COMMON LAW NOTICE OF WANT OF JURISDICTION COMPLAINANT: Dennis Bruce Walker XXXXXXXXXXXXX BRISBANE QLD 4101 RESPONDENT Archbishop John Bathersby, The Archbishop of Brisbane, Archbishop’s House, 790 Brunswick St., (P.O. Box 936) New Farm Qld 4005 (in the right of the Roman Catholic Church in Australia) and ( in the right of Her purported Royal Highness “Queen Elizabeth II of Australia” Buckingham Palace London, ENGLAND SW1A 1AA) In respect of the Roman Catholic Church in Australia (its archdioceses, dioceses, and parishes) having any jurisdiction, whatsoever, in the Indigenous nations/lands of the continent known as ‘Australia’ , the Complainant states that: Unless there is an acknowledgement of Indigenous peoples’ Sovereignty, and a real commitment to redress the illegal nature of the occupation of our Indigenous lands, by way of TREATY, the Roman Catholic Church, and indeed the State and Federal governments and all establishments that uphold and sustain the Roman Catholic Church in Australia, are operating in our Indigenous lands, illegally, and have no jurisdiction to make any decisions regarding the use of our lands/law/culture. The Complainant further maintains that the Roman Catholic Church has made decisions/law concerning Indigenous peoples and their colonisation at various times in its own history, that if upheld, would not perhaps have put the Roman Catholic Church in Australia in its current position which is, in fact, illegal within the realms of both its own domestic/ international man-made law, and wanting in its commitment to God’s Law. The Complainant cites, for example, two Roman Catholic Church documents, from which the Complainant maintains that the Roman Catholic Church in Australia deviates: a Papal Bull, and a statement from the Catholic Bishops of Australia Conference, November 30, 2007. 1. Sublimus Dei Pope Paul III (Topic: the enslavement and evangelization of Indians) To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction. The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office ‘Go ye and teach all nations.’ He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith. The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith. We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living. 2. A Way Forward for Indigenous Australia A statement from the Catholic Bishops of Australia - November 30, 2007 The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference acknowledges the traditional custodians of this land. We affirm our respect for the elders past and present, and for the memories, the traditions, the culture and hopes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. That the Aboriginal message stick accompanies the World Youth Day Cross and Icon is a visible symbol of that respect and acknowledgement. In his acceptance speech, Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, said that “Indigenous Australia will be listened to”. The Catholic Church in Australia, as always, looks forward to working in partnership with the new government and with indigenous communities to improve the situation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples throughout the nation. Earlier this year we welcomed the high priority that the Federal Government placed on addressing disadvantage in remote Northern Territory Aboriginal communities, particularly in the areas of health, housing and employment. However, we also emphasised that there is much more to be done to address fundamental causes of entrenched disadvantage and that this must be done in full consultation and cooperation with indigenous communities. The Northern Territory Government and indigenous organisations also have a wealth of experience to contribute. The areas for continuing action include: • tackling key causes of child abuse and poverty such as housing; poor employment opportunities, substance abuse and community breakdown; • going beyond a law-and-order response to provide a full range of culturally appropriate support services to foster strong families and communities; • respecting indigenous culture and identity through full and genuine partnership with Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal leaders and Church and community organisations working with Aboriginal communities; • providing adequate funding to secure these goals; • paying attention to the concerns raised by indigenous leaders and others about the compulsory land acquisition provisions in the Emergency Response laws; • the decision to remove the permit system needs to be reconsidered because the removal has made indigenous communities vulnerable to negative influences. Any response must be designed and implemented to take into account the particular circumstances of different communities. The Emergency Response has had the support of both major political parties. We now urge the Federal Government to pursue the even more challenging task of addressing the underlying causes of disadvantage in our indigenous communities. In this way the healing process required at the heart of our nation can be furthered. Copyright © Australian Catholic Bishops Conference 3. The Complainant states that ,with respect to matters regarding Fr Peter Kennedy and St Mary’s Church, South Brisbane – in this document I am calling into question your bona fides and therefore your lawful authority to be in my country. Until the Roman Catholic Church addresses this matter, any decisions made in my country, including those made in relation to St Mary’s Church, must be ultra vires, and until rectified by way of TREATY, any decisions made by the Roman Catholic Church, especially in regard to St Mary’s Church, must lie sine die. Fr Peter Kennedy and St Mary’s Church have signed a Treaty with me and intend to honour that Treaty by assisting in addressing crucial issues in the Indigenous community. I encourage the Roman Catholic Church in Australia to do similarly, that is acknowledge Indigenous Sovereignty and the theft of our lands by signing a Treaty with, me in the first instance, so that a precedent will be set for other traditional owners to do the same. This will then give the Church lawful authority to be in my country, thus fulfilling both man-made law and God’s law. The Complainant further states the following: TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the following facts the Complainant is not subject to any law, Act, Regulation, Rule or other instrument issued, decreed, given Royal Assent to or any way otherwise enlivened, enacted and or introduced, in respect of Australia which has, or had, its or their basis of legality and or power and or authority seated in a Foreign Parliament and or Power. The Complainant, in the absence of any legitimate enforceable laws, other than the laws of the Sovereign Origine Peoples of Gondwanna Land (Australia), being proven to be in effect in Australia at law, relies upon His Traditional and Customary Nunuccul law, International law and non-fiction fact as the grounds of this Notice. Due to the significant International disputation over the legality of the use of the Act (63 & 64 VICTORIA, CHAPTER 12) An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia.(9th July 1900)UK (Long Title) within Australia in respect of and against the freedoms and rights and privileges of the Sovereign Independent Origine Peoples of Gondwanna Land (Australia), the Complainant places no faith in the integrity of, and refuses to recognise the legality of the purported government of the State of Queensland/Nation State Australia, nor the “Judicial” system until they can provide the evidence sought by the Complainant in respect of their legality to force the Complainant to comply with the domestic law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which, since at least the 10th of January 1920, has been an illegal practice under International Law within Australia. FACTS: 1: The Complainant is not required at law to comply with: 1.1: any Notice of any offence alleged by the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” nor any of its agents, officers assigns or representatives, including those of the Roman Catholic Church in Australia, 1.1.1: prior to the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND/ NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” providing to the Complainant documented proof as to its legal basis, and, 1.1.2: allowing the Complainant sufficient time to have such documented proof of such alleged legal basis assessed and verified in writing by: 1.1.2.1: the authorities documented as to have given said authority to the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/“NATION STATE AUSTRALIA”. 4. 1.1.2.2: (In respect of any suggested and or purported authority, which is suggested and or purported to have been granted by any acknowledged foreign power including but not limited to the United Kingdom, its’ parliament and monarch) having that suggested and or purported authority validated by the United Nations, and the Foreign Power concerned in respect of that authority or powers’ supposed and or purported lawful application against the Complainant as an Indigenous Sovereign Australian Citizen. 2: The Complainant is not required at law to comply with an opinion of any “Court” unless it is an opinion of that Court, AT LAW, with that opinion complying with the obligations of the Court, the State and the Commonwealth under International Law pursuant to any and all UN Human Rights and or other treaties and Covenants and Protocols to which the Commonwealth of Australia is a State Party. 3: The Complainant is not required at law to comply with any assertion that any purported “Court” is a “court” unless that “court” can, prior to the commencement or continuance of any hearing in respect of any matter concerning the Complainant in that purported “court”, provides to the Complainant evidence of: 3.1: the “courts” Source of power. 3.2: the “courts” Head of power 3.3: the “courts” authority 3.4: the “courts” Jurisdiction. 3.4: the validity of any State or Federal “Constitution” or other document relied upon by the “court” to evidence the points listed in 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.3 above. 4: The Complainant can not be forced to defend any Notice of any offence alleged by the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” 4.1: prior to the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” providing to the Complainant documented proof as to its legal basis, and, 4.2: allowing the Complainant sufficient time to have such documented proof of such alleged legal basis assessed and verified by: 4.2.1: the authorities documented as to have given said authority to the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” And, or, 4.2.2: (In respect of any suggested and or purported authority or power, which is suggested and or purported to have been issued by any foreign power, whether a government, parliament and or a monarch, in respect of any allegation made against the Complainant:) having that suggested and or purported authority validated by the United Nations or other RELEVANT competent entity), in respect of the supposed and or purported lawful application against the Complainant as an Origine Sovereign Australian 5. Citizen of that purported authority or power, including: 4.2.2.1: The Government of the United Kingdom, 4.2.2.2: “The Queen of Australia” – being -Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom at Buckingham Palace, London SW1A 1AA. 4.2.2.3: The United Nations. 4.2.2.4: The European Union Government (which owns ALL British legislation “Whenever it was created”). 4.2.2.5: All governments of the Commonwealth and States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia. 5: If any purported “Court” of any State or Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Commonwealth of Australia believes the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 UK is legitimately binding upon the Complainant, The Complainant reserves the right to demand this matter to be referred to the High Court pursuant to Section 75(i) of the “Constitution”, as the Complainant contests the Queensland Parole Boards’ claim to lawful or legal Jurisdiction over the Complainant on the basis of the obligations of the Commonwealth and States to the Complainant pursuant to various Treaties to which Australia is a Party. 6: No purported or actual “court” within the Commonwealth of Australia” has a legal capacity to hear any matter and or execute any judgment against the Complainant in respect of any matter brought before any “Court” if that “court” can not or does not provide to the Complainant lawful and examinable evidence of its’ : 6.1: Legal basis, and, 6.2: Head of Authority, and, 6.3: Head of Power. 7: The evidence required to prove the Legal Basis, Head of Authority and Head of Power of any “court” in Australia which is proposing to hear any matter concerning the Complainant must: 7.1: be compliant to Australias’ obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, and, 7.2: be compliant with Australias’ obligations pursuant to International Treaties to which Australia is a Party, and, 7.3: be compliant with International Law, and, 7.4: be provided in document form to the satisfaction of the Complainant. 8: Neither the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” nor its agents, assigns, officers nor representatives have the authority to: 6. 8.1: exercise any authority under any Act or Law against or in respect of the Complainant which is subordinate to the Act “An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK)” as: 8.1.1: this Act is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which has its’ seat of power at Westminster, London, England, and, 8.1.2: The Act “An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK)” is ultra vires to commonwealth and states and territories of Australia. 8.1.3: No officer or agent of the Commonwealth of Australia or any State and or Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia can exercise any authority derived from the British Act “An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia” (a Law owned by a power foreign to the Commonwealth of Australia) over a Sovereign, Independent, Origine man, woman or child. 9: No officer, agent, assignee, representative nor employee of the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” has the authority to: 9.1: exercise any authority under any Act or Law which is subaltern to the Act “An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK)” as: 9.1.1: this Act is an Act of the Parliament of Great Brittain and Northern Ireland which has its’ seat of power at Westminster, London, England, and, 9.1.2: The Act “An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK)” is ultra vires to commonwealth of Australia. 10: Any officer or agent of the Commonwealth of Australia, or of any State and or Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia, who exercises any authority derived from the British Act “An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia” or any other Act of any other foreign power over any Independent Origine and or non-Origine Individual Sovereign man, woman or child is in breach of the rights (both Civil, Political, Human and Social) – as bound in the various International Treaties to which Australia is a State Party – of that Independent Origine or non-Origine Individual Sovereign man, woman or child. 11: At no point in time did the Complainant consent to the ALLEGED AND AS YET UNSUBSTANTIATED presumption that the Complainant is or ever was subject to the jurisdiction of the British or quasi-British-Australian parliaments or their agents, assigns, representatives or officers. 12: ALL “Courts” at ALL levels including the ILLEGITIMATE and ILLEGAL “Courts” of Australia are obliged to protect my rights: 12.1: in accordance with Divine Law, and, 12.2: in accordance with Natural Law, and, 12.3: in accordance with the Common Law, and, 12.4: in accordance with Statute Law: in that order. 7. 13: The United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Part 1, Article 1, Section 1 states: 13.1: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” 14: The United Nations Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 1, states: 14.1: “A State Party to the Covenant that becomes a Party to the present Protocol recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by that State Party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Covenant, which is not a Party to the present Protocol.” 15: The Charter of the United Nations, Article 2, Sections 1, 2, and 4 state: 15.1: (Section 1) The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. 15.2: (Section 2) All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. 15.3: (Section 4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. 16: For any “Court” which is convened pursuant to any “law” given “Royal Assent” under the provisions of the British Act entitled “An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 UK) to hear any matter against the Complainant, as an Independent, Individual, Indigenous, Sovereign, Australian Citizen is to breach Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and to commit and Act of War against the Complainant. 17: The Geneva Convention, Chapter 1, Article 2, states: 17.1: Chapter 1, Article 2: “In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.” “The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.” “Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.” 8. 18: All the above items of International Law, or International Agreements, or International Treaties have been signed by the Government of Australia. 19: Various past and the present Executive Governments of Australia, as the purported servants of the people who constitute the Commonwealth of Australia, have signed International Treaties and Covenants with the intent that committal to these Treaties and Covenants (which the Complainant relies upon in respect of his defense in these matters) give rise to a legitimate expectation that these Treaties and Covenants have the purpose of protecting the Complainants rights pursuant to these Treaties and Covenants. 20: These Covenants and Treaties have also been entered into Australian Law under Acts bearing titles similar to the titles of the International Agreements. (E.g., The Geneva Convention Act, The Charter of the United Nations Act, The Human Rights Commission Act etc.) 21: Australia became a belligerent Independent Sovereign State on the 28th of June 1919 when the then Prime Minister of Australia (William Hughes) signed the Treaty of Versailles. 22: This FACT was FURTHER evidenced in October 1919, when this fact was recorded in the Hansard of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. 23: This FACT was FURTHER ratified on the 10th of January 1920 when Mr Hughes and the Australian Deputy Prime Minister (Sir Joseph Cook) signed the League of Nations Covenant, making the Commonwealth of Australia a foundation Member. 24: This FACT was FURTHER ratified in June 1945, when Australia became a foundation member of the United Nations by signing the United Nations Charter. 25: The actions as detailed in paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24 above, declared to the World that the Commonwealth of Australia was an Independent, Sovereign Nation Member State of the League of Nations, with EQUAL Nation Status as the United Kingdom, and as such, Australian People were, at the least from the 10th of January 1920, FREE FROM THE IMPOSITION OF ANY BRITISH LAW – including “An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 UK)”. 26: This was written into Australia law on September 14, 1945 via the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945. 27: From October 1, 1919, or January 10, 1920, or at the very least, June 26, 1945, it became an offence under International Law to enforce foreign law, including the Domestic Law of the United Kingdom) upon the Australian people who are the government of the country, not the parliaments. 28: To do so is to commit an act of treason against the Australian People. NOTE: Apparently only the “Australian” Judiciary, Police and the obviously corrupt political systems within Australia itself have problems in recognizing these facts This refusal to accept these facts apparently stems from an illegitimate and or private/personal intent by the Judiciary, Police and political systems to oblige the United Kingdom Parliament 9. and Monarch in their continued raping and pillaging of the natural wealth and resources of the Sovereign Indigenous Australian people. 29: The Full Bench of the High Court of Australia has ruled that the United Kingdom is a power foreign to Australia. (See Sue v Hill, 1999.) 30: For the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, or the Government of any State or Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia to permit, encourage and or allow the practice by Australian “Courts” to exercise, enforce or other wise use any law which stems from any British Act – regardless of when that Act was enacted – is to COMMIT TREASON against the Sovereign Origine/Indigenous Peoples of Australia. 31: The Full Bench of the High Court of Australia has ruled that International Treaties are binding on all courts within Australia. (see Teoh) 32: The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland consists of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Queen (Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). 33: British Law, being the Act of Settlement 1701 UK, paragraph 7, stipulates that the Queen of the United Kingdom is the Queen of the United Kingdom ONLY and can not take her Sovereignty outside the dominions of England, Scotland or Ireland without the consent of the Parliament, which was specifically denied, statute barring the Monarchs from extending or construing to extend their sovereignty into the Australasian colonies and Pacific Islands. 34: This Act has never been repealed. 35: She CANNOT, under law, be the Queen of anywhere else in the world, other than England, Scotland and or Ireland. 36: Under British Law if she is the Queen of anywhere else she is committing an act of treason against the British people, and is assuming the role of an Absolute Monarch by usurping the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to which the Monarch has been subjective since the time Charles I lost his head in 1649. 37: Following the Restoration, in 1689 William and Mary of Orange came to the throne of England. 38: Before they were crowned, in January 1689, they signed the Declaration of Right which removed from the Monarch, the power of absolute Monarchy and made the monarch subjective to the UK parliament, or in other words the Monarch became a “Monarch in Parliament” as opposed to a “Monarch in Counsel”. 39: In October 1690 the Bill of Rights was passed which, among other things, gave Executive Power in the United Kingdom to the United Kingdom Parliament. (This was the birth of the ‘Constitutional Monarchy’, where the Executive Power no longer lay with the monarch.) 10. 40: This has never been changed in British Law. 41: The Journal of Captain Arthur Phillip, leader of the first fleet, shows his Commission and Instructions under the Act of Parliament Establishing the Colony state, in respect of “Aboriginal” People, the following: 41.1: “to endeavour by every possible means to open an intercourse with the natives, and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all Our subjects to live in amity and kindness with them. And if any of Our subjects shall wantonly destroy them, or give them any unnecessary interruption in the exercise of their several occupations, it is Our will and pleasure that you do cause such offenders to be brought to punishment.” 42: The Journal of the Judge Advocate General of the first fleet, Captain Collins, in a 1796 entry shows the following admission of ownership of the land by the Origine Peoples, and the fact the Origine People had their own system of land ownership and title over their own private real estates prior to the arrival of the first fleet: 42.1: Their spears and shields, their clubs and lines etc are their own property; they are manufactured by themselves and are the whole of their personal estate. But, strangely as it may appear, they have also their real estates. Bennelong, before he went to England and since his return, often assured me that the island Memel, called by us Goat Island, close by Sydney Cove, was his own property; that it was his fathers’, and that he should give it to Bygone, his particular friend and companion. To this little spot he appeared much attached and we have often seen him and his wife Barrangaroo feasting and enjoying themselves on it. He told us of other people who possessed this kind of hereditary property, which they retained undisturbed.” 43: In the Address to Select Committee Of The House Of Commons On The Aborigines Wherever British Settlements Are Made, of July 1834, it was recorded that: 43.1: the Kings’ “faithful Commons in Parliament assembled are deeply impressed with the duty of acting upon the principals of justice and humanity in the intercourse and relation of this country (the United Kingdom) with the native inhabitants of its colonial settlements – of affording them protection in the enjoyment of their civil rights, and of imparting to them that degree of civilization, and that religion with which Providence has blessed this nation; and it humbly prays, that his Majesty will take such measures and give such directions to the Governors and Officers of his Majestys’ settlements and plantations, as shall secure to the natives the due observance, and the protection of their rights – promote the spread of civilization amongst them, and lead them to the peaceful and voluntary reception of the Christian religion.” 44: The then Chancellor of the Exchequor observed, and was recorded as stating that, in respect of the statement in paragraph 43 above, British Settlements Are Made”, and as stated: 44.1: “So far from being the expression of any new principal, only embodies and recognizes principles on which the British Government has for a considerable time been disposed to act”. 11. 45: The same “Report of the Select Committee Of The House Of Commons On The Aborigines Wherever British Settlements Are Made” also states: 45.1: It might be presumed that the native inhabitants of any land, have an incontrovertible right to their own soil; it is a plain and sacred right which seems not to have been understood. Europeans have entered their borders uninvited, and when there, have not only acted as if they were the undoubted lords of the soil, but have punished the natives as aggressors if they have evinced a disposition to live in their own country.” 46: Justice Willis, of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, on 16 September 1841 in a Judgment of the court stated: 46.1: To elucidate so far as I am able the point for decision, I will first briefly trace the history of this colony and of the settlement of this district, at the same time remarking on the character which has been given of the aborigines; and in the second place, state so much of the acknowledged law of nations and the manner it has been acted upon with regard to Aborigines, as it seems to me to bear on the subject, adding a few notices of the manner in which uncivilized tribes have been treated with in other British Colonies, and steps taken in Colonies where English law was in force. I will premise that policy, or impolicy of an existing system can avail nothing in the present instance. I can never permit the end to justify any undue means for its accomplishment. This may be policy and wisdom in a statesman, but it is little less than treason in a judge. He must not wrest the law to his authority, or do a great right through a little wrong.” 47: In the same “Report of the Select Committee Of The House Of Commons On The Aborigines Wherever British Settlements Are Made” Mr Saxe Bannister, formerly Attorney-General of the colony of New South Wales, is on the record as to have stated to the committee on 31st August 1835, in respect of Origine law in the” Colony: 47.1: “We ought forthwith to begin, at least, to reduce the laws and usages of the Aboriginal tribes to language, print them, and direct our courts of justice to respect those laws in proper cases.” 48: During the Committees hearings, Mr Saxe Bannister handed a paper to Mr T.F. Buxton, Chairman of the Committee, dated 19 August 1835, which, under the heading of “Measures Affecting the Swan River and other New Australian Colonies”, stated: 48.1: “Make treaties with the natives before proceeding further.” 49: The Complainant, in His Sovereign capacity, has offered to Treaty with the “State of Queensland”, but this offer was refused by the State of Queensland, thus, vitiating and negating any opportunity for the State of Queensland to extend, and therefore exercise over the Complainant, any jurisdiction. 50: The same “”Report of the Select Committee Of The House Of Commons On The Aborigines Wherever British Settlements Are Made” also states: 50.1: “…it is the recollection of many living men that every part of this territory was the undisputed property of the aborigines.” 12. 51: The same “Report of the Select Committee Of The House Of Commons On The Aborigines Wherever British Settlements Are Made” also states: 51.1: Much will depend on the manner in which this colony is considered to have been acquired, and this brings me in the second place to advert to the law of nations as acknowledged by the British Government, with regard to Colonial possessions. Colonies, says Mr Clark, in his summary of Colonial Law, and stated at the Bar by Mr Barry , are acquired by conquest, by cession under treaty, or by occupancy. By occupancy where an uninhabited country is discovered by British subjects, and is upon such discovery, adopted or recognized by the British Crown as part of its possessions. In case a colony be acquired by occupancy, (he adds) the law of England then in being, is immediately and ipso facto in force in the new settlement. He further states, New South Wales and Van Diemens Land, were acquired by discovery or simple occupation. New South Wales was not, however, unoccupied, as we have seen, at the time it was taken possession of by the colonists, for, “a body of the aborigines appeared on the shore, armed with spears, which they through down as soon as they found the strangers had no hostile intention.” This being the case, it does not appear there was any conquest, and it is admitted there has hitherto been cession under treaty. 52: The same Report of the Select Committee Of The House Of Commons On The Aborigines Wherever British Settlements Are Made” also states: 52.1: This colony then stands on a different footing from some others for it was neither an unoccupied place, nor was it obtained by right of conquest and driving out the natives, nor by treaties. Indeed, as Mr Vattel very justly says, “whoever agrees that robbery is a crime, and that we are not allowed to take forcible possession of our neighbours property, will acknowledge without any further proof, that no nation has the right to expel another people from the country they inhabit in order to settle it herself.” 53: Further to the limitations imposed upon the “crown”/monarch of the UK Parliament under the Act of Settlement 1701 UK, there are further, more clearly defined limitations on the purported right of the “Crown”/monarch of that parliament in respect of the purported legality of its’ extension or construed extension of its’ sovereignty and or dominion into Gondwanna Land (Australia). 54: Section 6 of the Pacific Islander Protection Act 1872-75 clearly limits the purported jurisdiction of the UK Parliament and its’ monarch to British Subjects ONLY. 55: Section 7 of the Pacific Islander Protection Act 1872-75 states: 55.1: Nothing herein or in any such Order in Council shall extend or be construed to extend to invest Her Majesty with any claim or title whatsoever to dominion or sovereignty over any such islands (ie: the Pacific Islands) or places as aforesaid (ie: the Australasian Colonies including Australia and NZ), or to derogate from the rights of the tribes or people inhabiting such islands or places, or of the Chiefs or rulers thereof, to such sovereignty or dominion……….” Clearly excluding the extension of the purported sovereignty of the parliament of the United Kingdom into the Australasian “Colonies” and Pacific Islands. 56: The Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900, Chapter 1, Part 1, Paragraph 1, 13. STILL states: 56.1: “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 herein-after called “The Parliament” or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth.” 57: It is clear and irrefutable that the “Queen” referred to in The Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900, Chapter 1, Part 1, Paragraph 1, is the “Queen” of the Parliament of the Untied Kingdom – not the purported and illegal Queen of Australia. 58: The Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 [63 & 64 Vict.] (Chapter 12) Paragraph 2, states: 58.1: “The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom.” 59: The Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900, Chapter 1, Part 1, Paragraph 2, states: 59.1: “A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have, and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.” 60: The person or entity referred to in The Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900, Chapter 1, Part 1, Paragraph 2, must be the “Queen” of the Parliament of the Untied Kingdom which has been acknowledged as being a Foreign Power – see Sue –v- Hill – High Court 1999. 61: Therefore, section 61 of Clause 9 of the Australian Constitution, which confers Executive Power on the Queen of the United Kingdom through the various Governors-General, in actual FACT confers executive power in Australia on the Parliament of the United Kingdom as the Queen cannot, under UK law, bestow any commissions of appointment (including Writs of Commission for “Australian” Magistrates etc…) without the approval of the UK Parliament. 62: When it was realized that following Australian Independence in 1920, and following the Balfour Declaration in 1927, the United Kingdom no longer had any executive power over any other independent nation (eg: Australia), the UK Parliament passed legislation separating the Queen and the UK Parliament from the Governors-General of Australia. 63: The Governors-General, the Governors, and the Australian Parliament from then on dealt with the British Foreign Office, not the British Colonial Office, as did all other independent nations. 64: This was as a result of Australia being recognized by the Parliament and the Monarch of the United Kingdom as being Independent of the Sovereign control and or authority of the Parliament and or the Monarch of the British Parliament. 65: The Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 removed the title ‘Queen of the United Kingdom in Australia’ and substituted the title ‘Queen of Australia”. 14. 66: Either title is a deception as they both suggest that “Queen Elizabeth II” of London England, Monarch of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, can, does or ever did hold any Executive, Royal, Legal, Constitutional and or any other right, entitlement or authority over the Australian people. 67: Apart from the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 being illegal (as it confers a “Royal Right” which no longer exists at law), The Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia recognizes ONLY the “Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”. 68: The ‘Queen of Australia’ has no executive or other power within Australia as this person is not recognized by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. 69: The Queen of the United Kingdom has no executive power within the UK, as she was, is and always will be a Foreign Power in respect of the Commonwealth of Australia. 70: Executive power within the UK lies with the UK Parliament and not with the Monarch. 71: Unless specifically agreed to, and or asked for, by the Australian people through their elected representatives, via a federal referendum, no Executive power of the Parliament and or the Monarch of the Untied Kingdom has any lawful control over the Independent, Individual Sovereign, Australian people, but even more so is the case in respect of the Independent, Individual, Indigenous Sovereign Australian people, who have at NO TIME willingly acquiesced to ANY Colonial or other British “Law” and at no time have been party to any treaty with the United Kingdom or “Australian” governments indicating such. 72: The Monarch of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in her purported capacity as Queen of Australia or any other alleged or purported capacity cannot confer any delegated executive powers to the Governors-General of Australia, or Governors of the States, that she herself does not possess !!!, including: 72.1: Regal and or Vice-Regal authority for ANY person to act in the purported official capacity of: 72.1.1: the Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia, and or; 72.1.2: the Governor of any of the States and or Territories of the Commonwealth o Australia. 73: Halsburys Laws of England, Volume II, paragraphs 9 (11) to 9 (25) states, Quote: “the Royal Sign Manual is a power of the United Kingdom Parliament under such various acts as the Great Seal Act, the Crown Offices Act, the Clerk of the Crown and Chancery Act, and the Crown Seal Offices Act etc.” 15. 74: Therefore, NO appointments or commissions made by the “Queen of England” (who is recognized in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 UK), or the “Queen of Australia” (who is not recognized in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 UK), that are not signed by senior members of the UK Parliament are valid appointments as the monarch has not had the power to make appointments of her own volition since 1690. 75: The last purportedly valid appointments made by a British Monarch were made by Queen Victoria who died in 1901. 76: Under UK law, Royal appointments, authorities and commissions die with the Monarch. 77: There have never been any Royal Appointments, authorities or commissions made in accordance with United Kingdom law since that time. 78: Therefore, all bills presented to the Australian parliaments since that time have never received ‘Royal Assent’ as required in the Commonwealth Constitution, and therefore remain as Bills and have never become laws. 79: Under Section 128 of the Australian Constitution, the Parliament of Australia had no power to appoint a new Head of State in the guise of “Queen of Australia”. To do so is to claim sovereignty over the People of Australia without the permission of the people of Australia. 80: No such permission was ever given. (See Australian Parliament House website, Referendum Results). 81: In a reply to a request made of the Australian Federal Attorney General by a Mr Ian Henke under the Freedom of Information Act it was stated: 81.1: “I refer to your request to this department of 11 April 2001 pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1982, for a copy of the document or documents by which the Sovereign people of Australia, after the attainment of independence and Australian Sovereignty, confer or conferred Executive Authority on the “Queen of Australia”, in particular the authority to appoint and empower, under section 2 of the Constitution, a Governor-General to hold and exercise Executive Power under section 61 of the Constitution. I am, pursuant to arrangements by the secretary of this department under sub-section 23 (1) of the Act, authorized to make decisions on behalf of this department in relation to this matter.” “I have accordingly reached the conclusion that no such document as described by you exists.” 82: A second request for information made by Mr Henke to the Federal Attorney General under the Freedom of Information Act, included a request for the following: 16. 82.1: “The empowering documents or legislation issued by the United Kingdom Government or Parliament empowering the Queen of Australia to use the Royal Prerogatives granted to the Queen of the United Kingdom, in particular the Royal Sign Manual.” 83: In reply, under the hand of the Attorney General it was stated: 83.1: “I have reached the conclusion that no such document as described by you in your request, exists.” 84: The Australian Parliaments: 84.1: did not get the power to appoint a Governor-General from the United Kingdom, and, 84.2: did not get the power to appoint a Governor-General from the Australian people. 85: Officers of the STATE OF QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE / NATION STATE AUSTRALIA POLICE SERVICES have sworn allegiance to: 85.1: “the Government of the State of “STATE OF QUEENSLAND” and or , 85.2: “the Queen of Australia” (Queen Elizabeth II, of London). 86: By swearing such allegiance they have sworn allegiance to a power foreign to the Individual Sovereign people of Australia. 87: Section 6 of the British “Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK)” clearly declares to the whole world that the British “Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK)” refers to the “States” in their PREVIOUS , and now untenable capacities as Colonies of the United Kingdom. 88: The following is the Oath of Allegiance sworn by ALL purported “Australian” Parliamentarians of both the House and the Senate, as contained within the British “Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK)”. 88.1: OATH I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD) AFFIRMATION. I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. (NOTE.-The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.) 17. 89: The “Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 UK” was not amended prior to Australia becoming an Independent Sovereign Nation Member State of the League of Nations (coinciding with the last purported Monarch of Australias’ declaration of Australias’ Independence from the United Kingdom on the 10th January 1920) to reflect the acknowledgement of Indigenous Australians as part of the “number of the people of the Commonwealth or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth” therefore: 89.1: Indigenous Australians are not a party to, nor obligated under the “Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 UK” to comply with any: 89.1.1: Law, 89.1.2: Rule, 89.1.3: Regulation, or other obligation, any of which has the “Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 UK” as the basis of its’ authority. 90: Origine/Indigenous Australians, are NOT: 90.1: part of any Australian or United Kingdom Colony (as defined in the “Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 UK”), nor, 90.2: a “possession of the Queen (of the United Kingdom)” (as defined by the “Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 UK”), nor, 90.3: subject to ANY purported or actual law or other legality enacted or otherwise given any power either: 90.3.1: by the (United Kingdoms’) Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, or, 90.3.2: by “Her heirs and or successors, or, 90.3.3: by and or with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in the United Kingdom Parliament. 94: Origine/Indigenous Australians are not, and never have been, lawfully subject to any authority or authorities of ANY foreign power and or powers including the invading British Monarchy, and or their heirs and or successors. 95: Sovereign Origine/Indigenous Australians are not, and never include, but are not limited to: 18. 96.1: the COMPLAINANT has NO INTENTION of breaching ANY LAWFUL LAW, and, 96.2: the Complainant is now, in possession of substantial documented evidence which clearly shows all Acts of the State, Territory and Commonwealth are unenforceable due to legal problems in the legal effecting of these Acts due to their authority coming from a power recognised by the High Court of Australia as being a Foreign Power, and, 96.3: the Complainant was (and the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND” was aware that the Complainant was), at all times, reliant upon the relying on his rights pursuant to His Sovereign traditional and customary Nunukul Law, the common law and International Law in the absence of any lawful “Australian” statute to the contrary. 96.4: the Complainant is a father, grandfather and great-grandfather and respected Elder in His Nunukul community, and he is aware that he has a social obligation to instil in his children, by both deed and word, the necessity to obey lawful laws, and to peaceably protest those which are oppressive, unjust, unlawful, unethical or immoral, including those laws of a Foreign Power which are exercised in Gondwanna Land (Australia), against the will of the Sovereign Origine Peoples, but with the consent of the UK Parliament, in direct contravention to all International law. 96.5:The Complainant is well respected in his community and seeks the information demanded from the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA”/ THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN AUSTRALIA, so as to be sure that the laws the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA”/ THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN AUSTRALIA etc. are acting under are, in fact, legitimate and lawful within Minjerrabah (the Complainants local tribal lands) and Gondwanna Land (Australia). 97: At no point in time since nor before the Complainant first demanded the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” treaty with him, has the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” provided any evidence to disprove the Complainants claims to Social and Political rights under International and the Common Law, nor has the STATE OF QUEENSLAND provided the Complainant with any DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE of either, 97.1: ANY of the alleged documented authority of the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” which the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA”, through senior officers, has declared exists. 97.2: ANY of the alleged existent documented evidence of the Authority of the State and or Commonwealth Constitutions. 19. UK Act “An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 UK” or any law which looks to it for their legitimacy within Australia, the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/”NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” has maintained that the Complainants’ legal argument was untenable, but never offered coherent, written evidence to the support its contentions against the Complainants facts.
Posted on: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 20:23:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015