia.” Gibbs J Southern Centre of Theosophy Inc v Sth Australia in reference to the 73 Act

Mr Bennett. Commonwealth Solicitor (transcript)
“The Royal Styles and Titles Act is an Act passed in 1973, part of the process of recognition of the Queen in relation to Australia.
Gaudron J: Under what head of legislative power was that enacted?
Mr Bennett: I suppose 51 (xxxix), your Honour. It is incidental to the nationhood power.
Gaudron J: The nationhood power is implied. There is no 51(xl), is there?
Bennett: No your Honour there is not.
Gaudron J: Does 51 (xxxix) take you the distance? It is either under the implied nationhood power or it is not, is it not?
Mr Bennett: Yes. Your Honour, section 51(xxxix) can be read, I suppose, as “any power” as including any or all powers.

Section 51 (xxxix)
matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or in either House thereof, or in the Government of the Commonwealth, or in the Federal Judicature, or in any department or officer of the Commonwealth.

“In section 51, and in various other sections of the Constitution, certain legislative powers are conferred on the Federal Parliament It was not necessary, and it would not have been appropriate, in framing the Constitution, to crowd it with minute details and elaborate specifications of power, or to declare the means by which those powers were to be carried into execution. This, however, is obvious: that every grant of power draws after it others not expressed, but consequential, incidental, and vital to its exercise; not substantive and independent, but auxiliary and subordinate.

This sub-section has been introduced in order to give express authority to deal with the words of machinery, procedure, execution and “ways and means” and is a direct authority for the exercise of all necessary, incidental or implied powers, to enable the Federal Parliament to carry out the great provisions of the instrument of government. As such, it is a distinct enlargement of power, and adds fullness and elasticity to every specific grant.
The powers of the government are limited, and its limits are not to be transcended.”

“Powers vested by this Constitution.”
Having drawn attention in a general manner to the scope of this sub-section, and illustrated its authority, we now proceed to note several of its features which require separate treatment. It must be observed that this sub-section comprehends matters subsidiary and contributory to the execution of any power granted “by this Constitution.” p 651. ?

Mc Hugh J: (transcript) Can I tell you one difficulty I have with Nolan (HCA), and it is this. The word “subject of the Queen” in sections 34 and 117 … Now how can “subject of the Queen” in the Constitution mean, other than, a subject of the Queen? But at 186, in Nolan, the Court seems to come very close to amending the Constitution. It says…. We would add that, to the extent that there would otherwise be an inconsistency in the use of the words “subject of the Queen” in the Constitution, it should be resolved by treating those words as, referring, in a modern context, to a subject of the Queen in right of Australia.

How can one arrive at that conclusion? If a “subject of the Queen” means subject of the Queen in 1901, it must surely mean that now. No question of evolution can change it to mean “subject of the Queen in right of Australia.”

Has Australia become a de facto republic by default?
Kirby J: (transcript) Your reference to 1986 is a reliance on the Australia Acts, including the Act of a foreign country and an Act of the Australian Parliament, without the sanction of the people you say that altered our constitution.
Mr Finch: No your Honour, we say that that concluded the process …

Mr Finch: If the constitution were found to be of a different effect, then what we say about the affect of the Australia Acts would, in effect, I suppose, amount to an assertion that the Australia Acts had amended the Constitution.
Callinan J: Yes, which I think is what Justice Kirby was effectively alluding to.

“Legislative power”:
What is not granted to the Federal Government and what is not possessed by the States is reserved to the people of the Commonwealth. By the process of amendment further legislative power may be assigned to the Federal Parliament. p385.

To answer this question it is necessary to understand that the High Court has adopted the doctrine, that section 51 (xxxix) “ matters incidental” is a direct grant of implied nationhood power.
Reading the previous quote from Quick and Garran re 51 (xxxix), it is impossible to find any authority to reconcile this position.

Accordingly, Chief Justice Gleeson in his Boyer Lecture on the Rule of Law and the Constitution, stated that the “fundamental law in Australia is the Constitution.”
The fundamental law in Australia since 1901 has been the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, in which the Constitution is but clause 9.

Given that the Final Report of the Constitutional Commission 1988 found that although many sections of the Constitution had lapsed, had become superfluous dead letters etc it was not necessary to alter the text of the Constitution. It is to be noted that many of the Commissioners appointed, had an interest to keep the status quo, Whitlam as PM created the “Queen of Australia”, Maurice Byers was the Commonwealth Solicitor General, who gave Whitlam the legal advice in 75’ that State Governors and the Governor General were still constituted under the original and permanent Letters Patent and Instruction 1900, issued by Queen Victoria, in “right of the UK” and that since the RST 1973 Act (Cth) that the Executive authority of the Commonwealth was in a state of nullity.

Bob Hawke also had a hand, when in tabling the Letters Patent and Instructions relating to the Office of Governor General, he failed to speak to the House on this constitutional milestone, and merely tabled his statement, contrary to proper process and convention on 24/8/84.

In the 1984 Letters Patent the “Queen of Australia” purportedly revoked the original Letters Patent and Instructions, issued under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom.

This is without doubt ultra vires of the constitutional powers of the “Queen of Australia.”
It was purportedly issued under section 126 which refers to Deputies appointed by the Governor General. This section126 head of power is not to be confused with the Office of Governor General, nor the Statutory provisions relating to the Governor General appointed by the Queen, as the Queens representative in the Commonwealth.

Judicial Process
Sir David Smiths comments on 11/11/2003 on Sir Anthony Mason, former Chief Justice of the High Court and the Court over which he presided says it all.

“ In this they were echoing the words of Justice Dyson Heydon in his October 2002 Quadrant dinner address “Judicial Activism and the Death of the Rule of Law”.

Mr (as he then was) Dyson Heydon spoke of the dangers for judicial probity that arise where a court deliberately sets out to alter the law. In relation to the High Court of Australia, he contrasted the view of Sir Owen Dixon, whom he described as “ probably the greatest of Australian Judges,” with the quite different views of some of those appointed over the last 47 years, and whom he named as innovators who set out deliberately to alter the law. Of one of them Dyson Heydon said: “Among the greatest innovators of them all, until he retired in 1995, was the once cautious Mason.”

It is also of note to compare what Gaudron J and Kirby J have to say on the Judicial process and in particular Kirby’s remarks given that 3 of the 7 Justices in Sue v Hill found that the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns had “no jurisdiction”, and the Courts apparent ease with which it clothed itself, the function it gave itself, and its amendment of the Constitution, beyond its constitutional competence.

“For present purposes it is sufficient to note, that, in general terms, the judicial process is one that involves the independent and impartial application of the law to facts that are found on evidence to be probatitive of those facts and the observance of procedures that enable the parties to put their case and to answer the case made against them.” Gaudron p 34.

“However, perhaps I can be permitted to contrast the willingness of the majority in this case to countenance the conferral of a peculiar and purportedly exclusive statutory jurisdiction on this Court ( in effect reconstituting and even renaming it as a kind special creature of the Parliament to perform a multitude of functions, many of them quasi-political and semi advisory, according to extremely broad criteria and sometimes peremptory, and even apparently arbitrary procedures) with the very strict approach taken in other recent decision where the negative implications of Ch III of the Constitution, unstated in the text, have been given a most generous rein.” Kirby J @280

“ Assuming the constraints of Section 1 of the Australia Acts remain valid, the United Kingdom can no longer amend the Constitution since the enactment of those Acts. That being the case, does this mean that the United Kingdoms former power to do so has simply been extinguished and that the only way the Constitution can now be changed is through s128 of the Constitution? Or does this mean that the United Kingdom’s former power has inadvertently or covertly been transferred to some other authority? Is Our Constitution Safe? Hobson N. p 12

Has the High Court of Australia altered the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 and the Constitution therein contained, beyond its Chapter III judicial competency, by expanding and deleting constitutional provisions by “implication” over substance?

Has the High Court, by its interpretation of section 51(xxxix) as “implied nationhood power” granted further executive function and powers to the Executive Government of the Commonwealth, ultra vires of the Constitution Act and the Constitution?

Conclusion.
… the Australian Parliament and the people have a general power to amend the Constitution and it may have been considered wise and prudent that, coupled with a right so great and important, there should be a reminder, placed in the forefront of the deed of political partnership between the federating colonies, that the union, sealed by the Imperial Parliamentary sanction, was intended by the contracting parties to be a lasting one, and that no alteration should be suggested or attempted inconsistent with the continuity of the Commonwealth as an integral part of the British Empire. p 294.
“Under the Crown.”

It might be contended with great force that such amendments would be repugnant to the preamble; that they would at least involve a breach of one of the cardinal understandings or conventions of the constitution, and, indeed the argument might go so far as to assert that they would be ultra vires of the constitution, as being destructive of the scheme of the Union under the Crown contemplated in the preamble. p295.

The doctrines of legal positivism, based on the “ Evolutionary theory of Nationhood and Popular Sovereignty,” with the interpretation of sec 51 xxxix, as powers incidental to nationhood, are beyond the judicial competency of the High Court and the Judicial powers conferred on the Court by the Constitution.

From the quotations and text of the previous pages it is not difficult to understand, just how removed the Australian people are from understanding that the High Court and the Parliament have assumed greater powers, than those allocated by the Constitution Act 1901, and beyond their authority to assume without the consent or will of the people.

We are not looking to bring the current system to its knees, but merely take the power back to where it belongs, THE PEOPLE.

There remains, however, the need to rectify and reconcile all these inconsistencies, anomalies, contradictions and mistakes, before we can lawfully and legitimately move towards a Republic.
These issues will not go away until they are resolved.

Finally if there are any doubts that our Parliament and High Court finds itself in an untenable position, with no legitimate authority under the Constitution and the Act 1901, the following will tell it all.
The Commonwealths reliance on the States version of the Australia Act 1986, enacted under section 51 (xxxviii) leaves it in a situation where in 1986 the Letters Patent and Instructions 1900, issued by Queen Victoria in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, for the State Governors, had not been reissued under the 1973 Royal Styles and Titles, “Queen of Australia.” A reference to the second reading speech by Gough Whitlam PM indicates that “It is appropriate that such a change be made with the consent and approval of both the Houses of Parliament. It is they which, with Her Majesty, are able to express in form of law the appropriate description of the constitutional position of the Queen. I add that the royal styles and titles as laid down in our legislation applies also in the States.”

In other words the State version of the Australia Acts, have not received the Royal Assent by a person competent under the Royal Styles and Tiles Act 1973, to do so.

The Royal Styles and Titles (Cth) is either a valid enactment as Mr Whitlam stated, or it is not.

Was it enacted pursuant to an explicit head of legislative power? We have presented evidence to suggest the contrary!

On receiving the Royal assent, did all executive function of the Queen in the Sovereignty/ Right of the United Kingdom cease, to all appointments under the Letters Patent, Instructions and Commissions of Appointment 1900, issued by Queen Victoria?

Was there a period of some 11 years from 1973 till 1984 when the Governor Generals Commission of Appointment were null and void, and State Governors until 1986?

State Governors Letters Patent and Commissions of Appointment are still reliant and recite their subjectiveness to an Act of a “foreign power”, that is the Australia Acts (UK) 1986.

Support The Love For Life Campaign, Kindom & The Cristian Family

Supporting The Love For Life Website, The Cristian Family and The Living Dream Of Kindom (Creation Of Do No Harm Communities) - The Love for Life website is produced for free without a fee (no contract or conditions attached) as a gift of love for the benefit of others. If you feel you have gained something from visiting it, feel inspired, and would like to reciprocate as an equal exchange in substance and support (value), you are most welcome to make a gift of love to keep it and the dream of Kindom going. As always, we thank you for your gifts of love.

Pay with Paymate Express
Not for Commercial Transactions.
Gifts only.
Paymate accepts Mastercard and Visa.

Bank:
Account name:
BSB:
Account number:
SWIFT BIC Code:
Australia New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ)
Fiona Caroline Cristian
012 547
5576 81376
ANZBAU3M

PAY PAL

Go To Your Pay Pal Account To Send Gifts To action @ loveforlife.com.au

 

The Cristian Family November 2006

We Stand For NO SYSTEM

Kindom (Do No Harm Communities) is the dream for freedom, but it is the dream for the freedom of those around us who also live the dream of freedom, because it is in living for the freedom of others that we get our freedom. When we live for the dreams of Kindom of those around us, we live life as a gift because we live for (dedicate our lives to) their dream of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance, etc, just as they live for our Kindom dreams too. This is true co-creation (cooperation) with no attack on the uniqueness of each of us. When we live this way, we have no need for any man-made system - everything/everyone has already been taken care of by our love for life.

Just as we do not have to jump 10 feet across the room to grab our next breath, neither do we have to worry about food, water and shelter because it has all been taken care of as we each co-create Kindoms/Kin-Domains for everyone. Now everybody and everything of the dream of life that is Kindom/Paradise is free (has been set free once again). The issue is greed and selfishness, power and control trips, arrogance, ignorance, being fed many many lies and being traumatised. The issue is not overpopulation - there is more than enough land available for every family to have a hectare (2.5 acres Kin-Domain) to care for. The land of Australia can provide a Kin-Domain for every family across Earth, each with a food forest, clean fresh drinking water and plenty of space for building natural do no harm habitats and with plenty of land left over.

Everyone must have the freedom to take full-responsibility for their lives, for the water they drink, the food they eat and for their shelter. Currently, "The System" forces everyone to give up taking full-responsibility so that we become grown up children accustomed to sucking on the nipples of "The System" corporations for everything, having to use money to get by and to follow the rules of money because we are not co-creating freedom, peace, truth, joy and abundance for each other. Money only leads to haves and have nots and all the abuse, manipulation and distractions that we are subjected to as slaves to money.

When we give up living for other's Kindom dreams, we start creating hell ("The System") all around us because we become self-centred - now it's all about "my freedom","my money", "my land", "my belief", "my saviour", "mine", "mine","mine", "i","i", "i", "own", "own", "own", etc. To protect what we claim we own requires a man-made system with FORCE to protect those self-centred claims. This is ALL trauma based and all story-telling (brainwashing/braindirtying).

Our true freedom comes when we set our thoughts of freedom into motion so that we live freedom rather than just talking and thinking about it while we still slave for "The System". Kindom will not happen while we meditate for hours in the bush or do yoga retreats or wait for Jesus or follow the processes of the OPPT (One People's Public Trust now called One People). This is not freedom because we are not living freedom because we are living the story-telling of Jesus or Zeitgeist or The Secret or Thrive or One Earth/Consciousness/People.

Living Kindom is very, very hard work as we set about repairing the damage to MAN/Earth/Nature that we are ALL responsible for but the burden becomes lighter the more of us put our life-energy into the dream of returning Earth to Paradise. Day-after-day, we all have to work our arses off until Kindom is all around us (MAN) once again. This is the price we pay to set each other free on a piece of land (Kin-Domain), so that no one is under the image-power (education/brainwashing/story-telling) of another MAN anymore and so that everyone can have their space of love to create and live their unique, do no harm dreams. This only happens once we have the Kindoms set up so that everyone is provided for.

Once we re-create the food forests, whether on land or in the suburbs, we can re-claim our freedom, breaking the strangle-hold of "The System" because we are no longer reliant on its services and benefits and no longer turning each other into slaves of "The System", cogs in the wheels of "The System" machine. If we don't put the effort in to set everyone and everything free all around us then we still live in HELL ("The System"). The key is to live for everyone else's freedom so that we can have it too.

From Bare Dirt To Abundance
A Year In The Life Of The
Love For Life Food Forest

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
8th February 2013
51 Minutes 46 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sJCcCvZ97A

We live for NO SYSTEM. We do not lose anything by not having a man-made system and, in fact, we gain. We gain our freedom and we gain abundance. Let go of the fear.

The Cristian Family November 2006

A Collection Of Various Love For Life Posts
Providing The Big Picture We See

Sequential Order

The Dream Of Life Part 6
Under The Spell Of Intellectual Property

Arthur Cristian - 51 Minutes 52 Seconds
The Dream Of Life Part 6 - Under The Spell Of Intellectual Property - Arthur Cristian

The "Name" Is The Mark Of The Beast
The Strawman Identifying
Your Slave Status In "The System"

By Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
5th February 2012 - 56 Minutes 25 Seconds
The "Name" Is The Mark Of The Beast The Strawman Identifying Your Slave Status In "The System"

IMAGE POWER
The Nefarious Tactics Used
To Disguise Truth And Distract Us
From Remedy

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
24th January 2014
This post contains many recent Facebook comments
and email replies which collectively provides a big picture
into exposing the deception behind IMAGE POWER.
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8496

The Pull Of E-Motion
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
8th February 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8499

IMAGE POWER
Superb Diamond Range Interviewing
Arthur & Fiona Cristian 4th February 2014
http://youtu.be/qFnuuw3kLog
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8501

Trauma Induced Fantasy
July 2013 Interview With
Jeanice Barcelo And Arthur & Fiona Cristian
http://youtu.be/CZVj-ddUoZw
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8500

Processing Curses
A Lie Is A Curse
Liars Process Curses

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th February 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8503

How The System Is Really Constructed
Bouncing Back Curses Upon Curse Makers
To Stop Harm Forevermore

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
27th February 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8504

Slave To A Name
Parts One, Two, Three, Four,
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd to 6th March 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8505

Educated Slaves
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
20th March 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8506

The Only Path To Freedom
Beware The False Steps

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 2nd April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8508

Free-Dumb For All
Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 5th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8510

Revoking The Ego
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 7th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8511

How To Detect Intel Operatives Working
For The New World Order Agenda

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 10th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8512

How The Psyop Program & Intel Networks
Are Messing With Your Head +
His-Story/Her-Story

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8513

What It's Going To Take
To Co-Create Freedom Forevermore

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8514

Godzilla Through The Looking Glass
Destroyed By "Name"

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 20th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8514

How MAN Commits Spiritual Suicide
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 3rd April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8509

Crop Circles Are A Massive Hoax
Facebook Discussion On Simon Kawai's Wall
Involving Arthur & Fiona Cristian
31st August 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8470

OPPT & Slavery Through Intellectual Conscription By Deceit
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
27th February 2013 onwards...
Part One: http://youtu.be/Qjp_9nlrBao
Part Two: http://youtu.be/tbybeOWZ-Bc
Part Three: http://youtu.be/yOWoxH-HbVw

Water Is The Life Of MANS Consciousness (Breath)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life - 8th February 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8350
Part One: http://youtu.be/4ze66_33wxM - 70 Minutes 5 Seconds
Part Two: http://youtu.be/43gIi-sjxJc - 81 Minutes 13 Seconds
Part Three: http://youtu.be/oooY6W63K-M - 70 Minutes 18 Seconds

What Do You Believe On Origins?
Who Said There Was A Beginning?
Who's Truth Do You Accept?
Belief Is A Strange Idea.

Discussion Lyndell, Scott and Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Between March and April 2013
Posted 29th October 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8487

So You Want The Good Bits Of "The System"
But Not The Bad Bits?

By Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 12th August 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8468

Turning Away From The Reflection
Of MANS Looking Glass

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
30th April 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8404

REMEDY

From Bare Dirt To Abundance
A Year In The Life Of The
Love For Life Food Forest

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
8th February 2013
51 Minutes 46 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sJCcCvZ97A

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8237

The Divine Spark
Facebook Discussion With Raymond Karczewski
Arthur & Fiona Cristian & Others
2nd October 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8483

Capturing Another MANS Uniqueness
A Facebook Debate With
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
And Raymond Karczewski
Starting 13th May 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8414

The Spell Is Broken
Taking The Land To Create Kindom

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd March 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8365

The Steps Of Kindom
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life 2006/2007
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8304

To explore these themes in greater detail go here where you can find links to all our Love For Life comments, articles, debates, discussions, videos, podcasts, etc: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385

All the best
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

Peaceful Transition Through Sacrifice And Service

We feel there is an essential peaceful do no harm transition required to get all of MAN back to standing on MANS feet without reliance upon another MAN for water, food, shelter. As it stands everyone in "The System" are highly dependent and reliant on the "group mind-set" that forms "The System" of slaves providing services and benefits for the emotionally addicted slaves to "The System" (and you can put us in the same basket too). The transition is to get MAN back to relying ONLY on nature without 3rd party interlopers, intermeddlers, interceders getting in the way. The transition is a team effort with the foresight for setting all of MAN free down-the-line so that MAN is no longer dependent on slaves and masters providing services, benefits, privileges and exclusivity while being bound to contracts, rituals, procedures, conditions, rules & regulations which compromises MAN severely.

This transition is all about shifting from limited liability/responsibility to full liability/responsibility. This full responsibility is all about caring for our health, nature all around us, clean uncorrupted (pure) water and food, partner/co-creator, children, shelter, animal-friends in partnership, etc. In "The System", we are already together destroying each other - we have to come together to create peace together so that we can all have peace. We cannot live peacefully when we are islands, not taking full responsibility for the lives of those around us until EVERYONE can take full responsibility for their life, which means that EVERYONE is healed of system trauma. In "The System", we all come together to make slaves of each other - now is the moment to come together to set each other free, to live for each other's freedom, peace, joy and abundance. Once we have set each other free, we are free.

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8237

The Spell Is Broken
Taking The Land To Create Kindom

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd March 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8365

"The Steps Of Kindom"
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8304

---------

Once we fix these issues, we or our children or our descendants to come, can start focusing on the even bigger picture of getting back to where our ancestors were, as breatharyan's, before they fell into non-sense images to be enslaved by them.

All the best to you and your family
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

The Cristian Family November 2006

The Cristian Family Declaration

The Cristian family and The Love for Life Campaign are apolitical, non-religious, non-violent, anti weapons, anti drugs (both pharmaceutical and recreational) and anti any ideology that denies the existence of Do No Harm Communities (Kindoms) and suppresses the uniqueness and freedom of all men, women and children.

The Cristian family and our Love For Life work is unaligned to any big business corporation, intelligence agency, government body, "system" law, "system" think tanks, "system" green or environmental movements, religion, cult, sect, society (fraternity, brotherhood, sisterhood, order, club, etc,) secret or not, hidden agenda, law or sovereignty group, occult, esoteric, New Age or Old Age.

The Cristian family supports and promotes the remedy that brings an everlasting peace, freedom, truth, joy, abundance and do no harm for all of life without causing loss of uniqueness or the need for having slaves and rulers. We are not into following the one in front or being shepherds for sheeple. Most importantly, we take full-responsibility for everything we think, feel and do.

The Cristian family are not Christians.

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

December 2006

The Cristian Family November 2006

THE CRISTIAN FAMILY PLEDGE

Being of clear brain, heart and intention, we each declare the following to be true:

• We have no intention of ending our own lives.

• We will not tolerate suppression of truth, ideas, freedom, or our work. We stand for freedom of speech.

• We stand together to support others in the expression of truths and freedom to speak out no matter how radical those ideas may seem.

• Standing for freedom takes courage; together we shall be strong in the face of all odds.

• If it is ever claimed that we have committed suicide, encountered an unfortunate accident, died of sickness/disease, disappeared, been institutionalized, or sold out financially or in any other way to self-interested factions, we declare those claims false and fabricated.

• We testify, assert and affirm without reservation, on behalf of all those who have dedicated their lives to the ending of secrecy and the promotion of freedom of thought, ideas and expression that we shall prevail.

• We Do Not Have Multiple Personality Disorders

Arthur Cristian
Fiona Cristian
Jasmin Lily Cristian
Emma Rose Cristian
Frances Hannah Cristian
Xanthe Jane Cristian

15th December 2006 (Edited/Updated 18th September 2011)

The Cristian Family November 2006

Update Regarding The Love For Life
Home Page And Quick User Guide

We are turning the Love for Life Quick User Guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 into a blog of all the main insights of our work since March 2005, whether through articles, videos, podcasts or discussions/debates.

As we do not have the time to compile everything we have written into a book, as many have suggested we do, compiling all our most important work into one area of the website is a way of providing easy access to this work so those interested are able to fully comprehend the big picture.

Instead of having to find our different articles, videos, etc, in various parts of the website, it will all be accessible here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385.

Love For Life Videos

As amateurs and posted in the Quick User Guide below the Facebook links, we're currently creating and posting a series of videos called "The Dream Of Life" which covers the ground of all the Love For Life insights. We plan to have the videos completed by December 31st 2012. Once this is behind us, our intention is to create a 2 hour or so video covering the body of this work. All videos are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and uploaded in Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife.

Love For Life Music

We have started recording songs, with others, that express the themes of Love For Life. They are now being posted on Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife and are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608. We have over 100 songs to record. A few rough demos have already been used as the soundtrack on the first "Dream of Life" video.

About Us - Love For Life & The Cristian Family

Also, everything we, the Cristian family, have gone through, from bank fraud and the theft of the family home to death threats and attempts on Arthur's life, is documented in the Quick User Guide too. If you, the reader, are prepared to put the effort in, you will comprehend the extent to which we have all been tricked into becoming slaves, giving up our uniqueness and our full-responsibility for life and destroying everything of life to the point where life is in danger of dying out completely. You will also comprehend the remedy to all this chaos; a remedy that requires only love for life and the determination to do what needs to be done. Though our focus is very strongly on the remedy that creates a world of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance and Do No Harm for all of life without loss of uniqueness or the need for slaves and rulers, we realise that it is vital to comprehend how to get there and what stops us from getting there. This is why there is so much information on the hows and whys of everything going wrong in the world today. We are not into peddling conspiracy theories, we are into routing out all forms of organised crime.

Saturday 26th November 2011

Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

Website: http://loveforlife.com.au
Email: action@loveforlife.com.au
Mobile: 0011 61 418 203204 - (0418 203204)
Facebook Arthur Cristian: http://www.facebook.com/arthurcristian
YouTube Arthur Cristian: http://www.youtube.com/ArthurLoveForLife
SoundCloud: http://soundcloud.com/loveforlife
Nimbit Music: http://www.nimbitmusic.com/loveforlife
Twitter: https://twitter.com/loveforlifemusi
Facebook Music: http://www.facebook.com/loveforlifemusic
Facebook Why Aren't We Free Discussion: http://www.facebook.com/164918753537287
Facebook Do No Harm Community: http://www.facebook.com/151811728195925
YouTube Love For Life Music: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
Google + Fiona Cristian: https://plus.google.com/100490175160871610090
Register To The Love For Life Mailing List: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list

1. For The Body Of The Love For Life Work by Arthur and Fiona Cristian

Which Unravels The Reasons For The Chaos, Mayhem and Confusion Being Experienced In The World Today, Explains The Need For "Community Immunity" and Responsibility, and Focuses On The Creation Of Kindoms - Do No Harm, Life-Sustainable Communities (As The Remedy That Heals All Mans Woes) - And How We Can Co-Create Them. For Comments, Articles And Discussions, Go Here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - Also Go Here To See Podcasts And Videos Posted by Arthur & Fiona Cristian: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7309 - The Information Shared Comes From Inspiration, Intuition, Heartfelt-Logic And Information Gathered From Nature And Many Amazing Men And Women Along The Way. It Is Not Found In Any Books Or Channellings, Or Talked About By "Experts". Go Here To Read A Brief Synopsis Of Why We Started Love For Life: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8182

2. For Information About The Ringing Cedars of Russia Series

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 and for more on Eco Homes, Villages, Organic and Permaculture Gardening and Life-Sustainability, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1985 and Mikhail Petrovich Shchetinin - Kin's School - Lycee School at Tekos: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5173

3. For How To Eat A Raw, Living Food Diet,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5068 - LIFE is information. When we distort LIFE and then eat, drink, absorb, think, feel, hear, see, touch, taste, smell and perform these distortions, the information of LIFE, your LIFE, our LIFE, our children's lives, everyone's LIFE, is distorted.

4. To Find A Menu For The Extensive Research Library (over 8,000 items posted embodying over 11,000 documents, pdf's, videos, podcasts, etc)

Which Covers Topics From Health to Chemtrails/Haarp to Brain Control to Archaeology to Astronomy Geocentricity Heliocentricity to Pandemics Bird Flu Swine Flu to Fluoride to Cancer to Free Energy to Global Warming, 9/11, Bali Bombings, Aspartame, MSG, Vaccinations, Aids/HIV, Mercury, New World Order, Satanism, Religions, Cults, Sects, Symbolism, etc, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82

5. If You Would Like To Read About The Cristian Family NSW Supreme Court Case

(Macquarie Bank/Perpetual Limited Bank Fraud Condoned By Judges, Registrars, Barristers, Lawyers, Politicians, Public Servants, Bureaucrats, Big Business and Media Representatives - A Crime Syndicate/Terrorist Organisation) Which Prompted The Creation Of This Love For Life Website December 2006, And The Shooting And Torture Of Supporters Who Assisted Us In Reclaiming The Family Home, Joe Bryant And His Wife, Both In Their Late 70's, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5 And Read Some Of Our Email Correspondence With Lawyer Paul Kean - Macedone Christie Willis Solari Partners - Miranda Sydney May 17th-June 27th 2006: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7300

6. For The Stories Of Other Victims Of The System,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/australian_stories (If you have a story you would like us to put up, we would love to here from you:
action @ loveforlife.com.au)

7. For Documentation Of Harm Done By The Powers-That-Be And Their Representatives,

Evidence Revealing How Victims Did Not Break The Peace, Caused No Crime or Harm, There Were No Injured Parties. Documenting Incontrovertible Evidence Demonstrating How The Powers That Be (PTB) And Their Lackeys Will Break All The Laws They Are Supposed To Uphold. They Will Kidnap, Intimidate, Terrorise, Rape, Pillage, Plunder And Lie And Take Responsibility For None Of It. All Part Of Their Tactics Of Using Fear And Trauma To Keep Us In Our Place. Relatives Of Those Under Their Radar Are Also Not Safe From Attack And Intimidation. All Starting From A $25 Fine For Not Voting And A $65 Fine For Not Changing A Dog Registration. We Do Not Have Freedom And Can Only Appear To Have Freedom If We Comply. Regardless How Small The Matter The PTB Throw Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars Away To Enforce Their Will.... Go Here:
Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office - Part One to Part Ten - From 17th October 2008 And Still Continuing:
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6319 or
Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office
Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5742 - From 17th October 2008
Part Two: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6135 - From 18th December 2008
Part Three: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6295 - From 9th January 2009
Part Four: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6296 - From 14th January 2009
Part Five: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6375 - The Sick Puppy - From 20th February 2009
Part Six: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6390 - Police Officers, Sheriff’s Officers, Tow Truck Driver and State Debt Recovery Office Blatantly Ignore the Law To Rape, Pillage and Plunder The Private Property Of Fiona Cristian - From 11th March 2009
Part Seven: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6445 - Affidavit Of Truth - Letter To The Queen + Australia: Fascism is Corporatism - From 30th March 2009
Part Eight: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6652 - The Pirates Auction And The Ghost Of VSL386 - From 4th April 2009
Part Nine: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7073 - Arthur Cristian's Letter To Pru Goward MP - From 15th December 2009
Part Ten: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7500 - Should We Be In Fear Of Those Who Claim To Protect Us? "Roman Cult" Canon Law - Ecclesiastical Deed Poll - The Work Of Frank O'Collins - From 13th October 2010

8. If You Are Interested In Information On Freedom From Statutes, Rule-Of-Law, Free Man/Free Woman, Strawman, "Person" and Admiralty Law (The Law Of Commerce),

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/895 - For Common Law, Democracy, Constitution, Trial By Jury, Fee Simple, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/category/main/law-articles-documents

9. If You Are Interested In Banking and Money Created (Fiat/Credit/Debt/Mortgage/Loan/Overdraft etc) Out-Of-Thin-Air, How Banks Counterfeit Money,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/banks

10. For A List Of All The Latest Posts In The Love For Life Website,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/tracker

11. For Links To Many Hundreds Of Videos, DVDs And Podcasts

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/video_dvd

12. To See The Cristian Family Pledge, Legal and other Disclaimers

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/06/12/05/love-life-legal-disclaimer

13. To Read About How A Representative Of The NSW Jewish Board Of Deputies Had Threatened To Shut Down The Love For Life Website

go here: Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6616 Part Two: THE STEVE JOHNSON REPORT AND VIDEO: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6665 and Part Three: Latest Update On James Von Brunn: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6673

Conscious Love Always
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
action @ loveforlife.com.au
www.loveforlife.com.au
0418 203204 (int: 0011 61 418 203204)
PO Box 1320 Bowral 2576 NSW Australia

Arthur Cristian

Create Your Badge

Love For Life Discussions - Why Aren't We Free? How Can We Be Free?

Promote your Page too

The Cristian Family November 2006

Love For Life Legal Disclaimer

The information contained on this world wide web site (the web site and all information herein shall be collectively referred to as "Web Site Information"), under the registered url name, loveforlife.com.au, resides on a host server environment in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15203, United States of America.

The Web Site Information has been prepared to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute or be construed as providing substantive professional advice or opinion on any facts or circumstances. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, nor does its receipt give rise to, a professional-client relationship between 'Love for Life' and the receiver.

While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information prepared and/or reported on this site, 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the Web Site Information not being up to date. The Web Site Information may not reflect the most current developments.

The impact of the law, policy and/or procedure for any particular situation depends on a variety of factors; therefore, readers should not act upon any Web Site Information without seeking professional advice. 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action taken in reliance on any Web Site Information herein.

'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action you or others take which relies on information in this website and/or responses thereto. 'Love for Life' disclaim all responsibility and liability for loss or damage suffered by any person relying, directly or indirectly, on the Web Site Information, including in relation to negligence or any other default.

'Love for Life' does not warrant, represent or hold out that any Web Site Information will not cause damage, or is free from any computer virus, defect(s) or error(s). 'Love for Life' is not liable to users for any loss or damage however caused resulting from the use of material found on its web site.

'Love for Life' does not necessarily endorse or approve of any Web Site Information linked to and contained on other web sites linked herein and makes no warranties or representations regarding the merchantability or fitness for purpose, accuracy and quality, of any such information.

The sending of information by you, and the receipt of it by 'Love for Life', is not intended to, and does not, create a professional-client relationship.

All Web Site Information is considered correct at the time of the web site's most recent revision.

The Cristian Family November 2006

ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMER

Note: Updated Wednesday 17th June 2009 8.00pm Sydney Time.

Love For Life does not support harm doing in any shape or form. However, we are supporters of free speech and post articles, documentaries, etc, that represent a wide cross section of ideas. See the Love For Life extensive research library where over 11,000 individual documents, articles, videos, podcasts and debates/discussions are posted: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82. We clearly see the evidence of the destruction to MAN and Earth that has been caused by ALL religions over the centuries and are therefore not supporters of religions, cults, sects or any group that demands conformity of thought, speech or action, or has rules, regulations or rituals that must be followed. Religions, nationalities and cultural "identities" are formed as a result of the brainwashing we receive from childhood. They are part of the tactics the Establishment uses to keep us all divided from one another and fighting one another.

All religions promote discrimination and division, leading to hatred and even violence and murder. None of them have yet to produce a remedy to all the suffering, poverty, unhappiness and discrimination in the world. If any religion truly had the remedy to all the suffering on earth, there would no longer be any suffering. What have Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, atheism and the New Age done to end the suffering in the world?

The Love For Life website has information from all sides on many subjects, whether about Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Law, health, psychology, mind control, vaccination, aspartame, MSG, Chemtrails etc. There are over 11,000 individual articles, documentaries, etc on the website and they are so diverse that we are sure that everyone would be able to find something they loved and something they hated, if they took the time to search. If we removed all the articles hated by everyone, there would probably be nothing left! We are not anti anyone but freedom of speech is freedom of speech and no one should condemn the work of another without taking the time to research the subject themselves. Yes, there are articles by those who have a less-than-rosy-viewpoint of Judaism, but there are also articles on the dark side of Tibetan Buddhism (and it is very dark) for those who are interested in the truth: Tibet - Buddhism - Dalai Lama: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6271 Should the authors of these articles be abused and imprisoned for daring to challenge the widely conceived reputation of Buddhism as being the religion of peace and love and that of the Dalai Lama as a saint, or should those interested be allowed to study the work and come to their own conclusions? The same applies to all the articles, documentaries, etc, about Christianity, Islam, Freemasonry, New World Order, etc.

The Love for Life website also shows how the Rule of Law, the Bar, the Government, the Monarchy, the system of commerce, the local, national and multi/trans-national private corporations, all the courses and careers on offer from our universities, all the educators, scientists, academics and experts, the aristocrats and the Establishment bloodlines have also done NOTHING to end the suffering in the world. The website maps the insanity of a world where there is no help for those in need, just as there was no help available for us when we were victims of terrible bank fraud: http://loveforlife.com.au/court_case orchestrated, condoned and protected by an international crime syndicate/terrorist organisation of judges, barristers, registrars, lawyers, politicians, banksters, big business representatives, media moguls and other lackeys who, all together, put up a wall of silence despite our trying many, many avenues. After the family home was stolen and business destroyed we were left close to poverty and destitution caring for 4 young daughters. Three years later not much has changed regardless of all our efforts. Where were all the followers of all the religions to help us? Or do we have to be members of those religions to receive help from others involved in them?

We have been accused of being anti - Jewish because we had posted an excerpt from James von Brun's book: Kill the Best Gentiles! http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054 in which he blames Jews for the problems of the world. Obviously this is not our view because of what we have stated above. We do not hate anyone, whatever religion they follow. We are always open to talk to any religious leader or politician and meet with any judge, member of the Bar, experts, academics, educators etc to share the remedy we offer that heals all the divisions between MAN and MAN, and MAN and EARTH.

Today, a representative of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies is threatening to close the website down, because they have decided it is anti - Jewish and that we promote racism. What has the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies done to end the suffering in the world? Can they show that they are concerned with the suffering of ALL men, women and children AND ARE SEEN TO BE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT or are they only concerned with Jewish affairs? If so, they, along with all the other religions that only care for their own, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The man who rang Arthur today was only concerned with Jewish affairs; he was not interested in our intentions or in anybody else, just as most Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Catholics, etc, are only interested in their own. While we separate our lives into groups, dividing our lives from others with rules, regulations, rituals, procedures, conditions and contracts, we will never solve our problems.

No matter what we in the Western World Civilisation of Commerce have been promised by our politicians, religious leaders, scientists, educators, philosophers, etc, for the past two hundred years, all we have seen is ever-increasing destruction of men, women and children and Earth. None of the so-called experts and leaders we have been taught to rely on are coming up with a solution and none of them are taking full-responsibility for the fact that they can't handle the problem. All religious books talk about end times full of destruction and suffering but why do we have to follow this program when there is an alternative to hatred, mayhem and death? Why are our leaders following the program of destruction and death rather than exploring the do no harm alternatives? It seems that any mainstream politician, priest or academic are only interested in supporting the RULES OF THE DIVIDE, that maintain the haves and the have nots. For 200+ years, 99% of the world population have been so trained to pass on their responsibility for their lives, others and Earth, that the 1% of the population that make up the leaders of the rest of us are making all the decisions leading to the destruction of all of us and Earth. Let's not forget the education system that brainwashes the 99% of the population that we are free and have equal rights while, in fact, we are feathering the nests of those at the top.

At the root of all our problems is self-centredness, an unwillingness nurtured by the Establishment that keeps us concerned only with our own needs rather than the needs of others around us and Earth. Instead of creating and releasing acts of love for those around us as gifts to benefit them and Earth, we take, take and take, until there is nothing left. The whole point of the Love for Life website is to show people the root of all our problems and to share the remedy. The extensive research library is there to attract browsers and to provide access to information not available through mainstream channels. If the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies can, after careful examination of our work, prove that anything we are saying is wrong, we will be happy to accept their proof. If they cannot, and they are still insistent on closing the website down, they will be showing themselves to be traitors to MAN because they are not interested in pursuing any avenue that can end the suffering in the world.

All religions, corporations and organisations that support and maintain the Western World Civilisation of Commerce are part of the problem because our civilisation is a world of haves and have nots, exclusivity, privilege, racism, violence, hatred, poverty, sickness, discrimination, abuse, starvation, homelessness, corruption, collusion, vindictiveness, social unrest, arrogance, ignorance, fear, war and chaos. While we support civilisation, we support death and destruction.

If we truly want peace and freedom for all, we have to let go of all that which keeps us divided, and come together as MAN, conscious living co-creators of creation/life. The Love For Life website offers a remedy to the problems we all face in the form of DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES (KINDOMS): http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 - http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 For more details see here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6511 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - We also highly recommend that everyone read the brilliant Russian books called The Ringing Cedars: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 - The Love For Life homepage/front-page also provides lots of inspiring remedy based information: http://loveforlife.com.au - If you want to be kept up to date with our work please register to the Love For Life mailing list here: http://loveforlife.com.au/campaign_list We usually send two postings per month. Presently (September 2011) there are over 7000 registrations reaching over 500,000 readers across Earth. The website now (September 2011) receives up to 12 million hits per month. Since December 2006, over 100 million people have visited the Love For Life website.

Conscious Love Always
Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
17th June 2009