On July 3, the Aussie Battler, Mike Holt of Queensland will stand trial in the Melbourne County Court, charged with publishing an article in contravention of a Supreme Court Suppression Order.
This bogus charge has been used to terrorize Mike and his family for more than three years, with threats of imprisonment, theft of his personal property by the AFP, coercion, kidnapping and six days in jail without a trial.
The behaviour of the judicial system, the AFP and the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) throughout this saga has been shameful.
Mike has told the magistrates, judges, the CDPP and the AFP that they are acting unconstitutionally, even as they handcuffed him outside his home, yet they have ignored him and treated him like a criminal instead.
He pointed out to them that our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 states in “Section 80, The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed.”
But a judge in Victoria decided in September last year, when Mike refused to turn up for a trial, that he has the power to overrule the constitution. The judge deliberately broke the law and ordered the AFP to travel to Queensland to arrest Mike. He was handcuffed, kidnapped, transported across state lines, and thrown into jail, all on the whim of a judge who was too poorly educated in the law to understand the very clear words of our constitution. Instead, he cited a previous Victorian court decision to justify his own error in law.
As Mike has told them many times, the Constitution is the highest law in the land, and this is mandated by section 109 which states, “When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.” And Constitution Clause 5 binds all judges, magistrates and people of the Commonwealth to obey the Constitutional laws above any state laws. In other words, if the constitution says one thing, and a state law does not agree with the constitution, then we must obey the constitution.
So, why is Mike being put on trial for exercising his right to Freedom of Speech?
He published an article in Queensland about a Victorian court case. Mike says he is not denying that. But he says he did so in the sure knowledge that he had every right to do so. He pointed out that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19 (2) protects our inalienable right to freedom of speech: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
Like the wording in our constitution, it is very clear. You cannot mistake its meaning. Everyone has an absolute right to freedom of information and freedom of speech.
Mike says that the prosecution case is extremely weak. “They have no proof I knew about a suppression order before I published the article. Nor was I shown a copy of the order by anyone from the court, the AFP or the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions – the CDPP before I published the article. In fact, the first time I actually laid eyes on a copy of the order was in August last year when the CDPP emailed me a copy.”
Mike will self-represent, as he says every lawyer he has contacted, including a renowned Professor of Constitutional Law at a WA university, said they could not defend his constitutional rights. But Mike says he has prepared his case well. It is up to the prosecution, or Allegators as he calls them, to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To do that, they have to prove mens rea; that is, they have to prove Mike knew beforehand about the suppression order and that he chose to ignore it. He is innocent, and he points out that the Allegators have not produced any evidence to back up their charge. He feels confident he can convince the jury to throw the case out.
Mike must pay his own expenses to get to Melbourne, as well as his accommodation, food and travel. He is a Vietnam veteran living on his pension, so he is asking for donations to help him cover his expenses. If you would like to support him in his fight for all our rights, go to his website at https://advance-australia.com.au/donate/
And if you can make it to the courtroom in Melbourne from the 3rd to the 7th, please turn up to show your support for his battle for truth and our Rights.
Watch Mike’s video appeal:
Follow up report 25 October 2025: I was convicted in early August, and the judge adjourned the case until early November, as she said that mine was the first case ever in Victoria and she needed time to decide what sentence to impose. The law states a penalty of 5 years imprisonment. However, since then I have filed an appeal to have the whole case thrown out under Constitution S 80 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19(2). There is also a precedent in a very similar case Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 (24 October 1995) in which the appeal by the Appellant Craig was allowed and he had his case dismissed, and the circumstances of my trial and imprisonment are basically the same. I am now preparing an application for a Constitutional or other Writ to the High Court to ask the judges to order that the case is either thrown out and I am awarded damages, or to order the Federal Court to try my case in Queensland. Having been through the County Court I now have a better understanding of how to defend myself if it does go to the Federal Court. But I believe my rights under the constitution and the Covenant are so strong the case must be dismissed. It’s a ridiculous charge. No one was harmed. There is no Corpus delicti (Latin for “body of the crime”; plural: corpora delicti), and in Western law it is a principle that a crime must be proved to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime. Where is the crime in exercising my right to freedom of expression? The fight goes on.
Now the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 Section 5 at 80.3 states as shown below. Defence of acts done in good faith is quite clear and succinct so even goes up to the King.
Subdivision D—Common provisions
80.3 Defence for acts done in good faith
(1) Subdivisions B and C, and sections 83.1 and 83.4, do not apply to a person who:
(a) tries in good faith to show that any of the following persons are mistaken in any of his or her counsels, policies or actions:
(i) the Sovereign;
(ii) the Governor‑General;
(iii) the Governor of a State;
(iv) the Administrator of a Territory;
(v) an adviser of any of the above;
(vi) a person responsible for the government of another country; or
(b) points out in good faith errors or defects in the following, with a view to reforming those errors or defects:
(i) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
(ii) the Constitution;
(iii) legislation of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country;
(iv) the administration of justice of or in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country; or
(c) urges in good faith another person to attempt to lawfully procure a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country; or
(d) points out in good faith any matters that are producing, or have a tendency to produce, feelings of ill‑will or hostility between different groups, in order to bring about the removal of those matters; or
(e) does anything in good faith in connection with an industrial dispute or an industrial matter; or
(f) publishes in good faith a report or commentary about a matter of public interest.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1). See subsection 13.3(3).
(2) In considering a defence under subsection (1), the Court may have regard to any relevant matter, including whether the acts were done:
(a) for a purpose intended to be prejudicial to the safety or defence of the Commonwealth; or
(b) with the intention of assisting a party:
(i) engaged in armed conflict involving the Commonwealth or the Australian Defence Force; and
(ii) declared in a Proclamation made under section 80.1AB to be an enemy engaged in armed conflict involving the Commonwealth or the Australian Defence Force; or
(f) with the intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or a public disturbance.
(3) Without limiting subsection (2), in considering a defence under subsection (1) in respect of an offence against Subdivision C, the Court may have regard to any relevant matter, including whether the acts were done:
(a) in the development, performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in the dissemination of news or current affairs.
80.4 Extended geographical jurisdiction for offences
(1) Subject to subsection (2), section 15.4 (extended geographical jurisdiction—category D) applies to an offence against this Division.
(2) Section 15.2 (extended geographical jurisdiction—category B) applies to an offence against section 80.1AC or subsection 80.2A(2), 80.2B(2) or 80.2C(1).
80.6 Division not intended to exclude State or Territory law
It is the intention of the Parliament that this Division is not to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State or a Territory to the extent that the law is capable of operating concurrently with this Division.
Now this would meet ALL the drivers for a clear defence as in protecting the ‘Commonwealth’ this specifically denotes the people and NOT the ‘PERSONS’. The preamble to the Constitution states “WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:” It further goes on to state “The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth.” When did the Referendum take place that replaced these terms with “GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA” and all the derivatives? The above defence should squash this unlawful action and the AFP ABN 17 864 931 143 which trades as
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE 17 Apr 2000
ASIA PACIFIC GROUP 01 Jul 2006
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF POLICE MANAGEMENT 17 Apr 2000
The High Court ruling makes all ‘Trading Companies’ (i.e. with and ABN or ACN) controlled under the section 51(xx) and so a contract must exist between the individual man and the AFP.
Thank you for your support Tony Ryan… BTW, my name is Mike. My Dad was Tom. 😊
This is to let everyone know that I have already filed a Form 78B with the court and all Attorney Generals, State and Commonwealth. Until they all resolve the question of court jurisdiction under the Constitution S80, the trial cannot proceed.
I have also filed a complaint with the NACCA (National Anti-Corruption Commission) under their Act of 2022.
Mike is sending a report from Melbourne when he gets to the court. Ed
Is Mike a One Man Band?
Are there others?
And the big question. Is he/they operating as an Incorporated Society?
If he is on his own he is in big trouble
If he is doing his own legals he is running risks.
An Incorporated Society provides a lot of protection.
As I understand matters the Common Law people are not on solid ground.
Could the editor provide info on Common Law?
The charge against Mike may not be bogus.
Whether the charge holds up is something else.
Was he warned or did the charge come straight out of Left Field.
What is the personal property which has been stolen?
What is the article he wrote?
Why cant he find a lawyer to help?
What about a military connection to help him.
Mike did not turn up at court. He has to turn up to win.
I am at a loss
To many questions. not enough answers.
Can anyone/editor help me out with answers to the above?
When the judicial system is corrupt then there is no hope. We need to work on a peaceful strategy to counteract.
Quick, everyone, act surprised.
It’s no secret – the entire Australian judiciary is a pack of baby-raping paedophile Lucifer worshipping mafioso who play by their OWN rules, and the legitimate rule of law be damned.
They’re all going to Hell – ALL of them – along with the shit-for-brains armies of heavily armed hired mercenary thugs impersonating Australian “police” who’ve been weaponised and mobilised against the Australian people.
ALL of them.
The only real question is – how much more do we have to take before we SEND them there? Lucifer himself would appreciate the favour, seeing as how he OWNS their souls.
All nice and legal like, of course, because after all, “we’re all in this together”.
The last honest judge I ever heard of was High Court Chief Justice Harry Talbot Gibbs and he seemed to regard the entire legal sytem as unlawful, illicit, and / or ultra vires. Ironically, I learned of this from Tim Holt.
But this judicial assault on Tim is a declaration of war against the rights of the people of Australia, by the judiciary and the AFP.
As this is now undeniably WWIII, I suggest everyone grope under the sofa and car emergency funds and send every dollar you can spare to Tim.
This is it folks: If Tim loses, we all will have no rights left. The criminal lawyers and judges will be a formal part of the tyranny and the only recourse after that is war; which means we will be jammed between the US/China war and civil war.
Tim must win.
With the greatest respect Mike – I’m sure that you are aware that our Commonwealth Constitution 1901 was replaced with Corporatised Government that operates under Admiralty Law – the Law of the Sea. This is in contrast to the Australian Constitution that operates under the Law of the Land.
As Tim Dwyer clearly states in his video below, everything that happens with government and the legal system is on a CONTRACTUAL basis. Even if the contract has been established, it can be broken because of the “UNFAIR CONDITIONS” these corporations have placed within their contracts.
In Tim’s video, he says that Our Constitution is a Trust Deed. He says there are laws that penalise anyone violating a Trust Deed. The politicians in the various governments over many decades are guilty of this crime.
I think you need to view Tim’s video and even try to chat with him before your court day. https://rumble.com/v17kzb1-it-is-all-contract-law-the-government-is-not-in-control.html
Regardless, all the best on your day in court, Mike.