Can Bush be legally held accountable?

Can Bush be legally held accountable?
As an Australian, author of many books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® book on CD series, Grandmaster "constitutionalist", and having just completed a 5-year legal battle against the Federal Government, I succeeded on constitutional grounds that John Howard, the purported Prime Minister, was not constitutionally elected in 2001 at all, as the election was unconstitutional. All constitutional issues I used remained unchallenged by the Federal Government lawyers!
Further, I also used constitutional provisions that John Howard had no constitutional powers to authorize the unconstitutional murderous invasion into Afghanistan and/or Iraq.
If George W. Bush cannot be impeached, perhaps it is impracticable, what stops him being indicted for mass murder, etc?
Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
"In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy."
Therefore, if George W. Bush and Blair and/or Howard intended to invade Iraq regardless of what then the conspiracy itself could be held sufficient for them to face the Courts. Combined with an unelected Prime Minister who unconstitutionally invaded another sovereign nation we might just get them to be accountable before the Courts.
More then 3.000 American soldiers died and for what? Some personal gratification for Geroge W. Bush perhaps to get the late President Saddam Hussein.
Is that worth the lives of more then 3.000 young men and women who sacrificed their lives and future?
Is this worth the death of countless innocent civilians?
We must never allow anyone to take the law into their own hands and must those responsible for this atrocity held accountable before the Courts.
Firstly, seven before the 10 November 2001 purported Federal election took place I commenced the challenge the validity of the election in that the writs had been issued before (as constitutionally is required) the Proclamation was Gazetted. Simply, they had forgotten to publish the Proclamation in time, and documents, including computer records, proved that the Proclamation was issued a day after the writs had been issued. This means the writs were ULTRA VIRES.
Then, each and every writ had the wrong timetable on them as required by law even so every Governor and the Governor-General, unaware of this, signed the writs stating "according to law".
The Courts refused at the time to hear the matter and determine the case upon its MERITS and the unconstitutional election went ahead, however, I for one would not give up. Then we had the unconstitutional invasion into the sovereign nation Iraq. John Howard, as purported Prime Minister authorised this invasion, albeit constitutionally he has no such powers as it remains with the Monarch and the Commonwealth of Australia is administered for and on behalf of the Monarch by the Governor-General who exercising prerogative powers then decide to issue DECLARATION OF WAR, if he views this be in the interest of the general community, or refuses to do so. In this case, no DECLARATION OF WAR was issued. Hence, constitutionally the Minister of Defence was not authorised to deploy Australian Troops into any war!
I did pursue, albeit being the only Australian to do so, before the High Court of Australia (5 times) a writ for Mandamus/Prohibition to prevent Australian troops to be deployed into a war into the sovereign nation Iraq, but even on 19 March 2003, the day of the armed invasion, the High Court of Australia handed down a decision refusing to hear and determine my applications.
In the mean time, legal proceedings were going on against me for FAILING TO VOTE in the 2001 and 2004 (purported) Federal elections and on 17 November 2005 I was convicted, but on appeal on 19 July 2006 the Court allowed the appeals, overturned the convictions and dismissed the charges. My argument was for example also that as there was never any valid election in 2001 or in 2004 then for that there was no obligation to vote. In the Commonwealth of Australia they purport it is unlawful not to vote, albeit constitutionally one does not have to vote!
Each and every constitutional issue I raised during the proceedings were UNCHALLENGED by the Government lawyers, including that the purported elections never were constitutionally valid.
Now, I am seeking to have John Howard and his cohorts to be charged for what I view are crimes against humanity, war crimes and numerous other crimes. Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Commonwealth of Australia) makes it TREACHERY to attack a "friendly" nation. As the Commonwealth of Australia never declared war against the sovereign nation Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter, then they were and remained to be a "friendly" nation.
My website has a lot more about this also, and so do my books.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
KEYWORDS: Bush Howard Blair crimes courts Iraq
Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!
| < "Go big or go home": Interview with Paul Jay, IWT/The Real News, Part 1 | "Oh, you mean the REAL news!": Interview with Paul Jay, IWT/The Real News, Part 2 > |