Herein lays a train wreck of epic magnitude, spectacular in its effect and breathtaking in its audacity to cheat the people not only of this State, but every man, women and child across the country from their birthright of the protections afforded by the law.
But how could that happen? It is said that the surest way to chaos and tyranny even then was to remove the guardians of independent thinking.
"The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers,"
Shakespeare
It is commonly believed that combined skills of the legal practice including those of the judiciary and academia would act as the watchman on the wall of the ancient cities looking out to announce danger approaching so that the folk within the walls could take measures in facing the danger. Once it dawns upon the reader of the magnitude of this legal catastrophe, he or she may be forgiven to believe that all the lawyers are dead. And the judges,…..?
Here, below is an extract of constitutional law in Western Australia, that states an obvious requirement of the passage of a bill through the houses of parliament to continue its path to become law after passing the Governor’s desk for the signature and seal.
Every Bill, after its passage through the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, shall, subject to section 73, be presented to the Governor for assent by or in the name of the Queen and shall be of no effect unless it has been duly assented to by or in the name of the Queen.
The constitutional, statutory prohibition here, within section 2(3), “shall” mandates it to “be of no effect” in the circumstance that evidence does appear upon a bill, requested for its production, by the singular word, “unless” to prove “it has been duly assented to by or in the name of the Queen”
This law guarantees the people of Western Australia that there be no circumstance in which a law may be put into effect without the standard of Crown law, the unwritten British constitution that includes the Holy law, to keep things in check and guard against encroachments on individuals’ rights.
It may seem academic and mundane to some who may believe that all things are usual in this outpost region of Australia, as it should be as it was before 1986, whereafter the Australia Act 1986 threw a wrench in the machinery of our courts and government by the removal of the Crown that transpired in the Commonwealth at 1973, by the Whitlam government, in removal the authority of the Australian people. In both events of ‘Treachery’, being unlawful revolutions, the Labor governments operated in stealth, and in absence of any public fanfare, that announced the outright gutting of the people’s authority and likewise removal of the Crown by substitution with a counterfeit office of the Queen, Queen of Australia.
So, whats the Big Deal …?
Well, if one carefully reads this requirement of a bill to become law, “Every Bill ... shall ... be presented to the Governor for assent by or in the name of the Queen”, in light of the above passage taking note of the removal of the Crown, and therefore Queen, with a substitution in its place, you may wonder:
Did the availability and opportunity for the Queen’s assent in Western Australia become absent?
The answer lies in the legal meaning of the word, ‘Queen’. When a State relies for its existence within the Commonwealth and its law provides for the identity of the Sovereign, as the Queen in the right of the United Kingdom at the second clause, there can be no measure of variance without a law that allows such variance, or deviation, from that which the law identifies to be the Queen and Sovereign, without causing disorder.
In the event anyone should muster the courage to challenge, and hold otherwise, this constitutional qualification of the Queen, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has stated on multiple occasions, beginning in 2004, that the law which attempted to create the office, Queen of Australia, the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 was found in absence of a head of power that is, ….the constitution did not provide the Parliament that law-making authority! Both the 1973 statute, and its title, are pretended laws where we are not only entitled to disregard them, but we are required to do so for these pretended laws are in contempt of the Constitution and the Sovereign, offences found in the Criminal Code 1913 and the Crimes Act 1914.
So the elementary answer to the elementary question, “Can the title, Queen of Australia, be used in the process of making law at section 2(3), Constitution Act 1889, in Western Australia?”, ….is No!
Oh dear, …..!
Yes, and it will be very expensive in lots of ways, not least of which will be, …. reputations. By substituting a pretend title of the Queen to assent bills in Western Australia the people concerned, in high office, not only made a mockery of parliament and government, they have committed numerous offences contained within the State’s Criminal Code 1913 which were meant to act as a barrier to this very treasonous plot.
Back to the constitutional prohibition that exists to ensure that every one of us, in this Royal outpost of Western Australia, the guarantee of the protection of the Crown; in accord with the Royal Letters Patent that establishes the office of the Governor:
Where’s the Police to mop up this crime, and start with the imposter at Government House, here in Western Australia, who swore in under the very pretended title, Queen of Australia. And here is a pressing case to reopen Fremantle Prison for these outstanding offenders, and maintain the newly populated facility as a tourist attraction after the unlawful, freedom-sapping, Covid lockdowns decimated the industry.
All these violations on our basic and fundamental rights are now to spectacularly backfire and hold the Labor Governments in contempt for their overreach in exaggerating emergencies to promote their power-grab, that were achieved criminally.
Will the State Police respond and serve, in accordance to their oaths, unto the Lady Sovereign?
