Lawful Memes

Lawful Memes

Lawful Memes page is dedicated to presenting information in the form of memes about the state of the Australian political system in simple, clear, easy to understand memes with a little explanation.

The reader is urged Share any meme and information to anyone you wish to inform. We also urge readers to do your own research, and you are welcome to contact the website owner to ask any questions you may have.

Put simple, the political parties have usurped our political sovereignty, stripped away our rights and freedoms, and made us subservient slaves of the United Nations. This is intolerable to any man that values his freedom and enjoying the fruits of his labours without any interference from a dictatorial socialist-led government. Unfortunately, the ALP and the LNP, as well as their bed mates the Greens are all guilty. They have been working together for so long now that there is hardly any difference to b seen between them.

——————————————————–

Lawful Memes & Information

Lawful Memes presents a QUOTE relating to all the laws the political parties and politicians have broken or created illegally like the “Australia Act”

This quote, by Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs, GCMG, AC, KBE, QC, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1981 to 1987 after serving as a member of the High Court between 1970 and 1981. He was known as one of Australia’s leading federalist judges although he presided over the High Court when decisions such as Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen in 1982 and Commonwealth v Tasmania expanded the powers of the Commonwealth at the expense of the states.

QUOTE FROM THE BOOK “Australian Political Treason, Treachery & Sabotage” by Dick Yardley — a compendium of all the laws the political parties and politicians have broken.

 

Law-Sir-Harry-Talbot-Gibbs

The quote is taken from a letter Sir Harry wrote to a group of Australian citizens investigating and testing the Constitution.

Click here to read the letter

——————————————————–

 

GOVERNMENT WITHIN GOVERNMENT

This image shows how the government has set up a Corporate Government Structure that allows the political party politicians to get around our 1901 Constitution.

When dealing with the government people think we are dealing with the Commonwealth of Australia government under the 1901 Constitution, when in fact we are dealing with a commercial company registered as the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT.

This allows the political party politicians to use the Corporate government structure to rule and pass unlawful Acts of Parliament, under the unlawful authority of the 1986 Australia Act.

Look at any Australian government document today and the name is in all caps: AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT. It contains an ABN — giving it company status to trade…and you will not find Commonwealth of Australia anywhere. Yet our nation was established on January 1, 1901 as the Commonwealth of Australia under the British Crown.

The AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT is a company registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, with an address at 150 Massachusetts Ave, Washington DC.

Govt-Within-Govt
A government within a government

 

 

——————————————————–

 

WHAT IS COMMON LAW — AND WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH AUSTRALIA?

The Political Party government system no longer follows Common Law in all things. Instead, the political parties make laws to suit themselves…often at the expense of WE THE PEOPLE.

Government is elected to manage the affairs of the nation….NOT to make laws over every aspect of our lives. Yet we have allowed the political parties to tell us that they have the authority to make laws….

The origin of common law in Australia

Australia’s common law has a basis in the common law of England, and the word ‘common’ is an indication that the rules applied to everyone. However, it’s probably better to get the lowdown of the origins of common law from Chief Justice Gleeson in his Honour’s book, The Rule of Law and the Constitution. Gleeson CJ said the following in relation to the origin of common law:

“The common law of Australia was based upon the common law of England. We inherited it at the time of European settlement. The word “common” was a reference to the rules that applied to all citizens, the laws all people had in common, as distinct from special rules and customs that applied to particular classes, such as members of the clergy, or in particular places. The rules of the common law are judge-made. They were developed and refined by English, and later, Australian courts, originally at a time when parliaments were less active in the area of law-making than they are today.”[1]

The source of common law in Australia

While the common law in Australia has a basis in England, we can turn to the High Court to find out the source of the common law where Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ in Lipohar v The Queen (1999) 200 CLR 485; 168 ALR 8; 109 A Crim R 207 said (at 505; 18-19; 217 [44]) said:

“The common law has its source in the reasons for decisions of the courts which are reasons arrived at according to well recognised and long established judicial methods. It is a body of law created and defined by the courts. Whatever may once have been the case in England the doctrine of precedent is now central to any understanding of the common law in Australia. To assert that there is more than one common law in Australia or that there is a common law of individual States is to ignore the central place which precedent has in both understanding the common law and explaining its basis.”

Their Honours further remarked (at 507; 20; 219 [50]):

“This Court is the final appellate court for the nation. When an appeal is dealt with in this Court, and its reasons are published, those reasons will form part of the common law of Australia and will bind all courts in the country.”

Changes to the common law is the domain of the legislature where there is no logical or analogical relation to existing common law rules, or as a reflection of changing social conditions, as Gaudron and McHugh JJ noted in Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71; 138 ALR 25( (at 115; 290-291):

“In a democratic society, changes in the law that cannot logically or analogically be related to existing common law rules and principles are the province of the legislature. From time to time it is necessary for the common law courts to re-formulate existing legal rules and principles to take account of changing social conditions. Less frequently, the courts may even reject the continuing operation of an established rule or principle. But such steps can be taken only when it can be seen that the “new” rule or principle that has been created has been derived logically or analogically from other legal principles, rules and institutions.”

Learn more….

Findlaw Common Law

 

Law-Common-Law

 

——————————————————–

 

THE ATO IS UNLAWFULLY COLLECTING MONEY

The following facts support the claim of the ATO being illegal:

All law in Australia must be passed by a Parliament in both houses (in states that have both houses) and then by law must be gazetted.

The law that established the Australian Taxation Office has been challenged in a particular court whereby the Plaintiff created the need to document the ATO’s formation to the satisfaction of the Defendant and the Court.

The Plaintiff, with the approval of the Australian National Library, brought into the court every Federal Government Gazette for the time period around when the law was passed by the Federal Parliament.

The Defendant was asked to ‘Please show us in which Gazette we will find the Legislation regarding the Australian Taxation Office’, to which the Defendant stated; ‘It is not in any Government Gazette’.

The judge of the matter then stated; ‘You have proved beyond any doubt that the law establishing the Australian Taxation Office has not been Gazetted and thus place its legality in question’ he went on, ‘But I can not permit Australia to fall into financial chaos and thus strike out this evidence’.

Further, Justice J Callinan, in Moelike v Chapman [B8/2000 (24/8/2000)], agreed that the ATO was not a legal entity. This has been validated by two judges.

Since this case, an article from the Aussie Post quotes the High Court case on May 17, 2000, where the ATO admitted it isn’t a legal personality, a view also held by the presiding judge, Justice Callinan. It goes further, stating “at the heart of the matter is the inability of the ATO to provide any documentation that proves it is either a legal entity or was established following correct procedure…”.

Further, as a response by Anthony Wallace, officer of the ATO, to Mr D Cameron on February 25, 2000, in an affidavit ii, stated that the writer and others he contacted could not identify any relevant files or documents setting up the ATO.

The Australian Government has misled the people of Australia in matters relating to taxation.

Click here for more information:
https://www.cirnow.com.au/is-the-ato-lawful/

Law-Unlawful-ATO

——————————————————–

WHY DOES TURNBULL WANT A REPUBLIC?

It has been widely reported that Kim Beazley MP, whilst representing a political party in “Australia” as a purported elected member of the Parliament “of Australia” and as the Deputy Prime Minister “of Australia” from 1995 to 1996 said: “The United Nations has given the Federal Government a mandate of ownership for housing, property, farms and businesses to government control once the Republic has been proclaimed.”

Part B Objectives and Principles of the ALP National Constitution states that the ALP intends to reform the Australian Constitution and other political institutions to ensure that they reflect the will of the majority of Australian citizen and the existence of Australia as an independent Republic.

However, the constitution defines “Australian citizens” as abstract “entities” created by Members of Political Parties. In other words, We the People will be reduced to names on paper with no rights as human beings under the law.

This is the plan the ALP has for Australia…aided and abetted by the traitor PM Malcolm Turnbull…an ALP wolf in LNP sheep’s clothing. Beware!

 

Law-Beazley-UN

 

——————————————————–

The Day Prime Minister W.E. Hughes Betrayed Australia

Back at the turn of the 19th Century Australians voted in a Referendum to become a Federation of Six States, to be called the Commonwealth of Australia. This united the six British Colonies, into one Federated Australian Colony. Australia was still a British colony, but we took the first step towards becoming a nation.

Before that, each state had its own Colonial government, acting independently of each other. One very obvious manifestation of this was the different railway gauges, making it impossible to take a train from one state to the next. Passengers would have to change trains to continue their journey.

As a Federated British Colony we were still ruled by the British Crown, British Common Law, and a Constitution that consisted of an Act of the British Parliament granting us certain rights to govern ourselves. The Constitution was, and is, an outline of how our government should be formed.

This all changed on the 29th of June, 1919, when Billy Hughes – an old style Labor man – signed on behalf of We the People to become a founding member of the League of Nations.

The only problem with this was that he had no lawful right to do so. We were not asked to vote in a Referendum, as a government is bound to if it wants to make a fundamental change in our status under the Constitution.

Therefore, every law and Parliamentary Act, state and Federal, since then has been UNLAWFUL.

This means that Australia is essentially governed by a bunch of political party crooks who have lied, deceived, and sabotaged our once-great nation.

Our entry into the League of Nations was the first step by the Socialist Fabians towards making Australia a Socialist “paradise”.

Bet you didn’t know that, did you?

 

Law-LofNats

——————————————————–

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *