`Despatch' Magazine & Overseas Newsletter Publication
Dept. P. O. Box 238, Landsborough. Q'ld. 4550. Aust.

---

THE GUN GRAB - QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA - February,1997.

The following letters and documents are of interest in regard to the seizure of weapons
which commenced here in Queensland on the 15th January, 1997.
 

Despatch makes this comment. We do not for one second believe that appeal to the Queen or Royal Family could possibly stop disarmament of the populace! In fact, it appears to us that the Royal Family, House of Windsor, is in full agreement with the agenda of the New World Order through the United Nations. Mr Tony Pitt (his material is included here) is not grasping the full picture of what is being faced by the whole global population. The Queen herself is a member of the Committee of 300, an elitist, globalist organisation which is in headship over the emerging NWO.
This data should be of especial interest to the UK Christians.

FROM DESPATCH....

THE QUEEN SIGNED AWAY AUSTRALIA, 1986:

"The aborted move to force on Australians a bill of Rights without a public referendum and full public understanding, is part of the sad story of the planned corruption of our constitutional heritage....As to the Australia Act itself, ALL political parties, both State and Commonwealth, spent more than five years preparing and passed, (quietly, with media discrimination) what is known as Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1985. This resulted in the Australia Act 1986 being signed by Her Majesty the Queen, in Australia, on Sunday March 2nd to bring it into force on March 3rd 1986. The signing ceremony was the first and possibly the only hint that most Australians have had that a very important Act had been passed into law. But even then, there was no hint we are being cut off from our British Christian heritage and constitutional right to democratic government. Although the Australia Act 1986 states specifically that the Commonwealth Constitution is not affected (it applies to the States) the balance of power is very definitely changed and by that the Constitution is changed. The act most certainly undermines the conventions, protections and meanings of our Constitution....The purpose of the Australia Bill 1986 and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill 1985 is to sever the remaining constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom." ("Democracy and Treason in Australia",
by Alan Gourley. 1987).


---

Quote:
“(1) Is the Bill of Rights law in New South Wales?
Yes. The Bill of Rights is in force in New South Wales by virtue of s6 and Sch 2 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969. Section 6 preserves the Bill of Rights in the form in which it was in force in England on 15th July 1828."

As far as I can see there is not enough support for the Pro-Gun Lobby, they are “tilting at windmills”, and the Queen is not going to lift a finger.(see Gourley comment above) The last two statements on the United Nations leaflet, included, is the real reason for the Gun Control. (Hence a foregone take- over is imminent) ...D. Dart

FAX COPY FROM .......MR A.R.(TONY) PITT, National Chairman, THE AUSTRALIANS.
 

I, LENEEN FORDE, Governor, fix 15th January 1997 as the day on which the provisions
of the Act that are not in force commence.

[L.S.]
LENEEN FORDE,
Governor

1. Made by the Governor on 19 December, 1996.
2. Notified in the gazette on 20 December, 1996.
3. Laid before the Legislative Assembly on ...
4. The administering agency is the Queensland Police Service

The Queen has commanded me to thank you for writing again on 11th December.

Her Majesty has taken careful note of your views, and particularly your belief that the present proposals for legislative change in Australia relating to the ownership and use of guns contravene the Bill of Rights. The Queen has also noted your request that she remind State Governors and the Governor-General of the need to uphold the spirit and letter of Australian law, and the importance to her of honouring the Coronation Oath.

In response to these points, I can assure you that Her Majesty, as a constitutional sovereign, does have a duty and a right to express her views. I consequently have no doubt that your concerns will be considered and addressed in a suitable way and at an appropriate time. Meanwhile, and owing to her constitutional position, I am directed to forward a copy of this correspondence to the Governor-General so that he is aware of your approach to The Queen.

We have, as you know, been corresponding on this matter for several months, and I believe that Her Majesty's careful consideration of your letters now puts us in a position where we can consider this matter closed. I am to thank you, again, for drawing this matter to The Queen's attention.
 

Ph. 071 22 1412 A.R. (Tony) Pitt - National Chairman, Fax 071 21 6562
THE AUSTRALIANS Mob 015 379 880 79 Ferry Street,
MARYBOROUGH QLD 4650

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Buckingham Palace
Fax 001 144 171 839 5950

Your Royal Highness,

Thank you for your letter dated 24th December 1996 which has crossed with my letter faxed to you and dated 29th December 1996.

Your summing up of my views and those of millions of other Australians covers our beliefs very well, and we are delighted that you see that you have a duty and a right to express your views, however, I am sure that the honouring of the Coronation Oath entails much stronger action than a mere right to express your views.

I am pleased that my concerns will be considered and addressed in a suitable way and at an appropriate time. However, it would be helpful to have some information as to when the appropriate time will be. I need confirmation that this is going to happen very quickly as the Queensland State Governor Leneen Forde signed and sealed the Proclamation on 19 December 1996 and fixed 15th January 1997 (tomorrow) as the day on which the provisions of the Act that are not in force commence (copy attached). This is despite the appeals from Queenslanders which a member of her staff admitted on the phone to be in the thousands. Television news reports are saying that people have to hand their firearms in before the amnesty expires in September 1997.

If the matter is not addressed by you in time, the people who believe they have the right to keep arms appropriate for their defence will be law breakers and liable to two years jail and fines of up to $7,500. In the more bizarre sections of the legislation men, loyal to the crown can be jailed for 20 yearsfor offences such as possession of clothing and other items not in themselves weapons. Under these new laws, personal defence is not a reason to be allowed to have a firearm. This means that very few people will be able to legally retain their firearms, even down to an air rifle.

While you may be required to send a copy of your letter to the Governor General so that he is aware of my approach, it really is a waste of time because he is not listening or reacting. It is because he ignored my letters that I found it necessary to approach you. It was only when you demanded that he reply that a reply was forthcoming and if you read my letter dated 29th December, 1996 again you will know the seriousness of the matter. Unless you can take stronger action to force him and the State Governors to take notice, then we are doomed to be disarmed and dispossessed of private property against our wishes.

It will mean that the rights and freedoms that many have died for in the past 300 years will all be in vain. Many of them died to ensure that you and I lived and that the British Monarchy and the British way of life survived. Had the outcome of the Second World War been different, Britain under Hitler's rule and Australia under Japanese rule would have been a far cry from how we have lived in the past 50 years. We should be truly grateful and not do anything that could jeopardise our ancient rights and freedoms.

At the time of the signing of the Bill of Rights in 1688, not only did the people demand the right for all free men to be armed, they also demanded the right to defend the Monarch with their lives and estates as follows:

"And thereunto the said Lords spirituall and temporall and commons does in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submitt themselves their heires and posterities for ever and doe faithfully promise that they will stand to maintaine and defend their said Majesties and also the limitation and succession of the crowne herein specified and contained to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary."

To comply with this the people need to have arms so they can carry out their promise. It is no good relying on the military to give us weapons because we have got rid of our reserve stocks of SLRs, Brens etc. I could go into detail but my 20 years' service in the RAAF (1959-1979) and further evidence I have acquired since then should be sufficient for you to know that I do not lie, but should you require this information I can supply it.

As you know, Burma has just recently celebrated another year of independence from British rule, but given their time over again, I am sure the people would opt for your return as their sovereign. The military dictatorship and house arrest of Aug Sang Su Kee are signs of things to come here if we are denied the protection of the Constitutional Monarchy which only you can give us. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that the people in many countries would be only too glad to return to being part of the British Empire; many found they became Marxist republics and gained nothing but pain and terror.

Finally, I regret that I am unable to consider this matter closed until I know how my concerns are being considered and how they will be addressed, and what you consider to be the`appropriate time'.

Millions of Australians need you to demand that the State Governors retract proclaiming the amendments made in all States which make it illegal to own, possess or use weapons for self defence. When that has been done I will be pleased to consider the matter closed. Until then I must persist.
 

A.R. Pitt 7th January, 1997.

New South Wales
SOLICITOR GENERAL

Status of Bill of Rights 1688 (Imp)

Advice is sought on the effect in New South Wales law of the Bill of Rights 1688 (Imp) (I William and Mary sess 2 c 2). Four questions for advice are set out in a letter from the Hon John Tingle MLC to the Attorney General dated 23rd October 1996. I have added a fifth, perceiving that it may lie behind some of the other questions.

(1) Is the Bill of Rights law in New South Wales?
Yes. The Bill of Rights is in force in New South Wales by virtue of s6 and Sch 2 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969. Section 6 preserves the Bill of Rights in the form in which it was in force in England on 15th July 1828.

(2) Is the Bill of Rights an entrenched statute in New South Wales?
No. The provisions of the Bill of Rights are not of constitutional force. In R v Boyd (1995) 81 A Crim R 260 at 267, Gleeson CJ (with whom James and Ireland JJ agreed) said of the Bill of Rights that it "does not have the force of a constitution controlling or modifying the legislative power of the local parliament". The New South Wales Parliament may enact legislation inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. Section 6 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 itself provides that the Bill of Rights is in force "except so far as affected by any...State Acts from time to time in force in New South Wales".

(3) Is the Bill of Rights supported by the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969?

See answer to (1) above.
(4) Could it be used as the basis of any kind of action in a New South Wales Court?
This question is too vague to admit of a useful answer. What is clear is that the Bill of Rights would not provide any answer to proceedings based on infringement of later statutes.

(5) What does the Bill of Rights say about arms control?
I understand from the Director General that, lying behind Mr. Tingle's four questions, may be a desire to know the status in current New South Wales law of the references in the Bill of Rights to the bearing of arms. The simple answer is: "none".

The Bill of Rights consists of a series of recitals followed by corresponding statements of rights. The presently relevant recital and statement provide:

Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of divers evil Counsellors, Judges and Ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion, and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom. ...
6. By causing several good Subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same Time when Papists were both armed and employed, contrary to Law. ...
And thereupon the said Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons ... declared; ...
7. That the Subjects which are Protestants, may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law....

The Bill of Rights provides no basis for doubting the validity or for undermining the effect of gun control legislation passed by the Parliament of New South Wales.
 

In addressing the question as to whether the advice of Keith Mason QC is what is law, or whether it is what contemporary politicans want to be law, one must consider the basis of the person tendering advice and the validity of that advice.

(1) Is the Bill of Rights law in New South Wales?
Keith Mason QC admits that it is law in New South Wales. He admits that is was accepted "in the form in which it was in force in England on 25th July 1828." The Bill of Rights remains as written in 1688. It includes a clause which prohibits any future or past statute or legal decision being called into effect to override the Bill of Rights. The Bill states, "Noe Dispensation by Non obstante of or to any Statute or any part thereof shall be allowed by the same shall be held void and of noe effect Except a Dispensation be allowed in such Statute." There is not let out clause for the Monarch or for all ministers whatsoever in the Bill of Rights.

(2) Is the Bill of Rights an entrenched statute in New South Wales?
Keith Mason QC calls as a precedent R v Boyd (1995) 81 A Crim 260 at 267. In Keith Mason QC's own words this precedent is contrary to the Bill of Rights "in the form it was in force in England on 25th July 1828." Gleeson CJ, James and Ireland JJ all said of the Bill of Rights that it "does not have the force of a constitution controlling or modifying the legislative power of the local parliament".

This is a major blunder. The parliament of New South Wales has not legislative power. The parliament can only re-present the legislation that is the will of the people, to be given Royal Assent by the Queen, in person, or through a Governor to whom Her powers of Royal Assent have been delegated. It is the Queen who is subservient to the Bill of Rights. She cannot give Royal Assent to any statute which is in conflict with the Bill of Rights and prior legislation. Even if she did, "the same shall be held void and of no effect."

The Bill of Rights is like a harpoon driven into the heart of bad government and stupid monarchs so they can never again use evil legislation as a tool to disarm or cause distress to the people. The barb of the harpoon is the clause "That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome and soe shall be esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken to be and all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration. And all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors according to the same in all times to come."

(3) Is the Bill of Rights supported by the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969?
The Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 reaffirmed that the Bill of Rights is an entrenched statute. Any suggestion that the Bill of Rights is in force "except so far as affected by any....State Acts from time to time in force in New South Wales" is nonsense. The People forced the Bill of Rights on the Monarch. The People empowered the Monarch in Para 61 of the Constitution. The People's Bill of Rights is more powerful than the Monarch and the Constitution. The Monarch is more powerful than the Parliament when it comes to approving the putting legislation into force. If this is not the case, why must Parliament seek Royal Assent for every piece of legislation they pass? The answer to that question is plain. Royal assent cannot be given to legislation which adversely affects the rights and liberties of Her Majesty's subjects, and who said so, the people, when they wrote the Bill of Rights. It is not up to Gleeson CJ, James and Ireland JJ, Keith Mason QC, or anyone else to subvert the will of the people, as that will is expressed in the Bill of Rights 1688 and, if they do, the Bill of Rights says their actions "will be held void and of noe effect".

Australia's laws were not created in a vacuum. They were imported and merely reaffirmed by the Imperial Acts Application Acts in various states. The electronic media ban AUST CAPITAL TV v. COMMONWEALTH [2] (Mason CJ) "the Constitution owes its legal force to its character as a statute of the Imperial Parliament enacted in the exercise of its legal sovereignty; the Constitution was not a supreme law proceeding from a people's inherent authority to constitute a government."

The excuse that because the Bill of Rights is not mentioned in the Australian Constitution it is not law is nonsense. The Bill of Rights was already law before the Constitution was framed and was in force for ever more so there was no need to mention it again in the Constitution. Our forefathers did not foresee that contemporary politicians and lawyers would want to subvert it, change it, or ignore it.

(4) Could it be used as the basis of any kind of action in a New South Wales court?
The suggestion, "that the question is too vague to answer," has no credibility and is a cop out. Is there anyone capable of reading the Queen's English who would support a statement that the question is vague? As previously shown, later statutes shall be "shall be held void and of noe effect" if they are in conflict with the Bill of Rights. Could it be that an honest answer would incriminate? There are plenty of instances where the Bill of Rights has been used to regain rights the government wanted to take from us. Rex v Gardner [1739] KB 87 ENG REP 1240 upheld the right to keep a gun for defence, Wingfield v Stratford [1752] KB 87 ENG 787, the gun was returned, and Rex v Dewhurst [1820] State Trials New Series 529, "a man has a clear right to arms for the defence of his house and a clear right to carry arms while going singly or in a small party ..... but not so as to cause terror and alarm."

Changes to our laws are taking place without the knowledge or consent of the people. Decisions made in Court which are contrary to our laws are being used as precedents to further undermine our laws. Any changes of the magnitude involved in doing away with the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta should be done via the Constitution and should require the approval of a majority of voters in a majority of states.

(5) What does the Bill of Rights say about arms control?
Keith Mason QC says the Bill of Rights is a "statement of rights".It is more than that. It is a set of instructions placing severe limits on the power of the Crown and on "all Officers and Ministers whatsoever". Keith Mason QC goes on to suggest that this section "was directed at discrimination, on religious grounds, in disarming of citizens." This is true. In the preamble the Bill of Rights said the "papists (Catholics) are armed" and later said "That subjects which are Protestants, may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by Law."

Keith Mason QC really stretches the truth in supporting new gun laws which prohibit the "ownership, possession or use" of arms in self defence. There may be some leeway for the judiciary to "interpret the law". That does not give them the power to say the law means the exact opposite to what is written in the very statutes they are obligated to obey and enforce. Keith Mason QC goes on to suggest that the words "as allowed by law "permits the introduction of "legislation which later abrogates any `right' to have arms". This is trickery. By selectively editing the quote to read "as allowed by law" instead of the actual text which read "and as allowed by law" Keith Mason QC changes the meaning. The Bill of Rights extended the right to Catholics AND Protestants. That is not discriminatory. In English "and" means plus. By the insertion of the word "and" in the original Bill of Rights the Bill ensured the citizen's right to keep arms for defence and allowed ownership of other weapons if the law permitted. Keith Mason QC suggests the Bill of Rights provides no basis for doubting the validity or for undermining the effect of gun control legislation passed by the Parliament of New South Wales. The exact opposite is the case. Time and time again crooked government supported by traitorous judiciary have disarmed the people, forced them into bondage, reduced them to slavery, treated them harshly and eventually killed indiscriminately. The Bill of Rights was written and put into force to ensure that no Monarch, Parliament or Judiciary ever again perverted justice to disarm and distress the people. There is great cause for alarm that, right now, in Australia, the Monarch, the Parliament and the Judiciary conspire to pervert and overturn the laws our forefathers put into effect and locked into law "for all times to come".

In his penultimate paragraph Keith Mason QC suggests that the Bill of Rights could be used as a tool to disarm people on religious grounds. This is not true. Early in the reign of William and Mary (1689), Parliament approved an Act affecting arms ownership: "An Act for the better securing of Government by disarming Papists and reputed Papists. "The British did permit a Catholic to retain those weapons that local justices at Quarter Sessions thought necessary "for the Defence of his House or Person". This exception is especially significant as it demonstrates that, even when there were fears of religious war, Catholic Englishmen were permitted the means to defend themselves and their households; they were merely forbidden to stockpile arms. It is this fundamental right the High Court seeks to subvert.

The laws supported and promoted by the New South Wales government are illegal. There will be little compliance and great confusion and injustice as the police, bound by law to obey, confront citizens protected by higher law, enter an era of conflict that cannot benefit anyone but the enemy. We have seen what happens when a regime becomes so powerful that search of homes and vehicles is the norm. possession of a bullet shell is a crime. Free men and women are interred in gulags, never to be seen again.

We do not want or need such government and that is why we have a Bill of Rights. It is not a wish list of rights that can be changed at the whim of the Parliament or the Queen. They cannot change it and they know it. Why do they seek to undermine our laws by sedition? They know the criminals won't hand in their guns or apply for a licence. What is the hurry to disarm the honest people?

If, by any cosy agreement, Gleeson CJ, James and Ireland JJ, Keith Mason QC were able to do away with the Bill of Rights 1688, Magna Carta 1215, Habeas Corpus 1640 and all other legislation called into laws by those statutes, then there is no law in Australia. To make such a far reaching decision, without the knowledge or consent of the people is not within the charter of the Judiciary. They undo the work of the greatest of all Judges, Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice of England until the early 1600s. In his words "OR BY THE LAW OF THE LAND could NEVER intend laws that deliberately breached the natural and ancient Birthrights of FREE MEN AND WOMEN.

A.R. (Tony) Pitt, National Chairman, THE AUSTRALIANS,
79 Ferry Street, Maryborough ... Qld, Aust.4650.
Phone 0741 22 1412 - Fax 0741 22 6562.

26th December, 1996.

UNITEDNATIONS

Items 4 and 6 of the provisional agenda*
 

The Permanent Mission of Japan to the International Organizations in Vienna presents its compliments to the United Nations Office at Vienna and, with reference to the Secretary-General's letter of 24th October 1994, has the honour to transmit, in accordance with rule 28 of the rules of procedure for the Ninth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, contained in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1993/32, the draft resolution prepared by the Japanese Government for the Ninth Congress, to be held at Cairo.

Due to technical reasons, the draft resolution transmitted with the note verbale dated 30th November 1994 should be replaced by the attached text. It would be appreciated if the United Nations Office at Vienna could circulate this text as the draft resoltuion submitted by Japan.

Agenda Item 70
50/70 ....................Small arms

Date 12th December 1995 ............Meeting 90--
Vote 140-0.19 ...........Report A/S0/SS0 and Corr

Afghanistan Argentina Australia Belarus Canada Cote d'Ivoire Costa Rica Cape Verde Ecuador Germany Japan Mali Peru Republic of Moldova Romania South Africa Sweden the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Venezuela.

TEXT

The General Assembly