You are on page 1of 5

Larry Hannigan's Australia - Do you really want to pay that fine?

Larry Hannigans Australia


SiteSite Search Search
Home Voice of the Flag Voice of the RSL Voice of the Constitution Ron Baker - Evangelist Issues with Government Articles of Interest Videos Available Larry's Music Contact Me Donations

Return to State Government Index

WHAT ACT HAVE YOU BEEN CHARGED UNDER IS IT LEGAL ?


A private Queensland lawyer whose legal role is private business as well as doing jobs for council - policy and procedure - claims both the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Assent Date 17.06.2010) (For Brisbane City Council) and the Local Gov Act 2009 (Assent Date 12.6.2009) have attained Royal Assent. This raises questions: Firstly, how is it possible to have Royal Assent without a validly appointed Governor General ? Secondly, how is it possible to have a council without consent of the people expressed by referendum ? People elected at the 1988 referendum to NOT have a 3rd tier of Gov. Thirdly, where is the evidence these acts attained royal assent & were these acts gazetted? Answer Both Acts have Corporation Seals of the Queensland Government and Copyrighted; the private people are NOT within the Seal and the Copyright so these acts have nothing to do with us. People need to learn to read. Lawyers swear their OATH to the Corporation Courts. The Constitution 2001 does not include a statement of executive power vesting in the Sovereign and the so called Governor is an office holder to this Corporation so how can you get ROYAL ASSENT. This GOVERNOR is a total FRAUD. The Governor representing

To create an Act of Parliament Firstly, a Bill for an Act is drawn up and read in the Parliament for the representatives to debate and vote upon. Then, if passed by a majority in both Houses of Parliament, the Bill for the Act is taken to the Legislature at Government House, which, in Australia, is the Queen or the Queens appointed representative. The Governor General has the duty and responsibility to ensure that nothing in that Bill is in breach of moral law, Common Law, nor any part of the Constitution before the Bill is either accepted as it is sent, or rejects it to be returned to be amended, debated and voted on, again. If the Bill meets all those criteria, Royal Assent is granted and the Act of Parliament becomes a Statute Law that is binding on persons, statutory bodies and corporations created by the Parliament. The date of the Proclamation of the new Act of Parliament is published in the Government Gazette with the date for the Commencement of the Act coming into force. However, there are a few problems with many so called Acts today... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 2 Commencement This Act commences on a day or days to be proclaimed. N.B. (a) Observe what it says ...... on a day or days TO BE PROCLAIMED .... meaning in the future; and (b) The National Referendum of 1988 rejected the establishment and the continuance of Local Government in Australia. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FINES ACT 1996 - SECT 2 Commencement

Top of Page

http://www.larryhannigan.com/whatact.htm[5/03/2012 10:51:39 PM]

Larry Hannigan's Australia - Do you really want to pay that fine?

(1) This Act commences on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation, subject to subsection (2). Note what it says ...... "This Act commences on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation" ..... meaning in the future..... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2004 - SECT 2 2. Commencement (1) This Act comes into operation on a day fixed by proclamation (2) Different days may be fixed under subsection (1) for different provisions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, these are just 3 examples of "Acts" that have come into force, but are NOT legitimately in effect and the Local Government Act disregards the Will of the People expressed in 1988. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Court or prosecution may say it HAS received "Royal Assent".... PROBLEM: The only person who can give Royal Assent is the Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or that Crown's appointed representative who either accepts it as sent or rejects it to be returned to be amended, debated and voted on, again. ANOTHER PROBLEM: Re: The Food Act of 2006 They claim (Reprint 2A effective 1 December 2009):

Top of Page
The Brisbane City Council uses the Food Act 2006 (and reprint 2009) chapter 1, part 4 , sections 22 to 31, to justify it's powers. They claim (Reprint 2A effective 1 December 2009) These sections are in violation of the Referendum 1988 results in which the people said that Local Councils can have no powers to make laws. The SPECIFIC (Federal Referendum) proposal was: Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988. 119A, "Each state shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the state, and empowered to administer, and make BY-LAWS FOR, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the state" PROBLEM: This proposal was rejected by a majority of electors in a majority of States. The Constitution, Section 109: When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. This is not the case with the Food Act, thus it remains as a Bill and is not a valid Act. Councils and other bodies (which are now private companies and Corporations (with an ABN number) will attempt to use some Act to justify their powers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So these "Acts" are NOT legitimately in effect otherwise, as with many other "Acts" they must have a date which it started and have no conflict with Common Law. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBLEM Opposing Counsel may say it received royal ascent, or that it was proclaimed. Well there is fundamental flaw to this. The only person who can give Royal Assent is the is the Queen or the Queens appointed representative who either accepts it as sent or rejects it to be returned to be amended, debated and voted on, again. Check whether the Act, under which you are charged, (or any other Act they might resort to in court), is valid and meets the above requirements. If not, it is only a Bill and is not valid Statute. Obtain or demand to see a hard copy. Don't just download it. And while you are at it, get a hard

http://www.larryhannigan.com/whatact.htm[5/03/2012 10:51:39 PM]

Larry Hannigan's Australia - Do you really want to pay that fine?

Top of Page

copy of the Constitution and know it. (It is even more important than your weekly TV program) The Constitution is the third most important document in our Christian society, ie: in order, the Holy Bible, the Magna Carta, and then the Australian Constitution. Whether you are a Christian or not... IS NOT THE ISSUE... these are the laws under which the People of Australia live. If you don't like them, try to have them changed by Referendum or go back to where you came from. Australia's political and legal structure is founded on Christianity and our English heritage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the opening in our Constitution


Chapter 1 Section 1 The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament," or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth." Chapter 1 Section 2 A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him. So - the Governor General is to be the Queen's appointed representative. PROBLEM Here is a letter to the Privy Council and the reply. Original Message From: John Wilson Sent: 14 August 2003 23:59 To: PCOSecretariat@pco.x.gsi.gov.uk Subject: Appointment of the Governor-General of Australia

Dear Sirs, I would like to view the Order Approved at the Council appointing the new Governor-General of Australia, Major-General Michael Jeffrey. Please send me internet directions/instructions on how I can see the relevant documents. Yours sincerely, John Wilson. The Reply From: pcosecretariat@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk pcosecretariat@pco.x.gov..uk To: "John Wilson" jhwilson@acay.com.au Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2003 1:20 AM Subject: RE: Appointment of the Governor-General of Australia

Top of Page

I am sorry but there is no Order for this appointment. Privy Council Office 2 Carlton Gardens London SW1Y 5AA Tel 7210 1030 Fax 7210 1071 http://www.privycouncil.gov.uk <http://www.privycouncil.gov.uk/> PROBLEM Quentin Bryce has not been legally appointed either because...

THE CONSTITUTION REMAINS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, SINCE WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY REFERENDUM TO CHANGE IT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Constitution Section 5 This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be

http://www.larryhannigan.com/whatact.htm[5/03/2012 10:51:39 PM]

Larry Hannigan's Australia - Do you really want to pay that fine?

binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen's ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------COURTS ARE GOVERNMENT Government is the system of governing and to govern is to rule with authority. Governance by the People is Democracy. Democracy is the Rule of Common Law - which is the Law of the People, by the People and for the People and is made by the unanimous Judgments of the congregations of 12 Freemen as Jurors, who ask So help me, God for them to administer Justice. Justice is the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs. Governance by Judges and Magistrates is Bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is the Rule of Statute Law which is the Law made by Parliaments, that have no Jurisdiction over the People, and is administered by stipendiary Magistrates and Judges. When People Rule in the Courts, there is Trial by Jury, which is the Palladium of Liberty, the Bulwark of Freedom, and the only Defense against Tyranny. A Court has no jurisdiction to proceed summarily (ie: without a Jury) unless first obtaining the clear and unequivocal consent of both parties to do so otherwise, any awards, doings and proceedings are not to be drawn into consequence or example, ie: any such Judgments are illegal and void. Sir William Blackstone (1723 1780) wrote: UPON these accounts the trial by jury even has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law. And, if it has so great an advantage over others in regulating civil property, how much must that advantage be heightened, when it is applied to criminal cases! But this we must refer to the ensuing book of these commentaries: only observing for the present, that it is the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy, or with for, that he cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbours and equals. A constitution, that I may venture to affirm has, under providence, secured the just liberties of this nation for a long succession of ages. And therefore a celebrated French writer q, who concludes, that because Rome, Sparta, and Carthage have lost their liberties, therefore those of England in time must perish, should have recollected that Rome, Sparta, and Carthage, were strangers to the trial by jury. Magna Carta 1215 says, No free man shall be taken indeed imprisoned, either dispossessed, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, nor pass over him, nor send over him, except by means of the legal judgment of his own equals indeed the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.

Top of Page

Read Lysander Spooner's "An Essay on Trial by Jury 1852" which is at http://www.lysanderspooner.org/node/35 That will give you an idea on what trial by jury ought to be. Beware of the "evil counsellors, judges and ministers" who will ferociously try to deny you a fair trial. In other words, ALMOST nothing is valid at this point in time...... YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT to demand as to what day did this Act commence and demand the hard copy of the Government Gazette as proof......no dishonour on your part. The courts are fake ... judges, are not there under Common Law. ALL fines are ALLEGED ......they have no proof of any fines unless you admit to them. It is even more bizarre now that we have a PRIVATE CORPORATION like a "local council" pretending to be some sort of legitimate local government ! Its outrageous ! But it has occurred because we the people have allowed it through ignorance and refusing to know the rules of freedom .. ie .. Our Constitution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFFIDAVIT

Name: .................................. Address: .................................,

http://www.larryhannigan.com/whatact.htm[5/03/2012 10:51:39 PM]

Larry Hannigan's Australia - Do you really want to pay that fine?

Occupation: ........................ On .................DATE .........,

Top of Page
I say on Oath:

1. I am the deponent. 2. I believe that the information contained in this affidavit is true. 3. According to the LOCAL COURTS ACT 2007 SECT 13, Magistrates are to be appointed by the Governor of the State of New South Wales. 4. According to the CONSTITUTION ACT 1902 SECT 9A, the Governor of the State is to be appointed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 5. According to the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1900 SECT 61, the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia is to be appointed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 6. Annexed hereto and marked A, is a true photocopy of an email from the Privy Council, ie: the Queenin-Council, confirming that there is no Order for the appointment of Major-General Michael Jeffrey to be the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Top of Page

7. I have been to the website of the Privy Council, ie: http://www.privycouncil.gov.uk to discover there are no Orders for any Governor-Generals of the Commonwealth of Australia and nor for any Governor of any State of the Commonwealth of Australia. 8. Therefore, because the Governor of the State of New South Wales has not been duly appointed, the appointments of Magistrates are similarly invalid. 9.It is fraud for any person to act as a Magistrate in any Court in Australia. SWORN AT ......... Signature of deponent: ............................................. Name of witness: ........... Signature of witness: .......................................

http://www.larryhannigan.com/whatact.htm[5/03/2012 10:51:39 PM]

You might also like