Basis of Australian Law

Australian Law is the unifying law that has priority over all State laws.  The following discussion shows how that law is defined and shows how it is to be applied.

Note that Australia is a “Commonwealth” of states.  We wrongly think of Australia as a “Nation”, but the Australian Constitution created us a Commonwealth, also known as a Federation of States.  The best parallel in today’s global context is to think of the European Union.  Each of the individual countries is still a separate nation, but they are linked together in a commonwealth.  Similarly the former British colonies were all members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

The ancient promises by Kings and Queens of England over the past thousand years can be described as the Crown’s Promise to protect the rights, liberties and justice of the people.  When I refer to the Crown Promise that is what I am referring to.

At Federation Australians placed their god-given rights and freedoms into the hands of the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, effectively creating a Trust, by which the Crown is bound to protect and uphold all of those rights and freedoms.  When I refer to the Crown’s Trust that is what I am referring to.

Delivery of the Crown’s Promise and the Crown’s Trust is provided for, at least to some degree, by Australian Law, which law is referred to as the “law of Australia” in the legal case King v Kidman 20 CLR 425 (1915), wherein it is clarified that the judicial power of the Commonwealth is one and indivisible and cannot be divided into separate streams by any legislation enacted by any State or Federal Parliament.

King v Kidman 20 CLR 425 (1915)

QUOTE

“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.”

END QUOTE (emphasis added)

And

QUOTE

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.”

END QUOTE (emphasis added)

The significance of this is that no State law can restrict Commonwealth law, as the King v Kidman finding states, “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.”

Therefore the “law of Australia”, as defined by the High Court in King v Kidman, is defined by the Australian Constitution, not by State legislation and that State laws “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”, and thus it is the Constitution which prescribes what the law of Australia is, including that which is only implied by the Constitution, and thus the law of Australia cannot be changed by state legislation.

All State legislation is subject to the “law of Australia”, found in the Australian Constitution.  That is why all laws in Australia can and should be tested against the Australian Constitution.

There is a belief by some that common law simply means the on-going cumulative collection of judicial decisions in cases as recent as today or yesterday.  This is not the true meaning of Common Law, as we see in the King v Kidman quote.  The Common Law cannot be changed by Parliaments.  New laws being passed by the State or Federal Governments cannot change the Common Law upon which Australia stands.

Common law is a body of historic English law, not an ever changing, ever evolving perception of law based on the increasing body of legal decisions.

The “law of Australia” has as its foundation the indissoluble English Common Law, as attested in King v Kidman cited above. This is consistent with the testimony of the Australian Courts Act 1828, stating that English Law is the law enforced in the courts.

Australian Courts Act 1828 Section XXIV
QUOTE
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
END QUOTE (emphasis added)

Thus old Common Law of England is the foundation of Australian law and common law cannot be modified by any Parliament, because the only “competent Legislature” (see King v Kidman) 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.

Or, put more simply, Australian Law is the old English Common Law, and nothing Australian Governments enact as “laws” can be allowed to damage or diminish that common law.  All State laws that limit or deny your common law rights are illegal, attacking the very basis of Australian Law.

The indissoluble Common Law, an indispensable foundation of the “law of Australia” which prevails over all state legislation, is based upon the Holy Bible, as attested in judgement by Mr Justice Hargraves in 1874 in the case of ex parte Thackeray (1874 13 S.C.R. (N.S.W.) 1 at p.61) quoted below.

Ex parte Thackeray (1874 13 S.C.R. (N.S.W.)

QUOTE

“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.”

END QUOTE (emphasis added)

Justice Hargraves’ declaration has not been overturned and stands as a definitive description of the place of the Holy Bible in Australian law.

Common Law and the Holy Bible from which common law springs require that legal action be just, on the basis of an injured party receiving the measured justice, appropriate to the injury.

Lawful limits prescribed in the Holy Bible are based on the concept of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Leviticus 24:20), requiring the existence of an injured party and the prescription of a just penalty fitting the injury sustained.

Leviticus 24:17-22, Holy Bible King James Version

QUOTE

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.

END QUOTE (emphasis added)

The common law requirement of an injured party stands upon the provisions of the Holy Bible, and stands supreme in “the law of Australia” and “cannot be modified by any Parliament”, as stated in King v Kidman.

Common law requirement of an injured party with a lawful claim against another is codified from the Bible into Imperial Acts in Magna Carta 1297, where it is prescribed that only the damage sustained can be claimed and that claim must be tested by a body of peers of the man accused.

Magna Carta 1297 Statute Clause 14
QUOTE
[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, saving to him his contenement; and a Merchant likewise, saving to him his Merchandise; and any other’s villain than ours shall be likewise amerced, saving his wainage, if he falls into our mercy. And none of the said amerciaments shall be assessed, but by the oath of honest and lawful men of the vicinage. Earls and Barons shall not be amerced but by their Peers, and after the manner of the offence.
END QUOTE (emphasis added)

Note that Australian Law has been seriously undermined by many state laws (statutes) which allow for things that are denied under common law.

For example, it is not lawful for a person to be found guilty of an offence and penalised without being tried before a jury.  So every issue of a fine from a police officer, traffic camera or similar process is offensive to Australian Law.

Similarly, local councils do not have lawful right to prescribe charges and penalties upon people, yet they do.  So this is yet another abuse of Australian Law.

What has happened in Australia is that our leaders have decided to pass laws that attack the Australian Constitution, Australian Law, common law and your rights and freedoms.  Your rights and freedoms are not being protected, but are being undermined by modern laws.  Yet those state and federal laws are not lawful, because they attack the Australian Constitution.

Only the Australian public can make any change to the Constitution and a majority of them in all states must agree to any change before it can be made.  Yet politicians and courts have diverged from the Constitution and upheld laws that contradict Australian Law and the Constitution.

It is time to be attentive to what is going on and to reclaim our lawful foundations.  Nothing else is truly lawful.

Rule of Law

I write this just over two weeks since I was evicted for the second time from my family home as I continue my stand against Bank Fraud and Injustice in the Courts.

In such circumstances the obvious focus is in regaining possession of my home.

However the bigger underlying issue that impacts us all is not the matter of bank mortgage fraud or of unjust charges by police or local councils, or any of the individual matters that offend modern society.

The bigger underlying issue is destruction of the Rule of Law.

When law is in place and all are held equally accountable to it, then fraud is dealt with, unjust charges are stopped, unlawful assertions from corporations are silenced and so on.

Today’s generation is faced with a crisis that is often not understood. We have a crisis of the rule of law.

Corporations Rule

Instead of the Rule of Law we are now under the Rule of the Corporations.

Lawful elements of society, such as the courts, governments and police, have been made into corporate entities. In effect we have the Govt Pty Ltd doing its thing and the Police Pty Ltd doing its thing, the Local Council Pty Ltd doing its thing and the Courts Pty Ltd doing their things, and so on.

And each Corporation ceases to be concerned about the Law but is concerned about corporate profits.

As these social entities become corporate entities their employees cease to be civil servants and become corporate employees. Instead of our public servants serving the public, they now serve the orders of their bosses, so their corporation can make money and the employee get a bonus.

By these processes the Rule of Law has been replaced with the Rule of the Corporation.

Foundations Destroyed

The lawful foundations of Australian society include Biblical Law, Common Law, promises made into Law by the Crown through many centuries, and the Australian Constitution.

Yet today many courts and public processes act as if those foundations have been removed and no longer have any part in Australian society.

The Crown, Common Law and Constitution have been replaced by the Corporation.

You will likely hear people say that common law has been done away with.  The oath of allegiance to the Crown has been removed from many acts of parliament in several Australian states. The Australian Constitution is ignored and abused in many legal enactments over the past century.

There is a deliberate strategy going on to remove the lawful foundations, so corporations can do what they want to control and enslave the population.

Restore the Law

It is time to restore the Rule of Law to Australia.

That means that governments, courts, police, officials and the like must operate by the law of the land, being our Australian Constitution, the common law, the Crown promises made by successive monarchs over the centuries and the law of God as given in the Holy Bible.

If politicians, police, courts or officials operate by corporate rules, or make laws that attack the true law of our land, then those things must be challenged and corrected.

The fact that thousands of homes are taken from people unlawfully by banks which refuse to prove their claim is more than banking fraud. It is a failure of the Rule of Law.

The fact that thousands of motorists are given unlawful fines through traffic courts that have no lawful right to operate is more than injustice. It is a failure of the Rule of Law.

The fact that thousands of families are charged unlawful fees by local councils that do not have lawful standing to tax the people is more than an aberration. It is a failure of the Rule of Law.

Dollar Signs

Somewhere along the line our social offices have become businesses, with corporate bosses and corporate profit motives.  And somewhere along the line those corporations have ignored the law, so they can make greater profits from the people they are supposed to serve.

And if we do not do something about it those corporations will continue to destroy our common law rights, our Constitution and the protections we have under the Crown.

The “Great Charter of the Liberties of the people”, Magna Carta, guarantees that any person operating under Crown will never deny or delay justice or right. The whole Australian Constitution is under the Crown, so all our politicians, courts, police and office bearers are bound by Magna Carta to uphold and protect your liberties and rights.

Yet traffic police now seem intent of passing out fines, not punishing evil doers. Councils find new ways to charge householders as the years go by. Governments pass increasingly restrictive laws with higher and higher penalties.

It’s seems to be all about Dollar Signs, not about justice and right. Magna Carta is of no consequence to these corporate creatures with their eye on the bottom line.

Evil Laws

Kenneth Wayne tells of his experience as a young officer in the USA sitting in on a briefing meeting of state government officials as they discussed a Model Traffic Code. The rules being suggested violated the Constitution and made unjust charges against motorists. However it was pointed out that by those rules the state could make much more money. If someone challenged the rules on Constitutional grounds the legal system would be able to derail the objection.

Kenneth Wayne heard it suggested that people would assume the rules to be lawful since they were being passed by the political leaders. And by the time someone was persistent enough to block the evil laws the state would have made a fortune anyway. Sadly the politicians chose to implement the evil laws.

Blatant Abuse of Law

Such blatant abuse of the Rule of Law as Kenneth Wayne saw many years ago appears to be commonplace these days. It is as if a new generation of politicians have little regard for what is lawful, and greater concern about what is profitable. They see things from the point of view of corporate profit, not what is truly lawful.

Sadly many members of the public assume that a law passed by their elected political leaders must be lawful and right or it would not be allowed. That is not the case. Blatant abuse of the law takes place around us all the time.

It is well and truly time to recognise the problem and to find a solution that restores the Rule of Law and removes evil rules, statutes, regulations, courts and processes, etc from our societies.

What To Do

Decide today that you want to live under the Rule of Law, not the dictates of corporations which have no lawful right to oppress you.

Take and interest in the ancient common law, Imperial Acts of the monarchs of England, the Constitution and the maxims of law. Have you ever read the Constitution?

Also take an interest in those sites where people are raising questions about banking practices, unwanted laws, abuse of political process and the like.

Learn your lawful rights and choose to live in them.

Be prepared to expose and challenge those processes in your nation that undermine the Rule of Law.

Pray for the restoration of justice and rights to the people of the land, so they can live in the liberty which God gave them at birth and intends for them to enjoy for life.

Justice for Dummies 1

What is Justice? When people say they want “justice”, what do they mean?

Can you give a good definition for justice?

I have been urged by friends to get right back to the basics of “justice” so people recognise what it is that I am fighting for. To do that I will probably have to write several articles that open the subject bit by bit.

Simple Definitions

Ignoring the dictionaries, we can say that “justice” is when things are done right for all.

Another way of putting it is that justice is when you do what your conscience tells you is right.

And yet another way to put it is that the higher moral values are upheld in a situation, no matter who it upsets or disadvantages.

But I think the best way to discover justice is not in definitions but in practical examples.

English ideas of “justice” came from the Holy Bible, because England has had a thousand years of Christianity. English common law was developed from putting the Bible into practice. The kings and queens made promises (Imperial Acts) based on their responsibility before God.

So, let’s have a look at a well known Biblical example of justice at work.

One Dead Baby

King Solomon was faced with a thorny question from two prostitutes. They were both single mothers and overnight one of the babies died. The woman who woke up with a dead baby accused the other woman of stealing her baby, swapping them in the night. Both women claimed the living baby was theirs. (See 1Kings 3:16-28)

Note a couple of things about this case right up front. These women had no-one to protect them. They did not have husbands. They were immoral women and in some cultures they could have no rights whatsoever.

But here they are speaking directly to the King of the whole land. That’s justice! True justice gives the same rights to ALL, because all men are created equal.

In some cultures there is an elite group which seeks to rule others as if those others are lesser people. That is happening in Australia and other advanced nations today.

Way back in 1215 the English monarchy recognised and declared that everyone, even the King, is under the law. There is justice for all.

Competing Claims

Both of these women made the same claim, “It’s MY baby!” So, one of them was lying. But, being women who lived by immorality, they would have no qualms about lying.

Yet they were not rejected. While the situation was challenging, King Solomon did not send them away empty. He determined to get to the bottom of the matter.

That’s justice!

In some places it’s just “too hard” to sort things out and so the courts resort to sharing out the blame or the costs or the loss. The idea is that some kind of equity or fairness is achieved. But that is not Justice. Justice gets right to the bottom of the matter and makes sure that the decision is as accurate as can be.

No Red Tape

Australian courts have tripped me up and denied me justice by imposing their various rules and protocol. But notice that King Solomon did not send these women away to fill out a form in triplicate, or to get representation from a duly qualified lawyer, or to present their case in a particular fashion. They had complete and ready access to the source of justice. The “Substance” of justice was not destroyed by the “form” of the “legal process” or the rules and regulations.

In Australia today I find that courts use the legal process and their rules and regulations to take justice from ordinary Aussies.

The Heart of the Matter

Justice is not a matter of text book exactness, but a matter of the heart. It is a ‘moral’ issue. God, who created us, is a moral Being and He looks at our hearts.

King Solomon, wisely, exposed the heart of the women.

He told the women he would cut the baby in half and give half to each one. He had no intention of doing so, but he used that suggestion to get the “hearts” of the women speaking.

One woman said, “Good. Then neither of us will have the baby.” But the other woman said, “Please don’t kill the child. Let the other woman have the child.”

The two responses revealed which of the women had a mother’s heart for the child. The woman who believed she had been cheated proved to be the one who was the mother of the child.

True Justice

When the two women left Solomon one of them was exposed as a thief and a liar. I don’t think she was happy about that.

True justice is not about making everyone happy, but doing what is RIGHT. The woman who stole and lied had no right to anything except shame, and that is what she received.

The woman whose child was stolen received what was rightfully hers. He child was given back to her. She received justice and could raise her child in all the joy of her motherhood.

Summary

Justice, then, is doing what is right, morally. It is not about everyone getting an equal share, but it is about everyone having the same rights before the courts.

Everyone is entitled to an outcome that is morally right. It will be an outcome that sits right in your conscience and that pleases God, because evil people will not be rewarded.

Today in Australia and other advanced nations we are not given that form of justice. People who do not use lawyers are disadvantaged. People who challenge the elite, ruling class which thinks it is superior to others, are blocked in the courts.

The courts have become a place where people use power to take advantage of others. They entangle people with rules, fairness, pre-set judgments and other tricks to deny them justice.

What makes this so criminal, in perverting the course of justice and committing Treason against the Crown, is that the monarchs of England promised us all over 700 years ago that, “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man justice or right.”

To catch the next articles in this series click on the following links:

Justice For Dummies 2 – Perfection
http://chrisfieldblog.com/2011/02/09/justice-2

Justice for Dummies 3 – Possession
http://chrisfieldblog.com/2011/02/09/justice-3

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

Illegal Laws

In an earlier lesson, Logophile on Law, I explained that there are various types and levels of law which impact us. Not all laws are equal, even though we call them all “laws”, and so it is important to understand the various types of laws and which ones apply to us.

This lesson jumps into the subject of Illegal Laws, showing that just because something is called a “law” and someone asserts, “It’s the Law!” does not mean we are bound to obey it. In fact it may be most appropriate for us to challenge that law, as an Illegal Law.

gavel

Oxymoron

It seems to be a contradiction in terms to say that a law is illegal. Such a contradictory thing is an oxymoron, where the description is too outrageous or inappropriate to be real.

The way a law can be illegal is if it contradicts the higher laws upon which it stands. Since laws are hierarchical, depending on a higher law to give them their authority, it is illegal, yet possible for a lesser law to be created which violates the higher law which it relies on for its authority. In such a case the lower law is invalidated by its own violation of the higher law on which it stands.

A secretary is not officially allowed to boss their boss. A General is not authorised to use the soldiers under his command to attack the Military Commander. A policeman cannot assume the office of President. Similarly, rules made by a sub-committee cannot overturn the rules of the club which the committee serves. Each is subject to the higher rule.

Hierarchy of Law

I contend that the highest law is Divine Law, the laws of God. Since God created us we are all accountable to Him and will be evaluated against His moral order.

In the Australian context, similar to many nations, the human legal basis on which the nation stands is that of Common Law and the Imperial Acts (Laws made by the ruling English monarchs over many centuries). Those laws reflect the application of Biblical Law (the Laws of God as given to us in the Bible).

When Australia was created as a nation, just over a century ago, a Constitution was created to define the new nation and how its government and law is to operate. The Australian Constitution was built upon the foundation of Common Law and the Imperial Acts.

All statutes (what the Government calls “laws”) created by people in authority in Australia are only possible because of the Constitution, and its foundation in Common Law and Imperial Acts. Those government ‘statutes’ are simply the local rules for functioning within Australia. They are much lower in authority than God’s laws and the principles of Common Law and the Imperial Acts.

Statutes

We call statutes “laws”, even though they are significantly inferior to God’s moral law, Common Law (which covers murder, injury, theft and deception) and Imperial Acts, which define the legal principles by which people are to be governed.

Statutes are not ‘laws’, strictly speaking, but are treated as if they are laws by those in the society to which they apply. They are “given the force of law”, even though they are not of the same order of laws as moral law (God’s Law, Common Law and Imperial Acts).

The only reason government agents, parliaments and others in a country can create “statutes” is because they are given some right to do so by the Constitution. And the only reason the Constitution holds any authority is because it is based on Common Law and the Imperial Acts.

Contradictory Laws

If a State or Federal statute (called a ‘law’) is contrary to the Constitution, Common Law or the Imperial Acts, then the statute is invalid. No statute can contradict the authority on which it relies.

Consider a person becoming the Prime Minister of Australia, by normal Constitutional processes, then declaring himself to be the King of Australia. He could argue that, as Prime Minister, he has the authority to elevate himself, but the Constitution does not give him that privilege. He can be Prime Minister, but not take additional, non-legal authority.

As soon as such a leader acts unlawfully he disqualifies himself from holding the authority lawfully entrusted to him. You cannot violate the law on which you stand without violating your right to stand.

Restrictive Laws

A statute from a Government, State or official department within a country can only restrict freedoms. No government has the right to give you freedom to break the law. Governments cannot lawfully make murder, rape, theft or deception legal. They are not able to lawfully declare an illegal action to be legal. So statutes never increase a person’s freedoms. They can only take some right or freedom away – supposedly “for the greater good”.

Our real laws come from God and have been distilled into the Common Law and sealed by Imperial Acts. That is where are true legal position is found (at least in former British Commonwealth nations). Statute laws cannot overturn those primary laws. All statutes can do is further restrict human freedom by regulating what people can do and how and when they can do it within the national setting to which they apply.

Illegal Government Actions

Governments and their officials may find themselves frustrated by the limitations they are under, and choose to go outside the law or their lawful authority (ultra virez) in order to have their way. If they want more money, for example, they may impose taxes or fees which are outside their legal authority to impose.

If getting the citizens to fit in with the government’s agenda proves too difficult for the government it may be tempted to pass a “statute” which demands that people do what they want.

In such situations it is possible for governments to act outside their legal rights and responsibilities. Governments may pass statute laws or make demands of their citizens which contradict the freedoms given to those citizens in Common Law, Imperial Acts or in their Constitution.

Governments have had to repeal (revoke) laws they created but which proved to be illegal. Governments have had to pay compensation to various citizens or entities which were wrongfully treated by the rules, decisions, statutes and actions of the government. This is not a mythical phenomenon, but a reality of human fallibility, ignorance or opportunism.

USA Tax Laws

There is much discussion about the fact that the tax laws in the USA are outside the law. It is claimed that it has been proven in court that there is no law upholding the American taxation regime. Yet the tax office operates with vigour and successfully pursues and penalises American citizens.

Some would argue that the USA Tax Laws are illegal laws, denying American citizens their rights and freedoms. I can’t speak to that subject, but there is an abundance of discussion available for those to whom it may relate.

Illegal On-the-Spot Fines

One of the privileges which Australian citizens enjoy is protection through the historical Imperial Acts of English monarchs. One of those Imperial decrees gives every citizen the right to a trial by a jury of 12 of their peers before they can be determined to be “guilty” and before any penalty can be imposed on them.

Every “on-the-spot fine” and every charge made on a citizen before there has been a legal conviction before a jury in a duly convened court of law is contrary to the legal rights of Australian citizens. Yet most Australians pay those fines, or go to court to fight and only end up with a greater penalty than they started with.

Ignorance is Not Bliss

Ignorance of the law means many people are denied their rightful rights (silly to have to say it like that). Because most citizens are ignorant and are happy to stay that way, they have been duped by populist ideas.

They believe that the more modern laws have superseded the old ones and that society is evolving all the time. They think that something from 100 years ago is really ancient and has lost its significance. They think that the ruling of a magistrate or the interpretation given by a current legal adviser is the final word in legal reality for them. They think that a new law completely eradicates the previous legal reality.

Ignorant citizens do not know what their true position is. They do not know what protections they have. They do not know their rights. They think their legal standing and their rights are gifts from their government, and not from God.

Get Your Own Education

This lesson is a wake-up call. But if you are determined to stay asleep and to live under the control of laws that may not be laws and “laws” that are “illegal”, then I can only wish you well.

It is not my place to live your life for you. It is not my place to save you from your own wilful ignorance. You have a free will given you by God and you have to answer to Him, not to me, for how you use it.

My job is to rattle your cage and shout “Wake Up!”

Now, I’ve finished for the time being.

I think I’ll have a nice cup of tea and leave you to your own future. Happy legalities !!!!