Friday, December 5, 2014

Commonwealth of Australia

Commonwealth of Australia

Date Sent: the

th day/ of /2014

Subject: 1. Notice of Grounds of Defence.

Australia, have given their sovereign rights away.

2. Affidavit – Signed by both Parties.

3. Evidence, Proof of a “Doctrine” “Instrument” and or “Document”, that the people of


No Pages: Thirty ­ Nine (39) page (Including cover sheet) (Excluding Appendix pages).

1. I bring to your attention, YOUR NAME

Born date: / / , resides within the realm of The Commonwealth [of Humanity] and has done freely and willingly from said Date:

11.11.2009. Registered in international law, the restored Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, the running's of business for The

Parliament of the Commonwealths authority. Governess of law, The Constitution of the Commonwealth [of Humanity], BY THE KING, Royal

Proclamation, 25.10.2008, and Kings Law – King James Bible (KJV), with this fact in law,

the Commonwealth of Australia, AS all court jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Australia at present, are Not a CHAPTER III jurisdiction, as

stated in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, furthermore stated HEREIN,

2. I refer your attention to the case of Dey v Victorian Railway Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62, 91, whereas future Chief Justice of the High

Court Owen Dixon stated in dicta, viz:

“... once it appears that there is a real question to be determined whether of fact or law and that the rights of the parties depend upon it, then it

is not competent for the court to dismiss the action as frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process.”

YOUR NAME is here by excluded from participating in any way, shape and or form, in any court jurisdiction within

4. If, “Peoples Names and or Company with ABN Number”, were to answer, I source my power of authority, from an Act or Legislation from the

Australian Government Corporation, Local Government, Executive Government, Judiciary, Police, and any or the Defence forces,

5. To learn that to become a Member of any one of the above positions, is to commit an act of treason against the sovereign people of Australia will

no doubt result in a reaction of incredulity. In fact it would be reasonable to anticipate that the reader of such a statement would be inclined to

immediately reject the following without further examination of its content.

6. Similarly, the bold assertion that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) is invalid at first appears ludicrous. As the

fundamental law of the Australian Nation, if it were invalid, then all Australian Governments ­ Commonwealth, State and Territorial ­ have no

legal basis for their continued existence, no valid authority to pass and enforce legislation, and no authority to enter contracts or bind the

Australian people by Treaty.

7. The consequences could be catastrophic, both within Australia and internationally. Yet, the consequences should not influence a disinterested

analysis of the basis of that situation. This in part, presents these bases.

8. The fundamental facts which give rise to the accuracy of the above statements are indeed simple and were succinctly stated a few years ago by

the late Professor G. Clements (an eminent UK QC and emeritus Professor in law at Cambridge). He summed up the situation thus ­ "The

continued usage of the Australian Constitution Act (UK) by the Australian Governments and the judiciary is a confidence trick of monstrous

proportions played upon the Australian people with the intent of maintaining power. It remains an Act of the United Kingdom.

9. After joining the League of Nations in 1919, Australia became a sovereign nation. It had no further legal power to use, alter or otherwise tamper

with another nation’s legislation. Authority over the Australian Constitution Act lies not with the Australian government nor with the Australian

people, it rests solely with the UK. Only they have the authority to repeal this legislation ...".

10. Differing legal opinion cites the establishment of Australia as an independent sovereign nation over a wide range of dates. Thus include, but are

not limited to ­1901 with the proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia Act (Imp), 1919 with the signing of and unanimous vote by the

Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in acceptance of the Treaty of Versailles. 1926 by the declaration of the Inter­Imperial

Relations Committee of the Imperial Conference, 1929 by the Balfour Declaration, 1939 by the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of

Australia enacting the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth) back­dated to 1939, 1945 by the Commonwealth of Australia becoming a

foundation member of the United Nations and subsequently enacting the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945, 1986 with the passing of the

Australia Acts (both UK & Cth.).

11. Alternatively, the less controversial but flawed gradual evolution during the 20th century explanation. Whichever date is chosen does not alter the

consequences of the breach of Sovereignty, for Prof. O'Connell states: "Whatever form the change in sovereignty may take it involves a

disruption of the legal continuity... These rules form a body of doctrine known as the law of state succession..." (International Law, P. D.

O'Connell, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. 1970, p. 365­368).

12. However, contrary to much of domestic Australian legal opinion, Australia became an independent sovereign nation following Mr. William Morris Hughes, Prime Minister and Commonwealth Attorney­General, together with Sir Joseph Cook, signing the multi­lateral Treaty of Peace at

Versailles, France in June 1919. This included the Covenant of the League of Nations, along with many other important documents in

International Law. Particular attention should be paid to clauses I, X, XVIII, and XX of the Covenant. In "An Act to Constitute the

Commonwealth of Australia", the 9th clause of which is usually referred to as the 'Australian Constitution' was, is, and remains conditional upon

the first 8 covering clauses of that Act, a current Act of domestic law of the United Kingdom Parliament. Under Section 128 of Clause 9, minor

alterations to the Constitution may be made by the Australian people.

13. However, the Australian people may not alter, in any way, Clauses 1 to 8 of the Imperial Act. Since the Australian people have only ever had the

right to change sections 1 to 128 of clause 9 of that Act, it follows that covering clauses 1 to 8 remain law in Australia.

14. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act passed through the UK Parliament in June 1900, to commence as law in Australia on the 1st of

January 1901. Since the people of Australia have only ever had the right to change Sections 1 to 128 of Clause 9 of this Act, it follows that

covering clauses 2, 6 and 8 remain law in Australia. (See Joosse v ASIC HCA 1998 159 ALR 260). This means that British colonial law still

operates in Australia and that Australia is a self­governing colony of the United Kingdom as stated in that Act. However, the High Court of

Australia has recently ruled that the United Kingdom is a foreign power, and that the UK Parliament cannot have any effect on the Governments

of Australia (Sue v Hill HCA 30 of 1999). Hence, if British colonial law continues to operate in Australia, then this constitutes a clear breach of

international law, along with the duties and responsibilities of the Australian and the United Kingdom governments, as both were Foundation Members to the League of Nations, and the United Nations. The Covenant and the Charter of both bodies, respectively, bind these nations.

15. The Australian people do not have ultimate control over the 'Australian' Constitution. In mid­July 1995 the Lord Chancellor of the UK in answer

to a Parliamentary question asked in the UK Parliament about the Australian Constitution, stated ­ "The British Constitution Act 1900 was for

self­government. It was never intended to be and is not suitable to be the basis for independence. The right to repeal this Act remains the sole

prerogative of the United Kingdom. There is no means by which under United Kingdom or international law this power can be transferred to a

foreign country or Member State of the United Nations. Indeed, the United Nations Charter precludes any such action” (this response was

confirmed by letter from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, dated 11th Dec 1997, under the hand of Mark Armstrong, Far Eastern and

16. "By this recognition Australia became a Nation, and entered into a family of nations on a footing of equality. We had earned that, or, rather, our

soldiers had earned it for us. In the achievement of victory they had played their part and no nation has a better right to be represented than

Australia," (William Morris Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia, House of Representatives, Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, 10th

September, 1919). During the 'Great War', the United Kingdom held Imperial War Conferences, to which the Dominions were finally invited to

in 1917, as a result of their contributions to the war effort. It was at the 1917 Conference that the UK resolved to start the Dominions on the path

to independent nationhood. Resolution IX stated: The Imperial War Conference are of the opinion that the readjustment of constitutional relations

of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with during the War and that it should form the subject of

a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities. They deem it their duty, however, to place on

record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self­government and complete control of

domestic affairs, should be based on a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth..."

17. Further, both as the result of the Dominions' World War I contributions, and the forceful position advanced by the United States President, Woodrow Wilson at Versailles, the United Kingdom, initially reluctantly, granted the Dominions “Australia” the right to attend the Peace Treaty

negotiations in their own right. This was followed by King George V instructing the Australian Governor­General, R. M. Ferguson, to issue a

Head of State full powers document on the 23rd April 1919, being in "good and due form" authorising Mr. Hughes and Sir Joseph Cook to attend

the Peace Conference and to negotiate, and sign the Treaty of Peace, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia.

18. The emancipation of the Australian nation was recognised by the other signatories to the Treaty by these other independent nations allowing

Australia, and the other former Dominions, to sign as separate nations.

19. The United Kingdom no longer signed Treaties on behalf of Australia. The instrument through which this was achieved is also known as the

Treaty of Versailles. The unanimous ratification of this action was finalised in the Commonwealth of Australia Parliament on October 1st 1919.

Australia immediately became a Member State of the League of Nations and the International Labor Organisation. Membership of these

organisations was only available to sovereign nation states.

20. As recently as November 1995, the Australian Parliament through the release of a report by the 'Senate Legal and Constitutional References

Committee’ restated the historical events leading up to the achievement of independence, referring to the 1917 Imperial War Conference

Resolution IX at para. 4.12, and clearly stated at para. 4.13 that Australia was now a sovereign nation ­ "Australia became an independent

member of the League of Nations and the International Labour Organisation in 1919," and further in 4.13 ­ "This admission to the League and the

International Labour Organisation involved recognition by other countries that Australia was now a sovereign nation with the necessary

'international personality' to enter into international relations," (see 'Trick or Treaty? Power to Make and Implement Treaties, ISBN 0 642 24418

21. On July 14, 1996, investigators working in the archives of the League of Nations, held in Geneva by the Swiss Government, found the original

copy of the Leaguer of Nations Covenant. Interspersed among the text is a commentary in italics by Sir Geoffrey Butler, KBE, Fellow in

International Law and Diplomacy at Corpus Christie College, Cambridge University.

22. The discovery of the original copy of the Covenant revealed Sir Geoffrey's commentaries had been part of this crucial document from the

beginning, not added later as historians had believed. Full significance of Article I of the Covenant has never been widely understood by the

people of Australia, whose future was irrevocably altered by the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919. Sir Geoffrey Butler's comments went to

the heart of the events. His commentary on Article I states: "It is arguable that this article is the Covenant's most significant measure. By it, the

British Dominions, namely New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Canada have their independent nationhood established for the first time.

There maybe friction over small matters in giving effect to this internationally acknowledged fact, but the Dominions “Australia” will always

look to the League of Nations Covenant as their Declaration of Independence. That the change has come silently about and has been welcomed in

all corners of the British Empire is the final vindication of the United Empire Loyalists." The law of one nation may not be used to govern over

23. From the moment people gain independence they have a claim to, and possess the right of, self­determination. They are sovereign over their

affairs (see the Covenant of the League of Nations, Art. 10, and the Charter of the United Nations, Art. 2 paras 1 and 4; together with resolutions

2131 [xx] 1965 & 2625 [xxv] 1970).

24. From that moment, the laws of their former colonial master become ultra vires. For it to be otherwise is to offend both common sense and the

first principle of international law ­ the right to self­determination! If this is not so, than the United States of America remains today as a

collection of colonies of Great Britain! From October 1st 1919 'An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia' became ultra vires, with

regard to Australia. Its continued use by political parties to claim the power to establish a parliament to govern over the Commonwealth of

Australia, that is, the Australian people,

25. (see Quick & Garran "The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth" 1901 at page 366) constitutes an offence against

international law. It represents political interference by the United Kingdom and a denial of Australian citizens' inalienable right to self-

26. From October 1st, 1919 the British Monarch became irrelevant to Australia. From October 1st 1919 Australia became a republic. From October

1st, 1919 it has been necessary to create a political and judicial system capable of bridging the legal void created when sovereignty changed from

the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the people of Australia. That necessity still exists. If confirmation of this change in Australia's status

from a "colony" to being "accepted fully into the community of nations of the whole world" is required, the Balfour Declaration 1929, the Report

of the Inter­Imperial Relations Committee 1926 ­ Extracts at page 348, ( see 'II. 3⁄4STATUS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THE DOMINIONS'

describing the Dominions as "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any

aspect of their domestic or external affairs"), and Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations make interesting reading. By using UK law to

claim power, parliamentarians and others become agents of a foreign power.

27. By relying on this current Act of domestic law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom the Australian Parliament is definable as an extension of

the Parliament of the UK. The Governor­General, State and Territory Governors, individual parliamentarians, Senators and all others involved in

government, including members of the judiciary and clerks, are definable as agents of the UK. That is, agents of a power foreign to the Nation

State, the Commonwealth of Australia. This scenario manifests right down to the policeman on the beat!

28. The much­vaunted Statute of Westminster Act 1931 (UK) was a thinly veiled attempt to patch up a broken legal system for the Dominions. Since

it was design to operate beyond the shores of the UK, it failed the requirement under Article XVIII of the Covenant of the League of Nations as it

was not registered with the Secretariat, and therefore never became a valid international instrument. It had no operational effect beyond the

shores where it was created, the United Kingdom.

29. Every Member and Senator has committed an Act of treason by swearing and subscribing to an oath to serve the government of a power foreign

to Australia. To underline this, the Constitution (embraced by Australian parliamentarians) at section 42, dictates that they must all swear and

subscribe an oath of allegiance to the current Monarch in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (Confirmed by

letter from the Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives dated 10th June 1999 and signed by Robyn Webber, Director, Chamber

Research Office). But because the Monarch is appointed under the provisions of UK legislation and is therefore subordinate to the UK

(i.e. 'the Queen in Parliament') in point of legal fact, Parliamentarians, Senators and others have actually sworn an oath of allegiance to the

Parliament of the United Kingdom. Quite clearly this constitutes an act of treason against the sovereign people of Australia. The Oath appears as

the schedule to the Act and being outside 'The Constitution' is beyond the reach of Section 128, and thus, may not be altered by any authority

outside the UK Parliament.

30. Further, The 'Queen of Australia' is purely titular. If indeed such an Office exists at all it does so without legal authority. Since the Bill of Rights

of 1688, the Act of Settlement of 1701, and the Act of Union 1706, the Monarch has been appointed, first by the English Parliament and then, by

the UK Parliament. The Queen is a ‘Statutory Monarch’. As such she has no powers separate from the UK Parliament. In fact the official,

descriptive title is ‘The Queen in Parliament’.

31. In her Office, the ‘Queen’ has no legal power to make decisions. She may only endorse and/or carry out decisions made by the Ministers that

appointed her. Further, the monarch has no executive function within the Commonwealth, her role being purely titular.

32. In 1973, in her private life as Mrs Elizabeth Guelph (for she had no authority from the UK Parliament which possessed no power with regard to

matters relating to an independent Australia), she chose to amuse Gough Whitlam, the then Prime Minister of Australia, by signing the Royal

Styles and Titles Act 1973, which repealed the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953, and ‘created’ the “Queen of Australia”. Such an Office does not

exist in UK law or, in particular, under the 'Australian' Constitution.

33. ‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’ is UK law and by definition (clause 2 of the Act) the only Monarch that the Constitution

(clause 9 of the Act) recognises is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Thus, even if it could be established that the

Constitution has valid application, any law made under the Constitution cannot be given valid Royal assent by a Governor­General or Governor

appointed by and representing a purely titular “Queen of Australia" (see the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 (Cth).

34. Further, taking into account the full content of the Act, even if it were possible to alter the Constitution so that it recognised the “Queen of

Australia”, a referendum under S128 relating to the adoption of such an Office would be necessary. Such a referendum has never been

conducted! Attempts to "patch up the Constitutional mess" continued by the concealment of the truth from the Australian people. Adopting the

Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) in 1942, and making it commence retroactively from the 3rd September 1939, was an attempt to rule out any

illegality of involvement in WWII by not having formally declared war on Germany 3 years earlier. The Statute was adopted at the time the

newly appointed Prime Minister was declaring war on Japan, and the Australian Parliament needed to be sure of it's power to do so.

35. The concealment continues with 2 more documents. The first "The Letters Patent Relating to her Office of Governor­General of the

Commonwealth of Australia" which was gazetted on the 24th August 1984 after being signed 3 days earlier at Balmoral in the United Kingdom.

Under UK law, the writs of the sovereign die with the sovereign. But when Queen Victoria died on the 21st January, 1900, no new Letters Patent

were issued until August 1984! This was 4 (not 5) monarchs later. These Letters Patent also had a clause to cover any 'invalid' Commission or

appointment or any action taken by someone so commissioned or appointed without authority. This is the effect of clause VII.

36. The next document(s) created to continue the concealment was the passage of the Australia Acts, through both the UK and the Australian

Parliaments, in 1985, to commence in 1986. Contrary to international law, both of these Acts attempted to infringe sovereignty of another nation,

were not registered as required under the Charter of the United Nations to have extra­territorial effect, and consequently, can not be relied on in

any international forum. Notwithstanding the international status of the Australia Act 1986 (Cth), the preamble and several clauses clearly

indicate that British colonial law was continuing in the sovereign independent Australia, and that from the commencement of this Act, all such

colonial law, as well as the UK government, will have no effect. If this was not the case, than there would not be any need to have an Australia

Act, let alone two of them.

37. There are several major structural problems associated with the Australia Act (Cth), and since it is continually referred to in judicial decisions, it

is worthwhile noting these problems.

(1) First, it does not remove all existing British law used in Australia. It only refers to new British law. Any Australian lawyer can testify that the

Commonwealth and State Statute books are pregnant with British law, the most obvious being the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

(2) Second, the termination of British law in Australia that is supposed to occur with this Act, when challenged, will be determined in a court

which is dependent for it's existence on the very same British law!

38. (3) Thirdly, Australia continues to have a monarch who derives her power from the British Parliament, and she remains the Executive Head of

Government of the six Australian States. So to exercise her power in those States, her power must be seen as an extension of power of the UK

(4) Lastly, at the very time that the Australia Acts came into law in Australia to prevent the UK Government from interfering in Australian

matters (see also Sue v Hill HCA 30 of 1999), the Letters Patent relating to the Governors of South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland

and Western Australia was signed off by none other than Sir Anthony Derek Maxwell Oulton, KCB, QC, MA, Ph.D., Permanent Secretary, Lord

Chancellors Office, UK Parliament!

39. Recent confirmations establish invalidity of the political and judicial system currently being applied in Australia. While all of this is relevant and

pertinent, it is as well to be aware that on, 19th December 1997 the Office of Legal Council of the General Secretariat of the United Nations

volunteered and thus confirmed that Australia has been a sovereign State from the 24th October 1945 at the latest. This was confirmed by letter

dated 19th December 1997, from the Acting Director and Deputy to the Under­Secretary­General, Office of the Legal Counsel, under the hand of

40. On the 5th November 1999, the UK Government through their High Commission in Canberra, volunteered and thus confirmed that the UK

British Nationality Act 1948 legislated that Australia was not a protectorate of the United Kingdom, so both the UN and the UK have confirmed

that for at least 51 years Australia has been an independent sovereign nation State. This was confirmed by letter dated 5th November 1999, from

the Chief Passport Examiner, British High Commission, Canberra, under the hand of Mrs Carole Turner.

41. As a consequence, under both international and UK law the UK Parliament’s ‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’ has been

ultra vires in relation to Australia for at least 51 years plus. So, for purposes of definition and resolution there is no fundamental need to look any

further back into history.

42. It is also most pertinent to note that on the 6th November 1999 the entire people of Australia, by referendum had for the first time, the

opportunity to have their say regarding the acceptance or otherwise of the Constitution under which they are governed.

43. They overwhelmingly rejected the 'Preamble to the Constitution' question which included, “We the Australian people commit ourselves to this

Constitution,” (The proposition was rejected in every State and Territory of Australia on a national basis of 60.66% to 39.34%. see end note.).

Thus the question must now be asked: * "How can present Australian parliaments possibly continue to exist under the terms of a Constitution to

which the people have refused to be committed?"

44. So it is that the Australian Parliament; relying for its existence, as it does, on a law which can no longer have application in Australia, remains a

puppet, in legal terms, of the United Kingdom Parliament. Currently, the only way Australian Commonwealth Bills can be allegedly passed into

Acts of law is by having them assented to in the name of a Monarch, who has no legal standing in any forum anywhere in the world!

45. Clause 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act rules that, for the purposes of that Act, all references to the Queen lie in the

sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, the Anglo­Irish Treaty of December 1921, which was ratified on 15th

January 1922, brought into existence the Irish Free State. In 1937 the Irish Free State became the Republic of Erie. Hence, "Ireland" ceased to

exist as a legal entity on 15th January 1922.

46. At the same time, the sovereignty of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist. The establishment of the new sovereignty of the United Kingdom

of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was formalised through the United Kingdom Parliaments Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. The

United Kingdom would constitute an international joke if at the beginning of the 21st Century it masqueraded as still existing in the 78 year

defunct sovereignty of Great Britain and Ireland! But, to this day every Australian Parliamentarian, Senator, and Judge swears and subscribes an

oath to the Monarch in the same 78 year obsolete sovereignty! Effectively, this results in a legal limbo even your self would conclude is bizarre.

In short, the Australian Parliament is not a valid organ representing the Sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia and cannot pass any laws

which can have valid application within Australia, or anywhere else for that matter.

47. Clearly the Commonwealth Government of Australia is invalid. As a consequence, no law made in the Australian Parliament has valid

application in Australia, or anywhere else. The only law that can be validly applied in Australia is international law.

48. The simple fact of the matter is, there is a fundamental and urgent need to place before the Australian citizenry a new, if interim, Constitution

under which they are prepared to be governed with a view to allowing the appropriate mechanisms to be established which would enable a

democratically decided Constitution to be agreed to and implemented.

49. However, there maybe serious consequences for the international community as a result of invalid Australian Governments entering into both

international treaties and contracts. This arises because the "Australian" Constitution creates the structure of the Australian Federal Government

together with establishing the States and Territories (see Chapter V being ss.106 to 120 of cl. 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution

Act). These governments, being established under that Act of the UK Parliament, are also then invalid, as is their legislation. Any treaties,

contracts or agreements entered into by them must be void.

50. In this context it must be noted that the Australian Federal Government which is responsible for signing treaties ­ could not at any time, under

International Law, have validly represented the Sovereign People of Australia. At any time, therefore, it could be argued that any, each and every

one of such treaties maybe declared invalid and not binding on signatory States. This in turn represents a threat to the protection of, inter alia,

commercial and intellectual property, patents, contracts, extradition orders, peace treaties and defence alliances.

51. Regarding contracts, by way of a simple example, multi­national insurance companies having entered into insurance contracts which operate

within the territory of Australia or under Australian law may hold contracts which are void ab initio owing to a fundamental breach of the

insured's duty of disclosure. The documents which unequivocally demonstrate the issues outlined above are inherently public documents which

have been easily accessible for years.

52. A broader issue, likewise, arises with regard to the quantum of any damages claim that could foreseeably be made against the UK before the

European Court of Justice, because given that the High Court of Australia has ruled that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Imp)

is not ultra vires in Australia, and that all subordinate legislation is still subject to the limitations imposed by that domestic law of the UK, * is

Australia still therefore, a colony of the UK? If so, will citizens in Australia be granted their full rights as European Citizens resident in a colony

of a Member State, including the right to freely enter each Member State and trade therein without restriction or penalty (other than those

prescribed by the law of the EEC for members of the European Community)? Will damages be appropriate for the period that residents of

Australia were denied such access to these European markets?

53. * Has the UK denied the citizens resident in Australia, who by referendum on 6th November 1999, rejected the continued use of the domestic

British Law, the right to self determination in contravention of International Law, the treaty establishing the European Community, the Charter of

the United Nations and other treaties? * Has the UK, by subterfuge, attempted to conceal from the European Community, the real nature and

depth of it's continued involvement in the governments of Australia? If so, at what cost?

54. * Alternatively, do the Member States of the European Union, having recognised the sovereign independence of the Australian people owe a

duty, under Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations and under Articles 2 and 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, to prevent

continued illegal dominance of Australian citizens by the UK? * Are such States liable for damages if they remain inactive in this regard?

55. Given that the High Court of Australia has declared that even though citizens resident in Australia are governed under domestic British

Legislation, they are denied the fundamental Human Rights conferred on British citizens by the same UK Parliament through both common law

and through the accession of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (See the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK). *

Are judicial officers within Australia ­ all of whom are appointed under UK legislation and commissioned by Governors and Governors­General

appointed by the UK Parliament ­ in breach of the said Covenant?

56. If so, * to what extent will liability be found to rest with the UK Parliament, given that despite official declarations as to Australia's

independence, that Parliament has maintained a colonial regime in Australia through force majeure?

57. Moreover, the status of many people who have been granted Australian Citizenship under the provisions of the National Citizenship Act 1948

(Cth) has ­ in a limited number of cases ­ already been questioned, for apart from the established arguments as to the invalidity of the 'Australian'

Constitution, which in turn renders the National Citizenship Act 1948 invalid, there exists no power within the Constitution to create other than

58. YES! THE SITUATION IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS! And yes, by definition, the Australian people currently exists in a state of legal anarchy, if

they don't reside within the realm of The Commonwealth [of Humanity]. And yes, there is reason to believe that the international community is

very concerned. After all, * what is the worth of an international treaty which has been signed by an authority which does not validly represent

the sovereignty of the State?

59. Over a number of years senior political identities of all persuasions within Australia including Prime Ministers, Attorneys­General and other

senior Cabinet Minister together with minor party leaders have been fully briefed, TAKE NOTICE: And Now have you!

60. The documents of history have been presented to Australian Courts at all levels. Currently there are matters before other courts outside of

Australia. Having exhausted all possible avenues for domestic remedy and recognising that, in fact, the situation is so serious that there exists a

very real potential for a total breakdown in 'law and order' once the people awake to these Treasonous actions from the Australian and British

Governments, that they have had to injure, an appeal for assistance has been advanced to the entire international community.

61. The mechanism by which this was achieved has been by way of a 480 page submission individually presented to all 185 Member States of the

United Nations as well as to, Kofi Annan the General Secretariat, the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Committee and the Security

62. The document includes a request for the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal to prosecute individuals who can be shown to have

inhibited the inalienable right of any Australian people to self­determination by knowingly subjecting Australian people to British colonial law

within the sovereign territory of the Commonwealth of Australia, would you like me to add your name to the list? It is clear that along the way

the situation will be, by necessity, brought before the International Court of Justice. Advice from three continents is that there exists no counter

argument, and that therefore the outcome is a forgone conclusion. ll nations have received the submission. No nation has returned or rejected it. Many nations have confirmed and/or are actively giving their support to the Sovereign People of Australia. For obvious reasons these nations

cannot, at this stage, be named.

63. It is to be hoped that Australia's unique constitutional conundrum and associated problems flowing therefrom can be expeditiously and peacefully

rectified, however it is incumbent upon lawyers, academics, politicians and yourself to become fully aware of the situation and its implications so

as to be able to offer informed advice when this is sought in the near future by way of a Writ.

64. The author believe that this advice will be required shortly, particularly by governments and businesses within those nations which are Australia's

trading and defence partners. Moreover, there is cause to apprehend that citizens, former citizens and corporations domiciled in those nations

against which Australia declared war­ beginning on 3rd September 1939 ­ may wish to pursue claims for reparations under Article 36 of the

Statute of the International Court of Justice because a declaration of war is an action under international law only capable of being performed by

65. The terms of section 3(1) and (2) of the Australia Acts 1986 (UK and Cth.) constitute a clear admission by both Australia and the UK that

colonial law was, at least up to 1986, being applied in Australia.

66. (Endnote: 6th November Referendum Results ­ enrolled ­ 12,387,729, total votes Counted 11,785,035, results ­ yes 4,591,563, no 7,080,998,

informal ­ 112,474.). Thus, by the only national vote ever held in which all citizens were entitled to vote on the issue, the proposition was rejected

in every State and Territory of Australia on a national basis of 60.66% to 39.34%, clearly establishing that,

(The Australian population did not commit themselves to be ruled by a controlled colonial constitution).

67. A letter from the ‘Commonwealth of Australia Attorney’ General’s Department dated 7th May, 2001 states that Mr Henke wanted to see a copy

of the document issued by the government of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) empowering the Queen of Australia to

use the Royal Sign Manual.

In the 2nd paragraph of that letter is the response which clearly states that there is NO SUCH DOCUMENT!!

68. Then there is the response from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom in London, to Mr William Bolton that the Queen

has NO EXECUTIVE POWER within the Commonwealth of Australia.

69. By letter dated 18th October 2004, this time to Mr Sempf and once again under the Freedom Of Information Act, similar material was sought and

this time the same response was received from the Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet.

70. Yet if we go to the next few pages, clearly on Official Government documents both here and the UK, we can see that they contain the words


71. Every Australian of average intelligence knows the above is true or can easily verify it. Even Australian politicians, judges, lawyers and members

of the Legal Academe all agree the above is 100% historically accurate and Australia has been an independent sovereign nation for most of the

72. * How can Australian Law, State and Federal be dependent upon the current validity of

British laws in Australian sovereign territory?

73. The Australian High Court stated in 1988, (Robert Woods case), "Despite the historic link with the British Crown, the United Kingdom was still

74. The British Government states their laws are not valid in Australia. The chief law officer of the Office of Legal Affairs of the Secretary General

of the United Nations states British Laws are not valid in Australia after Australian independence on 10

Who then says they are?

75. You guessed it ­ Australian politicians and Judges and their minions!


77. From as 1920 every Australian Federal & State Politician, Judge, Magistrate, Defence Force Personnel, Federal & State Police Officer, Sheriff,

Local Mayor, etc., in other words the people in Authority, have ALL, committed an ‘Act of Treason’ either knowingly or not, against the

Australian People, by swearing allegiance and subscribing to an oath to serve Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland

and therefore the government of a Power foreign to Australia.

78. By all accounts Australia was recognised worldwide as an Independent Sovereign Nation after WWI, when we were invited to join as a founding

member, the League of Nations in 1919. Only fully self­governing nations could be members of the League of Nations.

79. After WWII we were once again recognised worldwide as an Independent Sovereign Nation when we were asked to join the United Nations in

1945, which we did on the provision that we, like all other member nations, would adhere to the UN Charter and abide by the International Law

80. Since 1919, Monarchies of the United Kingdoms have allegedly appointed a Governor­General, who have in turn sworn into office, the Federal

Government of Australia. This Federal Government then had the rights and privileges to administer the laws and run the ‘Commonwealth of

81. However, these Monarchs have had NO legal basis to do so! Elizabeth II has NEVER been crowned the “Queen of Australia” and has NO legal

authority within Australia! British Law clearly cites the preclusion of the U.K. monarch from any political intervention in a foreign land!!!

(Under International Law it is also forbidden for a Member Nation State of the United Nations, to apply their legislation, within another Member

82. The Queen then has no legal power to appoint the Governor­General, this position is totally invalid.

83. This would also mean any Federal Government legally since 1919, cannot be sworn into office, so the Australian Parliament is not a valid organ

representing the Sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia and cannot pass any laws which can have valid application within Australia, or

anywhere else for that matter. The only law that can have valid application in Australia is international law, and possibly the common law of

84. You may then start to understand how the appointment of our Australian Governments, the various government departments and our Australian

Constitution are and have been for decades – fraudulent, illegal and invalid.

Have your ever broken a traffic law and been stopped by the police?

85. All said parties have sworn an oath of allegiance to a illegal and invalid entity. They have no lawful standing over, The Australian people what so

86. The whole Judicial System in Australia is not only fraudulent, but also invalid!!! ALL Judges (especially those in the High, Federal and State

Supreme Courts) are well aware of this invalidity and know that their own appointments are totally unlawful. However, these same Judges have

continued to preside and rule against thousands of people, even when the invalidity of these Judges, were actually questioned and challenged in

documents filed in their own courts and who were aware of this when making their rulings!

87. Innocent people have been ordered to pay fines, had property re­possessed, been forced into bankruptcy or imprisoned by dishonest Judges who

are more interested in protecting their own livelihoods, positions, power and the status quo! = Treason upon all Judges.

88. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is also an organisation with NO lawful authority. Yet people once again have had their lives ruined to the

point of suicide for being unable to pay their supposed taxes. I will be unable to pay any outstanding and future debts or penalties imposed by an

unlawful and unconstitutional Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as I want to be sure that the amount the (ATO) says is outstanding now and in

the future goes to the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia as defined with an Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK)

[63 & 64 Vict.] [Ch. 12].

“Hight Court of Australia” Molekier ­v­ Chapman [2000] ­"ATO is not a legal entity"

89. For any Australian Government department and or all of their subsidiaries and affiliated legal entities around the world reading this paper, who

participates in perpetrating this fraud against any Australian people after being made aware of these facts, will be in breach of a Human Rights

violation and in due course will be charged in ‘The International Court’ for Human Rights abuse.

90. By way of a parallel situation, the report of the International Criminal Tribunal (Yugoslavia) reveals that, this Tribunal considered human rights

abuses as more serious than war crimes and placed ‘economic deprivation’ at the upper end of the penalty scale. Any person directly involved in

an unlawful act of economic deprivation (for which the United Nation’s penalty scale is from five (5) to twenty­five (25) years).

91. Any Australian Government and its subsidiaries and affiliated legal entitles around the world demands, are threatening and offensive to my

inalienable rights as a Sovereign human being. Therefore, I will not accept being threatened by any unlawful corporate government department,

nor will I accept any unlawful corporate government demands.

92. I retain all of my inalienable lawful human rights, at all times and in all places, (nunc pro tunc), from the date that I was born and forevermore, as

stated in said Constitution.

93. Further, I retain my inalienable rights not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly,

voluntarily and intentionally, and furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrelieved contract or commercial

agreements, I am Not ever subject to silent contracts and have never knowingly or willingly contracted or given away any of my sovereignty

94. You should now take the time to consider your position, as you have been given notice and as an individual with access to the Internet, telephone

and postal service if you continue to act in any manner against an Australian people(s), you will be denied any defence as to your lack of

knowledge of the facts outlined herein.

95. It is my hope that by not indulging in legal opinion or jurisprudential theory, but rather by relying entirely upon original documents of statute law

and history (most of which are easily ascertainable), I have gone some way to answering this need at this point

96. Nuremberg War Crimes.

Nuremberg Principle IV.

97. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law,

provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him at the time, before the order was given.

98. Please remember that, in matters involving human rights, individuals are considered to be solely responsible for their actions and the “I was only

doing my job”, Nuremberg defences of ‘acting on advice’, ‘acting under direction’, ‘acting under orders’ or any justification which involves a

‘superior authority’ (such as an unsafe court decision) does not present as an acceptable defence.

99. In addition, you should note that an International Criminal Tribunal can authorise any reparations that it deems fit. Accordingly, individual

offenders may be subject to ‘open ended’ liability.

100. Moreover, advice received from counsels in the United Kingdom is that the compensation that will be awarded will be in the nature of

“extraordinary punitive” damages AGAINST ANY OFFENDER!!! You have been warned!!!

101. As they say, don’t shoot the messenger ­ these are legal facts and not legal opinion!

102. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, must produce evidence, proof of a “Doctrine” “Instrument” and or “Document”

that the people of Australia, have given their sovereign rights away and consent to do any such actions, empowering the Australian Government,

Local Government and or Executive Government, and Judiciary through the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK) [63 & 64 Vict.] [Ch. 12] and

103. * Were “Peoples Names and or Company with ABN Number”, Commissioned under the St Edwards Crown of the Commonwealth of

105. * The question begs, “Peoples Names and or Company with ABN Number”, where do you source your power of authority from?

The Commonwealth [of Humanity].

The restored : Commonwealth of Australia.

107. Despite what the the legal system in Australia might say to the contrary, they are miss­informed and ignorant of material facts relevant to

the existence or non­existence of a fact in issue.

108. The entity 'The Commonwealth' (of Nation States) now has it own Crown for the purpose of international law, thus ­

109. By the Grace of God Elizabeth The Third Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Her Other Realms and

Territories Joint Head of The Commonwealth.

110. By the Grace of God Brent The First King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and His Other Realms and Territories

Joint Head of The Commonwealth

111. The question that Her Majesty's servant(s) need to ask themselves is quite simple, viz­

"Does the author have a incorporeal body which is of God?"

112. The answer on a preliminary basis to this question can be viewed at the United Kingdom of Australia's website at the following URLs –

113. Crown: Sovereignty: Australia's Stone of Scone


114. Crown: Sovereignty: Holy Shrine


115. Commissions: Governor: Victoria



During the re­proceeding before the Judicial Registrar on 3 March 2011, the Judicial

“ Are you the King of Australia?”

“ Yes. I am according to Law!”



120. Subsequently, the Judicial Registrar was effectively informed that:

The Queen of Australia has exercised Her Imperial Prerogative and altered The Royal Standard as an indication of Her dominion and sovereignty

over the United Kingdom of Australia.

Appendix: [F] The Royal Standard “2009”

Appendix: [G] The Royal Standard “2010”

121. The Coat of Arms of the Sovereign of Australia, (which incorporates the Royal Standard of Australia as distinct from the Queens new

arms of dominion over Australia). In this regard we note the Garter Principle King of Arms ­ who is the foremost authority on Coats of Arms in

the world. In Correspondence dated 8 May 2002 said:

The Royal Arms displayed in Australia are the Arms of the Queen as Sovereign of Australia. They are used throughout the Commonwealth

where the Queen is Head of State.



122. I refer your attention to the case of Dey v Victorian Railway Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62, 91, whereas future Chief Justice of the

High Court Owen Dixon stated in dicta,

“... once it appears that there is a real question to be determined whether of fact or law and that the rights of the parties depend upon it, then it

is not competent for the court to dismiss the action as frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process.”

124. Indeed, Law is inherently purposive. It deserves more purposive attention; for on its immediate growth undoubtedly hangs my fate; and, We reasonably suspect, the fate of civilisation.

125. The Royal Bank of Australia is a Division of the Australian Imperial Crown Corporation (AICC). His Excellency The Hon. Alex

Chernov, AC, QC, Governor of Victoria has been formally appointed chair of this entity by instrument dated the 3rd of May 2013.

126. Royal Bank of Australia


127. This lawful money system of the Commonwealth of Australia, is paper based. The aforesaid documents bears the armorial bearing of the

Sovereign of Victoria, and also bears Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, signature, making these Documents“Lawful”.

The aforesaid: Document Annexed: [J] is legal tender throughout the United Kingdom of Australia, Commonwealth of Australia,

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, and The Commonwealth [of Humanity].


Legal Notice for the “National Australia Bank Limited”

by Her Imperial Majesty's Command.


Legal Notice for the “ The Bank of England”

by Her Imperial Majesty's Command.


Legal Notice for the “Telstra Corporation Limited”

by Her Imperial Majesty's Command.


Legal Notice for the “City of London Corporation”

by Her Imperial Majesty's Command.


Legal Notice for the “Commonwealth Bank of Australia”

by Her Imperial Majesty's Command.


Legal Notice for the “Federal Reserve System”

by Her Imperial Majesty's Command.

135. As is the fact and evidences of acceptance of The Royal Bank of Australia Currency, from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia ABN:

Depositor of funds, John Russell. Date: 16 July 2013, in Melbourne Australia.

The Royal Bank of Australia's Currency, bearing King James II King of Australia, signature and finger print, and also bears, The Royal Coat of

Arms of the Sovereign of Victoria.

136. * Commonwealth Bank of Australia Receipt/Tax Invoice 884757.

Furthermore in the same photograph is One * Royal Bank of Australia $100 Australian Dollar Paper Note. Annexed: [Q]

137. * 54­2. Commonwealth Bank of Australia Receipt/Tax Invoice 884757.

138. Heraldry is an ancient language and science regulated in Australia by a prerogative of the English monarch, which forms part of the law

of Australia, and the State of Victoria, by virtue of the common law doctrine of reception, which has been codified in statute in the State of

Victoria enacted by The Queen's most excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and the Legislative

Assembly of Victoria in the Parliament then assembled and by the authority of the same in the Constitution Act 1975

(Vic), and the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980(Vic).

139. The said prerogative of the Queen of Australia has not been delegated to the Governor General of Australia under section 61 of the

Constitution (Cth.), nor any of the Governors of any State within the Commonwealth of Australia for that matter.

140. Should a dispute arise in relation to the use of any armorial bearing, Majesties High Court of Chivalry of England and Wales is a civil

court in England, which has Absolute jurisdiction by prescription in matters of honour, pedigree, descent, and coat armour.

141. The court was last convened in 1954 in the matter of Manchester Corporation v Manchester Palace of variety Ltd [1955] 1 AII ER 387.

This was the first time that the Court of Chivalry had sat for approximately two centuries since 1732.

142. The opening part of the aforesaid judgement involved an analysis lending to the determination that the Court of Chivalry still exists. Lord

It is not contended that this court, however long a period may have elapsed since it last sat , is no longer known to the law. It was originally the

Court of the Constable and Marshall and has probably existed since the Conquest. At least it had been in existence for very many years before his

time the famous case of Scroop v Grosvenor was hear before it.

143. Lord Goddard, C.J's remarks are relevant to the existence or non existence of a fact in issue in the case before the honourable court,

having regard to relevant provisions of the Imperial Acts Applications Act 1980 (Vic), and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia –

The legal fact that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II can exercise an Imperial Prerogative in the State of Victoria was confirmed in the House of

Representative [18971] (Cth.) on 8 September 2003 by the member for Wentworth at approximately 9.26 p.m,

The present entirely unsatisfactory positions is that Australia organisations and individuals must approach the College of Arms in London. Which

claims to have some imperial jurisdiction over Australia and Australian's courts. The court of the Lord Lyon in Edinburgh or the Chief Herald of

Ireland for their needs. Needless to say, the Commonwealth State cannot make use of any of these foreign authorities should they wish to change

the Commonwealth or State or Arms.

144. In a declaration made on the 16 June 1673 by Arthur Annesley, 1st Earl of Anglesey, the Lord Privy Seal, in reference to a dispute over

the exercise of authority over the Officers of Arms the powers of the Earl Marshal were stated as,

"to have power to order, judge, and determine all matters touching arms, ensigns of nobility, honour, and chivalry; to make laws, ordinances, and

statutes for the good government of the Officers of Arms; to nominate Officers to fill vacancies in the College of Arms; to punish and correct

Officers of Arms for misbehaviour in the execution of their places".

145. Additionally it was also declared that no patents of arms or any ensigns of nobility should be granted and no augmentation, alteration, or

addition should be made to arms without the consent of the Earl Marshal.

146. Clearly this material discloses two matters: 1. a Royal Pedigree 2. Australia's independent Sovereign Nation.

Royal Pedigree: The relevant case law can be viewed at the following, Source:

147. The AIC was created according to Imperial, Admiralty and Ecclesiastic Law on the 11 November 2009, with the consent of the Governor

of Victoria, for and on behalf of Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It was created for the purpose of restoring the prerogatives of

The Crown, which existed before Glorious Revolution in 1688, inter alia, which came about as a result of a conspiracy – similar to that which

recently occurred in the Commonwealth of Australia; involving the Legislative and Executive arms of Government in their failed attempt to

usurp The Crown of the Commonwealth of Australia, and insert the Commonwealth of Australia, into an unelected communist world

148. The Crown in English law is a legal entity consisting of a single (sole) incorporated office, occupied by a single (sole [ the sun

personified]) man or woman. In this regard, We note former Victoria Police Senior Chaplain James Pilmer PSM's sermon in 2009:

we bring before you holy God the blessed spirits of the brave, we call to mind the path they trod their memory in our hearts we save. As evil

fights against the right, we look to you to shed your light, on all you people gathered here, there is a time for tearing down, there is a time to let

love fly , to heaven to gild the loved one's Crown. There is a time when grief and pain brings hopelessness beyond despair, yet in the darkness

we will find, The God of comfort waiting there. Great God of peace, good God of Love, so slow to anger , swift to bless. We bring to you the

memory of our colleagues lives and faithfulness , who in their day example gave to those of us who follow on, into your hands we here commend

the souls of those valor shone.

149. In the late seventeenth century, Stewart Kyd, the author of the first treatise on corporate law in England defined a ' corporation' as:

A collection of many individual united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and

vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of

contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and exercising a variety of political

rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any

subsequent period of its existence.

150. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, is the physical personification of a corporation sole. So it the Pope for that matter. According to the

common law of Australia, she has numerous corporate bodies as indicated aforesaid. Indeed, at material times during Her reign, She has been

placed in the absurd position of being at war with herself. In 1952, the Queen gained 400 New offices. In 2009, she gained a couple more.

151. Corporation, including corporation soles, are brought into being with in a legal framework or a body of law that specifically creates them

as a legal personality, including without limitation ecclesiastic law. Typically, corporations are viewed as a fictional person, a legal person or a

moral person as opposed to a natural person. According to Lord Chancellor Haldane: ..

.... A corporation is an abstraction it has no mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own. Its active and directing will must

consequently be sought in the person of somebody who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation, the very ego and centre of the

personality of the corporation.

152. Membership of the body politic of the 'Commonwealth ' or citizenship is defined at common law in terms of allegiance to the Crown. The

preamble of the Constitution suggests that the aim of the Constitution was to create one body politic or one citizenship under the Crown by

stating that the people “.. have convention debates in the later part of the 19

“Commonwealth” to describe the new federation. But it was retained. During the course of the debates, defenders of the word explained its

meaning and why they considered it to be appropriate. It was variously described as synonym for the body politic, the ' the common weal'. The

whole body of people in a state. In our opinion, the essence of the meaning of the word “ commonwealth” is a body of people politically

organised under a system of government for the common good.

153. To paraphrase the preamble of Constitution, it records the agreement of the people of the then colonies to organise political for the

common good in one federal system of government under the Crown. As we had agreed to form one federal body politic and the Crown is the

symbol of that politic, it follows that there is one Crown.

There have been suggestions that the Commonwealth and the States are separate bodies politic in the recent case Re: The Residential Tenancies

Tribunal of NSW v Henderson: ex parte The Defence Housing Authority. These arguments were eventually rejected and it is now too late to

return to them. The now reasoned view is that the Commonwealth and the States are creatures of the Constitution, which consists with Australia

being one political community in which governmental power is divided between a number of governments, Commonwealth and State, rather than

seven separate political communities.

154. It is difficult to reconcile any claim that the Constitution is an agreement between seven separate bodies politic with it words. The

Preamble, which can be taken into account in resolving ambiguities in the test of the Constitution, is inconsistent, in two ways with the view that

the Constitution is an agreement between seven sovereign bodies politic. First, it identifies the parties to the Constitution as the people of the

State rather than the States themselves, Secondly, it describes the people's intention as being to unite in :” one indissoluble Federal

Commonwealth and under The Crown”, not seven separate bodies politic. The fact that remains, the States themselves were incorporated into

this new body politic. It is now generally agreed that their constitutions are confirmed by and, as a consequence, owe their authority to the

Constitution to which they are now subjected, to the Constitution, the Commonwealth can seek to amend their constitutions and can even seek

their abolition by means of the procedure for amending the Constitution in section 128, which is essentially a special procedure for exercising

Commonwealth legislative power.

155. The states nor territories do not have power to initiate constitutional change or prevent it for that matter. The states and territories are

completely subject to the Constitution and it is clear that the states and the territories are part of the people politically organise which the

Constitution created rather than separate entities which predate and stand out side of that political organisation.

157. Amalgamated Society of, Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd

("Engineers' case") [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129 (31 August 1920)


When the people of Australia, to use the words of the Constitution itself,

"united in a Federal Commonwealth,"

they took power to control by ordinary constitutional means any attempt on the part of the national Parliament to misuse its powers.

If it be conceivable that the representatives of the people of Australia as a whole would ever proceed to use their national powers to injure the

people of Australia considered sectionally,

th century, there was some opposition to use of the word:

it is certainly within the power of the people themselves to resent and reverse what may be done.

No protection of this Court in such a case is necessary or proper.

Therefore, the doctrine of political necessity, as means of interpretation, is indefensible on any ground.

The one clear line of judicial inquiry as to the meaning of the Constitution must be to read it naturally in the light of the circumstances in which it

with knowledge of the combined fabric of the common law, and the statute law which preceded it, and then lucet ipsa per se.

158. This “COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA”, that is operating in the Canberra Parliament is an entity that is registered on the US

Securities & Exchange Commission and operates the digital money system. This COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, which is an entity, for

the purposes of international law, which was created in a body of law within the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America.

159. This “Commonwealth of Australia”, being a Commonwealth [of Human beings] having a frame work of business for the Parliament of

the Commonwealth, being the: Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900. This Constitution was restored on the 11.11.2009 by, King James

II King of Australia. This Commonwealth of [Human beings] are governed by The Constitution set forth by,

Queen Victoria's Rose, His Majesty King James II, Head of the Commonwealth of Humanity and the Commonwealth of Australia, King of

Australia and His other Realms and Territories.

160. The Constitution set forth by, Queen Victoria's Rose.

161. And then brought to light and read along side the People's of Australia Proclamation,

by Man. John Russell and others on the 4

Annexed: [S] People's of Australia Proclamation.

Youtube Video: Source:

162. It is obvious these Human beings do not exist within this ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’. Meaning, this “Commonwealth of

Australia” of Human beings, are Human Beings and Not corporations.

163. These Human Being are not Corporations, and for any Australian Human Being to be registered as a Corporation within The

Commonwealth of Australia,

164. an error of law has occurred.

166. The “Parliament of the Commonwealth” is open for Business. As distinct from the opening for business, Mr. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister of the Australian Government Corporation, has spoken about lately.

th July 2013, Old Parliament House ­ Royal Exhibition Building, located in the realm of Victoria,

168. By the King: The Commonwealth [of Humanity] A PROCLAMATION

Monday 9 January 2012.

This document reads in part:

We, therefore, have thought fit to issue this Our Royal Proclamation, and We do

hereby declare that on and after the Ninth day of January, in the year of Our Sun

two thousand zero hundred and twelve, the people of Earth ­ by the Grace of God ­

shall be united in a global Commonwealth under the name of: The Commonwealth

Annexed: [T] Source:



170. This document reads in part:

171. At a time and date when the people of Australia see fit, they may open the peoples’ parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, yet

subject to, and in accordance with, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

th of February 2013

172. By the King, PROCLAMATION: Relating to,

The Proclamation Declaring the rights and Liberties of the Peoples of Australia and Settling and Succession of the Australian Crown.

173. By the King, PROCLAMATION. Relating to the Royal Style and Titles.

174. Creating a New Sovereign Entity

King James II King of Australia, corporate body came into existence as a result of a series of legal and physical steps undertaken by various

Kings and Queens throughout Australia's constitutional history, and beforehand in the colony of Victoria, for an imperial purpose inter se.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, on 25 December 2010 raised a “New Royal Standard over Buckingham Palace”, during her annual Christmas

speech, an indication of her dominion and sovereignty over the United Kingdom of Australia. Her speech was substantially about King James and

His Authorised Bible (KJV).

The Royal Standard has not been altered by the [English] Crown since the beginning of the reign of Queen Victoria. A video of this

unprecedented and historical event may be viewed at the Australian Imperial Crown Corporation's (AICC) website, which is an authorised entity

of the Queen and the Holy see.

Annexed: [X] The Royal Standard “2009” ­ “2010”.

178. The Royal Standard “2010”

“Queens Christmas speech” on the 25

Youtube Source ­

th December 2010.

The Commonwealth of Australia, has been Restored.

Accordingly, for the purpose of international law, the (AICC) has been recognised as a sovereign entity by 17 sovereign entities – globally.

181. Accordingly, Australia now has Joint Sovereign Heads: viz:

By the Grace of God Elizabeth The Third Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Her Other Realms and Territories Joint

Head of The Commonwealth.

By the Grace of God Brent The First King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and His Other Realms and Territories Joint Head

of The Commonwealth.

Annexed: [A] and Annexed: [B]

King James II King of Australia, declared the Australian Imperial Crown(AIC), By instrument dated 3 March 2009, upon Her Excellency Ms

Quentin Bryce AC Governor­General of the Commonwealth, at said time.

On 4 March 2009, King James II King of Australia, sent the original copy of His Declaration to the Queen of Australia at Buckingham Palace,

London by registered post.

On or about 10 March 2009, King James II King of Australia, declaration was received by the Queen of Australia.

On 10 November 2009, King James II King of Australia, wrote to, His Excellency Professor David de Krester AC. His letter was transmitted to

His Excellency by facsimile at 6.04 p.m. (EST).

This document reads in part:

If you wish to arrange my detention , arrest or otherwise, please feel free to do so. The police have my details ... if not, I shall assume your

implied consent , and shall act according to the accompanying material. ....”

Annexed: [Z­2] Accompanying Material.

Declaration of the Australian Imperial Crown.

Annexed: [Z­3] Accompanying Material.

“Declaration of the Australian Imperial Crown: Remembrance Day 2009”.

On the 12 May 2010, His excellency Professor David de Krester AC, received an letter by fax from King James II, regarding the St Edward's

Crown of the Commonwealth of Australia.

On the 14 October 2010, His excellency Professor David de Krester AC had a private audience with The Queen at Buckingham Palace.

188. * Do you think Professor David de Krester AC ~ Governor of Victoria at that time, would have raised Question(s) about these

“Instruments” and or “Documents” ?

On the 26 October 2010, articles were posted on the Official Website of The British Monarchy, titled: “ The Queen's working day” which states

190. Every day of every year, wherever she is, The Queen receives from government ministers, and from her representatives in the

Commonwealth and foreign countries, information in the form of policy papers, Cabinet documents, telegrams, letters and other State papers.


191. Even when she is away from London, in residence at Balmoral or Sandringham, she receives official papers nearly everyday of every

year and remains fully briefed on matters affecting her realms.


192. The Royal Standard of the United Kingdom, apart from minor changes (notable to the form harp used to represent Ireland), dates to the

reign of Queen Victoria. Earlier Royal Standards of the United Kingdom incorporated the Arms of Hanover and of the Kingdom of France,

representing the title of Elector (later king) of Hanover and the theoretical claim to the throne of France (a claim dropped in 1800). The

Hanoverian association was terminated in 1837 with the accession of Queen Victoria who, being a female, could not accede to Hanover.

193. In England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and outside the United Kingdom, and in Australia because of its unique relationship with the

English sovereign, the Royal Standard is divided into four quadrants. The first and fourth quadrants represent the ancient Kingdoms of England

and Wales, which contain three gold lions respectively(or leopards). Passant guardant on a red field: the second quadrant represents the ancient

Kingdom of Scotland and contains a red lion rampant on a gold field; the third quadrant represent the ancient Kingdom of Ireland and contains a

version of the gold harp from the coat of arms of Ireland on a blue field. The official blazon of the Royal Arms is as follows:

194. Quarterly, first and fourth Gules three lions passan gardant in pale Or armed and langued Azure ( for England), second quarter Or a lion

rampant within a double tressure flory­counter­flory Gules ( for Scotland) third quarter Azure a harp Or stringed argent (for Ireland), the whole

urrounded by the Garter; for a Crest , upon the Royal helm the Imperial crown Proper; thereon a lion statant gardant Or imperially crowned

Proper; Mantling Or and ermine; for supporters, dexter a lion rampant.

The Royal Standard of the United Kingdom [as amended] is used by The Queen in her capacity as a Sovereign entity at international law.

Notably, 1954, when Her Majesty stayed at Government House in Melbourne, The Royal Standard was flown as an indication of her dominion

and sovereignty. This fact is consistent with the Garter Kings of Arms remark that:

196. The Royal Arms displayed in Australia are the Arms of The Queen as Sovereign of Australia.



197. Annexed: [Z­3 ] “Declaration of the Australian Imperial Crown: Remembrance Day 2009”.

This document reads in part:

11.50am – 12.10 pm : You are invited to climb the grand steps of the Shrine of Remembrance, though the north door past the shrine guards, to

witness the Son of Man, God's Son anoint the personification of Australia’s national sovereignty in body, mind and sole...” Located in the King's

domain at Melbourne is Victoria's Hekhal (Holy Place) or Shrine of Remembrance.

198. The Shrine of Remembrance forecourt was dedicated by the Queen of Australia in 1954.

199. Etched into the stone in the forecourt is says, viz:

Let All Men Know This Is A Holy Place, op.cit.

200. The Shrine of Remembrance is subject to the Queen's Royal Peculiar Prerogative.

201. On 11 November 2009 for and on behalf of your Lord The Queen and Her regality and prerogative, with her consent of the Governor of

Victoria, in the free exercise of His religion according to,

section 116 of The Constitution (Cth);

the First Schedule of the Austrian Flags Act 1953 (Cth,)

section 2(1) of the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic)

Part II; S8[1405­6] 7 Henry IV c. 1 of the imperial Acts Application Act 1980 (Vic); heraldic devices of State , Imperial, Admiralty and

Ecclesiastic Law, by the authority of same, King James II stood in the centre of the material embodiment of the Cross of St George (England's

patron military saint), on the 'Remembrance Stone” or “ Key Stone” depicted in the shield of the city of Melbourne's armorial bearing, under the

Crown of St Edward the Confessor (the crown used to crown a new monarch) and patron saint of kings.

202. The Remembrance Stone is engraved with the following words:

Greater Love Hath No Man, op.cit;viz:

John 14:6: Jesus answered: ' I am the way and the truth and the life. No­one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you

would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

203. By virtue of these material and legal facts, King James II King of Australia, was crowned with the St Edward’s Crown, At precisely

12.00 p.m. EST, a moment in galactic time when a shaft of light touches the word: “ Love” on the Remembrance Stone in the shine in Melbourne, at which time,

204. King James II, was anointed by the physical personification of the Son of man in Our solar system.

205. We say the Sun of man is literally the physical personification of the Son of Man: Jesus Christ. This fact is demonstrably proven by direst

observation of the solar operation of the Egyptian oblique in St Peter's Square situated within the Holy See. When it is operated as a sun dial by

the Sun of Man, it displays the symbol of Jesus Christ – the Son of Man. You may view a video of this fact at the AIC Corporation' website,

which is an authorised website of The Queen and the Holy See.



206. History of the City of Melbourne/Colony of Victoria.

207. From the time of its establishment in 1835, Melbourne had been a province of New South Wales and the affairs of the settlement had

been administered by the Parliament of New South Wales. With the growth of the settlement there had been an increasing demand by the

inhabitants for great autonomy over their own affairs. Accordingly, on 12 August 1842, melbourne was incorporated as a Town by Act 6 Victoria

No.7 of the governor and legislative Council of New South Wales.

208. United Kingdom of Australia – The Commonwealth [of Humanity]

Crown: Sovereignty: Melbourne: Key to City.


209. The Town of Melbourne was raised to the status of a City by Letters Patent of Queen Victoria dated 25 June 1847 – just five years after

its incorporation. This Royal action arose from a desire to establish a Bishops See of the Church of England in the Town. As the establishment of

an Anglican Protestant bishopric required the status of a City, Melbourne was ecclesiastically created a ' Cathedral City' by the letters which, the

Queen gave to the first bishop of Melbourne Subsequently the St James (old) Cathedral was built. This is the oldest. An Act to effect a change in

the style and Title of the Corporation of Melbourne rendered necessary by the erection of the Town of Melbourne to a City.

210. By Royal warrant dated 18 December 1902 His Majesty King Edward II exercised His prerogative and graciously conferred the title: '

Lord Mayor' on the Mayor of the City of Melbourne. This warrant now is displayed on the east wall of the Lord Mayor's Room at the Town Hall.

211. Armorial bearings (or arms) were first granted to the Corporation by Letters Patent of the College of Heralds dated 30 January 1940.

They were based on the device approved by the Council of the Town of Melbourne on 2 January 1843 for the common Seal of the Corporation.

The seal was presented to, and formally adopted by, the Council at its first quarterly meeting on 9 February 1843. The seal device was used

from1843 until 1940 as the arms of the corporation. It was described in the report submitted to the Council on 2 January 1843 as follows:

212. Shields: Argent , St George's Cross gules surmounted by the Regal Crown of Great Britain. Quarterling – Whale, Golden Fleece, bull ,

and Ship Proper. Crests : Kangaroo demi­ coupe regardant. Shield: ornamented by wattle branches proper. The whole encircled by a wreath. Motto: ' Vires acquiri Eundo' (she gathers strength as she goes).

213. At its meeting on 9 February 1843, the council resolved that the Mayor be instructed to forward to the Secretary of State for the Colonies

an impression of the Common Seal for His majesty's Approval, and to request him:

To take the necessary steps for the enrolment­of­the­Town Arms in the Heralds' College..

214. However nothing came of this and it was not until1940 the melbourne obtained a grant of arms from the College of Arms.

215. The present arms of the City of melbourne were granted by the Letters Patent on 18 march 1970. They were presented to the City of

melbourne personally by the Queen in that year. They differ from those of 1940 in the following respects: :

the bull on the shield is in the second quarter instead of the third and the whale is in the third quarter instead of the second (the two water based

charges­ the whale and the ship – thus being placed on the same level at the bottom of the shield)

216. In the fuller context. It is also worth noting according to Standard Note SN/PC/00435 of the House of Common Library, the Coronation

Oath taken by Queen Elizabeth the II was modified with statutory authority. Her Majesty did not comply with the Coronation Oath Act 1989

217. House of Commons Library Standard note SN/PC/00435.

218. Unlike other monarchs, for example Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth has only displayed the St Edwards Crown in Heraldry, as distinct

from the Imperial crown (save for one notable exception set out below), which according to The Queen, is used once during the coronation. This

fact in issue is amply illustrated in various stamps and minted coins throughout the Commonwealth of Australia during the various reigns of

219. We should have you note, according to the common law of Australia, time in lae, does not stand against The Crown.

220. We now draw your attention to the fact Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has frequently excised her imperial prerogative(s) in this realm,

particularly in the State of Victoria. For example:

The Coat of Arms of Victoria were granted on 6 June 1910 by King George V. the State of Victoria was named in 1851 after his grandmother:

Queen Victoria. Following the adoption of the Pink Heath as Victoria’s Floral Emblem, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II signed a Royal warrant

.... adding compartments from which the heath could grow.

221. Although the rest of the arms remained the same, in the blazon certain elements were

“ re­interpreted”. The 1910 blazon of the Coat of Arms of Victoria’s Arms: Azure, five stars Argent representing the constellation of the Southern

Cross. Crest: On a Wreath of Colours, Argent Azure, a demi­kangaroo proper holding in the paws an Imperial Crown Or. Supporters: Dexter, a

female figure (representing peace) proper vested Argent Cloaked Azure wreathed round the temples with a chaplet and holding in the exterior

hand a branch of olive also proper; and sinister, a like figure (representing prosperity) vested Argent cloaked Gules wreathed round the temples

with a chaplet of corn and support with the exterior hand a Cornucopia proper. Motto: Peace and Prosperity.

222. Incidentally, during Her visit in1954, on the steps of the Victorian Parliament, as a living example of heraldry, Her Majesty's gown was

of ivory poult, indicating a silver unicorn, featuring golden ears of wheat (see the current Arms of Victoria). The blue ribbon of the Order of the

garter added a glorious touch of colour, while her jewels caught a myriad of glints.

223. The presence of Amathea ( left[from the bearer's point of view]) in the Victorian Coat of Arms is signalled by the Cornucopia over

flowing with fruits and grain. The Cornucopia or the “ Horn of Plenty “ is a tribute to Baphomet's fertility and dates back to Zeus­ in Greek

Mythology – the King of God's , God of the Sky, lightening and thunder, or the “ Farther of god's and men” according to Greek mythology,

Amalthea was a goat who raised Zeus on her breast milk, in a cave on Mount Ida of Crete. Her horn was broken off by Zeus while playing

together. The god Zeus, in remorse, gave her back her horn with supernatural powers, which would give whoever possessed it whatever they

wished for. The cornucopia was also a symbol of women's fertility. The story is said to be a predecessor of the Unicorn and the Holy Grail

224. A further example of the expression and use of heraldry or the Law of Admiralty is the Victorian State Flag, which has particularly

interesting history. Initially it was created as a colonial flag­ a British Blue Ensign which indicates a British possession, with the badge of the

colony added to the blue field. Because some of the Australian State badges were originally showed some elements of British Royal Heraldry-
the main criteria being that it be different from similar badges used in other part of the Empire. The Crown in the Victoria badge represented the

status of the Governor as:

.... representative of Queen Victoria in the Colony.

225. Theoretically the Victorian badge [a crown above five stars of the Southern Cross] was on a disc, but the disc was the same colour as the

field: blue. This caused the British Admiralty some consternation, who suggested the Victorian badge be redesigned as the Southern Cross on a

blue shield on a white disc. In a rare display of independence (with respect to flags) , the Victorian Government unilaterally approved the flag

design any ways. Over the following decades, the Southern Cross “ grew” outside of the normal disc area, and eventually the pretence of the disc

226. The number of points on the stars in the State Flag of Victoria, indicate, the varying brightness of the stars which make up the Southern

Cross. There are 8,7,7,6, and 5 points for Alpha, Beta, Gamma< Delta and Epsilon Crucis respectively.

In reality, the Alpha star is in fact two stars. The use of the eight pointed star in a the Victorian State Flag may be used to signify: ' Divine Right”

228. Victoria adopted the Southern Cross in 1870 initially for use on the H.M.C.S Nelson­ one of the early warships of the Colonial Navy.

The Southern Cross had become fairly well associated with Australia during the 19

original adoption date as 4 February 1970. This official source states that the Southern Cross Flag was proclaimed on 12 November 1877;

Government gazette No. 119 dated 30 November 1877, and was amended by Dispatch No. 56 on 19 September 1901.

229. From 12 November 1877, the badge was changed to include an 'Imperial Crown” above the Southern Cross. 1901 with the accession of

Edward VII, this crown was replaced with the Crown of St Edward, and the flag has not changed since.

230. The official history from the State Government of Victoria contains a statement quoted from the State Flag sheet from the “ insignia'

folder held by the protocol Section of the Premier's Department of the State of Victoria in 1985, which on its face , appears to be a mistake. It

following the accession of Edward VII the Lieutenant­ Governor of Victoria, The Honourable Sir John Madden K.C.M.G. Informed the Secretary

of State for the Colonies on 19 September 1901 the henceforth the word “ State' would be used in place of the word ' Colony', and that in the

design of the State Flag, the 'St Edward's Crown' would replace the ' imperial Crown'.

231. Like several other Australian State Government insignia booklets, this document had significant errors. The document should have stated

that the ' Tudor Crown' would replace the ' Imperial Crown' and it should then have further gone on to state that in 1953 the 'St Edward Crown'

was adopted. The relevant source is a Colonial Office despatch dated 14 June 1901, which requests that the use of the 'Tudor Crown' be adopted

throughout the colonies. The Governor – General of Australia had earlier requested each of the State Governor to provide advice on whether any

of the new states wished to change their seals of flag badges, having regard to the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia on 1 January

1901, and importantly the accession of King Edward VII to the throne. The Victorian Premier Alexander Peacock advised Lieutenant ­Governor

Sir John Madded ( acting Governor) on 27 August 1901 that:

There needed to be only minor changes to the Seal and the change to the drawing of the Drown on the state badge.

232. This advice was Communicated to the Secretary of State in the aforesaid dispatch, and similarly by a letter to the Governor­General .

233. Another error on the 'Insignia' sheet was that Victoria's first Colonial Warship was described as : “H.M.A.S. Nelson”, when it should

have been 'H.M.C.S Nelson'­ one of Her Majesty's Colonial Ships, rather than an Australian ship.

234. The ' Tudor Crown', 'Imperial Crown' and 'St Edward's Crown' are not one and the same.

235. Another highly relevant and important example of Her Majesty exercising Her Imperial Prerogative in Her Realm of Victoria is revealed

in a Victorian Government House Press Release. His Excellency The Governor Rear Admiral Sir Brian Murray, announced that Her Majesty The

Queen, had graciously approved a change in the personal standard of the Governor of Victoria. From 18 April 1984, the Governor's personal

standard would be that State Flag of Victoria with the blue of the flag being replaced with gold. The old standard has been used since 1870, the

Union Jack with the Badge of State emblazoned in the centre thereof. The significance of the choice of a golden flag was ' apparently' to

Victoria's golden past and its promise for a golden future­ indeed.


236. Contemporaneously, the Governor's website shows the stars in the Southern Cross constellation all have 7 points, precisely like the

Australian national Flag, which is regulated by the Australian Flags Act 1953(Cth) – unlike the Victorian flag, save for the Crucis star which has

five points. The use of the monochrome red St Edward's Crown and the red star's in the constellation of the Southern Cross in the Governor’s

current Ensign may be used to signify a new crowned entity or corporation sole, viz: 'The Southern Cross' or' Golden Lion ' depicted in the right

side (from the bearer's perspective) of the Coat Armour of the City of Melbourne, viz: ­ respectively the Australian, The English and the Roman

237. In the foyer of the Department of Premier at 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne, is the final evidence of a conspiracy: an unauthorised stone

version of the Coat of Arms of Victoria. Unlike Her Majesty's authorised version which depicts the Southern Cross with 8,7,7,6, and 5 pointed

stars for Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon Crucis respectively, this unauthorised example of the Coat of Arms of the State of Victoria's

Southern Cross constellation illustrates all of the stars(save for the Crucis star) with 7 points – precisely like the Australian National Flag, which

is regulated by the Australian Flags Act 1953(Cth). Additionally, the: Crest: on a Wreath of Colours, Argent Azure, a demi­ kangaroo proper

holding in the intention of the Executive branches of Government to unlawfully create a Republic in Australia, yet contrary to the will of the

people and Section 128 of the Constitution (Cth).

238. You might like to ask yourself why the Commonwealth of Australia is a registered corporation under US law via the US Securities &

Exchange Commission?

th century. An official history from the States gives the

US Securities & Exchange Commission,


239. Your politicians without your knowledge or consent, and contrary to s.128 of The Constitution (Cth) have created a second

“COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA” under American law. The original Commonwealth of Australia conceived and created by the people

of Australia in 1901 has been usurped, contrary to the will of the people and Section 44 of the Constitution (Cth).

240. The member of Warringah, House of Representative (Cth) Tony Abbott MP said:

It seems quite clear that the Constitution can be altered by means other than section 128 Referendum against , I'm quite sure, the intentions of the

founders and against, I'm equally sure, the expectations of the Australian people.

241. Senator for Western Australian Andre Murray said:

I find no fault in [the] logic and [the] material will credibly add to the literature on this subject. And I think [we] should be aware of the potential

for plebiscites to fulfil and moral dictate of the popular will, but avoiding the perils of referenda and section 128. In the scenario [that is implied]

the Court and the Howard governments could fall to Labo[u]r , a plebiscite ' do you want a [politicians] republic' could get a majority , and the

Labo[u]r States and Commonwealth Parliament could then combine to vote in a Republican model similar to that which has just been rejected,

with the plebiscite as authority. As a direct electionist that is not an appealing prospect to me.

242. L. Price QC ( 10 Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, London said:

I read with interest the Hobson article:' Is Our Constitution Safe?' and my opinion was that the Australian Act 1986 [(Cth.]) fudged, without any

convincing intellectual or logical basis, the referendum issue which its draftsman pretended to avoid. It was assumed that the necessary

referendum approvals for changing the Constitution would not be available [ to the people of Australia] or would probably not be Available.

243. So it was decided that the need for referendum approval could be avoided by the simplistic device of not making a new amendment of the

Constitution as set out in s.9 of the Constitution Act : 1986 Act did not say, 'and the Constitution as set out in s.9 of the Act (and as hitherto

amended in accordance with the prescribed amendment procedure) it is further amended as follows and instead the words of the Constitution

were left unchanged; and it was considered that amendment procedure and referendum approval were therefore unnecessary. According to that '

back – room lawyer's view, referendums were not required because no change was being made in the wording of the constitution. That view

treated form triumph over substance. I advised and believed that, as everyone knew that the 1986 Act was making profound and fundamental

constitutional change, and was intended to do so, form could not be relied on as prevailing over substance; and that the High Court would prefer

substance to pathetic reliance on form. Alas the argument was never taken to court.

244. Uniform Tax Case HCA (High Court of Australia) 1942 (65 CLR 373 at 408).

“Common expressions such as: ‘The Courts have declared a statute invalid’,”

says Chief Justice Latham, “sometime lead to misunderstanding.

A pretend 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 favour, but such a decision is not an element that 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 void ab initio” "from the beginning"

246. Our Constitution.

247. In defence of Our Constitution, father and son died in two back­to­back wars defending our nation state. "Father (UK) and Son

(Australia) must stand back­to­back!"

249. If a dispute is to arise in relation to the Royal Coat of Arms, All courts at all levels throughout Australia have onerous legal

responsibilities to protect, The Queen and The King's regality and prerogatives, which they are required to do according to Part II, S8 [1405­6] 7

Henry IV c. 1 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 (Vic).

250. The Commonwealth.


251. Queen Victoria's Rose, His Majesty King James II, Head of the Commonwealth of Humanity and the Commonwealth of Australia, King

of Australia and His other Realms and Territories.


253. Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland & The Commonwealth.


254. Australian Catholic Church.


255. Sub­pages to the United Kingdom of Australia.


256. Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia ­ NOT!

257. HM Queen Elizabeth II, Commonwealth Day Message 2013

2013 Commonwealth theme, ‘Opportunity through Enterprise’, is a celebration of our achievements, particularly those that may have seemed

challenging, daunting or even impossible, which have helped to build strength, resilience and pride in our young people, in our communities and

Great achievements in human history have a number of common characteristics. From climbing the highest mountain, to winning a sporting

competition, making a scientific breakthrough, building a successful business or discovering unique artistic talent – these outcomes all begin as a

simple goal or idea in one person’s mind.

We are all born with the desire to learn, to explore, to try new things. And each of us can think of occasions when we have been inspired to do

something more efficiently, or to assist others in achieving their full potential. Yet it still takes courage to launch into the unknown. Ambition and

curiosity open new avenues of opportunity.

That is what lies at the heart of our Commonwealth approach: individuals and communities finding ways to strive together to create a better

future that is beneficial for all.

Our shared values of peace, democracy, development, justice and human rights – which are found in our “New Commonwealth Charter’ – mean

that we place special emphasis on including everyone in this goal, especially those who are vulnerable.

258. I am reminded of the adage, ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained’. As we reflect on how the Commonwealth theme applies to us

individually, let us think about what can be gained with a bold heart, dedication, and teamwork. And let us bear in mind the great opportunity that

is offered by the Commonwealth – of joining with others, stronger together, for the common good.

You may listen to the message from, HM Queen Elizabeth II, on SoundCloud:

259. “New Commonwealth Charter”

This Document reads in part:

We believe in the rule of law as an essential protection for the people of the Commonwealth and as an assurance of limited and accountable

In particular we support an independent, impartial, honest and competent judiciary and recognise that an independent, effective and competent

legal system is integral to upholding the rule of law, engendering public confidence and dispensing justice.

260. Signed by His Excellency Kamalesh Sharma, Commonwealth Secretary­General,

14 December 2012, on which day Commonwealth Heads of Government adopted the Charter of the Commonwealth.

261. As it is said: “Nothing is settled until it is settled right”.

By the Grace of God Elizabeth The Third Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Her Other Realms and Territories Joint

Head of The Commonwealth.

By the Grace of God Brent The First King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and His Other Realms and Territories Joint Head

Appendix: [A]

Appendix: [B]

Appendix: [C]

Appendix: [D]

Appendix: [E]

Appendix: [F]

Appendix: [G]

Appendix: [H]

Appendix: [I]

Appendix: [J]

Appendix: [K]

Appendix: [L]

Appendix: [M]

Appendix: [N]

Appendix: [O]

Appendix: [P]

Appendix: [Q]

Appendix: [ R ]

Appendix: [ S ]

Appendix: [ T ]

Appendix: [U]

Appendix: [ V]

Appendix: [ W]

Appendix: [ X]

Appendix: [Y]

Appendix: [Z]

Appendix: [Z­1]

Appendix: [Z­2]

Appendix: [Z­3]

Appendix: [Z­4]

Appendix: [Z­5]

Appendix: [Z­6]

Appendix: [Z­7]

Appendix: [Z­8]

Appendix: [Z­9]

Appendix: [Z­10]

Appendix: [Z­11]

Appendix: [Z­12]

Appendix: [Z­13]

The Matters stated in this affidavit that are within my personal knowledge are true. All other matters stated in the Affidavit are true to the best of my

knowledge, information and belief. Where I give any estimate in the application, it is based on knowledge, information and belief and is given in good

1. Dated at (Town City) in (State or Territory):

2. Dated at ( ) in ( ):

th day/ of /20

th day/ of /20

1. Before Me Justice of the Peace Name :

1. Before Me Justice of the Peace Signature :

2. Before Me Justice of the Peace Name :

2. Before Me Justice of the Peace Signature :

Justice of the Peace Stamp(s)

(1) (1)

Justice of the Peace Stamp Number:

and or,

Phone Number:

(2) (2)

Justice of the Peace Stamp Number:

and or,

Phone Number:

No comments:

Post a Comment