(The Albert Langer cases; and How a legitimate Trial By Jury would have ended the oppression instantly.)
In counting the "votes", they first determine if any party has received an "absolute majority" of "votes" as first-"preference" - If so, then that party is "elected"; if not, then the party who received the least votes is eliminated, and the second "preferences" are counted and added on to the other parties, then if one of the parties now has an "absolute majority" of "votes", then that party is "elected"; otherwise this counting system may continue on for as many lots of "preferences" there are, until one party has the "absolute majority".
What it comes down to, is that the small parties end up with insufficient "votes" and are eliminated from the political game altogether. e.g. If there are six parties, and someone puts the two biggest parties ("Labor" and "Liberal") as "5" and "6", then their "preferences" of "1" to "4" would effectively be skipped. So, such a ballot-paper would effectively be counted the same as if it was marked "Labor: 1" and "Liberal: 2"! (These are also the parties who want to keep this "system", obviously because they benefit from it!)
The people who would want to use this method - if they knew about it - are those who only want to "vote" for one of the smaller parties whom they believe are likely to "represent" them, and at the same time, they don't want any "preferences" to go to the others, so they would want to specifically "vote" against these other parties.
Prior to being "imprisoned", Albert Langer attempted to prove to the terrocrats why their pretended "laws" are invalid. There were many "court cases" in which the subject was debated, but to no avail - mainly because Albert tackled the terrocrats on their turf, whilst playing their game, by their rules, and with their ball. The terrocrats were also arbitrarily taking score, and they had already declared the score to be: "one to us - nil to Albert", before the game even began!
"We do not want a government that coerces the free consciences of individuals; on the contrary, we want self-governing individuals to restrain immoral government." - Michael Novak
Following are copies of the four recent "court cases" which Albert Langer was involved in. (These transcripts were obtained from the "Australasian Legal Information Institute".) I don't recommend you use your time reading them as they are very long - however, I've included them here for a few reasons - mainly so that you can see how ridiculous the terrocrat "systems" really are, and the absurd lengths they go to. So I recommend that you just quickly glance through as many as you care to for now.
Some comments on these "cases":
"9. In Faderson v Bridger (8), an elector who did not have any preference among the candidates advanced that fact as a "valid and sufficient reason" for not voting at a Senate election in which voters were required to "'place the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom he votes as his first preference', all the remaining squares to be marked with successive numbers as the voter determines as contingent votes" (9). The elector's defence failed. Barwick CJ, with whom McTiernan and Owen JJ agreed, said (10):Note the blatant arrogance of this and the other impostor "judges" as they try to "rationalise" and "justify" oxymorons, coercion, and various absurdities. If this doesn't illustrate my point, then I don't know what will. i.e. They openly declare that it is utterly irrelevant to them whether or not you support any of them!"However much the elector may say he has no personal preference for any candidate, that none of them will suit him, he is not asked that question nor required to express by his vote that opinion. He is asked to express a preference amongst those who are available for election, that is, to state which of them he prefers if he must have one or more of them as Parliamentary representatives, as he must, and to mark down his vote in an order of preference of them. ... To face the voter with a list of names of persons, none of whom he may like or really want to represent him and ask him to indicate a preference amongst them does not present him with a task that he cannot perform.""[Emphasis added]
The 2nd case listed above has a description (at point 9) of the flyers which Albert and his associates were handing out. The people pictured on Albert's flyers didn't bring the case against Albert, (such as claiming that he was distributing libel or slander - and that they were somehow being harmed by what Albert was doing) - others, masquerading as "THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA", etc., took it upon themselves to make up a "crime" which Albert supposedly "committed".
Thus, when it comes to the right to freedom of speech, expression, communication, etc.: in practice, the rights, as they "grant" them to their slaves, go like this: "Freedom of speech - so long as you say what we approve of; freedom of the press - so long as you print what we approve of", etc. - and of course they can also change or limit the rights whenever they like, to whatever they like!
If this is not the case, then how else could Albert Langer be "guilty", with the "requirement" that he be "imprisoned"?
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia
"It is clear to me that the defendant does not appreciate that one of the paramount features of a democracy is that its citizens obey the rule of law."
I would like to see "Beach J" explain exactly how it is "rule of law". It would be more accurately described for what it is as: "rule of terrocrats" - because terrocrat "lawyers" are the ones writing these pretended "laws" which they and the other terrocrats use as "excuses" to "rule over" all the "citizens"! ("Laws" (so-called) are not things that are capable of "ruling" - they are mere words.)
"Beach J" may as well have said: "It is clear to me that the defendant-slave does not appreciate that one of the paramount features of slavery is that the slaves obey the rule of their masters."
"...In exercising our discretion, we take into account the attitude of Mr Langer in his rejection of the authority of the judicial system to grant the present injunction which, however, stems from a belief he holds that the laws sought to be enforced against him are not valid and are destructive of true freedom of electoral choice. We have concluded that, in all the circumstances, a term of imprisonment is the appropriate sentence."
When I hear people talking about what they mean by "democracy", many of them include things like: respecting the beliefs of others.
All of these cases demonstrate complete disrespect of Albert's beliefs!
In an article written around the same time, Laksiri Fernando wrote:
"The most distressing point in the whole case was, as the popular columnist Padraic McGuiness has stated (Sydney Morning Herald, 2 March ), Langer's viciously heavy sentence for speaking his mind." [Emphasis added]
Note that in their final comments, the terrocrat "judges" refused to admit any wrong on their part, and continued to "prove" how and why they were "right" all along in "imprisoning" Albert, etc.
"6. The implication of the freedom to communicate on political matters under the Commonwealth Constitution was identified in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (34) and in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (35) as a freedom engendered by the concept of representative democracy or representative government to be found in the Constitution."
He's telling us that it isn't directly written down that people have the right to freedom of communication, but that they've found it to be "implied"... but there's an implication in his "implication", and that is: As if an individual's rights are dependent upon some words on their bits of paper (which they call "Constitution", "Act", etc.) and the arbitrary "judgements" of terrocrat "judges"! What utter nonsense! (Words on paper don't change reality.)
He continues (with reference to the 1st case):
"In Langer, Gaudron J and I held that this freedom was not infringed by a law which was reasonably capable of being viewed as appropriate and adapted to the furtherance or enhancement of the democratic process called for by the Constitution."
The coercion they are perpetrating does infringe freedom - but they delude themselves into believing that it doesn't - when they say so! It's a pity that statements such as these can have drastic consequences, because so many people believe in and act according to whatever these terrocrat "judges" say - no matter how preposterous.
In my first comment on these cases, I asked who pays for them... well, there's not just the cost in money, there's also the mental cost - people pay when they surrender their minds to terrocrats by believing in their words! (Those guys are not "judges" - they are impostors and parasites!)
"JUDGE3, TOOHEY J" may as well have written: "In Langer, Gaudron J and I held that the infringement of freedom is warranted, because it is reasonably capable of being viewed as appropriate and adapted to the furtherance or enhancement of the slavery process called for by our Constitution."
Then in the 4th case (which was basically just a fiddled repetition of the drivel in the 1st case), "JUDGE2, DAWSON J" suddenly agreed with all of the other "judges" that the "laws" are "valid" - with his excuse that: "This case is different. ...". (Maybe all that was really different was that he was paid more the second time around?)
If you analyse their "system" in enough detail, with the understanding that they are "permitted" to "interpret" things as they deem fit, then you may come to the inescapable conclusion that they have set themselves up in a situation where they can decide whatever they like (whatever they can get away with)!
But was Albert's situation really as hopeless as it may have seemed? Or were there other things that could have been done? Well, there's one option in particular which I'll show you here shortly, as it is most relevant to this occasion, but you need to realise that everyone actually has many more options than they may realise - no matter how "hopeless" the situation may seem. You can learn about the many other options in the reports and other material available elsewhere.
"...never play on the other guy's field, by the other guy's rules... He didn't design his system to give you the advantage. Remember that organisms defending their own territory are twice as effective as an intruding attacker." -- L. Neil Smith
If you search the AustLII Web-Site, you'll find masses of similar cases on the "voting"-system alone! One of the main reasons why Albert and all others (who approached the problems in a similar way) failed, is because they got stuck in the same level of thinking and argument that the bureaucrats use - i.e. arguing over why one pretended "law" is or is not "valid" according to another pretended "law". There are many variations of this argument, such as "X (whatever) is unconstitutional". What you need to realise is that the so-called "constitution" is something which the terrocrats made up for their gain and their gain only! Because it's their creation, they also get to decide (dictate) what it does or doesn't mean - to suit their purposes - if you fall into their trap of believing that their so-called "constitution", "laws", etc. are "valid" to begin with!
(As an intermediate step; instead of thinking in terms of "X (whatever) is unconstitutional" - think in terms of: X (whatever) is fraudulent, robbery, oppressive, exploitive, criminal, etc., or whatever is most appropriate. Don't make your comments subjective like they do - that's one way you open yourself up to them doing their evils to you!)
What would you think if I told you that it can be (and has been) proven, without a doubt, that all so-called "constitutions" (of all pretended "governments"), and all their pretended "laws", etc. - in fact everything about their "systems", are invalid, and always have been!? Thus any argument within their "system" can only be at a generally useless superficial level.
But for the moment, ignoring the above, what alternative did Albert have to correct this oppression? If we look at it solely from the goal Albert had, i.e. of having the "law" judged as invalid, then the question arises of exactly how are these or any other so-called "laws" to be judged as valid or not (besides the method that was used)?
Consider again the 3rd case (at point 7, seventh paragraph), where "Beach J" is quoted (this is the full paragraph):
"It is clear to me that the defendant does not appreciate that one of the paramount features of a democracy is that its citizens obey the rule of law. If a citizen in our society wishes to challenge the validity of the law passed by the Parliament, and there have been many instances in this country where such challenges have been successful, then there is ample opportunity for him to do so. But until such time as a law has been declared to be invalid by a court having jurisdiction to make such a declaration it is the duty of all citizens to obey that law and it is the duty of the courts to enforce the law."
He basically declares that only they can say if it's valid or not. Would you be satisfied with acting along with them as if you're their slave and they can tell you what to do?
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional [or any other] questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." - Thomas Jefferson
One solution which was implemented hundreds of years ago is called Trial By Jury -- but not of the type which is practised nowadays, as cases that are claimed to be "Trial By Jury" are really Trial By "Judge", with only partial interaction with the jurors. In a true and legitimate Trial By Jury, it is the right and duty of jurors to judge the "law", in fact everything about the case! To understand what is meant by this and why, and to appreciate its immense importance, you need to read at least the first chapter of Lysander Spooner's classic essay: Trial By Jury
There is a basic underlying issue in all this. Initially, "JUDGE2, DAWSON J" was partially on the right track, but he too got side-tracked and bogged down in "legal" verbiage. It is really utterly unimportant whether, according to various arbitrary "judgements" of terrocrat "lawyer-judges", the bureaucrats' pretended "laws" are "valid" according to their other pretended "laws". (Note how they kept their questions subjective to subjective documents. e.g. "is section X a valid enactment of Y?" -- nowhere was an objective question asked!) They can waffle on all they like over their pretended "laws", but all it achieves is to distract people from reality - at least they certainly succeed very well in that area.
The real issue is freedom of speech/choice/etc. If a legitimate Trial By Jury was used, then there would only have been one case; and there would be a shift in emphasis from: "are our laws valid according to our other laws?"; to: "do our laws cause harm or violate anyone's rights or freedom?"
The jurors would conclude that the "law" is unjust or oppressive, and would be obliged to nullify "it". One of them need only state: "not guilty, it is a bad law", and that would be it - jury nullification! (Such a "court" session may take only a few minutes - obviously there's little or no money in that for all the people who benefit most when they otherwise drag it out as long as they can.)
I asked a friend of mine to contact the Neither campaigners to ask if Albert had requested a Trial By Jury, and he was informed that Albert didn't ask for one. But on researching the Australian terrocrat's pretended "laws", I found that they don't let their juries judge much at all, and they especially don't let them judge anything as critical as their pretended "laws"! In fact, there are only a few specific circumstances under which they will even "allow" there to be a Trial By Jury in the first place! So it could be that even if Albert did put in a request/demand for a proper Trial By Jury, that they would refuse anyway - no guessing needed to see why! So now what; is this option also no good? Perhaps (at least for Australian terrocrat "courts" - is this where the phrase "kangaroo court" came from?)... or perhaps this could be turned into a good opportunity to expose them for what they really are!
If the "courts" were really there to ensure justice (by most people's meaning of the word), then it would be all of the "government" criminals who locked up Albert that would be jailed, including those who caused Albert to be jailed - not Albert!
"[The Supreme Court] does not render justice. Juries render justice, but where has the jury system gone? In civil cases, juries are only vestiges of the past. The civil law has been taken over by the judges and is now their exclusive property. The civil law is business. And people will not be allowed to meddle in something as important as business.
Yet, even now, the people have not yet discovered they have been disenfranchised. Even lawyers can't stand to admit it. In any nation in which people's rights have been subordinated to the rights of the few, in any totalitarian nation, the first institution to be dismantled is the jury. I was, I am, afraid." - Gerry Spence, Trial By Fire
Recently (September, 1997) in Australian "news"-papers, there have been many articles about how the "judges" want to get rid of juries altogether (at least in some of the few cases in which they have something remotely resembling a trial by jury), with their various views and reasons put forth for why. But considering that their likely aim is to completely eliminate all trials by jury, in whatever form, and give themselves full control over everything - it's not hard to see the real reason behind it. But in effect, the jury system has already been sufficiently dismantled, to carry out whatever injustices and oppressions the terrocrats desire to have executed.
At this point, I think it's appropriate to ponder the question: What is the purpose of "government"? This is something which a good deal of thought should be put into; I suspect that many people have never even considered this question.
In the simplest of terms, the best of theories might be this: The purpose of "government" is to protect the people and their property from being harmed or violated by others. (Not a self-serving, self-perpetuating and expanding bureaucracy, but something designed to benefit the people that are "governed".)
"The ideal government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone." - H.L. Mencken
"The only justifiable purpose of political institutions is to insure the unhindered development of the individual." - Albert Einstein
Some people would extend on this somewhat, and some people believe that "government" should be in control of almost everything; but whatever you believe, the main question is: Is the purpose of "government" also to mislead, oppress, and exploit people?
Well whilst that might be what those who call themselves "government" do, that isn't the purpose (if any) that they advertise!
Here's an article you should read, to see the contrast between various pretended "governments": Florida Libertarian is victorious in free-speech lawsuit.
Why do such important, fundamental, inalienable rights have to be written down on a piece of paper - so as to prevent "government" bureaucrats, terrocrats, and pretended "police" from interfering? (The implication here is that if it wasn't written down on a pretended "constitution", then (at least according to the terrocrat "police") it would be "OK" for Noyes to be "arrested" - I hope you realise how absurd this is!)
If you compare the pretended "US Constitution" and it's accompanying "Bill Of Rights" to the pretended "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution" (they're available in the Historical Documents and "Constitutions" Area), you'll notice that there are very few professed protections in the "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution" - in fact, almost none! So does this mean that if the terrocrat "judges" want to "interpret" that it's "OK" for "government" to mislead, oppress and exploit their "citizens" -- and that because their "constitution" doesn't say they can't or shouldn't -- then it must be "OK"???
Have the people who masquerade as "government" completely lost the plot? -- or maybe they never had a plot in the first place? -- or they're completely rewriting it as they go? -- Or maybe their plot has always been, quite simply, to mislead, oppress, and exploit, and they're well on schedule!?
"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on Earth... and what no just government should refuse." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, Paris, Dec. 20, 1787
There is no "Bill of Rights" for the pretended "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution". Why? Because it would have become extremely inconvenient to those who want to mislead, oppress, and exploit the people they lord their "constitution" over! Examine the "Bill of Rights" amended to the "U.S. Constitution" to see why... and how practically every single one of the rights specified on that "Bill of Rights" has and is being violated every day by the pretended "US government"! (i.e. even with a "Bill Of Rights", it ends up being ignored by the terrocrats anyway.)
"Terrocrats (terrorist bureaucrats or coercive "government" agents) operate according to the de facto "constitution" (so-called) of all pretended "countries", which is: "ANYTHING GOES... THAT WE CAN GET AWAY WITH!"."
- Frederick Mann (edited by David T. Freeman)
If you'd like to find out more about Albert Langer and his associates' Neither Campaign, then visit their Internet Web Site.
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Abigail Adams, Paris, Feb. 22, 1787
Something which you may want to consider - which would be more effective: