Sir Harry Gibbs: ‘Current legal and political system in Australia…no basis in law’

A regular RM reader has presented startling information questioning the validity of the Australian law. The following letter provided by the late Sir Harry Gibbs is self explanatory.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

I am a former member of the High Court and I wish to take this unusual method of informing you 
about a matter that is going to deeply affect us all. Unfortunately, a document such as this is too easily “lost” in the bureaucratic jungle in which we operate.

A group of Australian Citizens have taken it upon themselves to test the validity of our current 
political and judicial system. Like you, I have lived my entire legal career with the assumption that 
the basis for our legal and political system, state and federal, was written in stone. This group has 
undertaken to present this paper when they test the legal system.

The group is articulate, well educated and counts some of our best legal minds amongst its 
members. One of Australia’s best known barristers is one of the group’s leading lights. It is far 
better informed with regard to international law than most members of the judiciary or for that 
matter, the legal academe. It has better international contacts than I would have thought possible.
 After spending some time with the group leader, I was able to elicit its primary intentions.

It is the
 introduction of a totally democratic system of government devoid of party politics operated by the
 will of the people incorporating a system of debit taxation which should go a long way to eliminating the current unemployment problem and also addressing other pressing social issues. An A.B.S. financial model supports the proposal.

The group has so far concentrated on matters relating to taxation, state and federal, minor industrial
 and motor traffic while undertaking not to present a criminal defence using their current 
presentation. I challenged the leader of this group to present any evidence he had with regard to
the above defence so I could use my legal expertise to play the part of the devil’s advocate. It should 
be brought to your attention that the group has access to documentation that we members of the 
judiciary have little knowledge. I refer to the British Parliamentary Papers for the Colony of Australia for the years 1860 through to 1922.

These are photocopies of all documents correspondence etc., between the states and later the
 Commonwealth of Australia, the British Crown and the British Government. They are very revealing documents and indicate the degree of chicanery in which the politicians of all shades were involved and as I can now see, at the expense of the legal academe and the judiciary. I present for your perusal the details of the group’s presentation along with my comment on each major item. The
 group relies solely upon historical fact and rejects political rhetoric and legal opinion unless based
 upon historical fact.

I therefore have come to the conclusion that the current legal and political system in use in Australia and its States and Territories has no basis in law.

 

 

 

 

For rest of letter see below.

Readers may wish to purchase Australian Political Treason, Treachery & Sabotage.  (Dick Yardley)  In it, he documents the many treasonous crimes committed by the political parties that led senior legal experts like Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs to conclude that “the current legal and political system in use in Australia and its States Territories has no basis in law.”

The Privy Council emails prove that no Governor General’s appointment was approved by Order at the Privy Council between the years 1982 – 2008. If those GG’s appointments were not approved by the Crown during that period, then what status has any legislation or bills passed during that time – did these ever receive any Royal Assent?

Attachment E .Privy Council Document (Email)

Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs, GCMG, AC, KBE, QC was 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. Wikepedia

 Born: 7 February 1917, Sydney
 Died: 25 June 2005, Sydney
 Education: University of Queensland
 Succeeded by: Anthony Mason
 Preceded By: Garfield Barwick 
Books: Re -writing the co

The letter continues:

1. “The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is an act of the parliament of the
United Kingdom. It did not contain any substance of sovereignty and was a colonial act centralising
 self-government of the six Australian Colonies. Australia remained a colony of the United Kingdom.”

1a. Although the late Lionel Murphy attempted to show that there was an element of sovereignty in 
this act he failed. The international definition of sovereignty has been espoused at length and the 
above act although important in the development of Australia, did not have the authority of
sovereignty. The historical evidence that Australia remained a British Colony post 1901 is
overwhelming.

2A. The Significance of Australia joining the League of Nations as a foundation member has never
 been addressed in Australia before. Strangely, only one book has ever examined the question of
 Australian independence. Written by W. J. Hudson and M. P. Sharp in 1988 “Australian
 Independence” printed by Melbourne University Press. As both were members of the Department
of Foreign Affairs and Trade at the time of authorship and had access to the, British Parliamentary
 Papers, I find it most interesting they have avoided any mention of these papers in their book. Their
 conclusion that Australia became an independent nation via. the Statute of Westminster in 1931
flies in the face of contradictory evidence within the above mentioned papers and readily available 
historical fact.

Prime Minister Hughes address to the Commonwealth Parliament on 10 September 1919, “Australia has now entered into a family of nations on a footing of equality. Australia has been born in a blood sacrifice.” demonstrates the politicians of the day were only too well aware of the change of status from a colony to that of sovereign nation while attempting to remain within the Empire.

Prime Minister Bruce made this reply to the British Government in 1922 after a request for troops 
against Kernel Ataturk in the Chanak crisis. Bruce’s reply is contained in the British Parliamentary
 Papers: “We have to try to ensure there shall be an Empire foreign policy which if we are to be in
anyway responsible for it, must be one to which we agree and have assented. If we are to take any 
responsibility for the Empire’s foreign policy, there must be a better system, so that we may be
 consulted and have a better opportunity to express the views of the people of this country. We 
cannot blindly submit to any policy which may involve us in war.” This is a far cry from the
 declaration of war against Germany made on behalf of the British Colony of Australia by George V of the United Kingdom in 1914.

I have re-produced Bruce’s reply in full as I believe this reply contains clear historical evidence of a
Prime Minister who was well aware of the change of status from a. colony to a sovereign nation.
The later Statute of Westminster 1931 was an acknowledgment of that status.

3. “Paragraph 4 of the Statue of Westminster Act 1931 contravenes Article X of the Covenant of the
 League of Nations. Paragraph 1 of the Australia Act 1986 contravenes Article 2 paragraphs 1 and 4
of the Charter of the United Nations.”

3A Paragraph 4 of the Statute of Westminster reads “No Act of Parliament of the United. Kingdom
 passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as
part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that Dominion, has
requested, and consented to the enactment thereof.” Paragraph 1 of the Australia Act is very
 similar: “No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this
I passed this one to the Federal Attorney General and asked him what was the source of this quite
 incredible authority that sought to overturn the authority legislated within the Covenant of the 
League of Nations in Article X and the Charter of the United Nations in Article 2 paragraphs 1 and 4.

He is unable to provide any documentation to support these clauses, Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations states: “The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression, the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.”

It is appropriate that I now introduce a statement by Sir Geoffrey Butler KBE, MA and Fellow,
Librarian and Lecturer in International Law and Diplomacy of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
 author of “A Handbook to-the League of Nations” used as a reference to the League by virtually all
nations at that time. He refers to Article 1 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

“It is arguable that this article is the Covenant’s most significant single measure. By it the British
 Dominions, namely New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Canada, have their independent 
nationhood established for the first time. There may be friction over small matters in giving effect to 
this internationally acknowledged fact but the Dominions will always look to the League of Nations
 Covenant as their Declaration of Independence.”

Article 2 paragraph 1 of the United Nation’s Charter states “The Organisation is based on the 
principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”

Article 2 paragraph 4 of the Charter states ‘All members shall refrain in their international relations
from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,
 or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

In view of the above, the historical evidence for Australian Independence by 10 January 1920 when
the League of Nations became part of International Law is overwhelming. When this evidence is
reinforced with the contents of the Charter of the United Nations, the continued usage of any
 legislation that owes its very legitimacy to the parliament of an acknowledged foreign power cannot
be supported by either legal opinion or indeed historical evidence.

I therefore have come to the conclusion that the current legal and political system in use in
Australia and its States and Territories has no basis in law.

Following discussions with members of the British Government relating to the Letters Patent for the 
Governor General and State Governors I find that these documents no longer have any authority.
Indeed, the Queen of the United, Kingdom is excluded from any position of power in Australia by the United Nations Charter and is excluded under UK law from the issue of a Letters Patent to other than a British Subject. A Letters Patent must refer to an action to be taken with regard to British Citizens. The Immigration Act. 1972 UK defines Australian Citizen as aliens.

The Governor General’s Letters Patent is a comedy of errors. We are greeted in the name of the
Queen of Australia who suddenly becomes the Queen of the United Kingdom in the next paragraph of the Letters Patent. This Queen the gives instructions to the Governor General with reference to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK. Here we have a clear breach of Article 2 paragraph 1 of the United Nation Charter. Under both UK and international law, the-Queen is a British Citizen. State Governors are in a worse position as their authority comes from the late Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. Regardless of the validity of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK, if the authority of Governor General and the State Governors is invalid then so is the entire political and legal system of government.

When advised that the War Crimes Commission was taking an interest, I called them in Geneva.
Under the 1947 Geneva Convention, they are empowered to look into eases here in Australia where
it is alleged the law of a foreign country was enforced against a citizen of a member state of the
United Nations. As they perceive that only the judiciary can actually enforce the law, the judicary
 becomes their target. The group has already placed cases before them which they ate currently 
investigating. If found guilty, the penalties are horrific and include the death penalty!

I could go on with more relevant information however I think now is the time for a summary. The
 group leader, a QC, states the obvious when he asked me how could a colony now acknowledged by all world nations to be a sovereign Nation retain exactly the same legal and political system it
enjoyed as a colony without any change whatsoever to the basis for law. This point alone requires 
an answer.

The High Court has already answered with regard to the position held by treaties signed by the 
Commonwealth Government in the Teoh case of 1994. “Ordinary people have the right to expect
 government officials to consider Australia’s international obligations even if those obligations are
 not reflected in specific Acts of Parliament: the rights recognised in international treaties are an
 implied limit on executive processes.”

My advice is to adjourn any case “sine die” that that challenges the authority of the Letters
Patent. Under no circumstances hear a case that challenges the validity of a State or the 
Federal Constitution. It is the politicians who are using us as pawns without them having to
 face the music. These matters are of concern to politicians, let them sort out these problems 
and accept any inherent risks themselves!

Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice is the correct reference for you to
refuse to hear a matter when an international treaty is cited as a defence.

Further reading:

Simon of the family shields Website : Australia Concealed Colony Notes

1 Comment on "Sir Harry Gibbs: ‘Current legal and political system in Australia…no basis in law’"

  1. Wish I had Harry as my judge when I got done for speeding last week…does this mean the SA Courts have robbed me of my money, I don’t even think I was speeding? We need another Harry on the High Court real soon.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*