Quote

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
- Albert Einstein

WCB a disturbing letter from Frederick Palmer his torcherous experience

Does anyone out there care about this? ( PDM ) I DO!

Thank you for such an eloquent and timely expose of the current WCB system in Canada.
I have never appealed except to say to WCB I was thrown from, dragged, and crushed, by three railway cars carrying at least 30 men. With at least 42 witnesses.

That was on August 30, 1979 and I have never been fit for any type of labour work since. Soon it will be thirty years of total disability from employment.

I receive about $220.00, a 10% disability pension, forced onto welfare, cut off retraining every time because I had a pension, called a fraud, an alcoholic, a pedophile, crook, a lazy no good, and every other lies they heap on me.

I have been crippled, slandered, impoverished, stressed to the point of suicide many times, suffer multiple injuries not being treated except what I can provide myself out of my welfare money, no transportation, housebound 95% of the time, and I will NOT APPEAL!
They knew I was crippled from day one. No man could withstand the smack in the back I took without being crippled for life, or the head first onto the track at forty miles an hour like a bullet out of a barrel, or the second car running over my ankle and crushing it.

Your time has come WCB.
A CBC crew is coming to my apartment to see me. I have been begging for help for thirty years. I might only get 1 and a half minutes but that is enough.
I am knotted up in pain. It is cold and I am living in one room with the rest of the heat turned off, the windows are frozen, there is mold, the roof leaks, and I can barely use the vacuum.
I am not allowed to invest money or buy property because welfare has rules too.
I believe they have been trying to assassinate me with 1. Pain 2. Poverty 3 Stress.
Too much for many to bear.
I mourn for my brothers who have been murdered by WCB. For my Father who died of a heart attack in the mill after having pneumonia because he went back to work too soon with pneumonia.
An only Son left abandoned at nine to the wolves.
If my father were alive to witness my abuse he would personally hang every one of you. I am coming for you WCB.

Mark my words I will see the murderers hang. And you can take that message all the way to Rothschild.

Update; Jan 28 2009 A CBC film crew just left my apartment. I dont know what the final product will be, over that I have no control. I dont know if I said the right things to help injured workers, or myself for that matter.
I was mesmerized with documents. I am in so much pain. I never got to bed till 4:30 in the morning up at 8 after tossing and turning, exhausted, at the end of my rope, but I will not falter. I cannot.
My mission is too important to mankind. No matter how they slander me, no matter how they physically abuse me, I will endure.
No matter how they cut me off financial aid, I will prevail.
To you, my family, my friends, my fellow Canadians, I will not let you down.
I have told all, shared all, and confessed all, on camera, for all to see.
Forgive me my trespasses, as I forgive yours.
May the Spirit in us all rise to the occasion and take us forward for the good of all. The total reform of the workers compensation system is needed, necessary, imminent, and I offer my services, my knowledge, my good faith, in harmony with humanitarian principles common to all.

Regardless of my confused past, my crimes, I can tell you I never seriously hurt anyone. To those hurt I have made amends with the greatest sincerity. There may be more but I am willing to pay the price of my freedom for any wrong I committed against another individual.

I am guilty of being brain injured and the consequences of that combined with everlasting pain, poverty, and stress, have altered my behaviour. Changed me to a wanker, to relieve stress because I had no other way.
No medical follow-ups on my condition, no diagnosis for 18 years, no further treatment, left in agony of body and mind. Please forgive my outrageous behaviour.
Please understand I have never laid a hand on a child and would never, have never done so.

The RCMP has my fingerprints and mug shots, and even my DNA, which I freely gave, with knowledge I am innocent and a smile upon my face. No charges laid or pending.

I did not know what was happening to me, migraine headaches for four days straight. Wishing I would die. Nausea constant and getting worse. Pain increasing because I was forced to work while injured and still not fully healed. Later trying to work not knowing the full extent of my injuries.
The company lying and saying they were going to give me a light duty job. There is no light duty on the railway unless you work in the office.
Retraining denied to learn computers or any other course, constantly cut off funding from government agencies after spending a year or more getting medical reports, being accepted into programs because of my physical disability and then being cut off because I had a $200.00 pension.
Suffering constant trauma psychologically litigating my case with no help and a brain injury. For 20 years I had these headaches. Depression, fear, pain, none being treated. Total disability from employment Crippled from a crushed ankle, a shattered shoulder, a broken arm and a broken collar bone, herniated disks, severed and crushed nerves, teeth shattered with microscopic cracks. Broken nose, scarred from head to toe.
Thousands of dollars in debt trying to retrain myself, property taken because of bankruptcies because no will give me the compensation or help I need to become independent again.

Drinking to relieve physical pain and stress, depression, enraged, and sometimes violent while drinking Well CBC was here today and they saw the documents from WCB saying I am totally disabled from employment,
The government of N and L saying I am totally disabled from employment, Every specialist in Ontario and N and L saying I am totally disabled from employment. Since 1979 this has been the case.
For the last 30 years this has been the case, the truth. I am entitled to 75% of my gross wages ( currently over $48,000 + per year union contract) and medical care for my injuries. I have received neither for almost 30 years now.
Because WSIB Ontario will not give me an email address to send this letter to, please forward it to directly to the head of the WSIB, carbon copy to the President, and all adjudicators who have ever been involved in my case and medical staff.
I WILL NOT APPEAL!! There is a court case in Canada where a man was injured so seriously any reasonable person, after looking at all the medical evidence, would have to conclude with certainty that they can no longer function at previous employment. Yet the Case showed the WCB purposely ignored all this overwhelming body of evidence when even a child could tell the seriousness of the conditions caused from these injuries. T
housands in Canada in this same state of total disability from employment caused by their employer are dumped off onto welfare programs that further hinder and traumatize the individual.
Well no more will this happen in Canada. It cannot happen if we are a civilized people, gathered under the flag of Canada, respecting the rights of all citizens, and not discriminating against any group.
Canada has done that with a group called injured workers, which could be you.
Rights taken include,
1.Right to make your own decisions on career and place of employment or business.
2.Right to retrain after suffering total disability from former employment
3.Right to sue the company for their negligence
4.Right to have a say in your own medical care
5.Right to charge company with any crime including slander, fraud, mail fraud, omissions and errors, minimizing injuries for the purpose of withholding benefits to patient.
6.Right to timely and appropriate health care
7.Right to financial compensation approximating actual wage loss as promised in legislation. 8.Right to be treated with dignity and respect and fair treatment.
9.Right to make your own decisions concerning your own life. (A hostage)
10.The only right you have is to appeal to the same criminal board that cut you off in the first place for no good reason.

David facing Goliath without even a slingshot or a rock. The workers of this country deserve better. The people of this country deserve better. For the sake of our sanity, our good name, our peace and prosperity, we must endure.
For those that come after us, we must ensure good health, opportunity, and justice. Join me in making Canada the best workers compensation system on the planet. I personally have the knowledge, the wisdom, and the experience to be a great benefit to my fellow Canadians.
Please work with me to ensure none are left by the wayside, especially our most vulnerable and needy, who by the very act of working and contributing to society, are now discarded and forgotten.
No more will the people of Canada accept an unfair social contract that leads to the death of many.
In their memory I stand, proud, free, determined, as a citizen of Canada to end this abusive process that drives men mad and leads to their destruction.

Respectfully with the utmost sincerity, Frederick Palmer Founder - V.O.C.A.L. (Victims Of Compensation Abuse League)

V.O.C.A.L.
Injured, abused, forgotten by society. Cheated, robbed, destroyed by a heartless system. Look at this and realize the next victim may be YOU! Thousands across Canada are being cheated out of benefits by workers comp policies and procedures combine...

PDM: If anyone has this interview to put on youtube please send me the link. What can I say!

PEOPLE DO MATTER! This screams out HELP your poor damaged fellow human beings... NOW!

Workers Compensations "Reviews" = "Right Offs"

[http://www.vthc.org.au/latest-news/2008-latest-news/review-of-the-victorian-accident-compensation-act-1985-june-2008/index.cfm]
Ref: VTHC, Friday 13 June 2008

In December 2007 the Minister for WorkSafe, Tim Holding, announced an inquiry into the Accident Compensation Act.
The State Government appointed Mr Peter Hanks QC to conduct the review.
The report goes to the government in July.
A little history In 1985 the Accident Compensation Act (WorkCare) was introduced by the Cain Labor Government.
This had a focus on providing rehabilitation services as soon as possible after injury to return injured workers to gainful employment and also to enable the worker to return to normal community life.
Work Care gave weekly payments (80% of pre injuryaverage), quickly and ongoing until return to work or retirement age.
The premiums for employers in the meat industry were reduced dramatically with the introduction of WorkCare.
In 1992 when the Kennett Government got in WorkCare was changed to WorkCover and there were numerous changes.
The first wide spread changes were to throw more than six thousand long term injured workers off compensation; limited workers’ rights to claim compensation; reduced access to rehabilitation and abolished union representation in policy making.
Approximately every 6 months for the next 7 years there were changes to the Accident Compensation Act.
Most of these changes reduced worker’s entitlements to compensation.
By October 1999 (when Labor got back in) entitlements for workers had dropped dramatically.
Specific reductions included:
• a requirement to prove that employment was a significant contributing factor;
• the exclusion of a significant proportion of stress claims;
• the exclusion of compensation claims if workers had not told potential employers that they had (in the dim and distant past) suffered illness or injury;
• removed compensation rights unless an injury report has been made within 30 days;
• the removal of the specialist appeals structures - replaced with conciliation and the magistrate/county court;
• the exclusion of injuries that occurred on the way to or from work;
• reduced weekly payments to:o 95%of PIAWE (excluding penalties and overtime) for 13 weeks;o then after 13 weeks and up to 104 weeks:?
payments dropped to 75% for people who had no capacity to do anything at all;?
payments dropped to 60% for people who had a capacity to do anything other than pre-injury work (whether a job was provided or not);after 104 weeks:?
workers who could still do absolutely nothing, forever, continued to receive 75%; and ? workers who could theoretically do something, either now or in the future, get NO WEEKLY PAYMENTS;
• medical expenses were terminated 12 months after weekly payments were stopped.
• common law (the right to sue negligent employers) was abolished since 1997;
• compensation for permanent injury had been taken away from or reduced because they had established new ways of measuring impairment- American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment- with a 10% whole person impairment as a threshold for physical injuries.
These guides state that they should not be used for this purpose.
Psychological Impairment had to meet a threshold of 30% before any payment.
Psychological injuries that come from being permanently physically injured don’t count at all. The impact of these changes meant that many workers with permanent injuries did not get any lump sums for compensation;
• rehabilitation was reduced so that it was only available for return to work, workers had no choice of who was the rehabilitation provider and no there was no rehabilitation to improve quality of life or participation in the community.
After Labor got back into government, There have been minimal improvements for workers since Labor returned to government.
• After October 1999, Common Law was reintroduced for some workers (fewer than before November 1997). People who were seriously injured through negligence between November11, 1997 and October 20, 1999 were left in the black hole.
• Calculation of pre injury average weekly payments was changed so that regular overtime and shift penalties were counted in for calculating weekly payments in the first 26 weeks.
That improvement cuts out after 26 weeks so the workers who have serious injuries and can’t work at anything are still as badly off as they were under Kennett.
For example a supermarket butcher who worked Thursday to Monday earning $1000 a week before injury, who is too badly injured to do any work receives $555 from WorkCover after 26 weeks.
• In 2004 the threshold for a lump sum payment for permanent impairment from musculoskeletal injuries (backs and limbs) was reduced from 10% to 5%and the minimum payment went from $5000 to $9190.
• By 2006 the weekly payments for workers who have a capacity to do something went from 60% to 75%.
• In 2006 the cut off for weekly payments for most workers was changed from 104 weeks to 130 weeks. Gifts for employers - Premium Reductions After Labor got back into government the employers have been rewarded handsomely and repeatedly.?
2004 - premium reductionof 10% that is $180 million a year. ?
2005 - a further 10% premium reduction of $170 million per annum.?
2006 - another 10% reduction in the average premium rate that is $170.00 million per year.? 2007 -this time 10% premium reductions gave employers around $167 millionper year.? 2008 - a further saving of 5% for employers of $88 million was announced during the review process i.e. pre-empting any recommendations from the review.

In 4 years employers have beengiven a 45% average premium cut! Across the board employers have been saved $1,984 million.
It is time for improvements to WorkCover for workers.
Workers are the people who suffer from injuries and illnesses that we get in the course of, or arising from, work.
We want a system that provides adequate and just compensation to injured workers.
What do we want?
Compensation must be paid for workers with injuries or illnesses arising out of, or in the course of employment.
It should not be harder toget compensation for some injuries and illnesses such as psychological conditions, heart attacks and strokes.
We argued to repeal sections 82(2A),82(2B), and 82(2C) of the Act in order to have “adequate and just compensation”.
Some changes that we asked for to simplify the system and make it fairer
for injured workers, are:
• a WorkCover Certificate of Capacity, requiring time off work; limited hours of work or medical treatment should serve as the lodging of a claim;
• failing to put injuries in a register within 30 days should not be grounds to reject a claim;
• claims for injuries that are made worse by work should not be rejected because the worker did not disclose some previous injury or illness to a company when they applied for a job;
• it should be illegal to threaten, discriminate against or sack anybody forclaiming workers’ compensation, assisting another worker to claim or reporting risks.
Improved weekly payments The union movement has recommended that payments should start within 7 days of a claim being made (not waiting for 45 days which is what happens now with most claims).
This was called ‘provisional payment’. It is not a new idea. Payments start that soon in NSW.
The union movement strongly recommended that weekly payments should be based on “normal weekly earnings” (NWE) that includes piece rates, penalty rates, overtime, allowances, commissions, bonuses, salary packaging and the like. We also argued that superannuation should continue to be paid.
The union movement strongly supported the VTHC recommendation thatweekly payments be 100% of the NWE for the first 52 weeks and then 80% of NWE.
The VTHC recommendation is that the period of entitlement to weekly benefits for workers with a capacity for employment suited to the worker (meaning employment for which the worker is currently suited and work that is available) should be increased to 260 weeks.
Rehabilitation - Return to Work The VTHC proposal is that the AC Act be amended to require the employers to consult and reach agreement with the injured workers and their treating practitioners on offers of employment suited to the worker.
Unions recommended that the AC Act should be amended to recognise the health and safety representatives elected under the Occupational Healthand Safety Act 2004 and recognise their powers.
They also recommended that the AC Act should state that the injured workers have the right to be represented by HSRs, Job Delegates orUnion Officials.
The VTHC recommendation is that the employers’ obligation to provide pre-injury employment (when the worker is fit to perform them) or suitable employment (if the worker has a capacity to work but is not fit for pre-injury employment) should be extended to be the period of the weekly payments.
It also supported the development of a Compensation/Return to Work Inspectorate who had similar powers and responsibilities to inspectors appointed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Dispute Resolution Unions argued that Conciliation Officers have limited powers to resolve disputes when the agent/employer maintain their position and will not consider any alternative.

The employers’ freedom of choice of claims agent (from the VWA list) can result in the claims agents being unwilling to contradict employers, for fear of losing the account.
These claims go to Conciliation where they are not resolved and usually go on to be settled on the steps of the Court because the powers of the Conciliation Officers are so limited.
The worker does not get paid for months or years, does not get essential treatment and work relationships break down.
The VTHC also recommended that:
• The powers of the Conciliation Officers at the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service (ACCS) be amended to provide for a full Administrative Review of any dispute relating to a claim for compensation, with the right to appeal to the Court.
The AC Act should provide that Conciliation Officers can affirm, amend, or replace a decision of an agent/employer/self insurer that has created the dispute.
• The AC Act be amended to unequivocally provide that a worker be represented throughout the dispute the process.
• The Conciliation Officers be given the powers to issue directions with respect to return to work obligations.
Permanent ImpairmentUnions do not accept that the AMA Impairment Guides are the appropriate\way of evaluating the impact of permanent injuries.
We also argued that stress, anxiety and depression that come from having pain, not being able to do the work that you want to or live a normal life should be compensable.
We argued that further work needs to be carried out on developing an appropriate method of measuring the pain and suffering from disability and impairment.
Until appropriate measures have been developed and agreed on the unions support the threshold of 5% for all injuries including psychiatric.
These are not all of our arguments and recommendations, but it gives some idea of what the unions have said about the Accident Compensation Act.
NB: The VTHC website acknowledges the AMIEU for the research and preparation of the above information.

Thanks to Jo for sending me this (PDM will be commenting on this at a later date ...Stay tuned.)

Quote

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"
-- Thomas Jefferson

ANOTHER GOVERNMENT RIP OFF!

Friday, January 23, 2009

Blind woman claims Government has ripped her off over compo
LOSING out ... Queensland grandmother Anita Dawson's
pension was cut after she won compensation.
THE Rudd Government has been accused of ripping off a blind
woman by cutting her pension to claw back money awarded to
her in compensation.
Anita Dawson, 54, was recently awarded Government compensation
after she was injured while working at a Queensland TAFE. But before
the money could even be deposited into her bank account, the
Government had helped itself to $30,000 - the equivalent of two years'
pension.
In a second stinging blow, Mrs Dawson was told she was also
being stripped of her pension for a further two years thanks to her
winning a six-figure compensation payout."I was told by the Government
that they couldn't have me double dipping into workers' compensation
funds and the pension pot," she said."They said I shouldn't think I'm
any different to anyone else just because I have a disability."I find it just
absolutely appalling. It is just a way for the Government to get away
with not paying me the compensation I am owed for the accident.
"Grandmother Mrs Dawson, of New Beith, south of Brisbane,
previously received $565 a fortnight from the Centrelink pension,
which is not supposed to be income tested.Without it she is unable
to claim pharmaceutical benefits, mobility allowance, up to 40 per
cent off her rates bill, and discounts on public transport and taxis.
Her pension will not automatically be restored to her in two years.
Instead she will have to undergo painful tests to determine whether
she remains eligible.Requests for help from the Government and
Centrelink officers have fallen on deaf ears.
Yesterday she was reduced to tears after speaking to a public servant
from Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin's office.
The department refused to comment when contacted by The Courier-Mail.
A spokeswoman for Centrelink described the situation as a "policy matter"
and said that although the blind pension was not income tested, compensation
payments had to be taken into account when pensions were issued.
Mrs Dawson's former husband Lee is disgusted."The Government is
ripping off a blind woman," he said. "It's nothing short of victimisation.
"Details of Mrs Dawson's accident and compensation amount cannot be
revealed for legal reasons but Mrs Dawson said it was a low six-figure
sum.
Picture: Glenn BarnesArticle: By Hannah Davies - Courier MailJanuary 06, 2009
WCV's: This is so typical of the Government! How blind do you need to be?
Centrelink recuperate what they have paid to any injured
worker or TAC victims from any compensation payments, so you lose out
again, by having to repay part of what you would have earned had you not
been injured and still able to work, then you have to give up part of your
compo as well. Does this ever end?
Don't get injured at work readers because if you do, your life will be totally
stuffed,you will have no job and no ability to work, and your income will be
reduced to the poverty line levels by the DSP or sickness
benefits and you will be treated like a leper by many, and that's the reality
of a workplace injury!
This is not a way of life nor is it a living, so to all of those who judge injured
workers, "up yours" and "get a life" because injured workers are not enjoying
themselves here or is it a lifestyle, they are suffering at the hands of all they
encounter, so readers next time you are speaking to someone who is injured,
take a minute to walk in their shoes, before you judge them.
Posted by Workcover Victims Victoria at 7:44 PM
Labels: Government, injured workers

Source:( Courtesy of Jo WCB)


Comment by PDM
Jo well said.
This is the ultimate rip off.. who are we really fighting for.. we fight for survival on welfare and struggle to live. FORCED to utelise the welfare system and live like this, then if we are lucky enough to fight for justice in a court and actually get any form of compensation the reality is the Government dips into any previous payment you have received and TAKES FROM YOUR fight!
Yet we are fighting against the Government in court!
Against all odds we lose out.
Not that the payments are anywhere based in what we would be able to earn before we are injured!
So why is it that the Government bothers to fight us so much? If they are in a win win situation?
BECAUSE THEY CAN!
IT FILLS ME WITH DISGUST!

So the next time you think about stomping on another human being who has had their life devastated beyond any logical understanding, begging to survive.. THINK AGAIN!

If we are really valued where is the proof?

Hi Everyone,

If we are truly valued as sovereign beings by "public servants", then why is it that our rights are written away often in secret or as good as secret?!

I like many others have also written MY WILL letters to the appropriate governmental beurocrats about workcover issues in particular, including writing against new legislations coming in to take more rights ( yes hard to believe there are more to take I know!).

I have been told that my concerns only peripherally relate to the matters.
I have been ignored or given a substandardised automatic reply.
I have not been sent to submit any issues with the appropriate public submission sections.
In fact the time line given to these submissions were very small indeed!

I do not believe that any of this is pure accident.

Why do we sit idly by and allow this to happen?

We do not have a say even when we do speak up because something fishy is going on and will continue to do so, unless everyone researches into the facts behind the smoke screens and takes away their unspoken consent.

It's hard when there are so many of us starving and suffering financially because we are injured or sick.
It is made to be hard. There is a reason why it is so hard. What is that reason?

I think if we are all really honest and switched on about things we will discover the truth.

The truth may be hard to find... one reason for this is the media coverage and the media ownership is all connected in with the powers that be.

If you look behind most stories... and in fact like myself have bombarded ALL of the media with issues relating to workcover and exactly what is going on and what it is like to live in that system for every day people... it really makes you wonder why they are not interested.

One part of discovering the ultimate truth out there is to be very very discerning.
Think more than what you are told to think and "brainwashed" to think.

Think deeply, look at what is really happening. Compare it to the past and you will start to notice that more and more of our basic rights are written off and they show up in our every day lives.

How free were you 10 years ago? How many of us have been led to believe that we are safe and protected and have all our rights in tact?

Only to experience the opposite of that?

I dont know about you, but living like this has really been an eye opener for me, not the happiest of eye opening but I would much rather face the truth and try my best to protect my rights and freedoms and those of my fellow living breathing Brothers and Sisters existing on the earth right now and whoever may be exposed to worse in the future.

What I am starting to realise is that unless you are wealthy, you suffer huge losses of dignity and rights in so many ways. As simple as the right to competent health care. A right to afford food, basic living expenses.
A right to legal counsel -the best legal counsel is only available to the wealthy... especially the government.

What I would really love explained to me is why is it that someone who worked to earn a living, and became injured in that work is now so worthless that they have to beg for a payment on welfare rather than being supported decently, and appropriately.]

What is wrong with our legal system? Well maybe I should be asking what is RIGHT with our legal system?

It seems that it all bases back to the government again. They are meant to serve us... but I am quickly learning that is not the case.
The more I learn the more I dislike about what is really going on.

I am not crazy! I am not abnormal. I am not worthless and I am not illogical.
What I am is fed up.
Fed up with the lies.

How many of you remember the simple things, such as governmental claims there would be no GST... what did we get? GST.

Why is it okay for those in power to continually lie and sweep our concerns under the carpet.

Doesn't the simple reality tell you something is very wrong here?
Where there is smoke there is fire!

Never forget who you really are... never lose the sight of your inherent rights.

Never lay down and let someone else tell you who you are and what u must do, in order to make them more money more power and more greed.

We ARE the people. We are the majority. We do matter and its about time we were treated decently!

I was born here. I did not ask to be born here. I did not ask for this treatment for my family or for anyone else.

I am not happy about it and it does matter!
ARE YOU HAPPY ABOUT IT?

Lets discuss real issues... not just workcover.
Lets awaken others to do the same.

I am here screaming out on your side... somebody stand beside me and hold my hand, somebody speak with me, somebody stand up.

I did not ask for a life of poverty. Did you? Where is the contract we wrote to ask for this treatment?

If there is such a contract I hereby revoke any consent to it!

Are we safe? Are we free? Are we lucky? Are we secure? Are we heard?

Quote how true

"When the government fears the people, you have liberty.

When the people fear the government, you have tyranny."

US President Thomas Jefferson

United People Power Interesting reading!

(Source ) United People Power
http://www.ja.olm.net/succeed/ http://users.bigpond.com/succeed/upp


Mission Statement.
Purpose of "Alternative Three" Project is to:
Present to the Australian people an opportunity to have a say via an input into a fresh Constitution.
Draft a fresh Constitution suitable to take Australia through the twenty-first century and beyond.
Develop a Constitution that establishes and enshrines the power of the people over government.
Produce a fresh Constitution that establishes finite limits on government. And thereby guarantee and enshrines the fundamental rights of the Australian people based on the Great Charters of England.
Have the final draft of the fresh Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia considered for adoption by the Australian people before 2005, by referendum.

The rights of People
THE CONCEPT OF A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
It is popular belief that the concept of a written constitution was invented in our modern era.When the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution was drafted reference was made to the Swiss and the American constitutions. (Ref: Quick and Garran, Annotated Constitution)A nation's constitution, apart from setting in place the style of government, it sets in place rules designed to limit and control government.If Government seems to be beyond control, that is, it ignores the will of the People, then the constitution is inadequate.Australia is in a situation where government repeatedly ignores the clearly demonstrated will of the people.
MEDIA DECEPTION
It is important at this point to make a distinction between the agenda of the media and the will of the people. Rarely if ever are they the same, especially now that money rather than principle drives the media.The will of the electorate is not expressed in the popular media, as government would have us believe.The implementation of a GST is one recent example, where the party now in power, which campaigned on the implementation of a GST, received about 43% against the opposition's 48%.These percentages are arrived at after disenfranchising 20% of the Australian electorate, by manipulation of the Electoral Act, and robbing the 20% of their choice, which was for neither of the major parties, and certainly against the GST. The best result the GST proposal could be seen to have received was 30% support, all of this 30% was from loyal party supporters, who themselves opposed the GST, in about the same percentages as the remainder of the population, reducing the real result to about 85% against the GST. But the government claim a mandate.Turning this massive electorate refusal into a mandate for a GST is an indication of not only what is possible under our existing constitution, but what is actually happening. Such events are rather commonplace, irrespective of which major party is in power. All such occurrences are an absolute and blatant denial of democracy.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Some constitutions include, or have attached, what is called a Bill of Rights, a list of the Peoples' rights.
The system we inherited guarantees liberty and the delivery of justice via a system of limited government - as opposed to limiting the people - via a Bill of Rights. The system we inherited is a far better system than any other so far developed, including a Bill of Rights system such as America has.
One worldwide problem with the protection and delivery of Peoples' rights is that the few in power run roughshod over the rules under which they have been granted authority to govern. In Australia's case government simply ignore the constitution when it suits them, making democracy only a word without meaning.
What is missing from our Constitution is a totally reliable method of enforcing it. An easily accessible, responsible, prompt method, where the people have ready access to the machinery required to apply and enforce the constitutional rules on government.
Our understanding is that in democratic nations the People are required to give their approval to the nation's constitution. As Australia claims to be a democratic nation it must meet this universally accepted standard. Australia currently fails in any test on the delivery of democracy
REPUBLIC - DEMOCRACY
At this point we should give consideration to the word "republic". The dictionary describes republic as --- "Where the supreme power is vested in the people - OR - its elected representatives"
This description clearly sets out that there are two types of republic ---
1.
One where the people are the supreme power. Let us call this "type one", and
2.
The other where the parliament is the supreme power, "type two".
Type two, where the Parliament is the supreme power, this is not what the People believe to be democracy.
Unfortunately the word democracy also has the same double meaning in the dictionary where "democracy" is explained in exactly the same words the word "republic" is described, ie. "Where the supreme power is vested in the people - OR - it's elected representatives"
It seems inconceivable that there are two confusing interpretations, in reality opposing meanings, for these two extremely important words.
One may say that the second option is a "delegated supreme power", but this does not alter the fact that the supreme power has in fact changed hands and gone from one to the other of two historical enemies - the people v government.
The fact that the people and government are enemies is not the intention behind the concept of government; if government observed the rules, neither would it be the reality. Government's sole job is to ensure and uphold the liberties and justice of the people, not the reverse as seems to be the case.
The dictionary's description of the words, republic and democracy are a dictator's dream, they allow a dictator to hold out that a democracy and a republic exists when the opposite is reality.
It is arguable that "type two" in both the republic and democracy models, where "delegated" supreme power is the system of government, that there is little to no difference between the power delegated to a monarch, who as legend has it, exercises the power of the people and a president with the same delegated supreme power. In both cases it depends on the rules in place to control either the monarch or a president and the peoples ability to enforce the rules. So it is the rules that we cannot survive without.
CONSTITUTION - RULES
In the case of a British monarchs, they are restrained by the Laws of England, Common Law, and the British Constitution. In the case of a president they too are restrained by the constitution of the particular republic. . . It is the rules that we must rely on to control people in all systems as opposed to perceived good intention that may or may not exist.
In Australia's case, the rules are to be found in the Act to Constitute Australia and the supporting documents and the Laws of England. The means of restraining a president and a monarch are the same, a set of rules under which the People agree to be governed. If there is no general agreement then anarchy ensues.
The importance of all this illustrates the importance of the rules, the Constitution. Good government will flow when the "rules that rule the rulers" are such that they guarantee good government. The most important element of such a set of rules is the People's ability to enforce them.
To argue that the monarchy is better than a republic is therefore a red herring. If government is not delivering good government then we must look to the rules, not to who the figurehead is or the position held.
If the people who compile dictionaries are confused and allocate opposite meanings to two of the most important words in our language, it is little wonder that the People are confused, and even less wonder that the politicians use the double meaning to further their own agenda, a use they are most expert at.
Australian government claims to be both a democracy and the supreme power - dictionaries say this is ok, - when in reality this is not possible. We must find words that distinguish between "type one" and "type two" democratic republics and democratic monarchies.
The current republic proposal is designed to enshrine an all but totally unlimited government system with supreme power over Australia vested in the elected representatives --- the type of republic we don't need, and don't want at any price.
THE WAY AHEAD
The republic we need, seeing that the monarchical system has placed itself in a position that is not retrievable, is the "type one" republic "Where the supreme power is vested in the people". This is the undeniable concept of the English Monarchy, given the events of Magna Carta and the other documents making up the British Constitution. But it has failed to work this way.
The English people won self-government as a fundamental principle. Unfortunately, rarely have they had it delivered --- this is also the case in Australia. The reason it has rarely been delivered, is that the people never in fact wrote the rules, they relied on an elite to do it for them. As a result they have never had built into the rules a reliable means of enforcing the rules.
Not a modern concept
Popular belief is that a written constitution, that is, a document or documents written as a constitution, is a modern concept --- this is wrong.
The concept of a constitution was invented with Magna Carta back in 1215 when Magna Carta was imposed on the ruler (government) of the day: Magna Carta was the first written constitution.
The process of imposing Magna Carta on the ruler established some very important and fundamental principles, principles that form the basis of modern "type one" democracies; of which there are not many. Australia is not one, nor is America. Switzerland and a few smaller countries may be entitled to be called type one democracies.
Britain would be entitled to be called a type one democracy if the Monarch was willing and able and actually did carry out the intent of the Coronation Oath, but unfortunately this has not been our experience.
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES
The fundamental principles established by Magna Carta are not limited to only the principles that are written down in the document, such as -"a man may not have taken from him, his life, liberty or property, except under the law of the land on the judgement of his peers", and - "no man shall be deprived of the means by which he earns a living by any act whatsoever" (authors translation).
The "Law of the Land" refers to Magna Carta and the principles enshrined therein, not parliamentary made law, not court made law that is repugnant to Magna Carta, but God's laws, which are the basis of the law of the land: - this is what our rulers are bound to deliver under our heritage of law and the Coronation Oath to which they are all absolutely bound legally and by oath of office.
The additional fundamental principles established by Magna Carta include:
Common Law, law that is common to all, common to the King and the People.
The right of the governed - to agree with the rules under which they are governed.
The right of the governed - to draft a fresh set of rules under which they agree to be governed.
The right of the governed - to collectively impose rules on the ruler.
The right to place limits on government.
The right to the delivery of limited government.
History tells us that having established a fundamental principle does not guarantee that it will be adhered to by government. This fact is made very clear by the need to re-impose Magna Carta on a long list of rulers, no less that 37 times over 400 years.
LESSONS OF HISTORY
The lesson here is that liberty and justice are not automatically delivered. The reverse is the case, whereby the people in power continually increase their control over the population; and in doing so whittle away at the Peoples' fundamental rights.
The whittling continues until the people say enough is enough and move to re-establish their fundamental rights. Australia has reached that point in time, where we need to re-establish the fundamental limits and the checks and balances required for the delivery of good government.
And so the right to self-government and Common Law was enshrined forever by the precedents set and accepted as a result of Magna Carta. This is our heritage.
These rights and the principles on which they are based are clearly spelt out in the American Declaration of Independence in the following words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."
In the lead-up to federation in 1901 the principles set out above generally guided activities, even though they were not clearly defined. In the final draft these principles were not followed. A brief examination of the facts surrounding the preparation of the Commonwealth Constitution exposes many problems, not the least of which was vested interests.
FEDERATION
The idea of Federation, where the six independent self-governing colonies joined together under a commonwealth umbrella, originally came from Britain in around 1850, and was not taken seriously until thirty years later. Federation was not an Australian people-driven idea, but general agreement with the principles and the reasons for federation existed at the time. This was not the case for the "constitution" as drafted.
The concept was, that the then colonies entered into a power sharing arrangement by establishing a central government and transferring some of their existing powers to a new central, "federal" government to administer. It is important to remember that all the powers of the various states were limited by the Laws of England or in other words the British constitution, in other words Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus etc. The Laws of England likewise limited all powers transferred to the new federal system.
This arrangement / contract -cum - Constitution is as a result, a contract between the six colonial governments (not the People), a contract where the six colonial governments agreed to remain independent self-governing states within the proposed new federation, but to hand over some of their existing powers to the new central body. No new powers were created.
The 1890s convention that was given the job of drafting the contract cum Constitution consisted of 57 lawyers, politicians, big business men and eight journalists, a total of 65 out of the 66 people responsible for drafting the original contract. (The vested interests).
Britain required that the colonies held referenda in order to obtain the approval of the People, the referendums failed to get approval with 52% of the few allowed to vote rejecting the document.
The draft document, which in fact took the form of a draft Bill prepared for the consideration by the British Imperial Parliament, on its arrival in Britain, was subjected to major changes, and only then it was passed by the British Parliament and from there imposed on the people of Australia.
The document that eventuated after the British authorities altered the draft delivered to them, was not returned to Australia for the People's approval either before or after it became a British Act.
The Australian people never approved the document called the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.
The only time the people generally got involved in the 1890s debate was when interest was stirred up by the church. This saw pressure brought to bear on the drafting of the contract, pressure to include God in the draft and to not give the new central parliament any power over religion.
It is important to note that the draft document sent to Britain for approval did not contain the required references to God. The reference to God in the preamble of the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia was put there by Britain. What is now claimed as our Constitution, the isolated section 9 of this Act contains no reference whatsoever to the Almighty, God.
Fortunately the Commonwealth Constitution is not only section 9 of this act. The whole Act makes up the constitution and in addition, the essential Letters Patent of Queen Victoria of 1900 setting out the duties of the Governor-General along with other events and documentation that relate to constituting of Australia. Section 9 was separated by the word Constitution because it contained provision for it to be amended by other than the British Parliament.
The fact that Australia was constituted by a British Act of Parliament and received the assent of the Monarch makes it subject to the Laws of England, the British Constitution which includes Magna Carta.
The powers-that-be prior to federation, recognised that it was advisable to seek the "people's" approval of this contract before it went to Britain for final approval. Referenda were held, but the population's approval was not sought or obtained.
At this time in our history, the moneyed elite had a right to vote --- not many other people did. In fact the landed gentry had as many as six votes each under the system that operated at the time. Records show that less than 12% of the population voted and more than half of those who did vote, rejected the contract but it went ahead regardless.
HOW AND WHEN TO FOOL THE PEOPLE
It appears that there was a rush to have this contract approved and in place ready for the turn of the century. Hindsight would indicate that the best time to fool the people would be at the turn of the century when the People's minds can be concentrated on other things such as celebration --- and into believing that there is some defining urgency, when there is not.
The fact that we too are now at the end of a century, being rushed blindly into constitutional change without proper time to debate and properly consider what we are being forced into, must ring some very loud warning bells, particularly so when we add in celebrating the Olympics and the end of the Millennium as major distractions --- far, far from the best time for the people to make important decisions, decisions that will have long term repercussions on just about every aspect of their lives.
At the time immediately before federation, in the late 1890s, there were no proposals to change anything of substance; it was simply a transfer of some of the existing state powers to the proposed new central government. The peoples' rights were never debated, were not part of the contract and there was no intention at any time to make them part of the contract.
The peoples' rights were well entrenched in the Laws of England, which limited the power of all state governments, this power was transferred to the proposed central government with all limits intact. No need to because this was a contract that at all times was subject to the Laws of England.
After all, it was a simple matter, - where the six state government's planned to contract-out some of their existing powers. The states were at the time British Colonies, requiring British approval for any such contract / Constitution. Approval came in the form of a British Act of Parliament and the Monarch's Assent.
The Commonwealth Constitution was never a Peoples' constitution; the People did not draft it. The People did not approve it. The People have no built in right to propose an amendment to it - only the politicians have this right, this one fact alone totally cancels any claim that it is the Australian Peoples' Constitution.
MONUMENTAL CHANGE
Eighteen years after federation, on 28 June 1919, Australia, then a British Dominion signed The Peace Treaty of Versailles as an independent nation. Prior to this event Britain always signed for Australia.
On 10 September 1919 Prime Minister Hughes addressed the Federal Parliament proclaiming that "--- Australia has now entered into a family of nations on a footing of equality. Australia has been born in a blood sacrifice ---" - referring to Australia's losses in the First World War.
On 10 January 1920 Australia signed on as a founding member of the League of Nations in its new capacity as an independent Nation, equal politically and in sovereignty with Great Britain and the twenty-eight other independent nations joining as foundation members. This is Australia's Independence Day.
Signing on as a member of the League of Nations involved the signatories in undertaking not to impose their laws on other member nations. Heavy penalties were agreed to for any member nation doing so.
Britain and Australia were fully aware of these conditions and agreed to them. These conditions became International Law.
The repercussions from these events meant that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution was no longer enforceable in Australia, because it was part of an Act of the British Parliament. In addition this "constitution" had not received the approval of the Australian people. All this left the Federal Parliament without proper legal authority to act in the government of Australia.
These events not only left the Federal Parliament, the High Court and the Federal Government generally without proper legal authority. It left them with only one proper legal course open to them, which was to notify the Australian people of these momentous events; and to put in place procedures, to have the people approve a fresh Constitution. This was never done, and unfortunately the Federal Parliament, the High Court and government departments continued on without proper authority - and contrary to law.
The Australian population was never made fully aware of complications flowing from the events of the time, nor have they been made aware since, not by government, or by the monarch.
There is only one direction Australia can take, even at this late stage and that is to have a fresh Constitution approved by the People via a referendum.
Such a fresh Constitution must build on the substantial foundation of fundamental principles of freedom provided by our rich heritage and it must also be the will of the People the beneficiaries to this heritage.
A compact of the People, drafted by the People then approved by a majority of the Australian People at a referendum.
This process should not be rushed. Every Australian should have ample time, with all the facts before them, before they are asked to vote on a fresh Constitution.
If this is not the case, then the very least that the people should accept, is that any constitution on which they are asked to vote must include the Peoples' (as opposed to the politicians) right to propose amendments to the Constitution, and only then should a fresh constitution go to referendum for the Peoples' approval. This provision would give the People the opportunity to put right any built in wrong.
THE PEOPLES' RIGHTS.
Under the inherited English system of government the fundamental rights of the People are protected by placing limits on government.
A constitution is a set of rules designed specifically to limit and control government, it is not just a document that only sets in place the framework of government as we are being led to believe it is.
The so-called Commonwealth Constitution while in operation as part of an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain was bound by the Laws of England, in other words bound by the British Constitution, Magna Carta Habeas Corpus etc. The Laws of England place specific limits on government and in so doing guarantee the Peoples' fundamental rights.
When in 1920, British Law ceased to have legal effect on, or bind the Federal Government. Government, it assumed it was no longer bound by the Laws of England, with the result that, the People's rights were incorrectly seen by government as no longer guaranteed at a federal level.
This may be the government's preferred position, but it is not sustainable because of the fact that Captain Cook and the first settlers who followed brought the Laws of England with them. Laws that were and remain today the property of the people not the property of government. Remember that Magna Carta stated that,- a man's property can not be removed except by the law of the land.
We are talking about the Law that the People had devised and imposed on the rulers of England, the Peoples' law, the Peoples' property, not the property of government.
Australian government, whether it is State or Federal has no mandate or legal right whatsoever to take away the Peoples' legal property. The Laws of England became the Laws of Australia by virtue of the fact that they are the property of the Australian people.
Both State and Federal governments remain bound by the Laws of England, because these laws are the property of the Australian people and as such are the Laws of Australia. Laws that only the People themselves can cancel. No court, no parliament, not even the Queen can cancel the Peoples' Laws.
State governments remain bound by the Laws of England. But if we accept the position that all Australian governments have taken, we find the following totally unacceptable position exists, where up until 1986 and the Australia Act(s)*, the Government view is that the Peoples' rights remained protected via state obligations under the Laws of England, until 1986, when they, the politicians arranged between themselves to cancel all rights and the delivery of justice.
Under the system of limited government inherited from England, state governments were prevented by law from passing legislation that was repugnant to the Laws of England. This very important limit on state governments was cancelled with the enactment of the Australia Act(s) 1986.
The result, according to current government thinking and action, is that the Australian People are left with no legal claim to, or guarantee of, fundamental rights or the delivery of justice.
This is not to say that the laws that existed in Australia at the time of passing the Australia Act were cancelled. What took place was, the politicians granted unto themselves a situation where they acquired totally unlimited power to amend existing laws or make new laws where either or both deny the fundamental rights of the People. In other words it gave politicians absolute power over the lives of the Australian People.
Even if what is claimed to be the Commonwealth Constitution remained legally in force it would be time for a fresh Constitution, because of the momentous chances that have taken place and most importantly because the Australian people have had their inalienable rights cancelled by totally repugnant law, leaving them at the mercy of totally unlimited government - politicians - courts and bureaucracy at all levels.
It should be noted that the High Court has apparently assumed the role of, "giver of rights", assumed the position of God. Since 1986 the High Court has read into the "Constitution" the right to free speech, when it is clear that no such right is written there. Furthermore there was never any intention or need to write it there.
The High Court has in the past reversed decisions when it has been politically expedient to do so, which means, that what it gives it can take away, when it suits. The High Court is a body made up of political appointments and as things stand, a body without proper legal authority for its existence. A body of people that has demonstrated the fact that they hold views contrary to the Australian peoples' bet interests.
At the end of the day the freedom and prosperity of the Australian People will depend on two things:- the quality of the rules that limit government and the Peoples' ability to enforce the rules.
The set of rules we rely on today have neither of these two basic requirements. Making a fresh constitution absolutely essential.
WHAT OPTIONS DO WE HAVE
The Alternative Three proposal for a fresh set of rules encapsulating the fundamental principles and the checks and balances provided by what now are the Laws of the People of Australia, Magna Carta, etc.
The Alternative Three - Fresh Commonwealth of Australia Constitution - is the Great Charter of Australia, Australia's Magna Carta.
On November 6, mark both your ballot Papers with an A3 or write Alternative Three across both papers. Do not answer any of the referendum questions.
Neither a yes or a no vote is in your best interests or the best interests of present or future Australia. Get your copy of the Alternative Three draft Constitution; get to understand what the possibilities really are and where your future freedom will be secure.
When you cast your vote for Alternative Three you will be voting on a fresh Constitution, this vote is not subject to the laws that apply to a referendum to amend the existing "Constitution". Under existing Law your Alternative Three vote must be also be counted in the republican referendum, where it falls into the same basket as a no vote.
Section 128 par 5, of the Constitution is clear, ----a majority of ALL the electors voting -is required to change the Constitution-- no mention of only formal votes, it clearly states ALL votes.
The Constitution prevents government from making laws that disenfranchise electors by providing for all votes to be counted. It is clear the that for a vote to be counted as a yes it must be clearly a YES vote , all other votes cast on the day must fall into the NO basket simply because they are not YES, and thereby the elector refuses to approve any change.
The Act that is used to control referendums.- the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, is contrary to the Constitution and should not stand if challenged in the High Court, but as do all Australian Laws, constitutional or otherwise, they stand until a citizen challenges them in the High Court. This unbelievable and unjust situation exists because Governor-Generals have not carried out their duty since 1920, their duty is to not grant assent to legislation that is repugnant to the Law of England, - Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus etc. but they have repeatedly done so.
If the Referendums (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 is relied on, it clearly defines what constitutes an informal vote 1(a) Ballot paper not initialled on the back by issuing officer
(b) no vote marked on ballot paper or electors choice is not clear. (A3 is a clear choice).
( c) has more than one choice marked on the ballot paper.
(d) the name of a person.
Claims that an Alternative Three vote will be declared informal are misleading as the law states otherwise, such a situation would be unconstitutional and against the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act.1984. There is no other law. We realise that desperate men turn to desperate measures, if this the case then the chance of a honest referendum just does not exist. Particularly when one considers that dishonest people can vote as many times as the like simply by going to as many polling booths as they choose and voting.
The biggest obstacle to bringing about positive change to Australia's disastrous constitutional circumstances is the peoples' dominant belief that they need government permission, when they don't, and once more they will never get it. We need to act within our long established fundamental, God given right, to implement new government as the need has certainly been demonstrated.
Do you know that:
The Australian people, that is, you and me, have been played for fools, and that so far the activity has been extremely successful and that we have been well and truly fooled?
We had all our legal claims to liberty and justice removed by Act of parliament in 1986.
Since 1986 the High Court has set itself up as God and that it now determines what rights people have and what justice they will get?
Australia is being prepared for entry into what is called the New World Order (NWO) system that will take control of our rights and what justice is delivered? The next step for us, in this massive power grab, will be regional government under the name of APEC already lying in ambush?
Under a regional government system every person of the region will have one equal vote and that Australia's 19 million people will be outvoted by Indonesia's 210 million, not to mention Japan and China's numbers? Then, longer term, consider the odds in a One World Government system.
The reason our industry has been wound down and given away, is all part of the plan? For the NWO to get control, the independence / self-sufficiency of all nations must be eliminated. This is being accomplished by allowing a nation with no natural resources including energy, such as Japan, to build a massive manufacturing capability, while Nations such as Australia must have no manufacturing capability. The result will be totally dependent countries such as Japan and now Australia, where control over all nations can be exercised by outsiders running the NWO, simply by cutting off Japan's energy and raw materials, or in Australia's case, cutting off the supply of manufactured goods and worse the people's income, by cutting tourism.
This whole operation can be manipulated into place through the control of money? All that is required is to allow Japan access to funds at say 1% and force Australia to pay 10%. In the early 1990s it was, Japan 2% Australia 20% and our manufacturing capability was simply hosed out.
The November referendum is another part of the process of preparing Australia's legal position for entry into the regional government phase of the planned New World Order.
If you continue to sit on your hands and do nothing, you will soon be living in a world of one central, big brother-style government, one religion with one standard of living which will be abject poverty under total oppression and with no means of change or even improvement?
Australia is placed in the unique position where it can head off what the NWO has in store for us? We can do so by installing a true Peoples' Constitution and we can make this happen as early as the November 1999 referendum, if we choose to? What will you choose, hand sitting or freedom?
Magna Carta first established the right of the people to draft a "constitution" and to serve it on the government of the day? Since this precedent, government permission to do so has not been required.
If you don't make a stand now, you may well lose all opportunity to do so at any future time? It will certainly be too late once the NWO trap has closed so far that it finally snaps shut.
The People's Constitution is ready, available for your inspection and approval, from Alternative Three at $5 a copy posted. A full Constitutional Kit is also available for $20 posted
Freedom / tax havens
The freedom to use a public place without fear of being accosted.
Freedom to be able to call your home your castle to the exclusion of all others.
Personal freedom, - economic freedom.
The freedom to do as a responsible freeman would providing that it not interfere with the freedom of another.
Freedom to be productive and to retain the reward for production.
Freedom to be able to store your rewards in the country's exchange mechanism in absolute confidence that they will retain their value.
Government has one purpose and that is to protect these freedoms. At least this was always the intention. The outcome unfortunately, demoralisingly and destructively is quite the opposite.
Do you know why Australia is not a tax haven and many countries are?
The reason we are not is that Australian government does not want us to be free.
A tax haven is simply a country that has no income tax, or next to none. A tax haven usually is not interested in your personal activities, a place where privacy is a right.
Those of us that have thought about it realise that taxes on production such as income tax, are not necessary. In fact they are destructive. We also realise that the same amount of tax can be collected in a number of ways other than taxes on production.
Australia could collect double the tax it collects with a simple 'transaction tax' of less than one percent,* thereby making it totally unnecessary to have any other form of taxation, with the exception of a tax on all assets leaving** Australia: - in other words a tax haven designed for Australians and to protect Australians from international pirates. A tax haven is no more than a country that has no income taxes. There is no reason why Australia should not be a tax haven.
All that is required is the will, then Australia could be a tax haven within a few weeks. As the politicians do not have the will, it is then up to us, the people, to exercise our will and make Australia a tax haven.
People are coming to realise that the elite in Australia pays virtually no tax as they make use of overseas tax havens. Australia must have a system where all pay their share and a transaction tax coupled with an export tax will accomplish this objective.
Let us reduce Australia down to the size of your back yard, where you run a few chooks and grow all your vegetables. Would you allow a freeloader to whom you gave shelter, to gather up most of the eggs and harvest most of the vegetables and take them with him - or would you invite in a foreign national to do the same, leaving you and your family to go short, in fact force them to steal from another backyard to survive? No you would not, but this is what is happening in Australia and all we can see to do, is sit around and whinge about what the politicians are doing, when all the time we have the remedy at our fingertips. You see, we the people have a universally recognised right to set the rules that govern the politicians; but we will have to make the effort at the next referendum to introduce a fresh set of rules.
All that is required to make yourself free and Australia a tax haven can be found in the Alternative Three fresh Constitution. All that is required to make it happen is the will of the people at the next referendum. Get your copy; find out just how simple the solution really is. Then simply write Alternative Three across both your referendum papers and refuse to be bluffed into answering either of the elite's referendum questions. Freedom and prosperity are at your fingertips, they can be yours and your children's by voting Alternative Three.
* People wishing to know more about the concept of a transaction tax, consult us for "debit tax" information.
** Both the transaction tax and export tax are dealt with in the Alternative Three Draft Constitution.

The Lima Declaration ------- an overview
What is the Lima declaration?How does it effect you and your family?
The correct title is:-
Lima Declaration and plan of ActiononIndustrial Development and Co-operation
It is an international trade agreement similar to G.A.T.T. (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs), Australia is a signatory to The Lima Declaration as it is to many GATT agreements.
Australia signed The Lima Agreement with the total support of all major political parties.
It should be clearly understood that the 'Lima Declaration' is one of many hundreds of international agreements and treaties signed by Australia, usually by one man The Minister for Foreign Affairs or his nominee, who signs on behalf of all Australians.
It should also be clearly understood that 99.9% of Australians do not know what such agreements and treaties are about, nor how they effect their lives, and they are not told -- if they were, there would be instant riot.
This paper deals very briefly with just one of the blanket of agreements and treaties now in existence. The Lima Declaration of 1975.
International treaties in the main are the handywork of the United Nations and have been used by Australian Governments to undermine Australian Sovereignty. The High Court decision on the Franklin Dam issue in Tasmania is a case in point. Used to put in place processes the impact of which the Australian people are completely unaware, and if they were aware, would be totally opposed to, processes that "get-around" "The Australian Commonwealth Constitution." In other words, treason. And treason is being committed in the name of International Treaty, or the other names given to them, such as conventions, or in this case declaration, The Lima Declaration.
You may say treason is a strong word, but after reading this brief you will say it is not strong enough, without doubt sufficient reason to impeach the Australian Government and opposition on charges of treason..
A copy of The Lima Declaration may be obtained from the United Nations in your Capital City, or the department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra, by phoning the treaties support unit on (06) 261 3590. While you are on the phone ask them how many treaties, declarations, conventions, etc exist. Ask for copies. Ask for the complete set including with The International Treaty on Civil & Political Rights. (The Bill of No Rights).
How can Governments give effect to The Lima Declaration ?
Simply, The Lima Declaration is an agreement to wind down Australian manufacturing by around 30% and to import that amount from other preferred Countries together with as much primary produce as we can consume. Such as fruit, meat etc. The 30% was a target that has now blown out, current estimates are that 90% of our production capacity has gone, and our jobs with it.
There is no mention in the agreement about what will happen to the Australians who lose their jobs, their factories or their farms, it appears they are expendable.
How can Government wind down Business Activity?
Simply by making an un-level playing field. Increase taxes, interest rates, the cost of employing people (without the worker gaining any benefit) Environmental planning controls all these things in combination either destroy or increase our ability to produce.
A good example would be:....
If you wished to manufacture widgets in Western Sydney, you may require, say, 5 acres of industrial land at around 2 million dollars, on which you will pay 25 thousand dollars a year rates, and 25 thousand dollars land tax, it will cost some hundreds of thousands in 'contributions' to Council coffers, and environmental studies, all of which you may borrow at 15-20% interest then, if you are lucky you will be up and manufacturing in maybe 2 to 5 years. Then the unions will step in and cause loss of production, the Government will make you subject to time consuming unnecessary costs, paperwork, insurance and payroll tax and force you to collect sales tax (GST) on your product, and threaten you with heavy penalties including jail sentences for late or non-compliance.
or
You can simply set up business offshore and export your ideas back to Australia. Our offshore neighbour, also a party to The Lima Declaration will give you the land, assist you in every way and not tax you for the first five years, their interest rates may range from nil to 4%, not to mention the Australian Governments incentives available to importers from preferred countries, and so the playing field is drastically tilted to get the result required by a combination of Government and financial activities.
How does The Lima Declaration effect me?
* Simply 50% of the productive Australian workforce becomes unemployed.
* Taxes on the remainder in employment increases, to pay for the unemployed
* With new shortage of income you are forced to buy cheaper -- imports, or go without thereby aggravating the spiral of well planned economic transfer (oppression)
Government (unproductive sections) will increase their numbers to cover up the real unemployed statistics or/and change the definition of unemployed; if you work 10 hours a month you will be considered employed. We then have more people in Government at all levels with little to do, other than think up more ways of controlling those who are left to produce what little we don't import, employed thinking up new revenue raising schemes, and raising penalties to ensure their salaries. And last but not least, the obscure reason behind The Lima Declaration, Australia becomes a dependent nation, dependent on other nations for it's shoes, it's machinery, it's food, it's survival.
There is no doubt, that within the grand plan of international control there is no room for self-sufficient nations. Any nation that has all the minerals it needs and can grow all the food and fibre it needs cannot be totally controlled by any international body such as the United Nations the International Monetary Fund or The World Bank.
An independent nation (independent in it's production of all the things it needs) cannot be bought to heel by sanctions, such as in South Africa was and Iraq is at the present.
The international control cannot starve the infants of an independent nation, nor deny them medication, as is the case in Iraq.
If Australia cannot make it's own shoes, clothes, and machinery, then others will control us. That is the real purpose of The Lima Declaration, and that is why those who support the Lima Declaration, including those in influential positions are all traitors. Joe Bryant. Jan 1992
Briefly, How the Treachery in Lima Occurred
The second general conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (U.N.I.D.O) met in Lima, Peru from March 12-26, 1975,. The outcome of that meeting was The Lima Declaration, a blue print for the transfer of technology, tools and jobs to 3rd world or developing nations, leaving the "Developed" nations such as Australia short of technology, tools and jobs.
This is now a reality with around 90% of our productive jobs gone and insufficient income from the remaining 10%, to fund the loss of jobs that alone the importing of what we once made right here in Australia with Australian hands, the result yet another 3rd world country in the making.
Whitlam, Frazer, Hawke, Keating, Hewson, Howard, Beasley, the democrats, greens and the Nationals all subscribe to this type of economic genocide, albeit under different names "North South Dialogue" - "G.A.T.T." - "Internationalism" - "Inter-dependence" - "International Monetary Fund" (I.M.F) "World Bank" or the newly uncovered "New World Order".
All different names for the same plan of total control of the world through the money system - control by sick minds, treasonous politicians and bumbling academics and bureaucrats.
The following are some of the recommendations of The Lima Declaration.
Resolution 5........Recognising the urgent need to bring about the establishment of a New International Economic Order based on equity, Sovereign equity, Inter-dependence and co-operation as has been expressed in the declaration and program of action on the establishment of a New International Economic Order in order to transform the present structure of economic relations.
Comment....In 1975 Australia. (or at least one Australian) agreed to destroy our economy so that it fitted into a "New Economic Order"
Resolution 27 -------- Developed Countries such as Australia should expand it's imports from developing countries.
Resolution 28 ------ Requires that developing countries increase their Industrial growth by more than the 8% recommended in earlier United Nations meetings and increase their exports by 350% by year 2000.
Resolution 35 -------- Developed Countries (Australia) should transfer technical, financial, and capital goods to developing countries to accomplish resolution 28 above.
Resolution 59 ------The developed countries should adopt the following measures.
(a) Progressive elimination or reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers, and other obstacles to trade, taking into account the special characteristics of the trade of the developing countries, with a view to improving the international framework for the conduct of world trade. Adherence to the fullest extent possible to the principle of the "standstill" on imports from developing countries and recognition of the need for prior consultation where feasible and appropriate in the event that special circumstances warrant a modification of the "standstill".
(b) Adoption of trade measures designed to ensure increased exports of manufactured and semi-manufactured products including processed agricultural products from the developing to the developed countries:
(c) Facilitate development of new and strengthen existing policies, taking into account their economic structure and economic, social and security objectives, which would encourage their industries which are less competitive internationally to move progressively into more viable lines of production or into other sectors of the economy, thus leading to structural adjustments within the developed countries, and redeployment of the productive capacities of such industries to developing countries and promotion of a higher degree of utilization of natural resources and people in the latter
(d) Consideration by the developed countries of their policies with respect to processed and semi-processed forms of raw materials, taking full account of the interests of the developing countries in increasing their capacities and industrial potentials for processing raw materials which they export;
(e) Increased financial contributions to international organizations and to government or credit institutions in the developing countries in order to facilitate the promotion or financing of industrial development. Such contributions must be completely free of any kind of political conditions and should involve no economic conditions other than those normally imposed on borrowers;
For further detail get your own copy of The Lima Declaration
Note.... It would seem that basic economic considerations are ignored to lock the world into a New Economic Order, by which complete control of the world and it's people is planned, through the total control of their economy - their means of existence.
The basic economy I refer to is "people". People create the need, the need is then supplied by people's activity.
All that is required for economic growth is for people to supply their own market, the proposed New Economic Order, is not about developing 3rd world countries economies for the benefit of their people , it's about developing for the establishment's benefit, our would be masters. The would be masters of The New World Order.
It is an absolute nonsense to say a country needs to export to survive and prosper. Of course one must export an equal amount to that which it imports to balance trade, but the less it imports the less it needs to export to effect the offset.
What is required is a locally owned and controlled credit system, the essential ingredient in remaining independent of International finance the exact opposite to the plans of The New World masters
Every country should work toward import replacement exactly the opposite to the strategy set out in The Lima Declaration and exactly the opposite to the current policy of export - export - export. Currently Australia exports below the cost of production, therefore the more we export the faster we go broke. Some years of this policy has seen our foreign debt go to $630billion in 1999. By November 2000 expect it to be $750billion and the IMF to walk in and demand drastic cuts in pensions a 25% GST.
If the fundamentals on which The Lima Declaration is purported to be built were half-correct, our world would have to carry out export/import trade with another world in export-to-survive. This is quite obviously nonsense. The whole world will continue to fall for this treachery while ever the man in the street remains as a mushroom, under the spell of bankers trickery and that of their stooges who fill both elected, and public service positions.
Footnote.... The New Economic Order is mentioned no less than 21 times in The Lima Agreement, that is what The Lima Agreement is all about, locking the new developing countries into "their" economic trap and "their" plans for total world economic control, at the same time reducing developed countries to third world status, clamping the shackles of International debt on every human being, bringing about total world slavery, and the legally enforceable shackles of debt, chained to the slave master, money power.
Every Australian is immediately required to make a decision between debt controlled slavery in perpetuity- or the age of prosperity. Both are eminently possible, one we will have! Which one? Now rely on your gut feeling, ignore the controlled media propaganda - it's owned by your would-be masters, but decide now between perpetual slavery or the age of prosperity.
Joe Bryant 1992.
Alternative Three, PO Box 270, St Marys, NSW 2760 Ph; 02-9623-6177 Fax: 02-9826-1670. E-mail: succeed@tsn.cc
Web: users.bigpond.com/succeed/upp Written, authorised and printed by Joe Bryant 418 Roper Road St Marys NSW 2760.
Draft constitution
For your copy of the current A3 Draft Better Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia please send $5 with your request to PO Box 1010 St Marys NSW 2760.

Alternative Three (A3) Not a republican proposal. Not a Monarchist proposal.A proposal for a Constitutional Democracy

Email: info@alt3.net www.alt3.net www.better-constitution.com.au

Human Rights Defenders ( Source)

Human Rights Defenders (Go to: http://onevoice.freeservers.com/level2/case.htm)
One Voice One People

MISSION STATEMENT
OVOP's mission is to play an active role in the global quest by ordinary people for the true implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms as set out in the United Nations Universal Human Rights Declaration and Covenants, thus empowering individuals to have a voice in promoting human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the advancement of democratic institutions and processes that respect and implement the UN Declaration and Covenants.
In addressing this mission OVOP will take a wholistic view of the issues, looking not just at immediate cases of human rights abuse but will also seek to understand the chains of input factors that give rise to abuse. OVOP notes the following.

1. The principles and rights set out in the Universal Human Rights Declaration were adopted by many UN Member states as legally binding international instruments known as the International Covenants, and entered into force in 1976.

2. OVOP is a non-party-political, independent, non-profit organisation for the implementation of Human Rights and is dedicated to act according to the "Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms".

3. OVOP is very concerned about increases in:
a) Poverty (Poverty itself is a violation of numerous basic human rights).
b) Injustice (Injustice is caused by deterioration of democratic processes, corrupt judiciary and legal systems, inconsistent application of the law and refusal to fulfill well-established obligations).
c) Violence and crime (Today's human rights abuses are the causes of tomorrow's conflicts).
d) Illnesses and disabilities (Many are a direct result of denials of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all human beings to safe working conditions, even more are indirectly so linked).
e) Environmental pollution and destruction. (Consequences of the ignorance and disregard of the human rights which are embodied in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).

(OVOP notes where the ultimate responsibility sits and that, despite the UN's comprehensive legally binding legislation, violation of human rights occurs not only in "underdeveloped" countries but also in "developed" countries. Human Rights legislation is governed by the United Nations but ultimately controlled and managed by the various national governments.)

4. OVOP agrees with the United Nation's warning "that the denial of Human Rights and the fundamental freedoms not only is an individual tragedy, but also creates conditions of social and political unrest, sowing the seed of violence and conflict within and between societies and nations."

5. OVOP is committed to promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms and to contribute to the promotion and advancement of democratic societies, institutions and processes in that, OVOP will:
a) Carry out its own worldwide research and investigation campaigns to find out from individual people their understanding of Human Rights and also their concerns regarding failure to apply these Rights.
b) Assist individuals who rights have been violated. OVOP will support the individual victim who intends to bring the violations before the International Human Rights Committee.
c) Explore the non-application of Human Rights in developed countries by gathering the facts from victims of human rights abuse, present the evidence to the UN and to the global community and demand a satisfactory solution as set out in the International Covenants.
d) Prove to the UN and the world governments that Human Rights are issues which most people take very seriously and that the individual person tries very hard to protect his or her rights, the rights of their children and the future generations.
e) Undertake education campaigns through various channels including schools, colleges and universities to:
i. Explain the meaning and the application of Human Rights in the life of an individual person .
ii. Make people aware of the alarming implications should their Human Rights be further eroded or abolished via national legislation.
iii. Advise the individual person not only about his or her responsibility, duty, obligation but also about the rights as a citizen of the global community to request that the International Human Rights are implemented and made part of the law in each Country
iv. Inform people that "The global quest for commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights involves everyone. The campaign relies heavily on thousands of dedicated individuals and citizens' groups who often risk their lives for the cause. Increased involvement in the defence of human rights helps to build an environment where freedom and dignity are expected and respected. It is up to each and every one of us - from Presidents and Prime Ministers to business executives, farmers and students - to work toward this dream." (United Nations Publication)
v. Make people aware that without respect for Human Rights, Freedom and Justice for everyone there will be no Peace on Earth!

6. OVOP remind that the ideal and the objectives of Human Rights are only achievable if the various national Governments comply with the International Covenants they have agreed to put into force and:
a) Protect all persons from being subjected to torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
b) Place into their national law the international Human Rights instruments they have ratified so providing equality before the law, protection by the law , and to thus strive to deliver justice and create "freedom from fear and want" for every person.

7. OVOP demand that the UN:
a) Persistently act to ensure UN member states, who signed to ratify the International Covenants, honor their signature and implement these rights in their national law codes and statutes, or revoke their signature and so withdraw from these International Covenants.
b) Invite all the UN member states to reconsider their position, as regards to their legal obligation as a result of them having signed the International Covenants.
c) Terminate the Human Rights Committee membership of Governments who revoke their signature or refuse to comply with their legal obligation to implement the International Covenants into their law. Any related privileges under the International Covenants, (e.g., the right to consult, advise and the right to vote on or about any Human Rights issues) must also be cancelled.
d) Expose countries which do not fully acknowledge and adhere to these principals of Human Rights.

8. OVOP will consult with Governments and the United Nations to assist and support the implementation of the proclaimed rights and freedoms into the law of the countries who have signed the covenants.

9. OVOP request that no more funds to be wasted to create yet more "paper treaties/covenants" because 50 years after the Human Rights Declaration the UN member states still do not comply with the existing International Covenants.

10. OVOP believes that in the absence of a real intent to implement these treaties the people on this planet are being misled. People are loosing faith and trust in promised rights and freedoms. For the future of mankind it would be disastrous if today's upcoming generation question the validity of international treaties/ covenants because these promises have proved to be nothing more than empty words.

How did ONE VOICE - ONE PEOPLE Human Rights Defenders (OVOP) start
ONE VOICE - ONE PEOPLE Human Rights Defenders is an international, independent, non-political, non-profit, Non-Government Organisation (NGO), founded by Brigitte Straulino and Erica Studer as a direct result of the human rights violations they personally suffered.
They researched the issues, contacting others, thinking at first that their experience with the Australian legal system had to be rare or even unique. But they discovered that many of other people had suffered similar violation and injustice.

It became increasingly clear that a mass of ordinary people suffer, going through appalling traumatic experiences with no help offered, as no equality before the law exists and a basic right of access to natural justice is ignored.

Having suffered the trauma of such violations themselves, and now aware that similar suffering had to be very widespread Brigitte and Erica sought ways of helping others and of letting the world know the extent of the heartbreaking experiences so many people were being subjected to. The outcome is the developing One Voice - One People, Human Rights Defenders which is funded only via member's subscriptions and donations.

ONE VOICE ONE PEOPLE is an independent, non-party-political, non-profit organisation committed to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms and to contribute to the promotion and advancement of democratic societies, institutions and processes.
(C) One Voice One People. Last updated: March 2000

Letters Contact OVOP

As a temporary measure FLAC (For Legally Abused Citizens) will forward mail:
OVOP c/o FLAC NSW P.O.Box 1199 Maroubra Junction NSW 2035 AUSTRALIA


(comment by PDM: I suggest u also look at this link... very interesting reading;).
http://onevoice.freeservers.com/legal/auslaw.htm