Supreme Court rules Australian Constitution "discredited"

The full details of the case: http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2012/QSC12-123.pdf

It says within it:

'...it is clear that the argument on which that contention is based has been long discredited. It is sufficient in that regard to refer to the judgment of Deane J in Re Skyring's Application (No 2).'

Which is footnooted with the reference '(1995) 59 ALJR 561.'

I think the date is a typo, because I looked up the reference and it says 1985.

Anyway, here is the body of text. It's short, I'm not if this is the entire thing:

 

The bit of the constitution he is quoting for his argument makes no such mention of common circulation.
He's added that himself.

I can't believe the prosecution didn't just go out and get a few 1966 50c coins and plonk them on the table.

 

DERRR the courts are run by traitors genius.
This doesn't mean the guy is wrong, it means the courts are corrupt.
The Australian constitution is outdated and archaic?
Really?
Then did we make a new one? Show it to me.

The point here is that Jedd Clampett wasn't able to access a jury. No judge is allowed to pass judgement under our law, that is a fundamental principle of it. To stop exactly what is occurring in Australia now.
The Vatican controlled masonic and jewish judges are denying us our own law. Denying us a jury so that they can bring in a police state. And the few men with the integrity and balls to stand up to them are ridiculed for their failed efforts by men like you.
Fanbloodytastic.

And as far as a sore bum is concerned I stood up in court using "archaic law" and it was the magistrate and police with the sore bums, I walked out free as a bird.

 

This wouldnt be a good idea for the defacto government for 2 reasons.
Reason 1 - it admits that any non precious metal coins and ordinary notes are not legal currency and the ramifications would be enormous for them.

Reason 2 - They can't fine us in lawful money because then we are in the asset world of free men as per the law and our rights kick in. Rights such as - no fines shall be issued without a jury's consent
also most of the tax legislation is unlawful in the asset money world.

There is more to this than meets the eye. To fully appreciate his argument you would have to open your mind to the possibility you have been living in a communist country since birth and been fooled to believe it isnt one.

 

No it states that they shall accept nothing for payment of debts besides gold and silver. Which is a different kettle of fish altogether.
The agenda to bring in fake money was a big one and took alot of effort over a long time. Including the orchestraed world catastrophe of the great depression, and the men who wrote the constitution were trying to protect us from that.

Imagine a world without inflation, with fixed interest rates, with no income tax . Where you're free to earn a living without having to register or license everything , or tell the government your business. Or to use banks.

That's our real law and the way the world was before the Vatican got its claws in our law. It is still our real law and can be accessed if enough of us had the will to read a little history and stand up for ourselves.
If we don't wake up soon that law will be gone, and the communist police state will be overt. And it wont be this softly softly government loves you version of communism then.

 

Not lawfully
The parliament doesnt have that power. Presumably to stop treasonous interests taking control of the parliament and doing what theyve done.

The whole show is a farce and would be laughable if you didn't realise what they have in store for us.

 

Was prior referring to Bob Hawke's Australia Act?

Aust. constitution:
Section 115 : A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and
silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts

Section 109 :When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Common-
wealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the
inconsistency, be invalid (invalid means you can tell the police and the magistrate to stick it up their nose)

Section 80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the
Commonwealth shall be by jury...



You don't have to be Einstein to see that Clampett was right under section 115 and section 109 and that he lost because of the court's corruption in violating section 80

The constitution couldn't be annulled without a referendum to do so, and then also I believe - a unanimous agreement from the other commonwealth nations. Neither have occurred so Bob Hawke's Fabian communist Australia Act is without power as it was not enacted lawfully.

 

Why is the rule of law important? SHORT ANSWER: Without the rule of law, ANARCHY would ensue and civilization, as we know it, would collapse.

PMs - Check
Popcorn - Check

 

What's wrong with anarchy
I like the idea

 

Yup, the true meaning of anarchy is not what the US/pop culture have "manipulated" it to be...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

 

We dont have the rule of law now and it isnt anarchy thats resulted but totalitarian government in all ways but name.

Its so entrenched that when men get upset with being treated like naughty schoolkids by the government, other men will police them back into subjection for free.
Like the housewives who get upset when I don't pay my 'fair share' of taxes, because they pay tax.
The only taxation allowed by law is customs and excise- endostory.

Morons all. If Australia is the clever country I'm a chinaman.

 

No, he wasn't right. A 'state' such as Victoria or NSW cannot mint money, unless it is made from silver or gold. This is to prevent states from having an impact on monetary policy, ie, you don't want a state printing money because it devalues the nations dollar.

The federal government/nation can print money on whatever it wants, just fine. The constitution doesn't limit it.
It is with this money he can easily pay his fines.

 

That might make some kind of sense if the guys who wrote the constitution had a flux capacitor and travelled a couple of generations into the future where the world lost the gold standard. And then wrote the law.

I think you will find that the point of this law is 2 fold. One that we need only have faith in the commonwealth government being able to produce the gold on demand behind their paper currency. If we had to have faith in all the state's notes for gold and the commonwealth then it could create uncertainty. And 2 fiat money is unlawful. The constitution obviously limits it as nothing but gold and silver is acceptable in payment of debts to the state. Ive directly quoted the constitution - it is not ambiguous.

If you took the time to read Habeus Corpus which is a fundamental part of British law (and thus ours) you will see he has no fines to pay. Only a jury may issue fines, or have you got an amazing ability to misread the bloody obvious in Habeus Corpus too , you uncletom .

 

No it doesn't. You've misread it.

See my above post.

 

I suggest you read http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

In particular

 

dcl, first restating section 115 of the Constitution for clarity:

A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.

Ever if we grant that the defendant, Mr. Clampett, is able to pay his fines to the State using paper money, the State is bound by the constitution to not be able to accept it as per above.

To quote from the article, Mr. Clampett argued that 'A state, as opposed to the Commonwealth, cannot compel you to pay in other than gold and silver coin.'

This acknowledges the power of the Commonwealth, but it does not provide any justification for the State to demand from him payment which is not gold or silver.

After all, wasn't Mr. Clampett appearing under the jurisdiction of a State court, not a Federal Court? Or am I wrong in this regard that the Supreme court can apply Commonwealth law? (I think I've worded this last bit incorrectly, but the point should still be clear)

 

sorry, where does it say the states can only accept gold or silver coin payment?

and if that's the case, federal law overrides state law and says paper money can be accepted as payment of debts.

 

@ Mitchell - Then if that were the case he could have paid in gold and silver coin - his (Mr Clampett's) previous arguments in another case of his several years ago about not paying in this manner were that the .999 coins issued by Perth Mint were solid gold and contained no alloy to prevent wear - fairly spurious argument to deny doing what one claims must be done.

 

Actually the Magna Carta does not say this at all. It does not limit the issue of fines by a judge/magistrate etc. What it limits is the imprisonment, removal of freedom, exile and the like, unless that is done by a jury of the person's peers OR the law of the land.

 

Section 115 of the constitution. The state can only accept gold or silver as payment, because those are the only things the state can consider as legal tender in payment of debts. It wouldn't matter therefore if you tried to pay with federal polymer banknotes or monopoly money, neither can be accepted by the state as legal tender for payment of debts (in this case, a fine for speeding).

Federal law overrides State law, but does the State have the authority to act as the Commonwealth? I should think this is not the case. My understanding of this part is uncertain, but shouldn't it be that the case should be taken to the High Court, given that the Supreme Court (a state court) has no authority to override State law in this matter?

I am not claiming that Mr. Clampett's arguments are not irreponsible and oppurtunistic, but it seems to me that this case is a miscarriage of justice. As far as I understand it, Mr. Clampett should have been ordered to pay in gold or silver coin, or the case should have been referred to the high court who would have the Federal authority to rule in this matter. What would falsify this is if a State court does in fact have the authority somehow to override State law and be able to apply Commonwealth law to the State, but that does not on the face of it sound plausible for two reasons: 1) It would usurp the authority of the Commonwealth over the State, and 2) No matter what the Commonwealth rules, it cannot overrule the constitution by saying that a State can accept something other than gold or silver in payment of debts