Archives for April 2011

The Doubt Dungeon

April 29, 2011 by Chris Field Leave a Comment

Are you trapped in the Dungeon of Doubt? If you are, do you know how to get out?

I trust that these thoughts help you escape from the slavery to doubts.

Some people latch on to all the doubts that come their way while others have no problem believing or maintaining confidence. Which of those types best describes you?

Discover Your Doubts

If the media comes out with new evidence to disprove God, or to cause doubts about the Bible and Christianity, how do you normally react?

Do you become fascinated by that new information? Do you feel ashamed of your own faith in God? Does such news intimidate you?

Or do you shrug it off, knowing that in time all the uproar will subside and the new claims prove to be empty?

If you are easily impacted by other people’s doubts or new reasons to question God and the Bible, then you are in danger of the Doubt Dungeon. If you are resilient against each new supposedly scientific finding that mocks Christianity then you are free of the doubts that trap many others.

Your Big Question

If you could talk with an angel, or get an audience with God, what is the big question you want answered?

Is the question that dominates your thinking a doubt? Do you need God to give you reassurance that He is real or that His Word is true?

If your underlying question is not about the truth and reality of God and His Word, then you are probably past the Doubt Dungeon.

As a minister I get hit with questions from people all the time. They seem to think I can resolve their doubts or they may even see me as a target to fire at, as if they are having a shot at God Himself.

So I get to hear many of the questions people have and I find that most of the questions are from the Doubt Dungeon. People often get trapped in the gloom of doubt and despair and want someone to help them out.

Popular Doubts

It seems some people are bedevilled by doubt and have become slave to every new popular doubt in the marketplace.

I have seen doubts come and go. The pop paperback “Chariots of the Gods” once proclaimed that life came from outer space, and not from God. Findings of a localised flood in Mesopotamia were used to deny the global flood of the Bible. Findings of ancient Babylonian tablets with accounts similar to Bible events suggested that the Bible was a mere human story collection. The idea that writing developed late in human history suggested that “Chinese Whispers” type word of mouth transmission perverted the Bible history.

Of course the most profound source of doubts that attack the Bible is awarded to the theory of evolution. For over a century pseudo-science has mocked the Bible account of creation, based on a choice to believe that evolution is real.

Spiritual Doubts

What many people don’t realise is that doubt is a spiritual weapon assigned to attack them.

The most powerful thing any man or woman can do is choose to believe God. That’s called “faith” and it is not possible to be rescued by God without it. Faith is the only thing that pleases God (Hebrews 11:6).

So doubt has the purpose of destroying faith.

Faith is a “choice to believe”, an act of the will. The purpose of doubt is to block someone making that choice. If you think you have good reason to doubt a choice you will not make it.

But once you entertain the doubt and shut down your will from choosing to believe you end up in a dungeon of doubt. Your will has been disabled by something as unworthy as uncertainty. Now your will is hobbled and won’t be strong again until you use it like a muscle to throw off the doubts.

However, once you have accepted the doubts, deactivated your will and killed your ability to exercise faith, you are in a dungeon. The rest of your life may be spent in the unhappy gloom of that dungeon.

Addicted to Doubt

Once in the Dungeon of Doubt people become highly susceptible to any and all new doubts. When a new theory or claim comes out to challenge God or the Bible, those in the dungeon prick up their ears. But they can’t properly assess the new, addictive doubt, because they have already shut down the will. They have already deactivated their choice to believe.

They will look at the new evidence without any capacity to resist it. The doubt will swamp them, confirming their past doubts and leaving them in the unhappy sense that something is not right, but they can’t quite work out what to do about it.

That’s why you can meet people who have all the doubts lined up in their heads. Rather than only having one or two pieces, they seem to have the whole matching set. These are the doubt addicts, digging their own dungeon of doubt deeper and deeper.

Destroying Doubt

Doubt can be destroyed in moments. There is no reason to stay in the dungeon of doubt.

All it takes is a “choice to believe”. Faith is very powerful. It overcomes all the forces in the world, including doubt. So when you use faith you are able to destroy the whole dungeon.

“Whatever is born of God overcomes the world: and this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith.” 1John 5:4

As long as you entertain doubts you deactivate your will. Doubt forces you to not make a decision, because you can’t be sure it is right. So doubt will never lead you forward. It will always disempower you and lock you in its dungeon.

But when you make a choice to believe, doubt is destroyed. Your will comes into action and you can make a positive stand that will take you forward.

The saying goes that it is better to make a wrong decision than not to decide at all. That concept illuminates what I am saying, that doubt disables your will. If you make a choice and it proves to be the wrong one, you can then change your choice. But if you don’t make a choice at all, you are stuck in the mud of inertia. Your life is locked in prison.

Evidence Not Needed

It’s not about the evidence! In our cynical, intellectualised world we are told not to believe in things unless they are proven. But that’s absolutely ridiculous!

You can’t prove you’re in love. But you believe you are. You can’t prove you’re right. But you believe you are. And you move ahead confidently based on those beliefs.

Most of the big decisions you will make in your life have nothing to do with scientific evidence and “proof”. They are not about the evidence. Those big decisions are mostly based on your gut feeling, your emotions, your preferences and, ultimately, your CHOICES.

So stop being intimidated by the doubts that demand a scientific answer. Make a choice to believe what God says in His Word the Bible.

And notice that once you embrace the doubts you live with, you experience a certain internal sense of being dislocated. That’s because you are denying something your gut tells you is true. When you “choose to believe” you are resolving those internal frustrations. I have seen that many times over.

Get a Life

If you are trapped in the Dungeon of Doubt you don’t have a life. Your will has been shut down. You will be incapable of moving forward until you make a choice to believe.

So get a life! Get your foot out of the trap. Reactivate your right to believe.

And if you are hesitant, remember that a choice is never final. You can change your mind tomorrow. It’s not a crime to do so. You can spend years enjoying one kind of food and then change your preferences. It’s as easy as that.

There is no need to be trapped in a dungeon of doubt and inertia. There is no need to shut down your life and lock it in a dungeon.

I urge you to make a positive choice right now. Choose to believe that God is God and that the Bible is God’s Word. Realise that there will always be unanswered questions in life and that you need to get on with life rather than lock it away in the vain hope of ever understanding everything.

Ask God to be real to you and step into the wonder of being His child, in active relationship with Him. Please get out of the dungeon of doubt right now.

Synthetic Reality

April 26, 2011 by Chris Field Leave a Comment

Following my recent series of posts on Words that Control Us I am now extending the concept to the matter of synthetic reality.

A set of words can invoke a sense of reality in our minds and even bind us as surely as if we were in chains of iron. Yet that reality is synthetic. It is synthesised from something other than reality and takes on tangible form in our thinking.

Consider Titles of Office. One person is called a manager and another is called a janitor. But they were both born naked and will take nothing out of this world. The titles describe their responsibilities, but those titles also convey as sense of status and importance, and even a sense of the worthiness of the bearer.

Artificial Persons

Consider artificial persons. A corporation is only a piece of paper with a name on it. If no living man or woman turned up to sell or invest their energy into the corporation it would be powerless. Yet many of us think of corporations as more powerful than the whole community put together.

Imagine having to fight a global, multi-national corporation, or the World Bank, or whatever. The thought is a disturbing one, because we think of that entity as having great power. But the entity is actually a fiction. It is something that was made up in someone’s mind and then put on a piece of paper. If all the employees went home it would lie dormant.

Immersion in Fantasy

Ps Chris Ong recently prompted my cogitations along these lines in a sermon about how people get carried away with pure fantasy. People immerse themselves in books, movies, games, virtual realities and fanciful ideas with great zeal these days.

Yet the fantasy world was simply made up in the mind of a writer who created mental images that delight us. There is no true substance or worth in the fantasy world, except to distract and entertain.

Think of such popular fictional realities as Narnia, Helms Deep and the Shire, made popular by recent movies of people’s fictional writings. Or consider the new world of blue avatars that has now become part of western mythology.

However, no matter how compelling that world is, and how much we can immerse ourselves in it, or in books about it, or in books about books about it, it has no substance. It is as shallow as a dream that passes or an imagination that dances in the mind but has no bearing on anything.

TV Ads

I am not a consumer of commercial television and so I was interested to see some recent television commercials in which absolutely fantastic worlds or animated (but real looking) transformations take place. It seems that the world has become addicted to the super-real, “nothing like this has been seen before” imagery.

However, while synthetic reality has become ubiquitous today, people who know how to encounter and deal with the “real” world are possibly fewer, as people become distracted with the worlds of fantasy.

A top gamer, or one who reads commentaries on the commentaries of someone else’s imaginary world, or one who escapes to the false worlds created in books and movies, cannot build their real world experience on such things.

An Old Problem

Synthetic reality is not new. Notions of a hero, alter ego identity through which people have vicarious experiences (movie stars, sports heroes, rich and famous) is not new. Identification with a sports team, star personality, powerful corporate entity, etc gives people a sense of vicarious virtue that is synthetic.

The Illusion of Image

And consider the world’s addiction to “image”. Image is also a synthetic reality. The notion is that by improving the image, by style, fashion, plastic surgery, attitude, etc, one can change the reality of who they are.

The statement was made of American Christians that they have as many problems as Christians in any other place, but have learned to slick up their image. That improved image, of personal presentation, body language, power dressing, etc, masks insecurities, shame, fear, guilt, pride, emptiness, etc, that may be more apparent in other, less dressed up cultures. But the reality is not different, despite the synthetic reality being projected.

Vain Imagination

Illusions in the mind can be vain imagination, and that can all be a “stronghold” in the mind that is a high thing exalting itself against God and truth. It can also be a lie that seduces and entraps you with imaginary chains that work as powerfully as real ones.

Illusions of grandeur, fantasies about who and what you are, escape from reality, retreat from real interaction through escapist preoccupations, day dreaming, prejudicial labelling, preconceived notions of what is and what can be, fascination with image, addiction to worldly values, these are all elements of a vain imagination.

In the Mind

The Apostle Paul identified the root of this problem two thousand years ago. The problem is in the mind, but it’s not merely a mental problem. Thoughts in our head take on spiritual power that enslaves us.

Paul advised that we need spiritual weapons, not human techniques, to pull down “strongholds” in our mind. We know the strongholds are in our mind because Paul then lists three descriptions of what makes up the strongholds, and the list includes “imaginations” and “thought”.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds😉 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” 2Corinthians 10:3-5

Taking Thought

Those who preach metaphysics suggest that natural man has the power to change his thoughts and thus change their life. They even base this claim on the Bible, quoting such verses as “as a man thinks so is he”.

But don’t be deceived by the Mind Worship delusions. They are a vain imagination.

Look again at what Paul said. The weapons we need to deal with the issues in our mind are not “carnal”. That means they are not of flesh and blood. You are not capable of breaking the strongholds in your mind by natural means, including by trying to guide your thoughts.

You need supernatural weapons to pull down those strongholds, and destroy those imaginations and thoughts that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God.

And remember the words of Christ when He said, “Who by taking thought can add one inch to his height?”

“Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature?” Matthew 6:27

Don’t fall into mind worship of give your life to chanting mantras about how you are getting better and better every day. That stuff is fleshly. It is “carnal”. And carnal weapons don’t work on strongholds in the mind.

Rely on Truth

One of the spiritual weapons at our disposal is Truth. Truth sets people free.

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” John 8:32

Now, once again, don’t be fooled by people who say that if you read their book you will know the truth. Truth is not just some supposedly factual information. Truth is a person. Jesus Christ identified Himself by the name “Truth”.

“Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.” John 14:6

When you allow the truth of God’s Word and the truth about who Jesus is, as revealed in the first four books of the New Testament (the Gospels), you will be releasing the power of truth into your life to pull down strongholds in your mind.

The Matrix Allegory

In the first Matrix movie we see a chap named Neo learn how to live outside the illusions forced upon his mind by others. Christians immediately saw in that story an allegory for the freedom we have in Christ to be able to live free from the lies of Satan, the deceptions of the world and the deceitfulness of sin.

And we see that allegory also hinted at in Alice in Wonderland, where Alice rejects the beliefs and impositions of Wonderland and will not let them dictate who and what she is.

The Bible puts it as resisting the devil.

“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” James 4:7

Your Reality

Who is dictating your reality? Do you choose to believe whatever you think best indulges your self will? Or do others force a perception of the world and how you fit into it onto your life?

Have you been deceived? If you were deceived how would you even know? Have you ever been set free from a wrong idea? If not how do you know how to discern truth from lie?

Are the labels used to identify you accurate or are they chains to tie you down?

What does God say about you? His Word is truth and what the Bible says about you is something you really should pay attention to.

Are you living in vain imagination? Have fantasy thoughts seduced you and drawn you away from living in the real world where you can actually achieve real benefit as God created you to?

You may not have thought about these issues before, so get onto it right now!

Foundational Issues for Australian Law

April 24, 2011 by Chris Field Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

WATSON v LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374 BARWICK C.J.
To bind the citizen by a law, the terms of which he has no means of knowing, would be a mark of tyranny.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHEDULE.
OATH.
I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

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

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), Preamble
“WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland; and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australian Constitution Chapter VIII ALTERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
Mode of altering the Constitution. (Paragraph altered by No. 84, 1977, s. 2.)
128. This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:-
The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.
And
When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Ed) Volume 8 Constitutional law, The Royal Prerogative
(5) THE CROWN IN RELATION TO THE LAW
(i.) The Crown as the Source of all Jurisdiction
943 “Sovereign as the source of all justice. By virtue of the prerogative the Sovereign is the source and fountain of justice and all jurisdiction derives from her. Hence in legal contemplation, the Sovereign’s Majesty is deemed always to be present in court, and by the terms of the coronation oath, and by the maxims of the common law as also by the ancient charters and statutes confirming the liberties of the subject, the Sovereign is bound to cause law and justice in mercy to be administered in all judgments. This is however a purely impersonal conception, for the Sovereign cannot personally execute any office relating to the administration of justice nor effect an arrest and though all criminal suits must be brought in the Sovereigns name, she could not be non suited either in criminal or civil proceedings.”

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

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

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

Australian Constitution Preamble
Operation of the constitution and laws.
5. This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defining ‘Justice and Right’

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

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

Magna Carta 1297 Statute Clause 29
“No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties or free customs, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgement of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basis of Australian Law

April 18, 2011 by Chris Field Leave a Comment

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.

The Vital Role of Sheriff

April 16, 2011 by Chris Field 1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

Magna Carta 1215/1297

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

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

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

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

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

Spelling It Out

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

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

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

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

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

Australian Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magna Carta Guaranteed

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

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

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

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

Sheriff Role Defined

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

Evictions of home owners in foreclosure are undertaken by sheriffs.

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

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

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

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

Defender of the Crown Promise

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

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

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

Sheriffs and Courts

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

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

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

The People’s Police Force

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

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

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

True Courts

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

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

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

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

Corporatisation of the Sheriff

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

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

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

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

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

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

Place of the Crown

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Crown Rejected

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

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

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

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

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

Personal Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Paper

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

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

Archives for April 2011

Recent Posts

Tags

Social Icons