Letters to the Editor

Michael Gordon Barnes, the "..son of an old Labour family, going back five generations," ("Daily" 15.2.06) firmly placed his hammer right on the nail's head about governments employing square pegs for round holes. As a conservative voter, but from the same background, I can assure Mike the trouble is not confined to the Labour Party; Labour might employ them but the "Conservatives" (Quotation marks intended!) never get rid of them. I have very reliable information that the real Public Service "work"-force is 49% of Australian paid workers. That compares with 7% in U.S.A. and 12% in the U.K. (from the same source.) Because successive Labour and "Conservative" governments have given away all our manufacturing industries and farm products to low-paid overseas producers, we can no longer sustain our real work-force so they put them into the Public Service instead. We then proceed to sell all the country, including the public-owned utilities, to pay for it! If Australian people genuinely want to change this, we must all put the "two party-preferred" candidates last or second-last on our ballot papers at all future elections. Frank Davis, Nambour I must respond to Bill Hoffman's comment to Simone Saal's letter, "Our expectations" and to Autumn River's letter "Constitutional" ("Daily" Saturday 19.11.05.) The Australian Constitution is a Christian document; it commences with "Relying upon Almighty God..." and continues with references to "The Crown" and to "His Majesty" which refer to the Christian institution and Monarch of Australia, endorsed again in the recent referendum of Australians, including all the "new" ones. Autumn River cannot quote from that section of our constitution and Bill refer to it to support their version of "separation of church and state" because that section means that the state is not permitted to set up a "State Church" or "State Religion" of a particular denomination of the Christian faith, as has been done elsewhere in the world. However, Christianity (which is not a religion of itself) is a belief of choice. The people who did not follow it in 1900 were not threatened then, and are not now, in following their own choice. Autumn can continue to sing his/her heart-full of our (modified) National Anthem without upsetting the religion of Humanism they have chosen. However, it would be best for them to not sing the Christian verses of the original author! Frank Davis, Nambour.
Illigitimate Judgement - With reference to the above, I have concluded reading the application to the court, the court transcript and your judgement. It is quite obvious that when one reads the actual historical relationship between our inherited Old English Law and the Australian Constitution the plaintiff was correct in his seeking your support for a trial by jury to deal with these matters. The Constitution of Australia cannot be amended except by a referendum and the law is the law until such time as this process takes place. The Australian Constitution is a document enshrined as law and as such cannot be morphed to suit those that are determined to do so. Your Honour, I take it as part of your appointment that you swore an Oath of Allegiance and that it was a promise made by you to Queen Elizabeth 2 to uphold the Common Law rights, Duties and Obligations of Australian citizens. Politicians also make this same oath before taking their seat in parliament. This means that laws cannot be made that infringe the Common Law Rights, Duties and Obligations of the Australian people. Any parliamentary law that subtracts from the Australian Constitution and our inherited Laws of England are not Laws at all and are Ultra Vires. Ultra Vires in this context means totally without power and must not be obeyed. Further any person who tries to enforce Ultra Vires Laws are breaking their Oath of Allegiance and have no other honourable action than to resign. To continue to give credit to Ultra Vires Laws is to act in a state of Treason. Mr. Wilson provided accurate References to the law to your court and your response to these references provided a glimpse into the misinformed education of the finer points of law as presented by you. In contrast, from the beginning of proceedings, it seemed that you had already made up your mind to protect the views of the defendants counsel. I am also of the opinion that you have not given an impartial and sound judgement in accordance with our system of Australian law in this matter and as such do not have the jurisdiction to make judgements against the motions that the plaintiff has placed before you. The plaintiff did not consent for you to waive his rights by jury. He is absolutely correct, that this matter should be addressed by a jury sitting in judgement to determine the validity or otherwise of the accusations made in his application against the former Premier of N.S.W. The matters placed before you, your Honour, were very serious indeed and should have warranted a more impartial approach by you. I believe that you treated the law with a measure of contempt and in a flippant manner making a judgement, which was against the right of every Australian citizen to, be heard by a jury of his peers. I write this letter with no intent of malevolence or prejudice and hope that you will take the time to read the signage, which hangs on the entrance to your building, Supreme Court of NSW, Common Law Court. Please remember the words Common Law Courts. Kindest Regards, Ray Escobar Bsc., Msc. NASC Retired Platoon Commander Royal Australian Infantry Queens Commission Fluoride Dr. Martin Webb, V.P. Australian Dental Association in "War on decay" ("Daily" 22.10.05) writes of "the well proven benefits of water fluoridation" in his support for it's inclusion-by-compulsion into Queensland domestic water supplies. I have asked in vain, in these pages, many times for his Association (or any body else) to set out these studies in print for us. The last time I did so, I stated; "..my information is that they don't exist!" Nobody has ever responded to either my requests or my accusation. Dr. Webb's honesty and his motives are not in question; I don't believe he has ever seen, let alone read, these "well proven" studies. I believe he relies on his industries overseas leaders who are either deceived or just plain dishonest. Furthermore; there are ample studies available from equally qualified scientists who are just as strongly against fluoride. He wants the changes; let him search to find them as I have done. He says the rest of Australia is fluoridated. So what! if they choose to stick their head in a fire; why should I? Europe condemned it long ago. On 3rd. September the "Daily" printed a letter from Chris Cummins detailing the initiatives the Qld. Government proposes to take concerning water in this State. From his report, I asked "who owns the water" and "is there any proposal to sell the means to collect, clarify, sanitise & distribute water," as has been done elsewhere. After another prompt, Mr. Cummins stated there was no such proposal he was aware of by the Queensland Government. He didn't answer my question on ownership, but I later received an invitation from his Government to attend a "Ministerial Regional Forum" at Caloundra on Monday 17th. October where these questions could be asked. I attended and put these questions to the Minister For Health, Stephen Robertson and also one on fluoride because his Government's intentions were announced that morning.. He responded "The Crown owns the water; in the 1920's legislation gave control of water to The State, so the State owns the water." Concerning fluoride he said; "There is fluoride in the water everywhere, we propose to increase it to a level considered necessary to protect children's teeth; that's not medication" I attempted to respond but was not permitted to do so ("only one bite at the cherry!"). I do so here; the fundamental point of the fluoride in domestic water argument is that it removes my right to choose not to be medicated (Mr. Robertson is wrong, if they add anything other than material to clarify/sanitise, it's compulsory medication.) I have Common Law rights. Among them is free access to the water available where I live, with payment for the cost to collect, clarify, sanitise & deliver it where infrastructure is available. Since 1956, I have already paid Maroochy Shire Council to construct these facilities, beginning in 1958. They are not Government property; Local Governments are only the custodians of them. "The Crown" is not "The State" and Queensland Government does not own the water and has no legal right to charge for the water arriving naturally on our properties. This has already been tested in the Court in favour of the property occupier, and anybody who pays for it has been conned. I'm not a farmer but the National Farmers Federation should be "all arms & legs" over this. They seem to be laying down like a dead duck on it. Another Common Law right is the right to choose or refuse any medication. Dr. Webb's Association and Mr. Beattie want to remove that right. He has no legal power to do so and I will defend that too, in court if necessary. Again; if you want fluoride added to your water, (regardless of the number of people who vote for it) get your own and leave mine alone. Frank Davis, Nambour. 23.10.05
Lawyers in the Police Force Dear John, At the back of my 'Oath' in joining the police force in 1968 was part of the Victoria Police Regulations which dated back to Sir Robert Peel, and listed about 5 regulations to remember. To me, the most important regulation stated that the constabulary was simply that part of the community paid to give full time duties to the powers invested to all members of the community. Do you understand this, a constable was simply a member of the community who was paid to give full time service to the powers invested to every member of the community. The constable had no extra powers. The only arrest power that a constable had that was not bestowed upon every member of the community, was to arrest for drunkenness under section 13, I think of the Summary Offences Act 7405, and what must be remembered here was that drunkenness was at the beginning not a recognisable offence, but the power of arrest was for the the protection of the drunk, which is why he could be incarcerated for 4 hours allowing that condition to wear off. Today the police only have powers to protect the community, etc etc etc, and what this means is that the constabulary are no longer part of the community but part of the bureaucracy that opposes the community. Andrew S. MacGregor Immigration I lost faith in the wisdom of the European citizens of Australia long ago. I just cannot fathom their lack of ordinary sense, or their ability to do simple arithmetic. The millions of human beings arriving, with whom we have little in common, must dilute and take over. Too, I cannot understand the once proud citizens of the United Kingdom. There must be more in the water there than I imagined. One doesn’t have to hate or even dislike people of other cultures. Some are likeable, but do all have to reside in Australia? It riles me too, to hear bureaucrats, politicians and public figures, referring to all as Australians! If a cat has a litter in a fowl yard, are they chickens? Few seem to have any natural instincts. There are hundreds of species of birds, and 4-legged animals – some may be similar but they are not identical. Of all the many shocking mistakes made because of lack of care and interest by Australians, I believe that Immigration will be the first nail in the coffin for Europeans. America is a criminal mess. They had no right to cruelly capture and remove blacks from their African homeland, but they’ve compounded the mistake, and cruelty, by importing many people who can only cause trouble, and now making it even worse by treating their countries as “slave labour camps.” Surely, there must be some of intelligence who can see the demise of their country? Don’t they care? Mrs. Gwen Beale, Yarravel, NSW 2nd November, 2005
Fair Go Cubbie. The "Free Times Independent" article 10 May 2006 headed "Turnbull wades into water dispute", baldly needs some comment and correction. One would expect a person on Mr Turnbull’s salary would be better educated in Constitution and Common Law, or did he have a memory lapse? He should have said the Federal Administration have no authority to force Queensland to do anything relating to river water. N.S.W. politicians and especially Minister Ian McDonald should also know better. Would they squawk if the Federal Administration interfered in their State affairs, they are all pathetic and hopeless. And N.F.F. President Peter Corish appears no better educated as he is pushing the same rubbish. Though I do agree with him (for a different reason) that Cubbie Station have no right, Constitutional or any other way, to take all the water at the cost to others (in Queensland). Cubbie blames the drought, well of course the drought is a problem, and is a reason to reduce your irrigation, unless of course greed is the only consideration, instead Cubbie double production by increasing irrigation by another 30,000 hectares, which in the olde language is 75,000 acres. That area of increase alone is probably 4 times as much as any family farm has in total area irrigated, why does the N.R.M. allow this? Is there one law for small farmers and another for rich overseas multi- nationals? Who are raping this country indiscriminately with administrative complicity. Cubbie is "implementing water storage measures to conserve the resource", Hmmmmm I think that means making room to take even more of other peoples water. Yes, I think it would be nice to share fairly with N.S.W., however there is no Constitutional, Common Law nor any other law that requires this, riparian rights is the usual law, there is only riparian right between people of a State, eg who live in the same State, there is no riparian right between the different States, it simply does not apply. Wouldn’t you think the above highly paid people would know that. Ian McLeod "Sumark Lodge", Cunningham Hwy, Maryvale, Qld, 4370. Phone (07) 4666 1254 12 May 2006 L.E.7 Well! What an event, we have a politician Becoming a representative!, a most rare beast. Cathryn Molloy MLA has said she will Take a day off from Parliament and consult with her electorate!!!!! That’s exactly what They are all supposed to do. Parliaments do not have to meet for days or weeks on end, nor do they have to meet every month, the Constitution states that Federal Parliament must meet at least once in every year (Sec 6), There is no minimum length of time to meet, State Parliaments would be similar. Instead of consulting with their electorates, polly’s sit in Houses of Parliament churning out thousands of pages of Legislation (that become laws), Legislation that is mostly concocked by bureaucrats who have no idea of the real world, or their Constitutions, and the electorates know nothing of this until it becomes law that the people neither want, need nor ask for. Cathryn Molloy MLA has dithered worrying that she will be expelled from the Labor party if she doesn’t do as she is told (by the party), what an admission! What a disgrace! She also doesn’t know her Constitution nor the Crimes Act 1914 Sec 28 (still in force), Expulsion from the party (on these grounds) is unlawful by both of the just mentioned Laws, and carries long prison sentences.I say to her, to be expelled from the Labor party (or any other) has to be a huge step forward, if this MLA continues along this path (representing and consulting), especially as an independent, she will never have to election campaign ever again, she will be returned with such a majority of votes that she will be indestructible, providing of course that she does in fact act upon her elcetorates majority instructions. Of course this could all be a publicity stunt EG back flip Barnaby Joyce (Senator), only time will tell. Ian McLeod "Sumark Lodge", Cunningham Hwy, Maryvale, Qld. 4370. Phone (07) 4666 1254 10 June 2006 L.E. 10
Letter to the Editor Thanks for the latest issue of The Australian Beacon.” All the articles were very interesting but to say I was shocked about the revelations on September 11 is an understatement. I can’t really comprehend that such a crime of that magnitude would be carried out. Must say I had a feeling that there was more to the situation than we had been told, but I was hoping I was wrong. I think it’s brave that the actor, Charlie Sheen, has spoken out, because he could become a target for revealing the truth on Sept 11 so I really admire him. I can’t understand what motive there is for the Bus Government to do this, to actually kill innocent people, but now we know their true colours and they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. I can understand if we were told a few lies, but I cannot believe everything we are told is a lie! I find what is being revealed to us absolutely frightening. It really is unbelievable. Also, the story on the Port Arthur massacre is really scary. Why have they done this? It brings me to tears to think Martin Bryant is locked up when he is innocent.. Now I know it’s nothing new that innocent people are sent to gaol, but this one is really incredible. Why did they particularly frame him when he is innocent? Even if the Government wanted to deliberately do this at Port Arthur in relation to the gun laws, why didn’t they pretend to say they don’t know who committed the crime. Why go even further and blame an innocent man. It is beyond comprehension don’t you think? There are lots of crimes that have never been solved, so why didn’t they do the same here. I am aware that Joe Vialls in Perth has followed this investigation as well as a few others and requesting a re-opening of the case, but I doubt that will ever happen as the government will be exposed. Carmel Votano Metropolitan Police Issued This Newsletter October 2004 MUST BE READ Through a Rapist’s Eyes A group of rapists and date rapists in prison were interviewed on what they look for in a potential victim and here are some interesting facts: 1 The first thing men look for in a potential victim is hairstyle. They are most likely to go after a woman with a ponytail or other hairstyle that can be easily be grabbed. They are also likely to go after a woman with long hair. Woman with short hair are not common targets. 2 The second thing men look for is clothing. They will look for woman whose clothing is easy to remove quickly. Many of them carry scissors around to cut clothing. 3 They also look for women on their mobile phone, searching through their purse or doing other activities while walking, because they are off guard and can be easily overpowered. 4 The time of day men are most likely to attack and rape a woman is in the early morning, between 05.00 and 08.30 am. 5 The thing about these men is that they are looking to grab a woman quickly move her to a second location where they don’t have to worry about getting caught. 6 Only 2% said they carried weapons because rape carries a 3 – 5 year sentence, but rape with a weapon is 15 – 20 years. 7 If you put up any kind of a fight at all, they get discouraged because it only takes a minute or two for them to realise that going after you isn’t worth it because it will be time-consuming. 8 These men said they would not pick on women who have umbrellas, or other similar objects that can be used from a distance, in their hands. Keys are not a deterrent because you have to get really close to the attacker to use them as a weapon. So, the idea is to convince these guys you’re not worth it. 9 Several defence mechanisms he taught us are: if someone is following behind you on a street or in a garage or with you in a lift or stairwell, look them in the face and ask them a question, like “what time is it?” or make general small talk, “I can’t believe it is so cold out here, we’re in for a bad winter”. Now you’ve seen their face and could identify them in a line-up, you lose appeal as a target. 10 If someone is coming toward you, hold out your hands in front of you and yell “stop” or “STAY BACK”. Most of the rapists talked to said they’d leave a woman alone if she yelled or showed that she would not be afraid to fight back. Again, they are looking for an EASY target.

I fear the Australian dream of Home Ownership in the ‘Lucky’ Country is doomed. By Tony Lee 9 April 2004 Amended 10 August 2005 to introduce the existence of the Family First Party in Australia.

The great Australian dream of Home Ownership in the Lucky Country has always rested on two pillars: a just path and an ethical leadership. Neither of these is operative any longer. The Australian nation today rests on a scaffold of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice. As such, the end of the Australian enterprise is already on our doorstep. There is time to change course, but not much. What is needed is a new vision of a just society and the political will to implement it. Parliamentary Members for whom The Cabinet is a central pillar of their identity must pay heed and speak out.

The opposition does not exist, and the coalition, with John Howard at its head, claims the right to remain silent. In a nation of chatterboxes, everyone has suddenly fallen dumb, because there is nothing left to say.

Yes, we have achieved much in World Sports and gave many noted persons to the world in all theatres of accomplishment but we have failed in producing the ‘Lucky’ Country. We were supposed to be a light unto the nations.

It turns out that the first 100 years has produced a mish-mash of social justice laws, legislated by an amoral clique of corrupt law-breakers who are deaf both to their citizens and to their enemies. A state lacking justice cannot survive. More and more Australians are coming to understand this as they ask their children where they expect to live in 25 years. Children who are honest admit, to their parents' shock, that they do not know. The countdown to the end of Australian society has begun.

It is very comfortable to be a landlord in the well-to-do areas of all major cities. The surrounding landscape is charming. You can gaze through the eucalypts and dwindling forests and not see the corruption. Traveling on the fast highways that skirt all Australian cities, it is quite easy to forget the manipulation that bedevils any legitimacy of government.

This cannot last. Even if Australians lower their heads and swallow their shame and anger, it won't last. A structure built on human callousness will inevitably collapse. Australian politicians under Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer, having ceased to care about the children of the future, should not be surprised when those children, learning the truth of what has been passing for ‘good government’, come washed in hatred and openly demonstrate their disgust at the treatment of their parents.

The enforced poverty of families will come back to haunt the present day rulers. The next (Internet) generation will receive information that will consign religious, ethnic and patriotic indoctrination to the scrap heap. From the wells of hatred and anger, from the "infrastructures" of injustice and moral corruption will erupt a ‘truly informed’ generation, dedicated to the ‘cleaning up’ of global society. ‘The writing is on the Internet’.

NB. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live in Australia. All interest rates over two per cent (2%) should be declared illegal. Tony Lee

The Forces of Good

“We have a duty to look after each other. If we lose control of our government, then we lose our ability to dispense justice and human kindness. Our first priority today, then, is to defeat utterly those forces of greed and corruption that have come between us and our self-governance.”

Understanding Poverty.

1. Statement: Poverty is a crime sanctioned on the highest level of politics.

2. Poverty is created when politicians serve the foreign banks that control the ‘Federal’ and ‘Reserve’ Bank of each and every country.

3. Statement: In each and every country all politicians are political conscripts to the world banks.

4. These foreign banks induce people to borrow home loans at affordable low interest rates then, after a short period of time, increase the interest until the loan is no longer able to be serviced.

5. Statement: ‘Variable’ interest rates destroy lives.

6. This continuous scam is adhered to with the knowledge of every party politician who stands to gain financially.

Covenant of the Forces of Good

Until poverty is eradicated from the face of Earth, we will identify with each other by placing a tick in every space on the ballot paper during elections to elect politicians.

The true democratic principle of equality will be adhered to; every family will receive a practical home building block of land free of charge. All ‘interest rates’ for homebuyers will be capped at two per cent (2%) ~ No exceptions.

"Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience." -- John Locke, 2nd Treatise on Government Ch. 19 par. 222

A Social Mechanic’s view of the Australian family and why its not all happening…

Have you ever wondered why families in one of the richest countries in the world have only a ten per cent home ownership rate? That’s right ~ ten per cent!

There are many reasons why home ownership is so low but if you ask the ninety per cent of Australian families why this is so, they can’t give you an answer! They know something is wrong but they don’t know what to do about it. Most parents, when their dream is shattered and they know they will never achieve their own home, give up thinking about it. The education that would help them to understand just what is going on is not forthcoming. The system charges our children obnoxious fees without delivering the essential information that would protect them from the corrupt bureaucracy that is set in place in every country in the world.

From the word ‘Go’ every student is taught to believe the rules of society are set in stone. The right to own property is ok for those who own it but it is not a right for every citizen to own enough property to build a house on. There are some thirty million hectares of land in Australia yet a struggling family gets nothing. The bureaucrats stonily say “We can’t give people things for nothing.” What they are really saying is the institution of two-parent families contributes nothing to Australian society. Bureaucrats don’t care that in Australia home ownership is the only thing that will keep families together. Bureaucrats don’t care that some two million families have been destroyed because unknowing parents have blamed each other for their failure to get their own home. Bureaucrats keep their jobs by carrying out the orders of the rich and powerful who run Australia like a farm to be milked at any and all cost. We will see at what cost when we visit lives like 13 year old Michelle Pogmore who was raped in February 2004 and raped and murdered two weeks later. Where was the bureaucracy to protect this little girl? Why was she still left to fend for herself after being raped the first time? In Belgium, some three hundred thousand people marched because authorities did nothing about a paedophile who kidnapped, raped and murdered many children ~ in Sydney, nobody cried a tear for Michelle. It was a non-event. Nobody cared that authorities took no steps to safeguard Michelle after the first(?) rape. Is it because we don’t care? Is it because we don’t care to think about it? Is it because we allow ourselves to believe nothing we do will help to change things we know are set in stone? Are we in effect complicit murderers in an uncaring society? Who the hell is Michelle Pogmore anyway? Who was Anita Cobby? Janine Balding? Do you know?

Could Michelle Pogmore have been saved? John Howard is legislating to ban same sex couples from adopting children yet he has allowed the world bankers to control the interest rates of home buyers and sent some two million heterosexual families to the wall. Where are Michelle Pogmore’s parents? I can bet they have no property of any sort, no vision of future well-being, just never ending misery of one sort or another. Michelle could only have been a burden. Remember the young West Australian couple who left their children outside the Police Office? They just couldn’t cope with Howard’s ruthless family policies. If John Howard is to be remembered for anything it should be for the destruction of Australian society. The actual cost is incalculable, two million broken families with the resulting exposure of millions of children to fiends of all kinds. Some thirty thousand disaffected fathers committing suicide because they were denied taking part in the rearing of their children.

Howard has allowed States to operate illegal brothels for years and he never considered legislating to ban legalised brothels. So much for his care for homeless people.

One solution to the above problem is for the reader to develop a personal goal ~ that a Social Mechanic Party be initiated to take over where Pauline Hansen left off. That every family unit will be given a block of suitable land for the purposes of building a home. That this land must remain with the receiving family for a period of at least fifteen years. This to destroy manipulators and profiteers from access to this land. People can form a local group to get the party up and running. It should be easy when families learn they are no longer in the hands of corrupt bankers, bureaucrats and politicians.

Further reading:

http://groups.msn.com/WelcometoFREEDOMFORKIDS/

N.B. The Family First Party has taken off and has one member in the Senate and another in the South Australian Parliament.