Part 2. Corruption at National Level.



So far we have looked at our situation from a world view, in this section (Chapters 6-8) we try to look more at the national level to see the effects of our colonial attachment, through United nations treaties, to the New World Order.

We can break the chains that bind us, but only if we have a concern for future generations sufficient to face our situation and accept our responsibilities. If that is not the case then I am afraid that all present fight-back is futile because it is based on a false understanding of our situation.

Normally people tend to think brainwashing is to achieve a common, wrong, viewpoint. However we now see this is not correct; misinformation, more often than not, is designed to either create conflict or disguise aggression. at this point the reader might like to revise Chapters 1-5 as they establish the base for the rest of this book.

Is it cowardice or confusion that causes us to hand our slavery on from generation to generation?

In the last chapter we looked at the interaction between our own and USA politics and, no doubt, some thought, "Well, what can you expect from the stupid Yanks, that kind of thing couldn't happen here, our pollies do not have people telling them how to run the country."

Well, don't be too sure. For a start, could anyone genuinely so stupid as to get the country into such a mess, get elected? I mean the party bosses were smart enough to get YOU to elect THEIR representatives to YOUR parliament! Let's accept that the party system rip-off is deliberate and clever. But why not hear it from an ex-MP.

Barry Cohen writing for The Australian (6/4/1992) starts off by telling us about a Queensland government adviser; quote:

"Nothing of substance is government policy is likely to happen without his (Rudd's) knowledge, consideration and advice ... (Rudd) quickly developed an almost mythological reputation for power and influence ... Rudd's influence on the Government? Total ... Our impression was all policies were coming out under his imprimatur". EQ

Barry is quoting someone else there and adds; quote:

Quite a man, this Rudd. I hadn't realized that the Queensland Labor Government was elected to implement his objectives.

[Barry then goes on to say:]

Let me share with you an experience I had, in 1983, soon after I reached the exalted status of federal Minister for Home affairs and the Environment.


After being briefed by the department I was handed a file the size of the New York telephone directory and pushed through a door marked "Cabinet"

... As I sat down and heard the PM snarl a welcome "Get on with it" I realized something was amiss. Seated slightly to the rear of himself, the treasurer, the minister for finance et al, was a phalanx of grey-suited strangers. To this day I have no idea who they were. I was, however, to learn quickly what they were.


I recall later asking: "And who the hell were those bastards?" I was informed ... they had been seconded from government departments, the private sector and the universities within minutes of the government taking office.


..all bar a handful of senior ministers learned quickly that if they wanted something special to occur then there were key people in the PM's office who had to be convinced first. It was a waste of time going to the prime minister and convincing him if the minute you left the minders gave it the thumbs down. It is and was outrageous but I doubt it will ever change whether the governments is Labor or Liberal.


My objection ... is the extraordinary influence that such individuals have upon government policy at the expense of those who have been elected to office. Some will holler that they are merely advisers putting forward a range of options from which the government may choose. That's what they should be doing but many go well beyond that. EQ. EA.

It's no secret that governments, both state and federal, use advisers who get well paid for their trouble. Now, thanks to Barry, we glimpse their true operation. Of course, you would only have to listen to parliament to know that most MPs would be as useless as administrators of any business let-alone a business as important as the government of Australia.

Rest assured that the party system knows well the standard of people it selects, but this is not to say that good or honest people never get elected. It would not be in the interests of the establishment to be too arrogant in its selection process and they have no problem so long as the honest candidates are is a small minority.

Private think-tanks in Australia? No! We obey the NWO. The big boys no doubt spend time on master plans in Zurich, Switzerland, while the details are worked out in American 'think-tanks'.

To think sensibly about these matters we need to know something about our own political and legal system; let's now look at the basics of what is usually called the Australian Constitution.


As mentioned earlier the Constitution is no more than an authorization for a Federal Parliament to operate. It is quite restrictive and allows very limited powers for that body. It does not contain within its pages the authority for our common law system of government. Our rights and protections were already established by our attachment to the Monarchy.

All of our rights and civic protections were guaranteed by a Monarchy whose each succeeding member was sworn to uphold the law as learned and laid down over some hundreds of years of experience - hard experience and unselfish sacrifice purified into various documents, Bills, Statutes etc., including Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.

This institution of (what were intended to be) inalienable rights was the envy of the world and formed the base for the laws of the British Commonwealth and the USA.

It is interesting to compare OUR historic Bills and documents with new Bills of Rights and laws which we are told are modern and essential to our liberties today. If you do make this inspection you will find that there is one remarkable difference between the old and the new: our ancient and historic documents restrict the powers of leaders and give power to the people, whereas our modern 'rights and protections' restrain the people and give all power to government.

Further, as we see later, the UN treaties may have clauses similar to our own Bill of Rights but if you look closely you will find contradictory or escape clauses. This allows the bureaucracy to 'interpret' the law as it sees fit.

That, in essence, is the basic difference between common law and the United Nations law which now looms over the greater part of the world.

So long as Australia remains attached to the Monarchy we have a guardian of our articles of law. These laws not only protect our rights and freedoms but even, as an additional safeguard against mistakes and unforeseen consequences of new laws, guaranteed our laws as we "had them best".

These laws cannot rightly be changed by either the Monarch or the parliament without the approval of the people and, as you see from the above, even the people were guarded against their own mistakes. Do you wonder why neither capitalist nor socialist advocate - neither right nor left - ever thought to bring this to public notice?

It may be informative to introduce here a few words quoted from a talk given by Dr. David Mitchell, a constitutional authority of remarkable credentials and who, for 16 years, worked in the Australian Attorney-General's Department. This highlights why, over the years, there has been such persistent propaganda and secretive effort directed toward separating us from British law; Quote:

We have not been taught at school what the Common Law is or where it was derived from. I need to remind you that when this country was settled .. they brought with them a system of law, brought with them a system of rights and a system of constitution


King Alfred [848-901] decreed and declared that the responsibility of the courts was to apply the Ten Commandments to every question that came before them ... in the light of the whole of Scripture. So the people were to find their rights - that is to say, how the court was to handle any issue - in the Christian Scriptures.

Thus the Constitution of England came into existence those many years ago, and that was the Constitution which still existed when Australia was settled.

Over the years that Constitutional basis was often neglected, rejected or forgotten. The Hon. John Howard* has ... correctly drawn attention to the Magna Carta and other basic Constitutional documents. EQ. EA.

*The Hon. John Howard; quote:

".. our basic rights have been defined over the centuries through Acts of Parliaments, decisions of Courts, the ancient Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of the British Parliament, and so forth. They are our basic rights .." EQ.

These rights are still ours. It can be ascertained that neither the Courts of Law nor the Parliament, nor the Government as a whole, were there to make laws. They were there to uphold the law! It was not until 1917 that English law ruled, without public agreement, that Biblical law was no longer relevant.

However, as Australian Law was established in the Australian States long before 1917 and as the English change has not been made here, it could be argued that Australia is still rightly entitled to the most pure survival of Common Law freedoms and responsible government ever known to exist.

We do not have to be Christians to appreciate the essential beauty and simplicity of this arrangement, nor do we have to be gifted with second sight to see how irritating this situation is to both egocentric politicians or world- government planning elitists. Or, in fact, anyone with dictatorial or social engineering ambitions.

We have a system of law that, in its correct working, is "COMMON" to all: the Prince and the paper boy - the tycoon and the beggar - and, rightly speaking, if the people stand behind their heritage it is beyond change without their understanding approval.

By our inherited law it is an act of treason for any authority to make our law (meaning, making us citizens) subject to foreign law - for this is to overrule the sworn promise of our Monarch to uphold our Common Law and defend the realm.

So it is very plain why it is that there is a persistent propaganda for changing our system to republicanism by referendum. Why they assure us with all the conviction of manner at their disposal, that to do this will make no great change to our system of government - just a change of name for the chief executive from Governor-General to President and we become a free and independent nation with our own chosen leader, and subject to no law but our own.

What they fail to say is that this simple act will take away our present protections and make us subject to the unknown rulers of the United Nations.

What a deception! They have introduced laws to separate us from all British ruling influence - they have signed hundreds of agreements making our law subject to United Nations law, but the one thing that they have not been able to do (or yet had the courage to try to do) is to put this treachery to a referendum.

So long as they do not have our approval to scrap our British Common Law connections, their actions remain actions of treachery. They cannot make their position constitutionally secure except by having the people vote for changing Australia to a republic.

Their public relations confidence trick will succeed if the rights of the people and the proper working of our system of government can be kept from our understanding.


A booklet, not widely available, The Case for Fundamental Rights in Australia is one of the few good booklets on contemporary common law. If I have failed to argue the case to best effect a few paragraphs from this booklet may help put the matter right. The argument presented is from an actual case that has been in dispute for several years without resolution; quote:

... the proceedings seek to confirm that there indeed limitations on the power of the NSW parliament in favour of individual rights and freedoms which have been derived from our English heritage. ...

... In the event of the Supreme Court of NSW confirming those fundamental principles of the English heritage (regardless as to whether or not the actual regulation in question is declared valid) then the way will be open for the Supreme Court to consider the validity of any legislation affecting individual rights. ...

If, on the other hand the Supreme Court of NSW denied these principles, then it would mean that any legislation passed by the NSW parliament or any regulation authorized by the parliament would be legally valid and enforceable no matter how oppressive, arbitrary or lacking in reason or logic.


"Many of our fundamental freedoms are guaranteed by ancient principles of the common law or by ancient Statutes which are so much of the accepted constitutional framework that their terms, if not their very existence, may be overlooked until a case arises which evokes their contemporary and undiminished force." Mr Justice Brennan of the High Court of Australia in MacDonald-v-Bolton; ex parte Beane 70 CLR 230.

"The settlement of Australia in 1788 brought with it "all that by the common law, or by the liberal and enlightened and accumulated wisdom of our ancestors, has been provided for the protection of life, liberty and property, and for regulating the transactions of men with each other." Mr Justice Burton of the NSW Supreme Court in MacDonald-v-Levy 1 Legge 39.


" that of having arms for their defence, suitable for their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law, which is also declared by the same statute, 1W. and, c2, and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." (Blackstones' Commentaries, 1829, p143). EQ EA.

Those sentences, it seems to me, spell out very clearly what we have, where it comes from, and how easily we might lose all of our inheritance of liberties and justice if we, in ignorance, allow party appointed judges to declare our inheritance invalid. I think you will also find the following comment, another from Blackstones, interesting; quote:

"but it was not the kingly power only, which had a tendency to abridge the subject of his rights: it might behove the people to be equally, if not more apprehensive of their parliaments. The rivets of a people are always firmest, whilst the chains are more massive, under the semblance of a free government". (ibid, p 142) EQ.

I doubt many of my readers would want to argue that point today unless they become confused by the antique language. Let us continue; quote:

After the glorious revolution of 1688 [Bill of Rights] subsequent parliaments sought to disarm the public in order to "prevent popular insurrections and resistance to government". The ends of disarming the public were achieved through various legislative acts which on their face seemed to be for the "peace, order and good government" of England. As Sir George Tucker indicated in 1:App. 300 of the 1803 Blackstone Commentaries:

"This may be considered the true palladium of liberty ... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up,and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. EQ.

We now come forward in time, the question is how do you determine, today, if a law is for the "peace, welfare and good government" of our State or Nation? Quote:

The fundamental rights and principles of the common law carry as much weight as any constitutional provision that the government must respect. Justices Gibbs and Wilson of the High Court, resorted to a tried and true test that has proven successful in other countries in a section 92 case titled Uebergang -v- Australian Wheat Board (1980) 145 CLR 266. At page 300 they stated:

"It (i.e. the Court) must therefore do its best to preserve a balance between competing interests, a balance which favours freedom for the individual citizen in the absence of compelling considerations to the contrary".

Upon the scale of justice, the balancing of the various interests of the individual and the state, must be through a mustering of evidence.

... Further at Page 302 they said:

"All evidence is relevant which goes to the issue of whether or not the restrictions imposed by the legislation are no greater than are reasonably necessary in all the circumstances of the case".

This approach does not substitute the court as the people's representative - the legislature still retains that power - it only allows the court to be the people's arbitrator in these important disputes over undue infringements on fundamental freedoms. The English heritage is a heritage rich in freedom for the people, reaching back as far as the Magna Carta. A law which unduly infringes on individual liberty would not be a "law of the land", but a law of tyranny. If there are insufficient compelling reasons unduly infringe on individual freedoms then it cannot be a government regulation for the welfare of the individuals, but rather is one for the government of individuals.

It is up to the parties to the litigation to muster their evidence, if the state cannot muster sufficient evidence to support the infringement of individual liberties. If the state should fail to tip the balance of the scales in its direction with its "compelling interests", then it cannot be a law for the "peace, welfare and good government" of New South Wales and must be struck down as invalid. EQ EA.

The importance of that submission is the difference between retaining our common law rights to universal justice and bowing to arbitrary law at the discretion of those who may control the party system.

There is a concept called "the Sovereign Parliament which asserts that "The Queen in Parliament is Supreme".

What it means is that the parliament has assumed the powers of the monarchy, a concept that is certainly in contradiction of common law principles and could not be logically upheld. This concept may well be related to the following from Blackstone; quote:

"In all tyrannical governments, the supreme magistracy, or the right of both making and enforcing laws is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men; and wherever these two powers are united together, there can be no liberty ..." (ibid, pp. 146-47)

What has happened in Australia is that the balance of powers that is specifically provided for in the Constitution, that is of the executive, parliament and the judiciary, has been eroded with time. The executive, in the form of the Governor-General has become a figure head, with the Cabinet, consisting of the hierarchy of the political party in power, in reality exercising the executive powers. The Parliament, under the control of the party in power, simply rubber stamps the decisions of this new executive. EQ EA.

That ends quotes from The Case for Fundamental Rights in Australia. The last comment is not at all an exaggeration, the true situation, as we are seeing, is far worse. It is strange that people still call it democracy when the only people who have any say are the half-dozen or so in the inner Cabinet, and they are mere stooges who, obviously, do not have the expertise or incentive to understand many of the things legislated for.

So there we have a little of our historic background, a little of how the cabinet actually works and a little of the legal base for our constitutional rights and responsibilities. Now, how is our government supposed to work?


Political parties are unconstitutional! They are not mentioned as part of any democratic constitution because they are not democratic. The party system selects and controls what are its own representatives of the electors. Both the "selection" and the "control" place the party system outside of democratic procedure and also outside of our Constitution.

We have been brainwashed to believe that parliament could not work without parties, an obvious nonsense. Neither big-business or any other social administration uses a party system, nor does that parliament of the New World Order, the United Nations. However, I will accept that there could be chaos if the party system were replaced by what are today known as independents.

People who submit themselves as candidates have their own eggs to fry, they are not always the kind of people we want as representatives because, being self-selected, they often only represent themselves. To form a working parliament the people of the electorate (or those interested) must meet together to select a candidate, or candidates, who will undertake to learn the basic structure of our system and agree to represent the interests and views of the electorate.

The MP is not a free agent to do just as he thinks fit, he has a responsibility to represent his electorate. Comment from a time of better understanding may be informative; quote:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment: and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion .... what sort of reason is ... where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments? EQ. Edmund Burke.

Also this; quote:

[An MP] not to be the paid mandatory of any man, or organization of men, nor is he entitled to bind himself to subordinate his opinions on public questions to others. EQ. Lord Shaw 1910.

This exposes the natural illegality of the party system.

Another insight from a time when we were more politically aware is this; quote:

It may happen that your own judgment may occasionally come in conflict with my own ... but I promise you that any difference of opinion between us will always lead me to distrust my own views, carefully examine and, if erroneous, frankly to correct them ....

...if, unfortunately, occasions should occur ... on which there should arise between us, on points of serious importance, a radical and irreconcilable difference of opinion. I will not abuse my trust, but will give you the earliest opportunity of recalling or reconsidering your delegation of it. EQ. Wilberforce, at Liverpool 1812.

History shows, if we care to search back, that there was a time when both the elected and the electorate had a better appreciation of the system. I am not suggesting that there was ever the public understanding and education to operate the system to its planned ideal, but we had the ideal in mind; it was there and we were working toward it.

At the now imposed 'levels of selfish ignorance' the people, at first, might not do MUCH better than the tyrants; but they would do better; and they would tell themselves the truth so that in a short time we would again be heading toward that ideal our ancestors fought to attain and invested in the Constitution and heritage of this nation. A heritage which, if lived up to, would satisfy the most critical in its ability to maintain both liberty and justice.

In the basic system I would defy anyone to improve on its principles. Certainly there is nothing to approach it in the 'blind Freddy' advocacy of the Australian republican movement. The Monarch, at Coronation, promises on the Bible, to uphold the law of the land (meaning the historically established constitutional law) not the laws of day to day administration which, of course, were required to keep within constitutional law.

The Monarchy was, in effect, the government. The purpose of the parliament was to represent the people and what the people wanted the Monarch was obliged to give unless it was outside of the law which the people had, for centuries, struggled to establish.

If the parliament wanted 10 do things that were outside of the law then it could not be a "law of the land". If the parliament wanted to do things that were, unduly oppressive or not in the public interest it would be not for the "peace, welfare and good government" of the nation. In other words, if the parliament misused its power the Monarch had an obligation to dismiss the parliament and call a new election.

In short, we inherited a system where the monarchy was obliged to defend the right of the people to govern themselves within a wide protective framework. Thousands fought and died to attain the heritage passed on to us, a form of government that made the people and the monarchy as one - where the parliament was only a body of representatives charged with finding the best way to achieve what the people wanted - a thousand years of hard-won experience - this is what, in our selfish ignorance, we are allowing to be stolen away by confidence tricksters shouting, like that Arabian Nights trickster, "New lamps for old!"

Our problems result from the fact that we failed in our duty as citizens to select and elect our representatives to parliament as required by our Constitution.

Over these seventy years we have been complaining like puppets when we should have been obeying our law and insisting that parliaments do the same. That is the only real weakness in our Constitution, it assumed that we would do our part and not let the parliament be taken over by anti-social forces and then invest itself with the powers of the monarchy.

Of course it is not all our fault. We were not born corrupt, we are led to corruption through our schools, kindergartens and the TV box, all at the clever direction of PR experts in pay of the international money-lending crime syndicate. brain6.htm

.../Next Page

.../Back to Contents Page