Category Archives: Commonwealth Constitution of Australia

Solidarity is exactly what is required and knowing your rights.

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor

Everyone needs to carry a copy of the PRIVACY ACT 1988 – SECT 94H.

This is just part of the PRIVACY ACT 1988 – SECT 94H
Requiring the use of COVIDSafe
(1) A person commits an offence if the person requires another person to:
(a) download COVIDSafe to a communication device; or
(b) have COVIDSafe in operation on a communication device; or
(c) consent to uploading COVID app data from a communication device to the National
COVIDSafe Data Store.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both.
(2) A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) refuses to enter into, or continue, a contract or arrangement with another person
(including a contract of employment); or
(b) takes adverse action (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 ) against another
person; or
(c) refuses to allow another person to enter:
(i) premises that are otherwise accessible to the public; or
(ii) premises that the other person has a right to enter; or

Show this when they ask you to scan in, goal term of 5 years or $63,000 fine or both.

Everything you need can be found and used against the ‘powers that be’, you need to find the resources and use them.

Remember Federal Law is above State Law and Common Law is above all others.

And yes people are using these and getting into the places. I live in a small country town where a pub is open to all and yes they have been fined and yes they still let everyone in. Freedom for all is their motto. Shops that are closed until Dec 1 until everyone is able to enter.

It’s a start but it needs to continue, stand up and rise against the corrupt politicians and their handlers.

It’s US the people whom will bring down the tyrants, we have to have solidarity, we have to fight.

Learn and help each other to get the resources, they are out there.

Register your birth with Common Law – You are a living man or woman.

https://www.commonlawcourt.com/list/content/birth-certificate

NSW Liberal/National Parties with Labor support terrorise mum and dad shoppers with para-military police

Massive police presence at NSW Basshill shopping centre terrorised shoppers who still do not know why they were there in force. Drones and choppers overhead it was a military-style invasion the residents of Sydney’s west are being subjected to daily.. Thanks go to Rebel News, always at the front line.

Prof Zimmerman warns government Covid measures are unlawful

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is well aware he is unable to lawfully mandate vaccination or conscription of any medical procedure. Therefore as Professor Zimmerman explains the entire Covid response has been and is unlawful.

Cairnsnews fervently hopes the people will rise up in any manner or form but especially to start legal proceedings against nearly every politician in Australia. None of them have any protection at Common Law and their statutes are simply corporate policies which have no meaning or effect upon the natural citizens of Australia.

Lock downs, vaccination passports, masks, contact tracing, home incarceration, road blocks, arrests and coercion by financial penalty are all covered under the ambit of section 51 (xxiiiA) particularly when the entire plandemic has been thoroughly investigated by innumerable, reputable virologists across the world and found to be a scam.

Workplace-related vaccine mandates also fall under Section 51. Tell any so-called authority to go jump if you are pressured by Covid cops to submit. -Editor

Constitutionally Inoculated to Resist Coercion

24 July 2021   Dr Augusto Zimmermann is Professor and Head of Law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education, and Professor of Law (Adjunct) at the University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney campus.  Dr Zimmermann was chairman and professor of constitutional law at Murdoch University from 2007 to 2017. He is also a former Law Reform Commissioner in WA (2012-2017) and President of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA).

Professor Augusto Zimmerman, former Chairman of Constitutional Law at Murdoch University and Professor of Law at Notre Dame Sydney warns governments that compulsory vaccination and related medical procedures are unlawful, This includes vaccine passports

One of the most remarkable characteristics of the Australian Constitution is its express limitation on governmental powers.  In drafting the Constitution, the framers sought to design an instrument of government intended to distribute and limit the powers of the State.  This distribution and limitation upon governmental powers was deliberately chosen because of the proper understanding that unrestrained power is always inimical to the achievement of human freedom and happiness.  As such, the Constitution allocates the areas of legislative power to the Commonwealth primarily in sections 51 and 52, with these powers being variously exclusive or concurrent with the Australian States.

The Constitution was slightly amended in 1946 by a referendum in order to include section 51 (xxiiiA). This provision determines that the Parliament, inter alia, can make laws with respect to:

The provision of … pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription) benefits to students and family allowances…

As can be seen, this provision allows for the granting of various services by the federal government but not to the extent of authorising any form of civil conscription. The prohibition of such conscription is directed particularly to the provision of medical services.[1]

The idea that constitutional provisions protect individual rights plays a fundamental role in our understanding of these express limitations and, indeed, our understanding of the implied constitutional limitations derived from them. In this context, the “no conscription” requirement to be found in that provision amounts to an explicit constitutional limitation. It is an implied constitutional right of the individual so that such prohibition is not directed only to the federal government but it must also be extended to the exercise of legislative power by the Australian states.   

In other words, no Australian government, either federal or state, or those acting on its behalf, is constitutionally authorised to force any individual to take medicament against his or her own will, or force them or their children to be, among other things, compulsorily vaccinated.  

The concept of ‘civil conscription’ was first considered by the High Court in British Medical Association v Commonwealth (1949) 79 CLR 201; [1949] HCA 44 (7 October 1949).  That case involved federal legislation which required medical practitioners to comply with a particular federal medical determination as part of a scheme to provide pharmaceutical benefits.

In other words, that case was about the validity of legislation which compelled medical practitioners to render a particularly medical-pharmaceutical service.   In his written judgement Justice Williams stated (emphasis added):

Accordingly, in my opinion, the expression invalidates all legislation which compels medical practitioners or dentists to provide any form of medical service” (emphasis ours). [2]

Similarly, in his written decision Justice Webb commented:

If Parliament cannot lawfully do this directly by legal means it cannot lawfully do it indirectly by creating a situation, as distinct from merely taking advantage of one, in which the individual is left no real choice but compliance” (emphasis ours).[3]

Of course, a doctor who freely performs his or her medical service does not create conscription. However, as Justice Webb explicitly mentioned:

When Parliament comes between patient and doctor and makes the lawful continuance of their relationship as such depend upon a condition, enforceable by fine, that the doctor shall render the patient a special service, unless that service is waived by the patient, it creates a situation that amounts to a form of civil conscription.[4]

That important decision confirmed the fundamental right of Australian citizens to determine by their own will whether they should take any medical or pharmaceutical benefit provided. Accordingly, any legislation that requires medical practitioners to prescribe government-mandated medical services constitutes a form of civil conscription that is constitutionally invalid.

In this sense, Chief Justice Latham argued in the British Medical Association case that civil conscription would include not only legal compulsion to engage in particular conduct but also the imposition by government of a medical duty to perform a service in any particular way.[5]  Constitutional limits on legislation which does not acknowledge this important guarantee were more recently acknowledged in Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee .  In this ruling the High Court restricted the capacity of both federal and state governments to implement mandatory vaccination, even recommendations from the National Health directives for either federal or state governments.

Of course, in the PSR case the Court was simply following precedent as per the previous 1949 decision which had already clarified the issue.  Accordingly, Chief Justice French and Justice Gummow held that civil conscription is a ‘compulsion or coercion in the legal and practical sense, to carry out work or provide [medical] services’.[6]

Importantly, the High Court also indicated that the prohibition of civil conscription must be construed widely, to invalidate any law requiring medical practitioners (expressly or by practical compulsion) to work for the Commonwealth government or any Australian State.  Simply put, no law in this country can compel any medical service on behalf of the Australian government.

As can be seen, section 51 (xxiiiA) maintains the prohibition of vaccination through any form of government-run health service, indicating that vaccination should only be through voluntary means in accordance with the free communications between medical doctor and patient, which is essential to achieve a high-quality healthcare. 

To conclude: the Australian Constitution explicitly prohibits any form of legal compulsion upon the medical profession to carry out any form of medication, including vaccination.

In fact, no government, either federal or state, can impose compulsory vaccination in this country, or prevent medical practitioners from remaining entirely free to choose whether or not to provide certain medical services, including vaccination.

[1] See: Alexandra Private Geriatric Hospital Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1987) 162 CLR 271 at 279; 69 ALR 631; Halliday v Commonwealth (2000) 45 ATR 458; [2000] FCA 950 AT [11].

[2] (1949) 79 CLR 201, at 287 (Williams J).

[3] (1949) 79 CLR 201, at 293 (Webb J).

[4] (1949) 79 CLR 201, at 295 (Webb J).

[5] (1949) 79 CLR 201, at 295 (Latham CJ).

[6] Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee (2009) 236 CLR 573, at [62]

18 million Australians so far smart enough to refuse deadly Covid jab

Federal and state governments are in a frenzy as more people refuse to take the deadly, experimental mRNA gene therapy.

Millions are being spent right now on newspaper, radio and television advertising and it seems to no avail.

All states’ Jewish Premiers have pulled a ‘Delta’ scam campaign at the start of school holidays to cause more fear hoping to coerce more victims into taking the experimental jab which most politicians have not had in spite of careful video takes showing them being vaccinated with mRNA poison. PM Scott Morrison’s televised jab, according to hospital staff actually was from an insulin syringe.

More businesses will be forced into bankruptcy as the Chief Health Officer in Queensland Dr Jeanette Young rolls out dodgy PCR tests.

Townsville has been ordered to close down by the Queensland Premier after doing it tough for several years since the closure of its nickel refinery and is still suffering from previous Covid shutdowns.

The dumb, willingly stupid ABC and other MSM think by having health workers vaccinated the virus cannot spread. Abundant medical evidence shows that the virus spreads easily after vaccination by shedding.

The National Cabinet is dreaming if it thinks it can force aged care workers to be vaccinated with a deadly toxin. Fortunately we still have a Commonwealth Constitution of Australia which aged care workers can rely on:

51  Legislative powers of the Parliament

(xxiiiA)  the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;

covid-19 vaccine tile

There it is health workers. Even the threat of a Constitutional challenge to forced vaccination would stop them in their tracks.

Don’t bow down to Deep State’s genocidal vax program. Keep yourself and your children safe from the megalomaniacs of the political parties and unions. Say NO! – contributed

Scomo to be summonsed over criminal cartel running law enforcement

NOTICE AT COMMON LAW

On the………………………… day of……………….2021…………….am/pm

Peter Alexander Gargan

  Of, 1365 Corringle Road

Corringle

Victoria 3886

In the Electorate of Gippsland

The Affiant,

Addressee:

The Prime Minister

Scott John Morrison

Parliament House,

Parliament Drive

Canberra ACT 2600.

REF: Being Grossly negligent in allowing the States of Australia to ignore the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and Constitution, Laws of the Commonwealth  and the Federal Court of Australia to ignore its obligations at law.

This document is Time Sensitive.

TAKE NOTE,

  1.  I, Peter Alexander Gargan (as commonly called), being the Undersigned Affiant, do solemnly swear, declare, and depose:
  2. That, I am competent to state the matters set forth herein. and
  3. That, I have first-hand knowledge of the facts stated herein. and                            
  4. That, I the Affiant am a Natural Human Man. and
  5. That, I the Affiant am within the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. and
  6. That, I the Affiant am a subject of Elizabeth the Second By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her Other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
  • For Consideration
  • I write in the utmost of good faith, as a law enforcement partner of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, to lay a complaint and information before you as Prime Minister, and a number of key members of your government with the aim that if you do not act upon it, it will be on the public record that you have offended S 44 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) which carries three years imprisonment and will forever be disqualified from sitting in the Parliament of the Commonwealth under S 44, of the Constitution.
  • I claim the status of law enforcement partner because in S 13 and 15F Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second as heir and successor to the King in 1913 is bound to recognise this Act as legitimate, the High Court has confirmed it as legitimate in 1915 ( R V Kidman ( 1915) 20 CLR 425) In 1487, in the Statute 4 Hen VII Ch 20  ( Imp) the then King granted a franchise to every subject of the Queen of the Constitution to partner with the Crown to obtain a profit for the Crown as well as themselves, by involving themselves in law enforcement. This complies with S 5 Partnership Act 1891 (Q).
  • The partnership is further confirmed in S 42 and 43 Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Q). The High Court has confirmed partnerships exist whenever two or more entities enter an agreement to work together to obtain a profit. (United Dominions Corporation LTD  V Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 1.)
  • The partnership cannot be conducted uberrimae fidei by the Crown unless the Crown Courts abide the Free Access to Courts Act 1400, 2 Hen 4 Ch 1   S 4 and 5. In force in the Australian Capital Territory and cease protecting alleged criminals.
  • There is at present a criminal cartel running law enforcement in the Commonwealth, every bit as horrific as the Deep State that is being dismantled as we speak in the United States of America. That cartel is the legal profession, with large numbers of its members in the Parliament of the Commonwealth and in your government.

Heavy vehicle blitzkrieg to kick off in May, according to federal ministers McCormack, Buchholz and the NHVR

contributed

Not only are each state’s truck tyrants after owner drivers and independents now the LNP and Labor’s federal troopers are lining up along the road to go through your truck.

Do the Linfox or Toll trucks qualify for this unnecessary intrusion into the country’s hard-pressed, independent transport operators battling unchecked fuel prices while they go through the roof again?

Roadside terrorists about to slap a book-full of unlawful fines on a truckie

It will be off the road for a stated, minimal 45 minutes for large fleet-owners and ten to one the owner operators will get many hours penance and huge fines if not put off the road altogether.

This bureaucratic overplay is a result of thousands of chair polishing idiots sitting in parliament house without any gainful production other than to devise ways of cruelling the nation’s crucial transporters. Naturally at the behest of the magnates.

There should be another nationwide halt of every truck for 48 hours or however long it takes to stop the strangling of independent operators and to get excessive government out of industry.

Assistant minister for road safety and freight transport Scott Buchholz said:

“From next month the NHVR will undertake the second National Roadworthiness Survey, which will check the mechanical health of Australia’s heavy vehicle fleet.

“Authorised officers from the NHVR and partner agencies across Australia will conduct a mechanical inspection of 8,000 heavy vehicles including trucks, buses and other special purpose vehicles.”

‘Mermaids’ in action

 Australian farmers have long complained they are the most over-regulated industry on earth, but the authoritarian LNP/ALP duopoly wants to outdo its road train loads of shocking, costly farm regulations with an all out assault on truckies already overburdened with the most complicated, convoluted transport regulations on earth.

The roadside troops have long modeled themselves on the SS, tearing truck cabins and loads apart without any accountability leaving distraught drivers with a spelling mistake in their log books thousands of dollars worse off and accruing so many demerit points on their licences they can no longer drive, thus dysfunctioning as a breadwinner for their families.

Sooner or later the corporate system of Australian government will collapse under the enormous weight of its unconstitutional, fascist-styled policies.

The United States corporation is in its death throes making way for President-elect Donald Trump to re-emerge and to restore constitutional sanity to Capitol Hill.

Australia, legally as the 52nd state of America will simply fall into line.

Another Marxist initiative by the comrades of the Queensland Labor Party:

https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/management/waste/operation-tora

Sign the petition to federal parliament to prevent rolling out of discriminatory vaccine passports

https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN2463

Petition Reason

We want the Government to commit to not rolling out any e-vaccination status/immunity passport to the Australian public. Such passports could be used to restrict the rights of people who have refused a Covid-19 vaccine, which would be unacceptable and discriminatory. More details The Australian Government has plans despite reports that people who have received the Covid-19 vaccine will be offered a passport proving they have been vaccinated as part of a government-funded trial. Citizens who refuse will not have the documentation to freely travel, giving automatic discrimination to only enter countries that accept only documented civilians.

Petition Request

We therefore ask the House to be completely clear to the public about the use of vaccine passports & their intentions, they must refuse the roll-out of it because of those who will decline and their fundamental basic rights being violated by this legislation. Simply by segregating the “immune” and “non-immune” We implore the House to change the law to not include this as a pre-requisite for travel or for any of its other associated relevant potential uses. As the e-vaccination/immunity passport enforcement of this policy or practice will lead to the segregation of the Australian people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination if you do not have one simply because of their personal decision. This decision which will undoubtedly affect societal cohesion. Discriminating via a passport which is a person’s identity is wrong.

Signature count:37690
Closing date for signatures:14 April 2021 11:59 PM (AEST) (12 days left)

Whistleblower solicitor threatened by Victorian Government over Covid class action

Covid crusader Serene Teffaha is seeking whistleblower protection from the Federal Government and Victorian Ombudsman from interference by State Government regulators threatening to shut her down and steal funds from her trust account to cover costs after she filed in the Supreme Court on March 19, a substantial class action against the Victorian government seeking damages for Covid lockdowns, forced testing, forced vaccination, forced detention, forced masking and forced restrictive behaviors.

One of several class actions has 5000 participants challenging the responses to the pandemic and she is on the verge of filing a national class action attested by the knee jerk reaction from Deep State politicians who want to shut her down with government interference bordering on criminal behavior.

Cairns News has thrown its support behind this gutsy solicitor who in 2012 took on the ‘old boys club’ of the Australian Taxation Department when she blew the whistle on corruption within its higher ranks.

Her firm Advocate Me provides a commendable community service often acting on a pro bono basis and it is of note she is acting for two gutsy NSW police officers who blew the whistle on highly questionable Covid responses and suppression of readily available and cheap remedies by the NSW Government last year.

She said she has another class action ready to file against the Family Court due to the way in which it deals with family violence and is specifically targeting the corruption and maladministration by Family Court judges who have brutalised thousands and thousands of people.

We applaud her gutsy, long overdue actions which would be sending shivers up the spines of her colleagues in the legal profession and courts Australia wide. Is it any wonder the corrupt court registries wielding unlawful power in concert with judges and their wink and nod outcomes would be terrified of her offensive. Hopefully she can find enough honest judges and demand a jury as insurance.

No Australian States left in Federation

Letter to the Editor

To the Editor, well said in your about the Editor post.
However it is the 1985/86 Australian Act by Bob Hawke and it has no relevance to the Federation because there is no States left in the Federation.
SS106, 107 and 108 states that all Colonies shall becomes States with the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia and they are all bound by the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 UK, proclaimed in September 1900 and came into effect on the 1st January 1901.

Six States formed the Federation NSW, VICT. QLD, TAS. S.A. and W.A. who joined the Federation by July 1900.
August 1902 NSW changed their Constitution without following the indissoluble Commonwealth Constitution without going to the people of NSW for a referendum as required by law.
Then in 1904 WA did the same as well as Qld in 1924, plus do away with the Senate without referendum. 1934 Tas. and SA followed suit, also against the Constitution and that now only leaves Vic. because all the other States left the Federation and revert back to Colonies without a referendum.

1975 Vic. finally changed their Constitution without a referendum and that left no State in the Federation, so how can the States and Hawke form the 1985/86 Australian Act when no States are part of the Federation.
They outsmarted themselves as treasonous traitors to the people of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Thank you
Bernie Drew

Senator Rod Culleton’s Constitutional legacy still hovering over Parliament House

Open letter to Senator Michaelia Cash as acting Attorney General

Dear Senator  Michaelia Cash,

I was present in then Senator Rod Culleton’s Office during a meeting between you both and you made some promises that were not kept.  The World Wide Cabal entrenched in the Australian Legal System set out to get him, and succeeded but not before he put landmines in the ground that got rid of most if not yet all of the people who engineered his demise. He was badly represented by Peter King a barrister from Sydney whose advice contradicted mine, and the High Court was badly misled by counsel instructed by  the Australian Government Solicitor.  The Senate is still scarred by its refusal to accept its Motion 163 of 2016. Turnbull is gone, Parry is gone, Brandis is gone, Barker J resigned a year early. The solicitor and barrister  who prosecuted his bankruptcy were sacked by King Wood Mallesons.

Senator Rod Culleton’s judicial reform efforts still hover over Canberra

Dick Lester is not a happy camper. The perpetrator of the action in the Court of Disputed Returns Ian Bruce Bell  is dead. The transcript of the hearing in the High Court in November 2016 has been edited  doctored and replaced, because in front of witnesses a Pro Bono Publico legal practitioner attempted to appear and the exchange between CJ French and himself has been expunged. Senator Rod Culleton had a signed agreement with the Australian Government Solicitor that he was never subject to imprisonment so the Barristers and Solicitors who prosecuted these matters in the High Court are prima facie guilty of an offence under S 42, 43 and 44 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Christian Porter may well attempt suicide, as his watch has been marred by gross negligence on his part when he has been contacted about these gross misfeasances.

The article I have prepared below does not raise the issue of pedophilia that is attracting widespread attention in the United States of America. There are allegations that pedophilia is used by the Deep State as a tool of blackmail, to control governments, Judges, journalists and captains of industry and the entertainment industry,  and Politicians  worldwide. When there is smoke there is usually fire, and on two occasions I have seen allegations that Prime Minister Morrison and Daniel Andrews are implicated in the worldwide pedophilia pandemic being exposed in the United States of America. I have seen allegations that there are DUMB,  Deep Underground Military Bases in Australia as well as the United States of America and Europe,  and that children have been rescued from them. I have no way of confirming or denying those allegations, but the inaction by Prime Minister Morrison on the illegal Border Closures, prohibited by S 92 Constitution and S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 (CTH)  by State Premiers indicates he is under undue influence, and compromised.

The body language exhibited by many ministers in the Government is terrible. The gross ignorance of S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 (CTH) and refusal of the Home Affairs minister to activate the Australian Federal Police to enforce it on behalf of the Commonwealth speaks volumes. You must know that unless there is a declaration of war, the laws of the Parliament of the Commonwealth cannot be either ignored or suspended. We are in a world war but it is between good and evil. Christianity and Satanism, and when President Donald Trump was elected he declared Gesara-Nesara in his inauguration speech. During his Presidency he issued executive Orders, to the United States of America Military to implement it, and give back power to the people. Those orders cannot be countermanded by President Biden even if he knew what day it was.

As acting Attorney General you have power to indict Mark McGowan and John Quigley under S 71 Judiciary Act 1903 without prior committal for failing to accept S 92 Constitution as binding upon them and thereby offending S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 (CTH). If you do this and it is within your power, it will put a brake on the Western Australia election and result in the suspension of all governments Australia wide. I am sure there are good people in both the Australian Labor Party and Liberal Party and if in fact Prime Minister Morrison is compromised, as alleged, a Government of National Reconciliation to implement Gesara-Nesara is not an impossible dream.

Kind regards

Peter Alexander Gargan 

Constitutional Advocate

Can Australia survive its corporate structure?

by Anna Von Reitz

Apparently, they did a process in Australia that is very similar to what they did here (US), except that what they did there started from the basis of a Constitutional Monarchy— which, as it has never been repealed, remains the basis for the land and soil jurisdiction of Australia, even though they are running Australia as a corporation structure in the international jurisdiction of the sea and are enslaving Australians in that foreign jurisdiction just as they were caught enslaving Americans in the same domain.

 

This, I think, goes to the heart of the Queen’s behavior revealed in JAH v. Regina — of taking the

Political commentator Anna von Reitz questions Australia’s ability to survive as a corporate state

Coronation Oath, and then, three days later, assuming the Chair of the Estates instead of the Throne.

There is something very peculiar going on with the Throne and it may be that the Throne itself has been lost or compromised in some way so that it is not viable for the Queen to exercise its offices, but whatever it is — debt, blackmail, fraud — it is standing in the way of the British Government functioning properly, and that leads to the government of Australia being in a Mess also.

My understanding of the British system is still fledgling compared to my knowledge of the American system, — but it is my understanding that in the British Land Law, all land and soil is held by the Queen in Trust, but she does that with multiple Trusts—- there are the various  National Trusts which hold historic places for preservation purposes– castles and so on, that would otherwise fall into disrepair, parks and nature conservancies, etc. and there is the Public Trust which consists of infrastructure of Great Britain — the railways, train stations, harbors, bridges, docks, public utilities, etc., and there is the Queen’s Trust which includes all the land of Great Britain — with land defined as everything six inches and below of the soil.     As a result, any building in Britain that has a foundation belongs in part to the Queen, which severely limits the definition of “private property” to moveable sheds, motorhomes, and caravans, etc. Finally, there is the Commonwealth Trust which the Queen manages for the Roman Catholic Church — an arrangement that has been in place since the days of King John.

So let’s look at the Commonwealth Trust which consists of Commonwealth land and properties.  The Commonwealth tradition began with William the Conqueror who set aside church properties in England (Roman Catholic Church at that time, of course) and added lots of scraps of waste land and all the cemeteries to the Church’s properties.  The idea was to give the Church marginal land in its parishes to turn into worthwhile holdings using the slave labor of mendicants and others dependents on the Church’s dole—- for example, donate a swamp to the Church and then the Monks and Brothers together with able-bodied beggars and indigents that the Church cared for, would work to drain the swamp and turn it into arable land, which they would then use for — an apple orchard, a bee apiary, pasture, herb garden, or sheep pen for example — and thereby improve the value of their holdings and gain a basis to support their charitable works.

Read the rest of this entry

At least the High Court knows Deuteronomy 19 which saved George Pell

Amendments to states’ criminal codes allowing convictions by one witness cut no ice with the High Court in the George Pell case. Common law can decide proving that corporate policies of each state should  be repealed and replaced with natural law. Editor

DE JURE SANGUINIS CORONAE

By Kevmo, Brisbane
Ancient Latin legal maxim literally meaning “concerning (the) law of (the) blood of crowns” In COMMON LAW since the end of the 16th Century, royal or noble blood has claimed superior status — in particular to the freedom of their body, protection of property and the obligation of any matter brought against them to follow DUE PROCESS (of the LAW), especially right of RELIEF. When an individual claims de jure sanguinis coronae, providing they demonstrate a comprehension of the term and why they should be granted such status (for example–knowledge of the valid argument that you are of royal birth by virtue of being Sons and Daughters of the King of Kings) then the COURT must grant such recognition.
If Cardinal Pell had understood the Bible?
Deuteronomy 19:15-19 (NKJV) The Law Concerning Witnesses. 15 “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.

For Cardinal Pell the High Court upheld Deuteronomy 19: 15 “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.”

Law history –
From 3rd Century BCE Latin lāres = “a group ancient Roman deities (gods) defining localized activities, customs and practices accumulated over time including (but not limited to) home, family, the state, the sea, land and travel”;
12th Century Old English lārs = “a collection of common doctrines, customs and practices accumulated over time; and the teaching of such customs”; later
16th Century Middle English lore/law = “A collection of rules (doctrines), customs and practices (accumulated over time) enjoining or prohibiting certain action; also the individual rules themselves “.
Contrary to misleading information, the Ancient Roman Legal System never considered the customs of lāres as being other than religious doctrine and ancient superstitions (witchcraft). Instead, the Roman Empire was founded on lēx/lēgis (statutes) and later (under Constantine) ilex (universal statutes).
The modern western legal systems of nations are therefore based on inferior lāres –religious doctrines and concepts designed by the Roman Cult–while the Roman Cult reserved the formal structure of superior lēx/lēgis in the form of covenants and agreements such as Concordats, Official Church Councils and Papal Bulls.
Divine Law Definition:
the law that defines the Divine in accordance with Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum and clearly demonstrates the spirit, mind, purpose and instruction of the Divine Creator including the operation of the Volition and Will of the Divine Creator through existence. Therefore all valid Law may be said to be derived from Divine Law. The highest law of all Law is therefore Divine Law, then Natural Law, then Cognitive Law, then Positive Law
Natural law –
Definition:the law that defines the operation of the Volition and Will of the Divine Creator in accordance with Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum through its existence in the Form of matter and physical rules. Natural Laws define the operation and existence of the physical universe, all valid Positive Law may be said to be derived from Natural Law
Cognitive law
Definition:the set of laws that define the special attributes possessed by certain higher orderlife such as mind, ideas, knowledge, recognition and self-awareness created through the simultaneous application of both Divine Law and Natural Law
Positive law
Definition:the laws that are enacted by Men and Women through proper authority in accordance with Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum for the government of a society. As Positive Law ultimately refers to physical objects and living beings, all valid Positive Law may be said to be derived from Natural Law
Natural person –
Definition: A man or woman in Roman law as a perverse or false attempt to claim that the fiction of Person is part of Natural law
Personailty
Definition:At the beginning of the 19th Century, a new definition was added to reflect the real-world fact of unique differences between individuals, namely “A set of qualities that makes a PERSON distinct from another”. The use of the word “personality” in the creation of the fictional and extremely dangerous “science” of psychology is attested from the early 20th Century meaning “assumed role or manner of PERSONAL behaviour”.
Who or What is a Person ? Court actions and God’s opinion.
As a young boy at Nudgee Boys Collage, Brisbane, Queensland, I was referred to as ‘Master’, and never really understood why?
Now I’m fully aware that One is the ‘Master of their vessel’ until the age of 14, (12 in the USA) and then through deceit and ignorance, One becomes the ‘Vassal of their Master’!
As you all should be aware by now, the legal definition of ‘Person’ is “Corporation”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD8ISiJfgW4
And the legal definition for Human is “Monster”‘Unable to ever be an Heir to land’; https://thelawdictionary.org/monster/
Also at Nudgee, they drummed into us that ‘All roads lead to Rome’, Rome wasn’t built in a day’, and ‘When in Rome, do what the Romans do’!
That said, all LAW/law in the West is ecclesiastical (Admiralty LAW of the sea; AKA Inland Piracy), No exceptions; this is why the Bible is in all Court rooms in the West and beyond.
I clearly remember the story of Adam and Eve, and the stark warning, ‘don’t eat the fruit!’! Translated into Latin is Usufruct, say it slowly; Us u fruct or use the fruit.
Don’t use the fruit of another’s creation, as God will NEVER-RESPECT-EWE! Here’s the legal definition of Usufructuary; https://thelawdictionary.org/usufructuary/
Remember, a Person in LAW is nothing more than a ‘Thing’.
Here’s the actual legal definition of Usufruct; https://thelawdictionary.org/usufruct/
All Western countries and beyond have been infiltrated by Vatican UNIDROIT (Private LAW) Banker/quasi Governments, see here; https://www.unidroit.org/about-unidroit/membership
Here is a direct extract from an Australian LAW book known as; ‘Elements of Roman LAW by R. W. Lee, printed by The Law book company of Australia PTY LTD’. Printed in 1944. Not so long ago. Page 47; “Was the Roman Slave a thing or a Person? The answer is he was both. He could be owned and as such was a res. [financial instrument] but he was a human being and as such a person.” [Do the words resume, reside, resolve, resist, resonate with you?]
%d bloggers like this: