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

My Claim on Australian Law

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

Royal Prerogative

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.

Crown’s Promise

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) [1297] 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) [1627] 3 c. I and Habeas Corpus Charles I [1640] 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.

Crown’s Trust

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.

Protecting Australians

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.
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!

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 [1999] 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 [2010] 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 [1640] 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