It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

a sovereign state in australia...The Principality of Hutt River

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

the judiciary is subordinate to the executive in theory, however:

www.austlii.edu.au...

The separation of powers doctrine established that the three tiers would remain separated. Thank God for AV Dicey. If the executive enacted legislation (and remember that the executive was formerly attached to the Crown - the Crown post 1986 no longer has any powers over Australia & also consider that we vote in those that become the executive!) that went against the Common Law... then the Common Law -> Judiciary gazumps it.





posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Thurisaz

finding out about this certainly put a smile on my face.....

in case anyone would like to get a little more intimate with the man himself ...

edit on 28-11-2014 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: daaskapital

It was a long time ago. At the time I studied the laws that allowed succession. As I recall it, there was a great deal more involved than that. What you are reading here is presumably the Hutt River Province view, or their current legal view, minus the arguments they do not want to just give to the Government short of a court challenge.

You are also getting straight Government denials saying that the Province has no standing. Obviously these denials are just silly. The Provence does exist and local Authorities do respect it. So I put them into the category of MORE GOVERNMENT LIES.

There were some court cases I believe or they were getting ready for them. Either way, there is more to it than first appears. A lot more. If the Government had a leg to stand on, they would have acted. This is an International embarrassment to them.

They have not acted because they can't.

P


I understand.


We pretty much get biased views from all sides. It's a complicated situation which would need to go to the courts to clear anything up. And we all know that won't happen so long things remain the way they are, lol.

Thanks for the information though.



originally posted by: Thurisaz
a reply to: daaskapital

the judiciary is subordinate to the executive in theory, however:

www.austlii.edu.au...

The separation of powers doctrine established that the three tiers would remain separated. Thank God for AV Dicey. If the executive enacted legislation (and remember that the executive was formerly attached to the Crown - the Crown post 1986 no longer has any powers over Australia & also consider that we vote in those that become the executive!) that went against the Common Law... then the Common Law -> Judiciary gazumps it.





I'm aware of the separation of powers, but i do thank you for the extra information!

Regardless of the way in which one looks at it, i think it is clear that the matter regarding the Principality of Hutt River is fairly complicated and would need the utmost legal attention to rectify the situation, lol.

I think the government would prefer it to be kept in the dark, and not be mentioned at all, lol.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Shana91aus
Being from Perth I researched them a while back. Possibly it may play out differently today , but I think what what gave them the legal leverage when the Govt chose to ignore them was the declaration of war and the declaration of cessation of hostilities. Some bureaucrat missed the ball on that. And before you know it they can claim sovereignity.

I admire them for their strength.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Its Secession - not Succession. As far as I remember Its still an option if sufficient pressure is applied and a referendum addressing that is put to the people of W.A.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital




The Australian government doesn't recognise the Principality of Hutt River as a sovereign entity, therefore it is not one.


And then from:
hopenotfeariswhatweneed


....just the fact that the tax office has no power there is interesting in itself



That to me is telling me that Canberra has no real control/power of taxation over them therefore they are "quietlly acknowledged as a sovereign nation"



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

Is it legally defined as an Australian Territory?

According to:

www.australia.gov.au...

"Any land within Australia's national border that is not claimed by one of the states is called a territory. Territories do not have the right to convene their own government or pass laws as the states do. Under the Constitution, the Australian Government makes the laws for the territories."

What I find interesting is the low google rankings of any official Aus Govt website in relation to Hutt River queries.
I suspect the Govt would prefer this is not further tested in the courts



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 04:42 AM
link   
double post
edit on 28-11-2014 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: d/p



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital




the question must be asked if sovereignty and independence came with the establishment of a self-preservation Government.




Daas. that I think is the crucial test at law



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thurisaz
a reply to: daaskapital


the Crown post 1986 no longer has any powers over Australia




Not Correct. The Crown has " Reserve Powers"





However, there are some powers which the Governor-General may, in certain circumstances, exercise without – or contrary to – ministerial advice. These are known as the reserve powers. While the reserve powers are not codified as such, they are generally agreed to at least include: The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a ‘hung parliament’; The power to dismiss a Prime Minister where he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament; The power to dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when he or she is acting unlawfully; and The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister.



www.gg.gov.au...
edit on 28-11-2014 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 05:36 AM
link   
That was a really interesting read, 'you can't fight city hall' seems to be not applicable in that case, good luck to them, I hope that principality goes from strength to strength. (its bigger than Monaco, right?).



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

i wonder just how far these "reserve powers" reach....



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
That was a really interesting read, 'you can't fight city hall' seems to be not applicable in that case, good luck to them, I hope that principality goes from strength to strength. (its bigger than Monaco, right?).




Monaco has an area of 2.02 km2 and hutt river is 75 km2....i would say it is somewhat larger



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I went there once on the way to Kalbarri... pretty un-eventful stop, I think we went to the gift shop and then left. There is also a guy just outside of York who declared sovereignty, cant remember his name...



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I don't use the gg.gov.au. website for my info, it is somewhat biased.

I prefer austlii.

The reserve powers are similar to a Claytons scotch... yanno, the scotch your having when your not really having one.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join