[LINK] "Free Trade" Agreement (was: SCO's Congressional Lette r)

[Adam Todd]

At 07:23 25/01/2004 +1000, Chirgwin, Richard wrote:
> >A quick reference to something I mentioned yesterday on Link, regarding
> >how we the people cannot sue the government. (Americans can and do).
>
>Why can't we?

We can, and I am.

>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/92/ch23.html
>
>This discussion, from the law reform commission, seems to say that it can be
>done, but that the constitutional right to do so is very poorly expressed.
>
>The old UK rule about suing the government - the crown cannot be a defendant
>("the King can do no wrong") - wasn't inherited by Australia.

The Government is not a representation of the King.  Hence a Police officer 
is not entitled to enter upon a property unless the occupier provides a 
licence to do so, irrespective of what the law says.  If a court has issued 
a warrant, that's not a warrant issued by the King.  Unless the King issues 
the warrant, it's not a free right.  Laws are passed by parliament for the 
people, not passed by parliament for the king.  Hence the law only 
preserves the rights and actions of the people, not protects the authority 
of the king.

Government does not represent the KING, Government represents the 
PEOPLE.  End of Story!  It's not exempt from legal proceedings :)

A well documented and one with a judgement is at

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/171clr635.html?query=%7e+plenty+dillon

I have on my door and property boundary a reference to this as it's now 
Case Law.  You also can guess I'm preparing a range of presentations around 
this judgement.  Fortunately for the occupant, there is not right of waiver 
for the defendant :)