Rule of Law

All laws are equal, but some laws are more equal than others. (apologies to Orwell)

Or to put it in the vernacular of an Aussie oil commercial, “Laws ain’t laws!”

The law landscape is becoming muddier in recent decades, so this article is an attempt to clear the mud and distil a simple grid of reference that allows ordinary people to understand the law as far as it impacts them.

Some Foundational Principles

Law is that body of obligations to which everyone is bound, from the king to the chambermaid. The term ‘rule of law’ refers to the fact that everyone is bound by the law. No-one can escape their obligation to obey the laws.

But straight away we have a problem. Some laws are universal, such as laws against murder and theft. Everyone is bound by those laws and responsible not to break them.

However, there are in-house laws for employees or club members. Those laws are not universal and cannot be forced upon people who are not employees or members of the club.

For the purpose of this article we shall look only at those laws which apply to us all.

Foundation of Law

Everything must have a foundation, otherwise it will not stand. Things built on a firm foundation stand longer and stronger than things built on sand.

The original foundation for English law, which is the law that the Western world inherited and has built upon, is the Holy Bible and the law of Christ given two thousand years ago. That law involves such things as mercy, forgiveness, innocence until proven guilty and the guilty mind (mens rea) among other things.

An underlying principle of historic English law is that certain rights are given to humanity by our creator God. Those principles must be protected and upheld, in honour of God who gave them.

We see this principle of the rights of the people defined and protected in such historic documents as Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.

Consider the promise by the Kings and Queens of England that “we will deny to no may, nor delay to them their justice and their rights”.

Law For the People

Considering the promise to deliver justice and right we can see that it is law FOR the people. It is a promise to protect the people and their God-given rights and freedoms.

However, there is a competing concept of law.

Another concept of law is that when people form a society that society becomes the force to which they must submit and also becomes the provider of their rights and freedoms.

This state centric concept discounts the inherent rights and freedoms of the people, in pursuit of what is best for the society, or the ‘greater good’. If one person has their rights wrongfully stripped from them that is not of great concern if it serves some greater purpose of the society.

And here we have the principal tension in today’s laws. We have laws for the people, and we have laws for the corporate entities.

Antichrist and All That
Historically the Christian church has understood that the world is heading for a one world government under the dictatorship of a character known as the Antichrist. This revealed in the last book of the Bible, Revelation, where the aged Apostle John saw visions of this apocalyptic future.

If the predictions are to come to pass then the whole world will end up in slavery to a global dictator. For that to happen law must evolve from law for the people to law for the corporation. Laws that protect people’s rights must be replaced by laws that take those rights away, ostensibly for the greater good.

The Antichrist mindset was in existence in the days of the early church, two thousand years ago. So it is no surprise that such a mindset is active in our world today.

And so we have people today who are seriously and passionately committed to laws that serve corporate agendas and that deny people their God-given rights and freedoms.

And thus we have conflict of laws in much of the world today, where laws that protect people are being overturned or restricted by laws that empower corporations and governments to take our freedoms from us.

Overturning Rule of Law

Since the true foundation of law is that we have inherent God-given rights and freedoms, those who wish to overturn those rights and freedoms must cheat the system at some point or other.

If we know what to look for we will see the evidence of laws that violate foundational principles and overturn historic principles and protections.

I will show you later how the Infringements Act 2006 (Vic) and similar laws in other states of Australia and beyond violate some pretty foundational principles. Those violations are not hidden, but that has not stopped our politicians and lawmakers from creating these suspect laws, nor has it stopped the courts and governments from enforcing them.

But first we need a little more foundational understanding.

Making Law

Laws have to be made by someone. We call the people who make the law ‘lawmakers’ or ‘legislators’.

When society needs to find a way to use the roads safely a law is needed about which side of the road vehicles should travel on. Legislators are meant to consider the options and debate the possibilities until they have come up with the most effective law to govern use of the roads.

When it is discovered that people are smuggling unwanted goods into the land the lawmakers must work out the best laws to stop that action and punish those who break the law.

In Australia we have certain protections in the making of laws. Elected representatives must consider and debate proposed laws. Once they have voted in favour of a set of laws, usually embodied in an Act of Parliament, that Act must pass on to our Upper House, or Senate, where the law is reviewed.

If the laws are not accepted in their original form they will be sent back to the House of Representatives where they will either be disbanded or reworked and resubmitted for approval.

Only once laws have been approved by both houses of parliament can the law be made a law. But even then it must be signed off by the Queen’s representative, and it should also be reviewed by the courts to make sure it is not in conflict with existing laws.

So it is not an easy matter to get a new law made and have it imposed on the population. And that’s a good thing that laws must be rigorously debated and filtered before they are allowed to be enacted.

Enforcing Laws

Good society involves three branches of government: the legislative (law making); administrative (general operation of society); and judicial (law enforcement).

The Australian Constitution was set up on the principle of ‘separation of powers’. That principle is that the three branches of government are to be kept separate.

If they are not separated then people’s rights can be violated.

Take for example the December 2012 decision by Melton Council in Victoria that it did not like people interrupting the council meeting. The Councillors met and made up a new law that anyone who failed to leave the chamber when directed by the Mayor would be subject to an immediate on-the-sot fine of $500.

In that case there was no separation of powers. Firstly the law was made capriciously by the self-interested group of councillors. There was no ‘check and balance’ process to make sure the law was a good one and did not violate such foundational principles as the right of free speech. The Councillors significantly escalated the penalty to frighten people into submission. Then those who made the law were able to enforce it themselves.

This is a blatant violation of the Australian Constitution and the principle of ‘separation of powers’. It shows how easy it is for a corporation or government agency to become a belligerent dictator if the principles of law are not maintained.

It is also a good reason why Australians should not elevate local councils into our Constitution, as they are not subject to the rigorous law making limitations imposed by the Constitution.

Judicial Process

Through the centuries the courts have become evil in various ways. Thankfully a set of principles has been distilled over time to define correct judicial process.

A person making a claim must have a just cause. They must have the sworn testimony of an injured party, not hearsay, groundless claims. The accused must be allowed to face his accuser and to challenge the claims made.

A judge must provide a fair trial; including ensuring that one party is not overpowered by the legal representatives he is up against. Those who represent themselves must be given special protection from their own ignorance and inexperience.

If there is contention in a matter then the court cannot give summary judgment. Each matter must be heard. The jurisdiction of the court must be established and may be challenged at any time during a proceeding. A judge who has vested interest in a case or who is biased must stand down.

If the principles of judicial process are not upheld then the whole case can be thrown out.

Foundational Reference Point

Because societies tend to drift over time, shifting their values without even realising it, the safest societies are those that have an external reference point and a firm foundation.

In Australian Law we have the Australian Constitution by which all other laws must be evaluated. If any law offends the Constitution then that law is of no effect.

Further to this the Holy Bible is regarded as the foundation of Australian law, both by our historic lawmakers, but also by our Queen swearing allegiance to the Bible in her Coronation.

These foundations have not been removed, despite public sentiment having drifted somewhat over the past century.

So we can measure the modern laws that might be attacking our God-given rights and freedoms by referring to the Australian Constitution and to the Holy Bible.

Making Laws that Ain’t Laws

State lawmakers have tried to overturn our law, taking away our rights and freedoms and moving away from our foundations, by making laws that are not laws.

Acts of Parliament are increasingly being made without regard to the foundational law in Australia. It is as if those driving this process are flagrantly challenging our Constitutional protections and making people fight for the very rights and freedoms that have been guaranteed to them.

When Parliaments create an Act they declare that they have made a new ‘law’. They then backup that law with police enforcement, courts making judgements based on that ‘law’, sheriffs taking possession of people’s goods and so on.

By this evil use of the instruments of society laws are being forced upon people even though those laws are not lawful when measured against the Australian Constitution.

It is imposition of new laws, taking our freedoms, by force and intimidation.

Infringements Act 2006 (Vic)

Let me use the Victorian Infringements Act of 2006 as an example of modern law that overturns the principles of law, Australian Constitution and the rights and freedoms of the people.

The Australian Constitution upholds ‘separation of powers’ and rigorous lawmaking process. That means that those who make the laws must do so with checks and balances and they cannot enforce their own laws.

The Infringements Act licences certain private corporations with the power to make laws without any checks and balances. And it empowers them to make a law one day and send out their own employees to enforce the law the very next day.

The new laws don’t have to be signed off on behalf of the Queen. They don’t have to be scrutinised by the courts. The Corporations, such as local councils made up of ordinary men and women, are given power to do what highly trained, legal minds cannot do. This is an amazing allocation of power, and it completely violates the separation of powers.

No Judicial Process

What is more each company that is allowed to issue infringements, based on by-laws they make up themselves, is permitted to employ people who are given incredible judicial power.

The company man, be he or she a parking attendant, council by-laws officer, train ticket inspector, or whatever, is given the role of finding an offender, accusing the offender, determining that the offender is guilty without even hearing from the alleged offender or hearing the case, determining the penalty and then creating a legal document that immediately makes the accused a guilty party obligated to pay the fine.

That makes them accuser, judge, jury and executioner!

This collection of actions contains several violations of judicial process. The Australian Constitution not only requires the separation of powers but requires that correct judicial process be followed.

Judges are required to guarantee fairness and must prove jurisdiction. There must be just cause, based on the sworn testimony of an injured party.

Infringements are issued in abundance every day without evidence of an injured party, without sworn testimony from anyone, without fairness, without hearing, and without conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Laws Ain’t Laws

Despite the failings of the Infringements Act the courts are keen to uphold infringements once they have been issued. The accused is considered guilty as charged.

Yet, as I have shown, the Infringements Act is offensive to the Australian Constitution. It is not valid law. It is a state statute designed to overturn and overthrow the rights of the public and the protections built into the Constitution.

So the law landscape is muddy. It is muddied by laws that are not valid laws, yet which are upheld vigorously by the courts, the police, the sheriffs and the legal system.

Those who try to challenge the Infringements system have an uphill battle on their hands.

This can only be because there are people who want to defeat our God-given rights and freedoms and to make us subject to laws made by companies. That way we can be stripped of our rights and made slaves to all manner of entities who have been given special rights to enslave us.

It isn’t a pretty picture, but it is a picture we can understand and maybe change.

We actually do have God-given rights and freedoms. Those who are attacking our rights must do so by violating the foundations of our law. Surely there are those who can and will do something to bring redress to this evil ?????

What about you ?

Cracks in Australia

Following my article “Cracks in the Public World” I point now to several cracks in the public world that we know of as Australia.

Recognising and challenging these cracks is important for those who are being attacked by wrongful use of authority or by the unlawful intrusion of the public world into the private lives of people.

I write these thoughts to assist the many Aussies who have contacted me regarding abuse they are suffering at the hands of the courts and corporations in Australia, often in connection with bank lending.

By What Authority

Anyone claiming the right to exercise authority over you must be able to certify their authority.  So a basic question for anyone doing anything is “By what authority are you acting?”

Authority issues are usually much more complex than we might initially think.  But they are vital nonetheless.  Just because someone “claims” to have does not mean they truly have that authority.  A suit and badge do not assure authority.  A title does not prove authority.

And authority can be conferred by one person to another, when they do not have the right to transfer that authority.  So sorting out the issues of authority, or jurisdiction, is important.

In courts, the moment jurisdiction is challenged it must be clarified and certified.  While this fact is not always followed (as I found when I challenged jurisdiction before Associate Justice Nemeer Mukhtar in the Supreme Court of Victoria in 2010 and he denied my challenge), it is a matter of law that jurisdiction, or the authority employed by those asserting to have it, must be validated.

Original Authority in Australia

White Australians trace their claim over Australia back to Captain Arthur Phillip, who raised the British flag at Sydney Cove in Sydney Harbour back in 1788, claiming Australia for England.

However that original claim is subject to some doubt.

A limitation on making that claim was that land could only be claimed if no previous claim existed.  The principle of Terra Nullis applies.  Yet England was advised that the natives around Sydney did have a system of recognising land ownership or rights.  So Australia did not truly qualify as terra nullis.

Then we have the problem which Mark McMurtrie points out about the Crown being refused permission to claim any lands in the Pacific, which is where Australia is located.

Is the original claim on behalf of England a lawful claim?  There are serious questions about that.  That suggests some serious cracks in the public world of Australia.

Australian Constitution

The Australian public voted to create a Commonwealth of Australia governed by an Australian Constitution.  So the basic legal authority for Australia as a Commonwealth is the Australian Constitution.

All officials and processes in Australia are bound by the Constitution.  Yet today most of the government and judicial processes in Australia are in contradiction to that Constitution.  This is a gaping crack in the public world of Australia.

Whitlam and the 1973 Styles Act

In 1973 Prime Minister Gough Whitlam foisted on Australians the Royal Styles & Titles Act 1973 (Cth) which cleverly undermined the Australian Constitution by unlawfully replacing the lawful elements of our existence as a Commonwealth with a set of token elements that have no lawful basis.

The Australian public created a Commonwealth of Australia, under the Crown of the United Kingdom, governed by a Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, with a head of state being the Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Those entities cannot be changed without the majority of Aussies in all states agreeing to make changes.  Yet Mr Whitlam unlawfully replaced those things with Australia, the Queen of Australia, the Parliament of Australia and the Governor General of Australia.

While those new names sound fine, they have no lawful authority.  And by that switcheroo (substituting an unlawful non-entity for the real Commonwealth of Australia) a de-facto, illegal corporate reality has stolen Australia from us Aussies.

For more on this check out my summary at Your Stolen Wealth Exposed,

The abduction of our Constitution and the imposition of unlawful corporations is a gaping crack in the public world of Australia.

Australia Act

In 1986 Prime Minister Bob Hawke presided over another shock wave through the public world of Australia, known as the Australia Act.

The Australia Act seems to be little understood but its significance is dramatic.  Simply stated, the Australia Act 1986 dissolves the States and brings all government under the central Federal government.

While the full implications have never been tested in court, and most politicians are unwilling to go anywhere near explaining the true implications of this act, it is quite reasonable to argue that everything in Australia which springs from any State or Territory government is null and void.

That means the corporations registered in any state and the orders of any state court, as well as the state officials and registration of all lawyers are without lawful authority.

Thus the Australia Act has created some gaping cracks in the public world of Australia.

Powerless Local Councils

A further problem is that supposed authority has been given to parts of the Australian government system without lawful right.  So our local councils now act as if they have the right to tax people, through rate charges, and to regulate people’s activity, when the Australian Constitution and the Australian public have denied those rights to councils.

So here we have an example of authority exceeded.  And the same is true for police giving you an on the spot fine.  That is unlawful.  And the traffic courts in Australia provide fines in abuse of the correct judicial processes defined in the Constitution.

These various processes are ultra-vires (outside of true authority) and they are gaping cracks in the public world of Australia.

Complicit Treason

When you and I try to challenge some of these aberrations and cracks in the public world we come up against courts and politicians intent on maintaining these unlawful processes.  Thus we have treason going on.  And various parties are agreeing to work together to maintain and protect the things that are wrong.

Note that the negative impact of the 1973 Royal Styles & Titles Act has never been corrected, by politicians of any persuasion.  Courts act as if all is perfectly fine.  Our current Governor General and Prime Minister were not sworn in by the lawful oaths, and so they are not even holding true office.  Yet no one with power do anything about it seems to care.

And note that the implications of the Australia Act 1986 have not been properly investigated or the Australian public asked to pass new laws to clarify how we want our nation to operate.

Instead it is as if those in power, the “powers that be”, want us to give them freedom to do as they please, no matter how far it is from lawful authority.

What to Do

In view of what is going on in Australia, allow me to repeat what I advised at the end of the previous post on this topic, “Cracks in the Public World”.

Don’t allow any public official or public process to operate outside authority.  Don’t allow any public office or public process to abuse due process.

In a democratic society, the public world is accountable to the people.  So it is up to the people to keep an eye on their public servants and keep them in line with the limits of their authority and the lawful processes they are to follow.

Find the Cracks

Your best defence against abusive public officials or intrusive public process is to challenge the cracks in the public world.  It is easy for the public world to get out of step with its authority and the due process of its system.

All such failure of the public system invalidates its actions and the officials who are out of authority or abusive of due process.

It is an absolute must that you keep the public world to its own limits.  Otherwise the system will abuse you.

Cracks in the Public World

You are a private individual.  That’s how God made you.  We are all private individuals.

But social structures can’t be “private”, since they are designed to represent and serve many different private individuals.  So society is “public”.

You then live your private life and you likely interact with the public society around you as well.

Private Business

If you loan me $10, that is a private arrangement.  The deal is between you and me, privately.

Your family is private.  Your marriage is private.  And your group of friends is private too.  You can enjoy a whole bunch of group activities, with many other private individuals, without being in the “public world”.

All of those interactions are your private business.  You don’t have to report on it or give account for it.  Your family, friends and private arrangements are your own business.

The Public World

When people group together to create a social entity, such as a government, legal system or business enterprise, that entity is “public”, as part of the “public world”.

So our public world includes our governments, courts, police, corporations, social structures and all things that have to be regulated or reported in the public world.

A driver’s licence and car registration are part of the “public” world.  So too is citizenship, a birth certificate, property title, company incorporation document, death certificate, tax return and public notice.

If it needs to be registered or recorded somewhere in the public system it is part of the public world.

Invasion by the Public

Once bureaucratic systems are set up they tend to self perpetuate and to spread their influence beyond the original boundaries.  This tendency to control and regulate things means the public world tends to invade the private world.

By invading the private world the public world can impose controls over private processes and private individuals that it should not have.

For example, marriage was given to mankind back at the beginning of human history.  It is not something created by societies, but something private individuals have entered into for millennia.

Today, however, we are all expected to register our marriage.  In some countries you even need to have a permit to marry.  The “public” world of government regulation has invaded the private world of marriage relationships and imposed controls over that private process.

At the end of the 1800’s most births, deaths and marriages were recorded by local churches.  Anyone who has searched their family history in England or America knows that they have to go back to church records to get the information they seek.  Yet in the early 1900’s governments took over collection and collation of that information.  Births, deaths and marriages were brought into the “public” world and now the public world exercises increasing control over private individuals.

Remaining Private

Without going more deeply into the distinction, suffice it to say that a growing number of people recognise the dangers of being controlled by the public world and are intent on remaining as private individuals.  They want to enjoy their private existence without interference and control by institutions.

Remaining “private” is becoming increasingly more difficult as the centralised public systems seem more intent on extending control over our private lives.

To help those who want to tackle the public world and challenge its legitimacy I point out that that the modern public world does not recognise or respect your privacy.  So demanding your privacy may not be the best way to remain private.

A better way may be to challenge the gaping cracks that beset the public world.

Creating a Public World

A public world needs several elements to operate successfully.  It must have sufficient authority to be established and maintained, such as a conquering king imposing his authority over the people.

The public world must also have order and process.  There will be delegated authorities who have to perform certain tasks and report to their superiors.  There will be rules and processes that maintain the order of the public world.  Courts need consistent laws.  Records need consistent form.  Delegated authorities need verification of the scope and limits of their jurisdiction.

The Commonwealth of Australia, for example, takes its authority from the will of the people, who voted to adopt a specific set of governing rules, called the Australian Constitution.  The people declared, through their constitution what they would rely on, who they operate under and what processes will manage the public world of the Commonwealth.

Australians chose to acknowledge their reliance on Almighty God for blessing and their reliance on the Crown of the United Kingdom for a legal and political heritage.

However, even with the care taken to create the Australian Constitution, many of the public processes taking place in Australia today are out of order.  There are gaping cracks in the public world.

Authority Needed

The ultimate authority for any society is Almighty God, who created all, who sustains life and who will judge the living and the dead at the end of the world.  All other authorities are subordinate to the authority of Almighty God.

Humans, however, have a lust for power.  Those with delegated authority or with the power to grab control that they are not authorised to have, often compromise the authority under which they act.  Many of the cracks in the public world result from failure to establish correct authority to hold office or to impose restrictions on the private world.

Clarifying the authority relied upon by a public official or for a public process often exposes the cracks in the public world.

Due Process

Authority must work through authorised processes and those processes must be correctly followed according to policy.  However, the weaknesses in human nature mean that people often abuse due process or seek to shortcut the system in some way.  Such actions create cracks in the public world.

Often various related parties conspire to circumvent due process, so they can get more power, more money, or some other gain.  Lawyers and courts may agree to abandon lawful constraints, in order to expedite the outcome they both seek.

Whenever due process is abused, and it often is, the public world develops serious cracks.

Hold the Public World to Account

If your rights and freedoms are being invaded or abused by the public world call the public world to account for its actions.

Don’t allow any public official or public process to operate outside authority.  Don’t allow any public office or public process to abuse due process.

In a democratic society, the public world is accountable to the people.  So it is up to the people to keep an eye on their public servants and keep them in line with the limits of their authority and the lawful processes they are to follow.

Find the Cracks

Your best defence against abusive public officials or intrusive public process is to challenge the cracks in the public world.  You will probably find that the public world is on pretty shaky ground.  It is easy for the public world to get out of step with its authority and the due process of its system.

All such failure of the public system invalidates its actions and the officials who are out of authority or abusive of due process.

This is not a cheap way of cheating the system.  It is an absolute must that you keep the public world to its own limits.  Otherwise it is the system that is cheating.  And the system will be abusing you.

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
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)
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.

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.

Mode of altering the Constitution.
(Paragraph altered by No. 84, 1977, s. 2.)
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.
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
(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 on 16 April 2011

The Vital Role of Sheriff

As a long-standing agent and servant of the monarch, the Sheriff is a vital protector of the rights and freedoms of men and women in the land.

With an English heritage dating from 992AD, and as the second oldest public position in English law, exceeded only to that of the king and queen, the office of sheriff provides a vital protection for today’s Australians, by bringing into the present various ancient protections and guarantees specifically linked to that role.

The office of sheriff answers directly to the monarch, as an appointee of the king, for the administration of law and order and as a “conservator of the king’s peace”.

While most elements of society change character over time, as responsibilities and social needs change, there are some anchor points in history that fix certain conditions of society and the roles of certain players in society, as a safeguard for future generations.  By virtue of its antiquity and high ranking responsibilities, the office of sheriff confers the most powerful protections and guarantees upon members of the Australian public.

Two significant moments in history give security to Australians through the services of the office of sheriff.  Two history enactments, Magna Carta 1215 and the Australia Constitution Act 1900, have profound implications for justice and rights conferred upon today’s Australians.

Magna Carta 1215/1297

While many rightly look to Magna Carta as the “Great Charter of Liberties” for men and women of the land, it is not widely recognised that the office of sheriff is significantly addressed in that guarantee of justice and liberty.

Magna Carta protected men and women of the land by limiting the Crown (the monarch) so that he or she would never sell, deny or delay justice or right.

“We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.”

This Crown Promise became the foundation stone of modern expectations of personal liberty and of justice.

Nine references to the office of sheriff in Magna Carta limit the sheriff, along with other servants of the Crown, from doing anything that will deny or delay justice or right.  Thus the most significant foundation for modern rights to justice and liberty is not only guaranteed by the Crown, but is to be delivered and protected through the office of sheriff.  Thus the office of sheriff is bound by ancient orders of its royal master to uphold and protect the rights of men and women of the land.

Spelling It Out

Let me summarise this important point so you don’t miss it.

The office of sheriff answers directly to the monarch, as an appointee of the king, for the administration of law and order and as a “conservator of the king’s peace”.

The monarch and all his or her appointees, including the sheriff, are bound by the Crown’s Promise in Magna Carta never to sell, deny or delay justice or right.

So, as a direct appointee of the Crown, bound to uphold and protect justice and right for you, there is no other official in Australia more responsible to guarantee your ancient liberties and protections.

As modern governments, courts and officials increasingly seek to deny justice and right to Australians the office of sheriff carries a vital role of protection for members of the Australian public.

Australian Constitution

The Australian Constitution stands as a time capsule for all Australians, defining a moment in history when all the guarantees and protections promised by the Crown through its generations, including Magna Carta, were sealed for all members of the Australian public.

The Preamble to the Australian Constitution identifies the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as the source of authority for the new Australian entity formed by the Constitution.

Through that Constitution the rights and freedoms of Australians were placed in Trust with the Crown, and all the promises and protections of the Crown were conferred upon the men and women of Australia in their new political status.

Note the British Parliamentary Hansard record regarding the Australia Constitution Act 1900.

“This Constitution is to be an Imperial act and it is, in substance, the delegation of powers to an authority which is created by the Imperial Parliament.”

The Australian Constitution is an “authority” which received on January 1, 1901 “the delegation of powers” under the Crown.

Thus that moment in history defines the scope and extent of the Crown’s guarantees and protections conferred upon Australians.

Any change to the Crown’s guarantees and protections since January 1, 1901 is thus breach of trust on the part of any and all officials who support such a change. If an Australian Federal or State government, official, police force, law, court or whatever sells, denies or delays justice or your rights to you they are in “breach of trust” with you.

Magna Carta Guaranteed

On January 1, 1901 the Crown Promises in Magna Carta, that “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right” were guaranteed to all Australians, through their Australian Constitution.

The role of the sheriff as an agent directly under the Crown, specifically referred to in Magna Carta, specifically restricted by the Crown’s guarantee of justice and rights, cannot be diminished from its January 1, 1901 standing without breach of trust by any who would make such changes.

The modern day sheriff is bound by the Crown’s Trust of January 1, 1901. The modern day sheriff is bound by its ancient history to uphold and protect the Crown’s Promises, including those given in Magna Carta.

The modern day sheriff is not a servant of the courts, a state office, or any other limiting description. The modern day sheriff is bound by the definitions of a sheriff applicable on January 1 1901.

Sheriff Role Defined

In terms of its functions today the sheriffs appears to be no more than a court police force, invading the homes of people found guilty by the courts in order to obtain payment of penalties imposed.

Evictions of home owners in foreclosure are undertaken by sheriffs.

The modern day sheriff has to be a tough character, ready to confront the anger of persons having their property taken from them to satisfy some court order or other.

Yet, this picture of a sheriff is deceptive and devoid of the historical authority of the role.

Remember that the sheriff is the second oldest public position in English history. The sheriff is directly accountable to the Crown. The sheriff is responsible to maintain the King’s justice, the administration of law, and the King’s peace.

And there, specifically, is the key to the importance of the sheriff.

Defender of the Crown Promise

Sheriffs are not answerable to the courts to perform as bully or hit-man to enforce court orders. Sheriffs are accountable to the Crown, directly, to uphold and protect the Crown’s Promise of justice and right.

It does not matter what role the current monarch of England holds in Australian political life. The role of sheriff in Australia is bound as of January 1 1901 by the Crown’s Promises and the Crown’s Trust with the Australian public.

Only an official referendum decision made by the majority of the people in every state of Australia can change that. No state government or change in the character of the general population can change the sheriff’s role and responsibilities.

Sheriffs and Courts

While a court may claim to be an expression of the Crown’s authority and issue an order, warrant or writ in the name of the King or Queen, the sheriff is bound directly by Magna Carta to perform the Crown Promise that “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right”.  The sheriff is specifically named in Magna Carta, enjoined specifically to the royal “We” of the Crown’s Promise.

If a sheriff supports a judicial order which sells, denies or delays justice or right to any man or woman, then the sheriff is acting in breach of allegiance to the Crown, even if the judicial order is given in the name of the Crown.  The sheriff is also engaged in breach of trust with the Australian public, by failing to deliver the Crown’s promises as they existed on January 1, 1901.

In their correct position, the office of sheriff stands as a buffer and protection for the Australian public from any excesses, abuses, treasons, breaches of trust or other injuries perpetrated in the name of the Crown, by courts or officials.

The People’s Police Force

It is reasonable to argue that sheriffs, by virtue of their specific requirement to answer to the Crown in upholding the Crown’s Promise of justice and right to the Australian public, are a police force for the people.

Any action that attacks justice for Australian men and women must be opposed by the sheriffs, as their duty to maintain the King’s justice, the administration of law, and the King’s peace.

By holding joint responsibility, for the Crown’s justice, law and peace, and also to exercise outputs of Australian courts, sheriffs are in the unique place to protect members of the Australian public from any aberrations of the court.

True Courts

Courts in Australia exist under the provisions of Chapter III of the Australian Constitution. Australian courts operate under “royal prerogative” binding them to uphold Magna Carta and all the Crown’s promises.  We know, however, that courts throughout English history have erred from their responsibility to uphold and protect justice and right.

When any court in Australia similarly errs in its judgment, producing an output that denies a member of the Australian public their promised justice and right, sheriffs are uniquely placed to refuse to enforce those court orders, warrants, writs and the like.

It is the responsibility of the sheriff to uphold its responsibility to the Crown, including the Crown’s Promises and the Crown’s Trust with Australians, rather than the outputs of the court.

If a court order or warrant has been produced without proper judicial process or in any way that attacks the law, or the rights and justice of individuals, then the sheriff is duty bound to disregard the products of the court.

Corporatisation of the Sheriff

In today’s world most government functions are compromised by being converted into corporations.  Government statutes also seek to redefine the roles of various public officials.

It is therefore important to recognise the significance of January 1 1901 as a defining moment in Australia, sealing the place of the Crown in Australian civil society and the rights of Australians placed in trust with the Crown at that time.

Any government statute or corporatisation of public offices must not change the role of the Crown or impinge upon the rights and freedoms of Australians as they existed on January 1 1901.

The justice and right promised to members of the Australian public by the Crown, protected for them by the function of the office of sheriff in civil society, cannot be modified by governments changing or limiting the role of the sheriff.

Note that sheriffs are appointed by the Crown and answer directly to Crown authority.  Governments and courts in Australia do not hold as high an office under the Crown as sheriffs do.

Thus sheriffs are compelled by the provisions of Magna Carta and the defining moment of the Australian Constitution to serve the Crown by upholding the Crown Promise in Magna Carta and the Crown’s Trust with the Australian public established on January 1, 1901.

Place of the Crown

As an appointee of the Crown, sheriffs have a broader civil responsibility to protect the Crown’s place in civil society.

In Australia the entire civil society is “under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”.  All parliaments, courts and public offices are “under the Crown”.  Thus they are each under the Crown’s Promise that “We” will not sell, deny or defer justice or right.

In Australia the entire civil society is under the oath of allegiance.  This has double significance.  The Australian Constitution requires that public officials make oath to the monarch.  But further than this, the very monarch is under oath through the Coronation.

The Coronation oath, summarised in the terms “under God so help me God” binds the monarch to uphold the ancient law of God given in the Holy Bible, and to rely upon the grace of God to enable them to do so.  Thus Australia is completely under the Crown, and thus under Almighty God as named in the Australian Constitution and the monarch’s Coronation Oath.

If the place of the Crown in Australia is compromised, rejected, denied or otherwise damaged, it is the responsibility of the sheriff, above all others, to defend and uphold the Crown in the land.

The only mechanism that can alter the Australian Constitution whatsoever, and therefore modify the place of the Crown in Australian society, is a referendum majority in all states, as prescribed in the Australian Constitution.

The Crown Rejected

Several states of Australia have already expressed breach of allegiance toward the Crown.  They commonly do so by removing the oath of allegiance prescribed by the Australian Constitution and the role of the Governor General.

Western Australia and Victoria have removed reference to the Crown and the prescribed oath of allegiance from various state laws.  New South Wales has significantly changed the role of the Governor General.

These and other actions by various state governments constitute “breach of allegiance” to the Crown. Breach of allegiance is the crime of Treason.

These actions also constitute abuse of the Australian public, by officials presuming to change the Australian Constitution without gaining the authority of the Australian public to do so.

While political leaders and the courts turn a blind eye to these processes, and in Victoria the former Attorney General, Robert Hulls, removed the legal mechanism to prosecute Treason in that state, it falls to the office of sheriff in each state to take action to defend the Crown and those who are beneficiaries of the Crown’s Promise.

Personal Notes

I have now been personally evicted from my home by sheriffs in Victoria.

The warrant issued by the Supreme Court of Victoria was issued without the matter ever being heard before the court. Summary Judgment was given in a process that denied me my lawful claims. No jury trial was given. Common law was trampled.

I have personally challenged the sheriffs and called them to account for their oath of office. Yet the Victorian sheriffs have shown themselves to be corporate employees, doing what the courts demand, rather than fulfilling their true responsibility under the Crown.

On both occasions of eviction sheriffs trampled on my land and through my home in trespass, acting as if they have a supreme right to do as they please, despite the deficiencies of the judicial process and my protests of injustice.

Thus it is interesting to note that sheriffs are not permitted to trespass and that the chief sheriff is accountable when sheriffs officers make trespass.

“When the sheriff’s underlings commit tortious acts in the course of their employment, the sheriff is responsible, e.g., trespassing in a man’s house.”

Outlines of Constitutional Law – Dalzell Chalmers and Cyril Asquith – 1922  p199/200

Note that the crime of trespass was identified against the sheriff in 1922, significantly later than January 1 1901.  The sheriff has no lawful right to trespass on my land or in my home, yet they have done so on two occasions.

It is imperative that the rule of law and the lawful duties of the sheriff be reclaimed, before even more abuse of Australians takes place by those who are bound to protect and uphold justice and right, not to destroy or trample those things.

Discussion Paper

I write these notes to illuminate this vital matter and I encourage you to make your own investigation and to send copies of this document to all those in office, especially sheriffs officers.

Australia belongs to the people, not to the politicians, those in uniforms or corporate entities.  Only we the people can truly direct this great land into its future.  Do not abandon your privilege, or others will steal justice and right from you and enslave you and your children.