Article for “The Light” newspaper – John Lock
Western Australia is abuzz with talk about Premier ‘SkidMark’ McGowan’s putative legislation which he touts as “an end to the Covid State of Emergency” but which in fact provides unprecedentedly draconian powers to unelected bureaucrats and police.
Powers which would enable officers to forcibly enter homes or vehicles, without warrants, seize and/or destroy property, or even enforce on people unwanted and demonstrably dangerous medical procedures.
Despite strident public protests, this author contends that these are pointless and will continue to be ignored by SkidMark and his henchmen. Instead, there is a completely lawful response to such wanton criminality, which is fully supported by a valid and long-standing Constitution.
Not the 1901 Australian Constitution, which has never been valid, for reasons given below, but the British Constitution, under which all people in the British Commonwealth lawfully reside.
To understand this, it’s necessary to go back to the foundations of our system of law, about which most of the population know virtually nothing, and that because it has been deliberately withheld from them.
During the reign of Alfred the Great, which ended in 899AD, what is commonly termed the Common Law was codified, and justice was largely administered on a local level, where people were judged for their misdemeanours and felonies by their peers, a process overseen by local lords or barons.
Enter King John (1199-1216). His reign was characterised by extreme cruelty, viciousness and profligacy, until his peers, the Barons, called a halt and summoned him to Runnymede, where Magna Carta (or Great Charter of Liberties) was sealed on 15th June 1215.
Runnymede was effectively a trial of John by his peers, in the normal Common Law manner, and John was compelled to agree to abide by the law, like any other person. Magna carta 1215 thus became the primary document of the English Constitution, which contrary to popular misconception, does exist in written form.
It predates Parliament by decades, as a treaty between the monarch, the Barons and the people. Consequently, it is immune from amendment or repeal by Parliament, which is also subject to the Constitution. There is no person or body of people which exist above the Constitution: all are subject to it.
Any attempt by Parliament to override or amend the Constitution without the express consent of the whole population is not only unlawful, but treasonous, for which the death penalty still applies.
For a people to allow a Parliament to write a Constitution is an oxymoron, for a thing, (in this case a Parliament) cannot rise above that which created it, which is the Constitution. Thus, the Australian Constitution, which was submitted to Queen Victoria after several Constitutional Conventions, came back with over 70 alterations to which the people were not consensual.
A referendum was held, but the people were not educated as to the principles of Constitutional law involved, which fraud (by concealment of material information) vitiates any contract.
The Australian Constitution, in violation of the basic principles of any legitimate Constitution, elevates the Parliament to supreme authority (Section 71), when it must be the people who are supreme: they must have the power to ultimately command the Parliament, and even the monarch, in cases of Constitutional dispute.
Such power was provided under Magna Carta 1215. Apart from codifying the concept of habeas corpus, and trial by jury, provided for in Articles 39 and 40, it also contained the vital ‘security clause’ of Article 61. The Barons knew that King John would seek to evade the restrictions placed upon him as soon as possible, so Article 61 was included, as a promise “in perpetuity”.
Article 61 provides for the Barons to appoint a Committee of 25, 4 of whom, if they become aware of Constitutional breaches (or ‘Treason’) by the monarch, may petition the monarch for redress of these breaches, allowing 40 days for such to be achieved.
If the monarch fails in this, the Twenty-five, together with the whole people of the realm, are not only permitted to rise in lawful dissent, whereby they may assail and distress the Crown or its agents “in any way they can….to the utmost of their power” (short of initiating violence) but are in fact commanded to do so by the monarch themselves.
This means that support for any Crown or alleged Crown agents must be withdrawn. Despite the agents’ claims that they are acting ‘legally’, the people are ordered to dissent ‘lawfully’, which is a higher jurisdiction, being of Constitutional, rather than Statutory law.
Furthermore, the final sentence of Article 61 stipulates that any thing which is procured which attempts to ‘diminish or revoke the liberties granted herein’ shall be null and void. Acts of Parliament which attempt this clearly come under this definition, which is why any law demanding payment of any kind to Crown agents are null and void and have been since Article 61 was invoked on 23rd March 2001.
That invocation is a matter of public record and totally verifiable, despite the attempts of the Deep State to hide the fact.
It is also why the pronouncements of McGowan and the WA Parliament have no lawful validity, and any attempt to enforce such Acts may be lawfully resisted with whatever force is deemed necessary, in defence of one’s property or person.
This knowledge needs to be spread as far and as fast in the community as possible, because mass non-compliance is the only way to deal with imposters like McGowan, who has no more lawful authority to impose such evil edicts than does the manager of the local Bunnings or McDonalds.
All the Courts, police forces, alleged government agencies, etc are registered corporations, with ABN numbers, and thus come under Corporate or Contract law, which gives them no power to compel anyone to deal with them.
They are falsely usurping the agency of the Crown and are therefore guilty of treason. Obeying them is to aid and abet that treason, under the British Constitution.