The following text is from a sworn Affidavit I signed today and sent to Tony Negus, Commissioner for the Australian Federal Police, along with a fresh claim for intervention from the AFP (I have made 2 such appeals in the past unsuccessfully).
I, Chris Field, hereby make oath and say that the following is my understanding and explains why I am a man aggrieved, suffering the abuse of my justice and right and denial of my God-given rights and freedoms, and why I believe the Australian public is being systematically abused by stealthy denial of Constitutional rights and the responsibilities provided under the Crown and why I stand against such abuse.
I was born with an amazing BIRTHRIGHT of freedoms and rights given to me by Almighty God and which no man can lawfully take away from me. That Birthright has been protected and acknowledged in English law for close to 1,000 years and is assured to me in Australia by it being submitted to the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Yet in Australia today that Birthright is being stolen from me and I am being denied the rights, justice and freedoms which are rightfully mine. Men and women in positions of power and influence have colluded to operate a covert subversion of the rights and freedoms of the Australian public and to deny those things given by Almighty God and guaranteed by the Crown. All such persons are operating in Treason, but to date no-one has stopped their nefarious activities.
Consequently I am a man aggrieved.
“A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something.” Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458 James LJ
As a man aggrieved I choose to stand up against the evil, despite how deeply entrenched it is. It is EVIL. It has no place in Australia. It has no place in my life or interfering with my affairs or impacting me or my family and friends. I reject the Treason, deception, slavery and evil that holds Australia in its grip, and by the grace of Almighty God I will see that evil destroyed and removed from my land.
Defining Australian Law
As will be confirmed below, Australian Law has its roots in the law of God as given to us in the Holy Bible. That Biblical law informed the lawmakers of England over the past 1,000 years and led to the development of the maxims of English common law, also known as the “law of the land”. Biblical law also informed the monarchs of England, leading them and others to develop decrees, statutes and charters given royal imprimatur and known commonly as Imperial Acts of the monarchs of England.
Biblical Law, common law and the Imperial Acts, accepted in a Christian nation, under a Christian monarchy, led to the development of the Westminster system of government, with its checks and balances, to protect against the inherent evil of the human heart.
That body of Christian law and government undergirds the Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Law finds its specific definition at Federation, when the Commonwealth of Australia was formed little more than a century ago. In the Australian Constitution the Australian public acknowledged Almighty God and submitted under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), Preamble Paragraph 1
“WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland; and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established”.
Australian Constitution Preamble. Operation of the constitution and laws.
5. This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.
At Federation the laws of the Commonwealth and States were the Laws of England. English law was based on the Holy Bible. Biblical law was codified into common law. Biblical law was further defined by Imperial Acts, charters and statutes over the past millennium. The Holy Bible, common law and Imperial Acts were incorporated as the foundation of Federal law. These elements are regarded as “higher law” to the Australian Constitution and any statutes enacted by Australian or state governments.
Australian Courts Act 1828 Section XXIV
Provided also, and be it further enacted, That all Laws and Statutes in force within the Realm of England at the Time of the passing of this Act, (not being inconsistent herewith, or with any Charter or Letters Patent, or Order in Council which may be issued in pursuance hereof) shall be applied in the Administration of Justice in the Courts of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land respectively
Justice Hargraves in 1874 in the case of ex parte Thackeray (1874 13 S.C.R. (N.S.W.) 1 at p.61) clarifies as follows: “We, the colonists of New South Wales, ‘bring out with us’ (to adopt the words of Blackstone) this first great common law maxim distinctly handed down by Coke and Blackstone and every other English Judge long before any of our colonies were in legal existence or even thought of, that ‘Christianity is part and parcel of our general laws’; and that all the revealed or divine law, so far as enacted by the Holy Scriptures to be of universal obligation, is part of our colonial law – as clearly explained by Blackstone Vol. 1 pp. 42,43; and Vol. 4 pp. 43-60.”
Justice Hargraves’ declaration that Christianity and the Holy Scriptures are part of English law stands judicially unchallenged to this day and states the factual basis of Australian law.
Thus the universally applicable Biblical law given in Leviticus 24 is an example of the higher law that undergirds Australian law.
Leviticus 24:17-22, Holy Bible King James Version
“And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.”
Maxims of Common law of the land, including the requirement of an injured party (only injury can invoke Leviticus 24) and penalty must match the injury (eye for eye, tooth for tooth), prohibiting exploitation by litigation, were derived from such scriptures as these.
The place of common law in Australian law is attested to by the Supreme Court in King v Kidman 20 CLR 425 (1915).
“The common law of England was brought to Australia by the first settlers, and remains, as the heritage of all who dwell upon the soil of this continent, in full force and operation, except so far as it has in any portion of the land been modified by a competent Legislature. For State purposes and jurisdiction State laws may provide differently. But they cannot restrict the operation of the Constitution, and whatever it implies is the law of Australia, as much as if it were expressly so written.”
“There is no power that can be pointed to in the Constitution enabling the Parliament to enact the common law as such, or to modify the common law as such.”
Since (as above) no “Parliament” can enact or modify the Common Law as the foundation of Australian law, the only “competent Legislature” is the body politic of the Australian people making such change by Referendum, which change the Australian people have not made.
Australian Law, then, is Common Law, and the imperatives of common law cannot be overturned or replaced by statute, either from a State or Federal Parliament. Creation of statutory provisions which empower sanction against a man or woman outside the lawful requirements of common law is an offence to Australian Law, since it violates the very foundation of that law.
Biblical law, interpreted into common law maxims, informed the Imperial Acts of the monarchs of England. This can be seen in Magna Carta Clause 14 which reflects the earlier quoted passage from Leviticus 24 restricting judicial action to bringing appropriate justice on behalf of an injured party.
Magna Carta 1297 Statute Clause 14
A Freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault, but after the manner of the fault; and for a great fault after the greatness thereof
The judicial power of the Commonwealth relies upon Royal Prerogative to give jurisdiction to all courts, as defined in Chapter III Constitution. Royal Prerogative brings to all Federal and State courts the notional presence of the monarch, including the coronation oath, maxims of common law and Imperial Acts.
Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Ed) Volume 8 Constitutional law, The Royal Prerogative
(5) THE CROWN IN RELATION TO THE LAW
The Crown as the Source of all Jurisdiction
Sovereign as the source of all justice. By virtue of the prerogative the Sovereign is the source and fountain of justice and all jurisdiction derives from her. Hence in legal contemplation, the Sovereign’s Majesty is deemed always to be present in court, and by the terms of the coronation oath, and by the maxims of the common law as also by the ancient charters and statutes confirming the liberties of the subject, the Sovereign is bound to cause law and justice in mercy to be administered in all judgments. This is however a purely impersonal conception, for the Sovereign cannot personally execute any office relating to the administration of justice nor effect an arrest and though all criminal suits must be brought in the Sovereigns name, she could not be non suited either in criminal or civil proceedings.
Principal among the founding elements of English Law are multiple Imperial Act promises made to subjects of the Crown which promises guarantee and preserve the “liberties of the subjects” and summarised in the Magna Carta promise “we will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right”. That foundational promise, which I have labelled the Crown’s Promise, guarantees members of the Australian public the provision of justice and their rights without ‘pay, stay or delay’.
The Imperial Acts of the Monarchs of England repeatedly and specifically promise and guarantee justice and right. This provision is repeated over centuries, quoting from Edward I (Magna Carta)  25 c. XXIX
“No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.”
See this reaffirmed in Charles I (Petition of Right)  3 c. I and Habeas Corpus Charles I  16 c. X
Further to this foundational promise note that Imperial Act 36 Edward III of 1363, Chapter 9 promises that justice will be provided because matters brought to the court will be heard.
“If any man feeleth himself grieved contrary to any of the Articles above written, or others contained in divers Statutes, will come into the Chancery, or any for him, and thereof make his Complaint, he shall presently there have Remedy by Force of the said Articles or Statutes, without elsewhere pursuing to have Remedy.”
By these foundational “higher law” elements of Commonwealth Law, being Scripture, common law, Royal Prerogative and the Imperial Acts, “justice and right” are the crowning objectives of all courts within Australia. The guarantees of justice, right and liberties provided through the Crown are the Crown’s Promise.
At Federation the Australian public placed their rights and freedoms into Trust with the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Thus Australians are the Settlors and Beneficiaries of a Trust, with the Crown as Trustee. Thus any damage to any of the God-given rights and freedoms placed in Trust constitutes breach of Trust by the Crown. The Australian public must be given by the Crown the full expression of their rights and freedoms as existed at 1 January 1901, or breach of trust has been exercised against them. This is their right under the Crown’s Trust.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), Preamble
“WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland; and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established”
The Commonwealth of Australia being constituted “under the Crown” all expressions of the Commonwealth, including all Federal, State and Territory governments, judiciary and public service, are agents of the Crown and must both deliver the Crown’s Promise and maintain the Crown’s Trust. Thus every expression of the Commonwealth of Australia, including all officials, members of parliament, courts, government agencies, law enforcement, administrative or other expressions of the Commonwealth, including the Australian Federal Police, are bound to provide to the Australian public both the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust. Failure to do so is breach of trust.
All corporations created under Australian law, Federal, State or Territory, are also bound to protect and deliver the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust.
The Australian public must be given by all expressions of the Commonwealth of Australia, including the several States and Territories thereof, on behalf of the Crown, the full expression of their rights and freedoms as existed at 1 January 1901, or breach of trust has been exercised against them. This is their right under the Crown’s Trust.
Failure to deliver the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust by any expression of the Commonwealth of Australia, or any entity constituted there-under, constitutes Treason against the Crown and violence against those members of the Australian public so affected.
Duty of the Court and Solicitors
The only lawful courts within Australia are those courts which match the prescription given in the Australian Constitution Chapter III The Judicature.
Every lawful court in Australia and all officers of the Court, including judges and solicitors, are bound by the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust and must ensure that full justice is provided to the Australian public, and that none of their rights as flesh and blood men and women benefiting from the Crown’s Trust and the Crown’s Promise is in any way abused or compromised.
This means that solicitors must hold the courts accountable to their responsibility to deliver the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust. Failure to do so is Treason against the Crown.
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
“As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients…He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say ‘All he honourably can’ because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.”
Wakim, HCA27 \99 Gaudron J
“The function of the judiciary, including the function of this Court, is to give effect to the intention of the makers of the Constitution as evinced by the terms in which they expressed that intention.
“A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the burden of endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by their own advocacy.” Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court)
Altering the Constitution
The only way the foregoing realities can be altered is by referendum as specified in Section 128 of the Australian Constitution, which referendum has never been enacted to make such changes. Thus the realities identified above remain in place and provide the higher law foundation of all Australian Federal, State and Territory law.
Australian Constitution Chapter VIII ALTERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
Mode of altering the Constitution. (Paragraph altered by No. 84, 1977, s. 2.)
128. This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:-
The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.
The Australian Constitution protects rights, freedoms and justice for the Australian public.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) Mr. CLARK
“for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.”
HANSARD 18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) Mr. ISAACS
“The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,”
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia)
“Because, as has been said before, it is necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion”
The purpose of the Court is to uphold the Australian Constitution.
Wakim, HCA27 \99 Gaudron J
“However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernize the Constitution to give effect to what Judges think is in the best public interest. The function of the judiciary, including the function of this Court, is to give effect to the intention of the makers of the Constitution as evinced by the terms in which they expressed that intention. That necessarily means that decisions, taken almost a century ago by people long dead, bind the people of Australia today even in cases where most people agree that those decisions are out of touch with the present needs of Australian society.”
“The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers”
Constitution Act 1975 (Vic)
In the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic), s 2 it states (1) existing laws remain in full force unless they are changed – and it is ONLY lawful to “change” statute law from Imperial or common law with written law that conforms with the higher law. (2) all courts and all offices continue, etc.. Then the Act, in s 3 (1), provides that, “subject to the Imperial Acts Application Act 1922 all laws in force within the realm of England in 1828 .. shall be applied in the administration of justice in the courts of Victoria …” The State Parliament does NOT have plenary power to do anything it likes, and, the courts are responsible to maintain higher laws!
Therefore, at law, the Constitution Act 1900 respected State (then colony) constitutions existing with all law in Imperial Acts in tact, and that, according to clause 5 the intention of the Framers of the Constitution is seen in that Imperial and common law was to (still) take precedence over the statute law of the (new) States, and also in the exercise of administration of justice in the courts of the States. To act in any other manner would be “unconstitutional”, and it would be an offence, or crime, against the people.
This foundational truth is consistent with declarations about Australian Law explained above, that Australian Law is based on common law, which in turn is based on the Holy Bible. No Australian Parliament or authority has the power to modify common law, and no Australian Law can diminish the lawful requirements of common law.
Australian courts are the fountainhead of the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust to the Australian public. Within each Australian court, including those convened under State or Territory legislation (for the law of Australia is indivisible – King v Kidman) the Crown personally presides to guarantee the full lawful provision of “justice and right” and that no legislation, skulduggery, abuse of process, excess of jurisdiction, failure to apply jurisdiction, misapplication of law, or any such disabling of the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust is exercised against Australians.
Treason Against the Crown
Yet, in Australia, at Federal, State and Territory levels, the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust are abused and violated. State and Federal laws have been enacted which effectively alter the Australian Constitution in defiance of Section 128 of that Constitution. As a consequence Australian Courts trample upon the promise of justice or right, ignore the maxims of common law, and make judgments which are offensive to Royal Prerogative and beyond the constraints placed upon the Crown. Often these breaches are provided with the Crown identifier or the letters O.H.M.S. attached.
All such breaches of the foundational elements of Australian law are unlawful, ultra vires and treasonous.
It appears that undisclosed agreements have been put in place to operate Australian courts and Parliaments on some other basis than the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust. Justice has been voided. Jurisdiction has been lost. Illicit forces have usurped the authority of the Crown and imposed corporate regulations in place of our higher law. “Justice and Right” have been displaced and slavery to corporate control has been inserted.
These actions provide prima facie evidence of Treason and of gross perverting of the course of justice against members of the Australian public.
Treason against the Crown and violation of Crown’s Promise, the Crown’s Trust and the Australian Constitution are enacted by the judiciary and by the legal profession, both of whom have a duty to the justice and the law and are bound by the Crown.
The Australian Constitution requires an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!
Preserving the Constitution
Act Interpretation Act 1901
15A Construction of Acts to be subject to Constitution
Every Act shall be read and construed subject to the Constitution, and so as not to exceed the legislative power of the Commonwealth, to the intent that where any enactment thereof would, but for this section, have been construed as being in excess of that power, it shall nevertheless be a valid enactment to the extent to which it is not in excess of that power.
Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278
“The oath of a justice of this court is ‘to do right to all manner of people according to law’. Our sworn duty is to the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all. If, then, we find the law to be plainly in conflict with what we or any of our predecessors erroneously thought it to be, we have, as I conceive no right to choose between giving effect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, It is not, in my opinion, better that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should be ultimately right.”
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi  HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, “he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour”. That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
Imposition of secret law or of a substitute law which masquerades under the guise of Commonwealth Law while attempting to void the judicial power of the Commonwealth as prescribed in Chapter III Constitution, is tyranny.
WATSON v LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374 BARWICK C.J.
To bind the citizen by a law, the terms of which he has no means of knowing, would be a mark of tyranny.
Denying Justice and Right by Form and Dismissal
One process by which Australians are denied justice and right is elevation of justice systems, court rules, procedures, precedent and the like, over the provision of justice. Instead of being given the justice assured by the Crown’s Promise, Australians are offered a justice system. That system has become the exclusive preserve of a parasitic legal profession which exploits the judiciary for personal profit at the cost of the rights, freedoms and justice of members of the Australian public. An effective cartel controls the courts, denying justice and right.
Elevation of court rules, process, procedure and precedent displaces the “substance” of justice with mere “form”. Ordinary Australians are abused, exploited, violated and denied justice and right on no more than matters of process, rules and the like. This is breach of the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust and constitutes Treason against Her Majesty.
Another process which denies justice and right to the Australian public is rejection by the courts of applications for matters to be dealt with. Often based on rules and provisions which embody accusations against the applicant that their claims do not fit approved requirements or have little or no prospect of success, or are unworthy due to alleged vexatious intent, these rejections are a breach of the Crown’s Promise given in the Imperial Act 36 Edward III of 1363, Chapter 9. That Imperial Act promises that cases brought to the court will be heard.
“If any man feeleth himself grieved contrary to any of the Articles above written, or others contained in divers Statutes, will come into the Chancery, or any for him, and thereof make his Complaint, he shall presently there have Remedy by Force of the said Articles or Statutes, without elsewhere pursuing to have Remedy.” 36 Edward III of 1363, Ch 9
Such denial of applications for justice also constitutes breach of the Crown’s Promise specifically that justice will not be deferred.
Magna Carta 1297 Statute Clause 29
“We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”
Note the recent finding of the High Court regarding dismissing applications summarily.
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia  HCA 28 (1 September 2010)
The exercise of powers to summarily terminate proceedings must always be attended with caution. That is so whether such disposition is sought on the basis that the pleadings fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action or on the basis that the action is frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process. The same applies where such a disposition is sought in a summary judgment application supported by evidence. As to the latter, this Court in Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd said: “The power to order summary or final judgment is one that should be exercised with great care and should never be exercised unless it is clear that there is no real question to be tried“.
Destruction of the Commonwealth
It is not commonly understood by members of the Australian public that the State of Western Australia and the State of Victoria have attacked the Commonwealth of Australia by enacting changes to their laws which remove the Crown from aspects of those states.
The Western Australia “Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003” included in its many provisions the removal of the Crown from a number of acts, replacing the Crown with the state. Note the following excerpts from that Act.
Children’s Court of Western Australia Act 1988 amended
Section 19B(4)(b) is amended by deleting “Crown” and inserting instead —
“ State ”.
Schedule 1 is amended by deleting “our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors” in the 2 places where it occurs and in each place inserting instead —
“ the State of Western Australia ”.
The Criminal Code amended
Section 584(14) is amended by deleting “Her Majesty” and inserting instead —
“ the State ”.
Section 633 is amended by deleting “Crown” and inserting instead —
“ State or the Commonwealth, as the case may be, ”.
District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 amended
The Schedule is amended by deleting “our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second Her Heirs and Successors” in the 2 places where it occurs and in each place inserting instead —
“ the State of Western Australia ”.
Family Court Act 1997 amended
Schedule 1 item 1 is amended by deleting “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors” in each place where it occurs and in each place inserting instead —
“ the State of Western Australia ”.
Supreme Court Act 1935 amended
The Second Schedule is amended by deleting “our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and successors” and inserting instead —
“ the State of Western Australia ”.
This usurpation of the Crown by the State of Western Australia is treasonous. The State is a subject of the Crown and draws its existence from the Crown. To assert itself as a worthy replacement of the Crown from which it draws its existence is Treason.
Persons involved in making those treasonous changes to Western Australian statutes have been charged with Treason.
Further, the revocation of the Crown by Western Australia fractures the Australian Commonwealth, since it is an “indissoluble union” under the Crown. By Western Australia invoking its own authority in competition to the Crown it effectively withdraws from the Commonwealth. Its senators and members of the house of representatives are invalid and cannot sit in Canberra as part of the Australian Commonwealth.
Similar removal of the Crown is evident in Victoria by means of the Courts and Tribunals Legislation (Further Amendment) Act 2000.
Courts and Tribunals Legislation (Further Amendment) Act 2000
PART 2–LEGAL PRACTICE ACT 1996
3. Oath of allegiance no longer required
In section 6(1) of the Legal Practice Act 1996, for paragraph (c) substitute–
“(c) takes an oath of office, or makes an affirmation of office, in the form required by the Court.”.
By this amendment to the Legal Practice Act 1996, Rob Hulls, Victorian Attorney General, denigrated the Crown.
Charges of Treason have been laid against Western Australia and Victoria officials, including Rob Hulls, related to the legislative changes described herein.
The Right to Reject Unlawful Statutes
Those actions, enactments, purported laws and other treasonous elements that have emerged within Australia are void of authority and have no power to make demands, impose penalties, deny rights, alter the Constitution, or otherwise impact the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust with the Australian public.
All such developments in Australia are to be ignored and also to be resisted.
LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335
“But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary man”
Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
“Common expressions such as: ‘The Courts have declared a statute invalid’,” says Chief Justice Latham, “sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it – and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab initio.”
Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471
“Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.”
Habeas corpus  16 Charles I c. X
“that none be put out of his franchise or freehold, unless he be duly brought to answer, and forejudged of the same by the course of the law, and if any thing be done against the same, it shall be redressed and holden for none….
That no man of what estate or condition forever he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, without being brought in to answer by due process of law…
That no man be put to answer, without presentment before justices, or matter of record, or by due process and writ original, according to the old law of the land, and if any thing be done to the contrary, it shall be void in law and holden for error…”
Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 278
“In my opinion, where the prior decision is manifestly wrong, then, irrespective of the consequences, it is the paramount and sworn duty of this court to declare the law truly….”
The Responsibility to Confront Treason
Attacks upon the Crown, the Australian Constitution and the Australian public, as indicated herein, are not only to be treated as void at law and invalid, but must be resisted as Treason against Her Majesty and trespass upon the rights and freedoms of Australians. Failure to expose and deal with Treason is the crime of Misprision of Treason, which makes one as guilty as those perpetrating Treason. Thus I have no intention of hiding these issues.
While the endemic nature of corruption in Australia is significant and may seem insurmountable, the only course Australians can take in order to preserve their rights and freedoms is to oppose Treason and attacks upon their freedoms, including the actions of leaders, politicians, the judiciary and all others who are in Treason against the Crown.
I, for one, have chosen to reject the endemic evil and deception.
I declare that I stand under Almighty God as His son, twice born. I am a son of God by birth as a descendent of God’s work at Creation. I am also born again as a son of God through faith in Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour and Lord.
I declare that I stand under the graces of the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and claim in full all the virtues and benefits of the Crown’s Promise and all commitments made to me by the Crown for my liberties, and I claim all the virtues and benefits of the Crown’s Trust, established at Federation on behalf of the Australian public.
I declare that I will not tolerate Treason. I declare that no evil will be accepted in Australia. I declare that all expressions of the Commonwealth of Australia are bound under the Constitution to fulfil the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust and to deliver to me, and all fellow Australians, all of our God-given rights, freedoms and inheritance. I declare that any other secret arrangement is invalid, unlawful, void and Treasonous.
I hereby demand and command all Australian Federal, State and Territory officials, departments, processes and citizens to honour my Birthright, my God-given freedoms and the benefits of the Crown, including the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust.
In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Son of the Living God, Saviour and Lord, I rebuke all Treason, all deception, all fraud, all evil, all contempt for God and the rights and freedoms of Australians, all perverting of the course of justice, all rebellion against God, all witchcraft, idolatry, perversion, hatred, violence, anger, destruction, fear, slavery, and all else that is offensive to Almighty God.
In that lovely and powerful name of Jesus I command the Commonwealth of Australia and all its States and Territories to return to faith in Jesus Christ, fear of Almighty God, honour of the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and all that expresses God’s holiness and grace.
In that wonderful name of Jesus Christ I call upon Almighty God to bring His judgment upon all who stand for anything other than what I have testified to herein. I invoke God’s sovereign and supernatural intervention to overturn secret deals, destroy Treason, expose and destroy secret collusions, uproot evil, remove from office those who oppose Him, invoke the fear of God in the hearts of the Australian public, destroy the evil spiritual rulers holding Aussies in blindness and slavery to sin and shame and to transform this Commonwealth into a vibrant expression of the vital Kingdom of God.
I call upon Almighty God to bless this nation and its people, leading them to love God and love each other and to live in holiness and the fear of God.
Sworn at Preston this Eighteenth day of October in the Year of Our Lord 2010