Statutory Declaration Form Nsw

    statutory declaration

  • A statutory declaration is a legal document defined under the law of certain Commonwealth nations. It is similar to a statement made under oath, however, it is not sworn.
  • A written statement declared to be true in the presence of an authorised witness.
  • This declaration must be made before a person authorised by the Statutory Declarations Act 1959 and Regulations, which include the following: magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Commissioner for Declarations, Commissioner for Affidavits, solicitor, registered medical practitioner, bank manager,

    form

  • The body or shape of a person or thing
  • create (as an entity); “social groups form everywhere”; “They formed a company”
  • the phonological or orthographic sound or appearance of a word that can be used to describe or identify something; “the inflected forms of a word can be represented by a stem and a list of inflections to be attached”
  • kind: a category of things distinguished by some common characteristic or quality; “sculpture is a form of art”; “what kinds of desserts are there?”
  • The visible shape or configuration of something
  • Arrangement of parts; shape

    nsw

  • New South Wales
  • New South Wales (abbreviated as NSW), Australia’s most populous state, is located in the south-east of the country, north of Victoria, south of Queensland, east of South Australia and encompasses the whole of the Australian Capital Territory.
  • Naval Special Warfare: the agency that provides units to conduct unconventional and counter-guerilla warfare
  • abbreviation for the state of New South Wales.

statutory declaration form nsw

statutory declaration form nsw – Declarations of

Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications – CRS Report
Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications - CRS Report
From the Washington Administration to the present, Congress and the President have enacted 11 separate formal declarations of war against foreign nations in five different wars. Each declaration has been preceded by a presidential request either in writing or in person before a joint session of Congress. The reasons cited in justification for the requests have included armed attacks on United States territory or its citizens and threats to United States rights or interests as a sovereign nation.

Congress and the President have also enacted authorizations for the use of force rather than formal declarations of war. Such measures have generally authorized the use of force against either a named country or unnamed hostile nations in a given region. In most cases, the President has requested the authority, but Congress has sometimes given the President less than what he asked for. Not all authorizations for the use of force have resulted in actual combat. Both declarations and authorizations require the signature of the President in order to become law.

In contrast to an authorization, a declaration of war in itself creates a state of war under international law and legitimates the killing of enemy combatants, the seizure of enemy property, and the apprehension of enemy aliens. While a formal declaration was once deemed a necessary legal prerequisite to war and was thought to terminate diplomatic and commercial relations and most treaties between the combatants, declarations have fallen into disuse since World War II. The laws of war, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions, apply to circumstances of armed conflict whether or not a formal declaration or authorization was issued.

With respect to domestic law, a declaration of war automatically triggers many standby statutory authorities conferring special powers on the President with respect to the military, foreign trade, transportation, communications, manufacturing, alien enemies, etc. In contrast, no standby authorities appear to be triggered automatically by an authorization for the use of force, although the executive branch has argued, with varying success, that the authorization to use force in response to the terrorist attacks of 2001 provided a statutory exception to certain statutory prohibitions.

Most statutory standby authorities do not expressly require a declaration of war to be actualized but can be triggered by a declaration of national emergency or simply by the existence of a state of war; however, courts have sometimes construed the word “war” in a statute as implying a formal declaration, leading Congress to enact clarifying amendments in two cases. Declarations of war and authorizations for the use of force waive the time limitations otherwise applicable to the use of force imposed by the War Powers Resolution.

This report provides historical background on the enactment of declarations of war and authorizations for the use of force and analyzes their legal effects under international and domestic law. It also sets forth their texts in two appendices. The report includes an extensive listing and summary of statutes that are triggered by a declaration of war, a declaration of national emergency, and/or the existence of a state of war. The report concludes with a summary of the congressional procedures applicable to the enactment of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of force and to measures under the War Powers Resolution. The report will be updated as circumstances warrant.

OBAMA…THE GREAT WARRIOR…….WTF?..OVER

OBAMA...THE GREAT WARRIOR.......WTF?..OVER
LOL LOL LOL LOL
BET ALL THOSE RUBE LIBERALS WHO SIGNED ON TO THE "HOPEY CHANGEY" EXPRESS ARE FEELING REALLY REALLY STUPID RIGHT NOW

OBAMA WOULD NEVER WAGE WAR LIKE "BABY KILLER BUSH" ………LOL LOL LOL

THE FU*KTARD MICHEAL MOORE IS PISSED I’LL BET……….. THE CHICAGO CARNY HUCKSTER HUSTLED HIS OWN DUMBER THAN DUMB VOTER BASE ……….LOL ……MAYBE WE CAN CAPTURE SOME LIBYAN SOLDIERS AND EXPAND GITMO LOL

YA ………………………..OOOOK!……..THATS THE TICKET

============================================================================

March 20, 2011
Obama Attacks Libya, and Where’s Congress?
By J.B. Williams
On the eighth anniversary of the day President George W. Bush ordered U.S. troops into Iraq in 2003, with the full support of the U.S. Congress and majority support from the U.N. Security Council, Barack Obama launched a Tomahawk missile assault on the sovereign nation of Libya with no majority support in the U.N. and without even consulting Congress.

Acting alone while Congress was away on recess, solely at the command of the United Nations and without constitutional authority, Barack Obama dropped over $70 million worth of Tomahawk missiles on Libya — a dictatorial maneuver to force a regime change in a foreign land.

Under what authority did Obama green-light this dictatorial assault? To be certain, Qadaffi is no prize, but what Obama just did is nevertheless unacceptable. Acting all alone in a truly imperialistic fashion, Obama violated his oath of office, Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution, and the War Powers Act — all in one mindless, knee-jerk decision.

Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution identifies the U.S. president as the commander-in-chief and the civilian oversight of the U.S. military. But the clause gives the U.S. president no authority to use military might to enforce his political will upon foreign nations.

Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution bestows the power to declare war solely on the U.S. Congress. It requires both the commander-in-chief and Congress to commit U.S. troops to combat, without which any deployment of troops is wholly unconstitutional.

The 1973 War Powers Act was put in place to prevent a U.S. president from doing exactly what Barack Obama just did.

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

A U.S. commander-in-chief can order use of military force under only three specific conditions:

a declaration of war,
specific statutory authorization, or
a national emergency created byan attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The U.S. Congress has not declared war against a foreign nation since WWII. But when George W. Bush sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq following the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. soil, not only did he consult Congress in advance, but he sought and received specific statutory authorization from Congress before ordering troops into combat. Bush complied with the Constitution and the War Powers Act under conditions (2) and (3). He also had a broad coalition of U.N. partners driven by years of U.N. resolutions defied by Iraq.

In the case of Obama and Libya, none of the three necessary conditions exist.

Congress did not declare war.
Congress was not consulted and did not give specific statutory authorization.
The U.S. was not attacked in any way by Libya, which presented no threat to the U.S. or U.S. assets.

As a result, Barack Obama had no constitutional authority to attack Libya with over $70 million worth of U.S. taxpayer-provided Tomahawks, placing American soldiers in harm’s way in yet another war which cannot be justified even by the pursuit of oil.

Obama has acted alone, well beyond the scope and authority of his office and at odds with the national interests of the United States and the Constitution which he took an oath to uphold and defend.

The Washington Times has it right. Even crook Democrat Charlie Rangel has it right, saying he was angry that Congress was not consulted before the military strikes.

Rangel said that he was undecided on whether the military action against Libya was justified but that he thought that lawmakers and their constituents should have had time to weigh in. "Our presidents seem to believe that all we have to do is go to the U.N. and we go to war," Rangel said.

Crazy leftist Dennis Kucinich is asking why the missile strikes are not an impeachable offense. As we go to press, he stands alone.

Although the U.N. apparently h

BP AND TONY HAYWARD ARE NOW A NIGERIAN SCAM

BP AND TONY HAYWARD ARE NOW A NIGERIAN SCAM
THE BP oil spill in the US Gulf is now a Nigerian scam:
From: Dudley Caruthers Esq (Barrister at Law)
Subject: BP Related Agreement Entitlement
E-mail:
Dear Friend
I am the private solicitor for Mr Tony Hayward, the esteemed Chairman and Chief executive of British Petroleum. My client has various personal and family related holdings of BP stock and options. Due to his faithful long standing service to BP the total value of his holdings amounts to in excess of 100m pounds sterling. Mr Heywood is a British citizen but it has been my sorrowful duty to advise him that his personal and family wealth is at great risk of being wrongfully confiscated by US authorities acting extra-territorially under special powers authorised by the US government and with the secret consent of a supine UK political and legal establishment.
Obama?
Mr Heywood is also at great risk of losing his personal liberty and becoming another victim of the long reach of the politicised USA legal system in the same way that was meted out to other British subjects including, most egregiously, the 3 bankers from Natwest. Unfortunately I am not able to advise or assist him in this regard as my expertise lies in the structuring of executive compensation schemes and the management of private endowments; but I am horrified at the witch hunt being perpetrated on my client by the Obama administration and its agencies and I will do all that I can to safeguard my client’s financial position. I am reaching out to you as it has become clear that Mr Hayward’s holdings must be liquidated and held in trust for the benefit of himself and his family beyond USA or UK legal jurisdiction. Exercise of his options and liquidation of his stock is now complete but it has proven necessary to assign title to the ensuing 100m pounds of cash to a person such as yourself who resides in a non recognised tax haven country and where there is a sound basis for UK and USA authorities to recognise the legal validity of local agreements. The taxation and legal recognition agreements between your jurisdiction of Australia and those of UK and USA present a unique opportunity to protect these assets whilst providing you with a benefit in accordance with your key role. I am a keen reader of your blog and greatly admire your economic and political acumen. I immediately recognised that, at this hour of great urgency and risk to my client, you are the man who is capable of securing protection of the Hayward estate. It is with this in mind that I wish you to consider the possibility that you and I (as Mr. Hayward’s agent) have previously entered into verbal agreements providing for you to become the beneficiary of all Mr Hayward’s BP stock and stock option benefits upon their occurring a significant “force majeure” event affecting my client and British Petroleum. It is my legal interpretation that such an event occurred with the sinking of Deepwater Horizon and that title to Mr Hayward’s rights and holdings transferred at that time. If you do recollect our agreement then it is now necessary to transfer the 80m pounds of cash proceeds to yourself which are after payment of a 20m pound advisory and arrangement fee for the services rendered by my firm. Transfer of the cash will only occur to you upon you executing the correct documents which are (i) the force majeure beneficiary transfer agreement (ii) a statutory declaration that the force majeure beneficiary transfer agreement was properly entered into as a verbal agreement in January 2002 and (iii) details of your Australian bank account including account name, password and account number and most critically an agreement between yourself and myself as trustee for Hayward related entities granting the trustee the right to claw back 50% (40m pounds) of the transfer at any time and requiring you to escrow the 40m pounds in a separate account. I sincerely trust that you will search your memory and recollect that we met in Sydney in 2002 and recollect the nature of our agreement. Please contact me at my firm’s Nigerian subsidiary’s offices at the address below such that we can act with the speed required of us.

statutory declaration form nsw

Clinical Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Expert Consult - Online and Print, 2e
Clinical Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2nd Edition, by Drs. Gregory G. Ginsberg, Michael L. Kochman, Ian D. Norton, and Christopher J. Gostout, helps you master the latest endoscopic techniques and achieve optimal outcomes. See how to perform key nuances with procedural videos at http://www.expertconsult.com in addition to 1,000 photographs, upgraded endoscopic images, and anatomical drawings both in print and online. Written by some of today’s most prestigious specialists and with many new and fully updated chapters, this resource equips you to diagnose and treat the full range of GI disorders with state-of-the-art coverage of bariatric surgery, therapeutic EUS, device-assisted enteroscopy, image-guided therapy, intramural endotherapy, and much more.
Get comprehensive details on a wide breadth of topics including anatomy, pathophysiology, and therapeutic management options in addition to the latest GI procedures and technologies.
Advance your knowledge on the rapidly evolving state of clinical gastrointestinal endoscopy with expert multimedia guidance from some of today’s most prestigious specialists.
Master new procedures with updates on the endoscopic management of bariatric surgery; EUS as a tool to direct endoscopic therapies; device-assisted enteroscopy for deep exploration of the small intestine; image-guided therapy to help detect cancer earlier; intramural endotherapy including the new POEM procedure; and much more.
Keep current with both new and emerging technologies including the management of upper gastrointestinal familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome and ampullary tumors; post-bariatric endoscopy and endoscopic therapy; endoluminal bariatric techniques, and intramural/transmural endoscopy.
See how to perform key procedures step by step with endoscopic videos at http://www.expertconsult.com, and access the complete text, online-only references, and all the illustrations.
View techniques more clearly with upgraded endoscopic images and step-by-step illustrations in most chapters.
The comprehensive and multimedia resource for staying up to date with the latest technology and techniques in GI endoscopy

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: