Foundational Issues for Australian Law

These notes were prepared in 2010 as part of a presentation to the Federal Court, clarifying some foundational issues of Australian law.

The Australian Constitution is not an obscure document only interpretable by lawyers after much study. On the contrary, it was deliberately written to be a document that the common man could easily understand and interpret.

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.

Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SYMON (South Australia)
This Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is commed to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be appreciated by the people.

Consistent with the intent of the framers of the Australian Constitution is the finding by Barwick C.J. in Watson v Lee 1979.

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.

Many of the following points of application of the Australian Constitution are self-evident, applying the simple facts as they present themselves, in the spirit in which the Australian Constitution was created.

The framers of the Australian Constitution regarded their work as providing members of the Australian public with a document commensurate with the Magna Carta in its significance.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Last sitting day of the Constitution Convention Debates; (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
Mr. DEAKIN. –
After that comes encouragement in the reflection upon the giant stride towards prosperity, power, and prestige which this union will enable us to accomplish. What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill – of political liberty and religious liberty – the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good Government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia). –
I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not int to enter into any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution which we have been engaged in framing. But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this momentous occasion. We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.

The Federal Court of Australia exists as a product of the Australian Constitution, as prescribed in the Constitution Chapter III The Judicature.

The Australian Constitution exists as a product of the sovereign free will of members of the Australian public who chose, as electors, to ratify that Constitution over 100 years ago.

The Australian Constitution provides that men and women of Australia maintain authority over that Constitution, holding sovereign power to am or disband the Constitution through the power of their vote, as specified in Section 128 of the Constitution.

The Australian Constitution and all that springs from it, including the Parliaments and Judicature, exist to serve the Australian public.

The Australian Constitution defers to the Monarch of England and requires every senator and member of the house of representatives within Australia to swear or affirm allegiance to the incumbent King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as prescribed in the Australian Constitution S42 and the Schedule.

SCHEDULE.
OATH.
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!

According to the Preamble of the Australian Constitution it is clear that members of the Australian public agreed that they humbly rely on Almighty God and that the Australian Constitution established Trust with the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

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”.

Thus the Australian public placed its rights and freedoms into Trust with the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, “under” the said Crown. This the Applicant refers to as the “Crown’s Trust”.

Those who bear the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland are bound by oaths and enactments of their forbears, to uphold the Imperial Acts of the monarchs of England.

A principal commitment which binds Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, as incumbent bearer of the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, is the oath to provide and protect “justice and right” as promised over seven hundred (700) years ago in Magna Carta and reiterated multiple times subsequently.

Magna Carta expresses the Crown’s Promise that “we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right” Edward I (Magna Carta) [1297] 25 c. XXIX, which Crown Promise is reaffirmed in Charles I (Petition of Right) [1627] 3 c. I and Habeas Corpus Charles I [1640] 16 c. X.

The Magna Carta Crown Promise, “we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right”, not only binds Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, but all those who have sworn an oath or affirmation of allegiance to her.

The term “we” in the Crown’s Promise binds the bearer of the Crown and all officials and processes which spring from or are contingent upon the person or authority of the monarch bearing the Crown.

Therefore every expression of the Australian Commonwealth that springs from the Australian Constitution, including each of the three branches of Government, being the legislature, executive and judiciary, is bound by the Crown’s Trust with the Australian public, and the Crown’s Promise to not withhold or delay either justice to, or the rights of, the Australian public.

Men and women who are “electors” as defined in the Australian Constitution S128 hold authority over the Australian Constitution and thus the Australian nation, including the Parliaments and Judiciary.

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.
And
When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

Thus the Australian Constitution, while it exercises itself over the Australian public, is also subject to the Australian public. Flesh and blood men and women hold power over the Constitution, and thus they hold power over everything within the Commonwealth of Australia that springs from that Constitution.

Corporations are not men, and Australian corporations are mere legal fictions created by statutory law in Australia. Corporations are mere pieces of paper, do not have a soul and do not have flesh and blood existence or authority, such as is possessed by men and women of the land.

While the Crown’s Trust and the Crown’s Promise are with flesh and blood individuals, the Crown’s Trust and the Crown’s Promise are not provided to corporations.

Flesh and blood men and women employ Limited Liability Companies to limit their liability in business transactions. However, by doing so they interpose a statutory entity between themselves and others. That statutory entity is a legal fiction amounting to nothing more than a piece of paper. By employing such a device flesh and blood men and women limit their liability, but in consequence they also limit their access to the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust.

The device of operating behind a legal fiction provides protection for men and women, but at a price of their “justice and right”. A corporation is not entitled to the same guarantees accorded to freemen in the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust.

Therefore men and women have superior standing before the Law in Australia, as beneficiaries of the Crown’s Trust and the Crown’s Promise, when compared with corporations.

The Sovereign is the “source of all justice”, thus the Crown, affording Australians the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust, provides that Promise and the benefits of that Trust by maintaining justice in the realm.

Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Ed) Volume 8 Constitutional law, The Royal Prerogative
(5) THE CROWN IN RELATION TO THE LAW
(i.) The Crown as the Source of all Jurisdiction
943    “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.”

There is no justice in Australian courts outside of the Sovereign. Absent the authority of the Crown in the court there is no jurisdiction in the court. Absent the Crown in the court there is no justice in the court. Yet the Sovereign’s Majesty cannot be “present in court” when that court violates the “terms of the coronation oath”, “maxims of the common law”, “the ancient charters and statutes confirming the liberties of the subject”, or “law and justice in mercy”.

Thus any court that provides for disseising a man of his freehold land contrary to the provision of the “ancient charters and statutes confirming the liberties of the subject”, including Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus, cannot have jurisdiction, because it cannot have the Sovereign present to violate the inviolate commitments of the Crown.

The authority of the Crown, as sealed upon the Australian Commonwealth by the Australian Constitution, is, according to item 5 of the Preamble, “binding on the courts, judges, and people” and thus the constraints and obligations under the Crown, as asserted in the Australian Constitution, are binding upon the Federal Court of Australia, and all other courts within the states of the Commonwealth.

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.

Whatever proceeds from the processes within this Court in this proceeding, the Court itself and all officers of the Court, and in particular those who have sworn oath or affirmation to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, are bound by the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust and must ensure that full justice is provided to the Applicant, and that none of his rights are in any way abused or compromised, as a flesh and blood man benefiting from the Crown’s Trust and the Crown’s Promise.

The authority of the Crown stands supreme over the Australian Constitution and all that springs from it. The Crown’s Promise and authority are applied beyond the limits of the nation of Australia, and once held sway in so vast a geography that the sun never set upon its beneficiaries.

An oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II thus has higher claim upon those who make it than any role, office or responsibility conferred upon them within Australia.

Any person who has sworn an oath or affirmation to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and who then acts in a manner to deny or delay the provision of justice or right to a member of the Australian public is acting treasonously and in contempt of the Crown, and has voided their oath of office.

Any person who has sworn an oath or affirmation to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and also made commitment, openly or in secret, to any other person, association, society, or any other thing such that their capacity to fulfil commitment to the Crown is diminished, must immediately relinquish or be stood down from any office or place of responsibility or privilege conferred upon them by virtue of their commitment to the monarch, or otherwise revoke the offensive commitment to another entity.

A Queen’s Counsel and others who function within the legal system in Australia who have sworn allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II are thus bound to deliver justice and right to men and women in Australia, putting members of the Australian public in a place of privilege over corporate entities, which are mere pieces of paper and legal fiction.

If such a member of the legal system prosecutes a case in any manner that denies or delays justice or right to flesh and blood members of the Australian public, particularly if that action is in favour of a mere corporation created under Australian statutes, then the said member of the legal system is immediately disqualified from the office of responsibility accorded to him or her by virtue of any oath or affirmation they have sworn to Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II and must stand down or be debarred immediately.

Defining ‘Justice and Right’

Definition of terms can be vexing, especially in litigation, and it is therefore expedient to clarify the reference to “justice” and “right” in regard to the Crown’s Promise.

The simplest and clearest definition of those terms must spring from the context in which they were early expressed, and so the Applicant refers to the Magna Carta from which the Crown’s Promise is drawn.

Magna Carta 1297 Statute Clause 29
“No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties or free customs, 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.”

Therefore “justice” and “right” must include the Crown’s Promise that no man will be “disseised of his freehold” “but by lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land”.

The “law of the land” specified in the Crown’s Promise is the ancient common law of England, not maritime law, or statutory law as it may have been enacted in Australia since Federation.

Protection of land holding, as referred to in Magna Carta as “disseised of his freehold”, is a repeated issue in Imperial Acts of the monarchs of Great Britain.

[1354] 28 Edward III c. III
“Item, that no man of what estate or condition that he be, shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer by due process of the law.”

[1627] 3 Charles I (Petition of Right) c. I
“And where also by the statute called, The great charter of the liberties of England, it is declared and enacted, That no freeman may be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold or liberties or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.
And in the eight and twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third it was declared and enacted by authority of parliament, That no man of what estate or condition that he be, should be put out of his land or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disherited, nor put to death without being brought to answer by due process of law.”

When Australians are denied trial by jury or when their lands are taken from them without the prescribed due process embedded in common law and the Imperial Acts, an injustice has been committed.

2011 Update: You may note that many of the matters presented above are regularly ignored by Australian courts.  The problem is a destruction of the Rule of Law in Australia, where the Crown, Constitution and common law (three ‘c’s) are replaced by Corporations.

I have written about this in an article titled Rule of Law, posted at chrisfieldblog.com on 16 April 2011

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *