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.

Words That Control Us 2

We saw in the first article in this series that people can use words to control us.

This lesson looks at some of the various “words” that impact us and helps us assess which ones we should heed.

Words Control

If someone shouts a command at you and you obey that command then a significant social transaction has taken place.  You show yourself to be under their authority.

Now, someone might call out, “Watch Out!” to warn you of a danger.  Responding to that call does not put you under their authority.  But someone who demands that you do something as they prescribe, such as “Stop!” or “Come Here!” is bringing you under their control by their words.

I recall reading about a man who was driving in city traffic when a police officer called out to him, “Pull over here!” The man simply replied through his open window, “Is there some problem, officer?”

The officer called to him several more times but he did not obey, but simply repeated his question, “Is there some problem, officer?”

The officer soon tired of this and called to someone else, who did pull over.  The officer then commandeered the vehicle.

The man had honourably resisted the control exerted by the policeman.  The driver of the other vehicle did not resist and so came under the officer’s control.

Words Are All I Have

Back in 1968 the Bee Gees released a hit song with the line, “It’s Only Words and Words Are All I Have to Take Your Heart Away”.

And words can at times be all we have.  Yet words are very powerful, as the saying penned in Bulwer-Lytton’s 1839 play puts it, “The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword”.  But this idea traces back to the fourth century Greek poet Euripides who said, “The tongue is mightier than the blade”.

So, while words may seem very lame at times, they are also one of the most powerful tools, or weapons, available to man.  Consider how readily people use them in scoring points against each other, from the children’s playground to the halls of power.

Some Can Speak

I have pointed out in earlier essays on Jurisdiction that God has the ultimate right to speak.  As creator He is immediately and powerfully authorised to speak whatever He will over His creation.  And so the words of God, God’s laws, rule our lives like none other.

Not only can God speak over us, but He gets to identify others who have the right to speak.  God says that husbands speak as the head of the home and that children must obey their parents.  Those who God authenticates are thus able to speak with authority, in fact, with God’s authority, so long as they honour God in what they say.

The schoolyard bully, however, does not have authority.  But then, neither does the teacher!

The teacher does not have inherent, god-given authority.  Nowhere in God’s Word, the Bible, are we told to obey all teachers.  It is up to each student enrolling in the class to submit to the teacher.  If they choose not to do so they will probably be removed from the class.

So, some can speak with inherent, god-given authority (so long as they honour God in their use of that authority), and others have authority because we confer that upon them for the convenience of our circumstances.

Consider, for example, how a child is under the teacher’s authority in the class, but the teacher cannot then invade the family home and usurp the parents’ authority.  The parents have inherent god-given authority, while the teacher has limited authority conferred by the student’s willingness to submit, and limited to a specific place and set of circumstances.

The Toothpick Story

I saw a report of a chap who went to court and defied the court’s assertions of authority.  He had several questions to ask the court which deflected the court’s claim of jurisdiction.  However the chap came undone because of a toothpick. You can find the full account at

“One guy went up there was chewing a toothpick. He knew how to ask the three questions, and he was cruising through them and he got down to the end and then looked a little bit confused as to where to go from there. At that point the judge from the bench said “Take that toothpick out of your mouth”. And the guy reached up with his fingers, took the toothpick out of his mouth, and the judge immediately yelled at the bailiff, “sieze that man and throw him in jail for ten days for contempt”. When he followed the orders of the judge, the judge became the head and he became the tail. What he should have done was continue to chew the toothpick and say, “Do you have a claim against me?”

This toothpick story illustrates the point that when we submit to someone else’s words we acknowledge their authority over us.  If the one speaking has authority then we are being lawfully and duly submissive.  But if the one speaking does not have authority and is trying to exert authority, we are best to deflect the words and not submit to them, or we could be oppressed by their abuse of authority over us.

Responding to Words

A person who is the “head” and not the tail would respond to the attempted impositions from others in a particular way.  They would be free from the imposition.

One way to be free from attempted impositions is to ignore them.

Recall the account of Mary Slessor, the missionary in West Africa who sent a home-made cloth document to two warring factions, instructing them not to fight until she had arrived to explain the significant message contained on the document.  Mary was asserting her intervention.

The warring parties could well have rejected her imposition.  They could have thrown her cloth into the fire or sent it back to her.  It had no inherent power of itself.  The only reason it had influence over them was because they allowed it to have such influence.  And, of course, there was the moral conscience of the men and Mary’s prayers for them.

Similarly for Gladys Aylward, the wild-eyed murderer could easily have cut her to pieces.  Her presence awakened the conscience and brought God’s grace into an otherwise godless situation.

Your Responses

In the next lesson I will explore the options you have in responding to the imposition of words into your life.  You may be rejecting words that you should heed.  And you may also be responding to words that you should ignore.

Words That Control Us 1

Those who control us do so by “Words”.

This series of articles walks you through an understanding of the Words that Control Us and what we can do about it.

This first lesson looks at the fact that Words impact us.

A Shout

The Deputy Headmaster at my high school (St Marys High – not a Catholic Girls School as some thought) was Jack Curry and he loved to catch people off guard with his shouted cry “You Boy!”

Just about everybody in earshot would freeze when they heard that distinctive, commanding call.  We would all turn around to see if “Curry”, as he was called by the boys out of earshot, was calling to us or someone else.  It was always a relief to realise he had someone else in his sights.

Occasionally the senior boys would mimic the “You Boy!” call, first creating a shock, then a chuckle as people realised it wasn’t Mr Curry.

Jack Curry was promoted to Headmaster at a nearby school and we were spared his intimidating call.

Getting Your Attention

If someone calls loudly near us we usually turn around to see if someone is trying to get our attention.

Someone may be calling to us, or to someone else.  So unless we check the matter out we won’t know.

They may be warning us of an approaching car or similar danger.  They may want to get our attention so they can sell us something, as happens when westerners visit some tourist destinations and the sellers want to hawk their wares.  There may be some official wanting our attention, or someone who simply wants to say “Hi!”

When people call for our attention we tend to naturally look in their direction and then assess the situation from there.  We can stop and listen, or walk on and ignore them.  We can heed the warning and adjust our actions as we see fit.  Or we can be completely dominated by the demands of the other person.  It is up to us to decide how to react to someone wanting our attention.

Speaking With Authority

While most of the voices we hear around us are just those of other people with no authority over us, it is possible that the person speaking has some right to be demanding our attention.

We use the term Jurisdiction to describe the right to speak word (diction) that have authority (juris).  The Deputy Headmaster of a school has a lot of authority and speaks with Jurisdiction.  But one of the junior students can be ignored, because they are without authority.

Yet at times a junior student would turn up in a class with a message demanding that some student report to the office.  That demand did not come in the name of the junior student, who was without authority, but usually came in the name of the Headmaster.  If the junior student was ignored then the Headmaster who sent that student was also being ignored, and that was a serious matter.

Someone doesn’t have to possess personal authority to speak with authority, if they are speaking under the authority of someone else.

When I Say “Jump”

Speaking with someone else’s authority is clearly illustrated in the words of a Roman Centurion who history records meeting with Jesus of Nazareth, 2,000 years ago.

The Centurion described his authority as follows:

“For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goes; and to another, Come, and he comes; and to my servant, Do this, and he does it.” Matthew 8:9

The Centurion’s men did exactly what he told them to do, but only because the Centurion was “a man under authority”.  When the Centurion said “Jump” the men jumped.  But that is because when the Centurion’s bosses said “Jump”, HE jumped.

So some voices that call for our attention will be voices with delegated authority, giving them jurisdiction.

Imposing Our Words Onto Others

It is interesting to note that people tend to defer to those who are assertive.  If someone starts to assert their authority or speak in a compelling manner it is likely that a good percentage of people will at least pay attention.

Those of us who are trained in civility, to honour others, do as we are told, respect authority and so on, are highly likely to pay attention to someone who appears to have authority making assertions.

This is the process of imposing words onto others.  Most people do that, even in casual conversation.  Mostly it is an innocent negotiation for the attention and interest of others.

In official matters, however, it is a serious subject demanding our understanding.

Mary Slessor and Words

An amazing example of a person imposing their words on others comes from the legendary English missionary lady Mary Slessor who went to the remote tribes of Nigeria where no white man or woman had been before.

From 1888 she worked with the godless Okoyong tribe which delighted in bloodshed.  She often stood between war parties to stop them killing each other.

Her methodology was to call the leaders of the two fighting groups to account to her the reasons for their arguments.  She would set herself up in the shade of a tree with her knitting, and listen as each side put its case.  Her aim was to keep them talking until they had cooled off or it was too late in the day to do the fighting.  By this means she saved many lives, and did a great deal of knitting.

On one occasion she learned of a fight about to take place at some distance from her.  She cut out a piece of cloth and quickly made various ink markings on it.  She then rolled it up and closed it with a wax seal, giving it the appearance of something very important.  She sent it off by a man who ran to the scene of the fight and presented it to the leaders, saying that the white woman would be along soon to explain the meaning of the mysterious, and obviously important document.

When Mary arrived she unwrapped the cloth and made up her explanation of the random symbols, and thus averted the bloodshed that would otherwise have occurred.

Gladys Aylward and Words

Another feisty English lass who went to remote places was Gladys Aylward who ended up in the mountains of northern China.  On one occasion she was called to deal with a bloody riot in the local prison.  The local mayor and prison commander were terrified and so they demanded that she go into the jail and stop the riot.

She was pushed through a small door which was hastily locked behind her.  She then walked through a darkened tunnel to emerge into the courtyard where dismembered bodies lay about.  A huge man with a blood soaked meat cleaver stood nearby, his chest heaving.  Others were fleeing, crying in pain, or lying dead.

In what became her typical fashion, Gladys scolded the man for his bad behaviour and demanded that the man give her the cleaver, which he did.  Her unexpected appearance and forthright manner quelled the whole drama in a matter of moments.

Yet all Gladys had on her side, apart from her faith in God, was a forthright manner and a bunch of words.

Gladys later used the same demanding manner and calls to people to rally a village to deal with the aftermath of a deadly strike by Japanese war planes.

Imposing Words

In the examples of both these ladies we see the use of words which imposed something over the audience.

Asserting authority and using words enabled both of these godly women to bring about a positive change.  Yet what they were doing involved imposing their will onto others, by their resolute demeanour and their commanding words.

We too are impacted by those around us who use those techniques.  And those techniques are not always used for our good.

People in uniforms or with official positions, using their fancy words on fancy paper, or shouting their commands with an air of authority, can quickly herd people into the responses those people impose.  Yet, like the cloth sent by Mary Slessor, the documents and apparent significance can be completely fictional and of no real substance.

Under Control

You are already under the control of others who have used nothing more than assertion and words to impose their will onto you.

Some of those may have the right to speak.  They may have true “jurisdiction”.  But others may have assumed and asserted control that they do not have.

The purpose of this series is to explore the impact of other people’s words over you and the control they assert, so you can make your own decision about how you respond.

Speaking With Authority

I saw something sweetly tantalising in a familiar Bible text on Sunday. It has to do with Authority which is a bit of a thing with me over the past year or so, linked in to such things as Jurisdiction, personal sovereignty and such like.

What I saw is that authority is directly linked to speaking authoritatively, so that things happen as a result.

Now, guess where I found that in the Bible. It is in a passage that is often quoted in reference to authority – the comments by the Roman Centurion to explain why he was confident that Jesus could heal the centurion’s servant simply by speaking the word.


“And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, begging him, And saying, Lord, my servant lies at home paralysed, grievously tormented. And Jesus said to him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant will be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goes; and to another, Come, and he comes; and to my servant, Do this, and he does it. When Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to those that followed, Truly I tell you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” Matthew 8:5-10

Now, in case you missed the salient point let me remind you that this dialogue is about Authority. The centurion is absolutely confident that Jesus has the Authority to heal the sick servant. And that confidence about authority is directly linked in the Centurion’s mind to speaking.

The Centurion is saying, “I know how authority works. When you have authority all you have to do is give a command and it is obeyed. Jesus, I know you have authority so all you really have to do is give the command and the healing will be done.”

As you explore your own authority remember that it is directly linked to your words. When dad gives an instruction to his children or says “No” to their request there is great power in that expression of his authority. When a person who has authority speaks up in a meeting, to raise a question or press a point, the words have effect.

People who don’t have authority are ignored, shouted down, disregarded and silenced. If that is you, then you need to talk with God about what you have to do to recover your personal authority, or the authority of your place (as parent, husband, leader or whatever).

Another key from that passage about the Centurion is that a person has authority not inherently of themself, but because they are “under authority”. The Centurion said “I am a man under authority, and so I am able to tell others what to do.” If you have lost your authority it may be that you need to repent of having rejected the authorities which God has placed over you (your parents, husband, boss, leaders, etc).

I encourage you to discover the authority God has given you, reclaim and heal it if it has been damaged or lost in some way, and then Speak Up! Speak as one with authority, so you can release that authority into those you are responsible for.

The image of Jesus with the Centurion, above is “A Centurion’s Plea” from Clay Illustrations by Georgia Cawley