Right of Property Abolished
J. H. Wilson
Therefore, according to those who would have us believe are our masters, the Right to Property is abolished.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary says: "The absolute rights of mankind may be reduced to three principal or primary articles: the right of personal security, which consists in a person's legal and uninter-rupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation; the right of personal liberty, which consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without restraint, unless by due course of law; the right of property, which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save by the laws of the land.".
And we all know that "the laws of the land" are Common Law, ie: the Law of the People, by the People and for the People, of Magna Carta that says that "No free man shall be...dispossessed...except by means of the legal judgment of his own equals indeed the law of the land".
Justice Brereton's Judgment is consistent with the Australian Judiciary's treasonous declaration that "Magna Carta is obsolete".
Peter James Spencer, at no stage, ever gave his consent to be without a Jury...and, therefore, the Court had no Jurisdiction to proceed summarily...which renders "any awards, doings and proceedings...not to be drawn into consequence or example" (Petition of Right 1627 which, along with the other Charters of Liberty, are Constitutional Law in Australia).
The next step for Peter is the High Court of Australia, which has a Jury Box in Courtroom 3 in Canberra. Will Peter demand his Right to Trial by Jury, so that the People can determine if Australians have the Right of Property?
What of the Legal Maxim, "Rights never die"?
What of Truth, Justice, Freedom and Democracy?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au