I am extremely concerned about the way our country is heading, Lockdowns, mandatory vaccinations, the forced quarantine of healthy people, Contact tracing, mask wearing, media propaganda and perpetual extension of the state of emergency, which means that we are under MARTIAL LAW.
As a result of my APPARENT FAILURE TO VOTE – PENALTY NOTICE I was forced into action by responding to the ELECTORAL COMMISSIONS ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE BY DECEPTION.
They wanted my VALID REASON for NOT VOTING so I gave it to them. ELECTORAL FRAUD and MISPRISION OF TREASON.
Back in 1978 SIR CHARLES COURT knew that the LABOR PARTY/FABIAN/NWO had the intention to undermine our STATES CONSTITUTION bypassing the GOVERNORS ROLE in giving ROYAL ASSENT TO EVERY LAW.
We also have reason to believe that attempts could be made to alter the office of Governor, to abolish or water down the right of the Queen to appoint the Governor, to by-pass the Governor’s role in giving assent to every law, or to make the Governor a rubber stamp of the Government as part of the process of undermining our State Constitution and our Parliament. To protect Parliament-our legislation will provide that no changes of the nature mentioned, can be made concerning either House of Parliament without the approval of a majority of the State’s electors at a referendum. Full Transcript below.
Sir Charles Court
In 1986 BOB HAWKES AUSTRALIA ACT FRAUDULANTLY CHANGED the CONSTITUTION.
An Act to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation, meaning that it took the power away from federal parliament and gave it to the INDIVIDUAL STATES.
SIR CHARLES COURT knew that this was comming and did his best to prevent this. He had three reasons for presenting ACTS AMENDMENT (CONSTITUTION) BILL.
The Bill seeks to achieve three purposes.
THE FIRST is to emphasise the role of Her Majesty the Queen in the Parliament of Western Australia.
THE SECOND is to protect and preserve the existence of both Houses of the State Parliament and to ensure their continued role as an integral and essential part of the law-making process.
THE THIRD purpose of the Bill is to confirm by Statute the office of the role of Governor, and that appointments to the office of Governor and the instructions with which the Governor must comply in performing his duties are both made and issued by the Queen personally, as happens at present.
Sir Charles Court
CONSTITUTION ACT 1890 (UK)
73. The Legislature of the colony shall have full power and authority from time to time by any Act Constitution Act 1890 (UK) Page 20 of 29 to repeal or alter any of the provisions of this Act: Provided always, that it shall not be lawful to present to the Governor for Her Majesty’s assent any Bill by which any change in the constitution of the Legislative Council or of the Legislative Assembly shall be effected unless the second and third readings of such Bill shall have been passed with the concurrence of an absolute majority of the whole number of the members for the time being of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly respectively: Provided also, that every Bill which shall be so passed for the election of a Legislative Council at any date earlier than by Part III. of this Act provided, and every Bill which shall interfere with the operation of sections sixty-nine, seventy, seventy-one, or seventy-two of this Act, or of Schedules B., C., or D., or of this section, shall be reserved by the Governor for the signification of Her Majesty’s pleasure thereon.
And here we find ourselves in a state where the QUEEN has been REMOVED (Section 8, Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 – 2004 WITHOUT a REFERENDUM and a STATE GOVERNOR PRETENDING TO REPRESENT THE QUEEN.
KIM BEAZLEY should not be in the position of STATE GOVERNOR because he has an OUTSTANDING CRIMINAL CHARGE FOR COMMON LAW GRAND JURY, which has not yet been dealt with.
Laws restricting the ability of criminals to engage in politics exist in every Australian jurisdiction. According to the GOVERNMENT CRIME AND CANDIDACY section of their website:
| WA | Convicted of treason or felony | Banned for life |
Here’s the alarming bit…. They state that “most states, however, are able to change their constitutions more readily than in the federal case, and so the Commonwealth’s restrictions are arguably the most difficult to modify.”
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03CIB22
It is no wonder we find ourselves in the pickle we are in and WE THE PEOPLE are none the wiser. We are all OCCUPIED and too busy to see what is going on here.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA is a REPUBLIC by STEALTH! We are being run by UN COMMUNISTS masquerading as as THE LABOR PARTY who are nothing more than a PRIVATELY OWNED POLITICAL PARTY who were founded by the FABIAN SOCIETY.
It concerns me that so many of my fellow Western Australians are not aware of what is really going on.
The last ELECTION was FRAUDULANT and if the truth does not prevail as a result of my letter to Mr Kennedy the ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER this will then become a CRIME OF MISPRISION OF TREASON.
HANSARD ARCHIVE 22nd MARCH 1978
ACTS AMENDMENT (CONSTITUTION) BILL
Second Reading SIR CHARLES COURT (Nedlands-Premier) [2.3 t p.m.]: I move That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and the speech I am about to make on it will have a familiar ring to members. In the last session of Parliament a similar Bill was introduced but lapsed due to the fact that it did not obtain the required constitutional majority in the Legislative Council. Mr Bertram: Providential intervention.
Sir CHARLES COURT: The principles espoused in this Bill are so important that the Government has decided to reintroduce the Bill as it is part of our policy statement made to the 307 308 [ASSEMBLY) electors for the period 1977-1980. That statement contained the following quote referring to any attempt to damage or destroy the status of the Parliament of Western Australia. I again quote from that policy statement as follows– We will legislate to block any further attempt to damage or destroy the rights and status of the Parliament of Western Australia, without the consent of the people. This policy stems from a series of Australian Labor Party moves culminating last year in a decision of the State A.L.P. Conference that a future Labor Government would not appoint State Governors. Quite rightly-then and now-we have interpreted this decision as part of the long-term Labor Party goal of destroying State Parliament in the interests of centralising all Government in Canberra.
Mr Carr: Rubbish!
Sir CHARLES COURT: To contintueWe accepted the challenge at the time of the A.L.P. decision to make this an election issue. Mr Bertram: Not much of an issue you made of it.
Sir CHARLES COURT: I am quoting from the document, which continues. We therefore give notice that our intended legislation to block such moves without the people’s consent is a policy proposal for which we seek a clear-cut mandate frm electors. Our proposed legislation will protect and preserve both Houses of our State Parliament, and with them the office of Governor. We have reason to believe that attempts could be made to abolish either or both Houses of Parliament, reduce the numbers of the members of either House in an attempt to weaken them, or to by-pass the right of the electors at large to elect the members of either House. Mr Pearce: You should do away with the gerrymander.
Sir CHARLES COURT: To continue… We also have reason to believe that attempts could be made to alter the office of Governor, to abolish or water down the right of the Queen to appoint the Governor, to by-pass the Governor’s role in giving assent to every law, or to make the Governor a rubber stamp of the Government as part of the process of undermining our State Constitution and our Parliament. To protect Parliament-our legislation will provide that no changes of the nature mentioned, can be made concerning either House of Parliament without the approval of a majority of the State’s electors at a referendum. To protect the position of Governor-there would have to be similar approval by referendum to any Bill which would abolish or alter the office of Governor, or the Queen’s sole right to appoint the Governor or issue instructions with which the Governor must comply in performing his duties, or which would alter the requirement that the Governor’s assent must be given to every Bill before it becomes law. This means that unless the people agree otherwise, the Governor’s role will continue exactly as it is and will be protected from political manipulation. The major role of the Governor is to ensure that not even Parliament can exceed the authority the people give it. If Parliament does so, the Governor can send it back to the people, who have the ultimate authority. We reject the misconception fostered by the A.L.P.-that the Governor has some kind of power over the people which he should not have. In fact, he merely has constitutional authority for and on behalf of the people. This authority has never been used, but the fact that it remains in reserve is a powerful safeguard against abuse by a government of the rights of the people. The Bill seeks to achieve three purposes. The first is to emphasise the role of Her Majesty the Queen in the Parliament of Western Australia. The second is to protect and preserve the existence of both Houses of the State Parliament and to ensure their continued role as an integral and essential part of the law-making process. The third purpose of the Bill is to confirm by Statute the office of the role of Governor, and that appointments to the office of Governor and the instructions with which the Governor must comply in performing his duties are both made and issued by the Queen personally, as happens at present. The Bill proposes to spell out clearly in our Constitution the fact that our Parliament consists of the Queen and the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. The Bill also proposes that any future Bill which would abolish either House of the Parliament, or which would reduce the numbers of members 308 [Wednesday, 22nd March, 1978]30 of either House, or- which would permit either House to be constituted by members not elected by the electors at large can become law only if such a Bill is passed by an absolute majority of both Houses of Parliament and is approved of by all of the electors of the State voting at a referendum. The referendum would have to be held not less than two months and not later than six months after the passage of the relevant Bill through both Houses of Parliament. Here I would like to emphasise that this is slightly different from the wording of last year’s Bill, the limiting periods being similar to those provided for Commonwealth referendums. It will be recalled that a query was raised last time the legislation was before the House as to why there was no limit on the time during which the referendum could be held. Mr Davies: You suggested then that a Government might not go on with the referendum.
Sir CHARLES COURT: We were queried as to why we did not have a limitation. At the time, quite frankly, I was not very concerned about it, and now I am still not; but if it does make it tidier so we are precise about the minimum and maximum times, we felt it would be wise to include the six months, particularly as it has a relativity with Commonwealth referendums. The same procedure would also apply to any Bill which would abolish or alter the office of Governor, abolish or alter the sole right of the Queen to issue instructions to the Governor as to the performance of his duties, or alter the requirement that every Bill must be presented to the Governor for assent before it may become law. The proposed Bill, in so far as it deals with the office, obligations, and powers of the Governor, makes no change in long-standing constitutional conventions and practices, but is intended to ensure that those long-standing conventions and practices cannot in the future be altered without the consent of a majority of the electors of the State. A reference to the Governor includes any other person properly appointed to administer the Government or exercise any powers or authorities during his temporary absence. When I introduced a similar Bill last year I made a particular point of emphasising the role of the Governor and it is worth repeating again. The major role of the Governor is to ensure that not even Parliament can exceed the authority given to it by the people. If any alteration to the Parliament or any part of its operation which affects the role of the Houses or the role of the Governor is to be contemplated, then it is only right that the people should be consulted. They are, after all, the ultimate authority for each member in these Houses of Parliament and I will mourn the day when that is no longer the case. The principles in this Bill are simple and are designed to give the people in Western Australia stability in Government and security for the future. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Davies (Leader of the Opposition).
Recent Comments