Yowiehunters Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maXEbXndKjQ


I have been at a few of this chap's speeches over the years.

After many court experiences where he was able to clarify he was outside the 'law' of 'Australia' he became a lawyer and took the matter to the International court of the Hague.

Have a listen for a legal explanation of why the Original inhabitants of this country have far more power than they realise over the so-called government.

Can you consider posting this as a follow-up reply to one of your numerous other thread posts about political corruption instead of making yet another post about this subject, please?

Wolf,
I've just skim read through the threads in this section, of which you have a monopoly over.

Do you openly declare yourself as a "Freeman of the land" campaigner, or is this a title you refute? In the USA you would regard yourself as a "sovereign citizen", yes?

The term, 'Sovereign Citizen' is an oxymoron... one cannot be sovereign and a citizen at the same time.

Neither do I consider myself a 'Freeman-On-The-Land' as I have not rescinded my contract with the State (I accept the benefits... use the currency, have a birth certificate, carry a Driver's License, etc... though I do so under duress and threat of violence upon my person).

I am just a bloke who has had the opportunity and spare time to do a lot of digging and got to test what I found in court.
What I do know is that this country is NOT the country founded as The Commonwealth of Australia just over a century ago. That country still exists but has been pushed aside by the corporate entity calling itself the Australian Government. It's parliament sits empty and unused while the pretender sits in a bunker adorned by a giant flag.

Will it ever come back? I seriously doubt it. I have heard of one attempt many years ago, set up by elements in the military but at the last moment they had a disagreement and it failed before it even started.

I do know of some who have rescinded their contract and reverted their interest back into the Commonwealth.

The results are very interesting, especially how they are now handled in court... going from intensely being attacked by TPTB to being respected by the court officlals overnight.

So, you're not a Freeman of the land advocate, Wolf?

In one of the other threads you declare the Transport Act or a Transport Act was never proclaimed and therefore is not a law. Have you even read the Australian constitution?

It explains the process very clearly. All proposed laws pass by the house of representatives and the senate, and are then assented by the Governor General in the queens name before they become Acts of parliament. Proclamation is something read out, not a drawn out ceremony.

Queensland has its own constitution. In Queensland for example, proclamation and royal assent involve the Governor of Queensland. A piece of legislation becomes operational as law 1) at a specified date 2) when it is given Royal Assent by the Governor 3) on a day fixed by proclamation (declaration by the Governor) and or 4) or immediately before or after another act or provision within the same act.

Freeman of the land advocates always question proclamation, and sometimes ask for proclamation certificates, but never see it as important to question whether royal assent was given by the governor.

If you don't believe me, Wolf, have another read of the Australian constitution.

This video above on the other hand, raises many exceptional points which could really upset the very foundation of the Australian Constitution.

I will be exploring his point about Britain having its own laws at the time of colonialisation forbidding the colonisation of land where people already had an established system of government and law. The native Australian Aboriginals had there own systems of both in place, although maybe not centralised. There is a strong argument, Australia should never have been deemed Terra nullus and Britain colonials were subject to Australian Aboriginal laws the moment they set foot on Australian land.

Black wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:48 am In one of the other threads you declare the Transport Act or a Transport Act was never proclaimed and therefore is not a law. Have you even read the Australian constitution?

It explains the process very clearly. All proposed laws pass by the house of representatives and the senate, and are then assented by the Governor General in the queens name before they become Acts of parliament. Proclamation is something read out, not a drawn out ceremony.

That's right but as evidence of proclamation said proclamation must be published (Gazetted).
I ask for evidence of proclamation... in other words, gazetted.

Black wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:48 am Queensland has its own constitution. In Queensland for example, proclamation and royal assent involve the Governor of Queensland. A piece of legislation becomes operational as law 1) at a specified date 2) when it is given Royal Assent by the Governor 3) on a day fixed by proclamation (declaration by the Governor) and or 4) or immediately before or after another act or provision within the same act.

Freeman of the land advocates always question proclamation, and sometimes ask for proclamation certificates, but never see it as important to question whether royal assent was given by the governor.

See above.
Asking for evidence of proclamation IS defacto asking for evidence of assent when phrased correctly (I include this question with my others).
As to royal assent, the 'new' constitution of 2002 removed this role of the GG, in effect removing any power the GG had. Now he or she is simply a figure-head. Bringing up this matter will get you as far as bringing up the constitution will in any lower court... you are trying to bring it into the 'wrong' jurisdiction. They are NOT constitutional courts. They are administration courts for the corporation. By giving yourself up to 'their' authority (with your presence) you are contracting to the corporation.

Black wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:48 am
This video above on the other hand, raises many exceptional points which could really upset the very foundation of the Australian Constitution.

I will be exploring his point about Britain having its own laws at the time of colonialisation forbidding the colonisation of land where people already had an established system of government and law. The native Australian Aboriginals had there own systems of both in place, although maybe not centralised. There is a strong argument, Australia should never have been deemed Terra nullus and Britain colonials were subject to Australian Aboriginal laws the moment they set foot on Australian land.

Sadly Gunham (McMurtrie) has 'lost his way' getting mixed up with the typical problems besieging members of his community.

He could have been great for his people and this country as a whole. The barrister who took him on as a law student and helped take his arguments to the UK was very disappointed when last I spoke with him a couple of years ago.

His points still stand however. As do the legal points of another challenge to Australia's 'authority-at-law', ie; the technical treason committed by every 'citizen' who has sworn an oath to a foreign entity (the Queen).

Wolf says,"That's right but as evidence of proclamation said proclamation must be published (gazetted)."

Yes, Wolf, you are absolutely correct. The Commonwealth of Australia Government Gazette from 1901 to 1957 is fully available on Trove. But the Federal Register of Legislation, has the lot.

It has copies of Commonwealth Government Gazettes published between 1901 and 2012, and is fully accessible. Just click on a year.

Which legislation are you saying was never gazetted? Was it the Transport Road Use Management Act 1995?

I don't understand what you are saying about arguments being taken into the wrong courts and that these courts are not constitutional? All courts are constitutional. From the High court of Australia down to the Supreme courts, the District courts, and then the Magistrates courts. Each court deals with different matters under the constitution. They are not administration courts for any corporation and no person enters into any contract with a corporation. Except if you view setting foot on Australian soil as contracting with the Australian constitution automatically, by default, and you see the Australian constitution as a corporation? Again, Wolf, your beliefs betray you. You have entered into classic Freeman of the land argument, yet you say you are not a Freeman of the land advocate?

The TORUM Act 1995 has never been gazetted and they even removed section 2 of the amended 2002 act.

If you can get a copy of the 1995 Act you will see section 2, The Commencement. Interestingly I was able to get it online a few years ago, but after I brought the lack of section 2 in the amended act to the attention of a judge, one can no longer find it in the database.

One has a contract with the corporation posing as government if one has used a birth certificate (a bond with a cusip number, the red number) to get any form of ID, for example, a driver's license (you sign it don't you?)

If you vote, pay taxes under your 'name', use any of the benefits offered by the state, or acknowledge yourself AS the ALL-CAPS 'person' on your license you are contracting with the state... and thus cannot claim to be a FOTL. To attempt to do so in court will often result in a psych evaluation ordered by the judge for you are seen to be 'of two minds'.

The courts do NOT operate under the Australian Constitution. They operate under 'colour of law'. Try bringing the Constitution into any court and see how you fare. Every judge knows this, including high court justices... which is why one of them wrote a paper a few years back recommending the courts return to it.

Rather than retype all the details, I will refer you to my other posts in this forum and to larryhannigan.com and southernfreemen.com for almost endless resources on this topic. Have fun

Those two websites, Wolf, are pure gold. Larry Hannigan in particular. Now I know where your beliefs and a lot of the topics you post here, comes from.

Are you positive the TORUM Act 1995, was never gazetted? You're absolutely sure? Did you have a good look? The removal of section 2 in the amended act 2002, is because the Act already commenced in 1995.

Are you an Australian citizen, Wolf? A resident of Australia? Under your rationale, overseas tourists to Australia, do not need to obey our laws because they've never signed over their consent. Likewise, if you were to go over to France or China, or Bali for example, unless you sign over your consent, your argument is you don't have to obey the laws of those countries? So, in your rationale, it's illegal for those Australians to be on death row in Bali, because they never entered a contract with the Bali government to obey Bali's laws against drug importation? In your rationale, it's perfectly ok for an international tourist from Syria to Australia, to come to your house, call you an infidel, and shoot you dead for not devoting your life to Mohammed. This is your rationale?

Wolf, the Larry Hannigan website in particular, is misguided nonsense. Do some homework on the legal term, "Law of the Land."

I agree that some of Hannigan's material is misguided, yet some is not. (As I have found out in court)

One obeys the law of the country one is visiting by international agreement. Every Australian 'citizen' is 'contracted' as a citizen via several documents already mentioned. And by acceptance of the 'benefits'.

As to FMOTL, I have argued with many claiming to be such until blue in the face. They are on the whole, a misguided crew, clutching at some truths and misinterpreting others to mean something Ye do not.

As to the TORUM Act... Prosecution could supply no evidence of proclamation, despite several months being given to find such evidence so the assumption therefore is no proclamation exists.

Tell me, Black... do you feel okay with a judge demanding the defendant prove a negative? Or the 'fact', stated by said judge IN COURT that the defendant is "guilty unless proven innocent"?

A lot if not the majority of Harrigans material, is misguided. It's practically a training package for any Freeman of the land wannabe. There is a whole section there devoted to his anti authoritarian views which he justifies by plucking selected pieces from the bible.

I disagree every Australian citizen is contracted as a citizen via several documents and by acceptance of benefits. A very small number of people are born in Australia off the grid and can spend most their lives off the grid. The aboriginal population in far north Cape York is a perfect place to find such people. Those people are still subject to Australian laws because the law of the land applies to the land upon which you stand at any given time.

Your assertion the TORUM Act 1995 was never proclaimed, is a big claim. I find it unlikely that such a prolifically enforced act did not come into effect after all the prerequisites were followed. Hundreds of people every day receive fines and face court in Queensland, by virtue of the TORUM Act 1995, and have done so, for the past 23 years.

Your argument rests on a belief an Act being gazetted is the only proof of proclamation. I say this is a belief, as I could find no mention in the Australian constitution or Queensland constitution, that proclamation necessarily requires simultaneous publishing in a Gazette. I could be wrong, but hopefully my visit to the Queensland law library in the coming week and a chat with some lawyers will shed further light on this situation.

The role of the prosecution, as you are well aware, Wolf, is to prove an offence beyond a reasonable doubt. In traffic matters, if it is proven the technicalities of an offence has occurred, then it rests on the defendant to prove the defence is reasonable and acceptable.

It sounds to me on your matter/s, the offence/s were/was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but that you supplied a defence which the magistrate accepted as reasonable. I don't believe your matter/s were dismissed because you requested the prosecution to cough up with proof an act was proclaimed and they failed to do so. If that were the case, everybody would be doing it, every solicitor in the land would know about the loophole and be doing it, and it simply doesn't happen.

Yeah, the bible stuff in particular has oft been a sore point in my many 'discussions' with FMOTL.

I re-iterate, I am NOT an advocate for most FMOTL theories, and in fact point out the many holes to those following such.
However, in saying that, some of the 'triggers' for said theories I have found to be accurate, just misused or misinterpreted.

Personally, I have found there to be many 'flaws' or loopholes as you call them in the 'law'. IMO this I should because of the corruption that is inherent, especially considering Australia's unique place in international law.

"Those people are still subject to Australian laws because the law of the land applies to the land upon which you stand at any given time." ... actually, they are NOT. Thing is, they don't know they are not subject to it. They get locked up because they don't know how to not consent to proceedings against them... unlike McMurtrie in the OP of this thread, who has walked out of many courtrooms free of any charges laid because he knows the truth.

It is not just Qld that does not have evidence of proclamation for many acts.

Wolf, my plan to visit the Queensland law library this week has been set aside. They have copies of all the Queensland Government Gazettes for 1995, which may or may not feature the TORUM Act. These gazettes don't seem to be available online.

Until I have a chance to go through them all, I will have to take a raincheck on my further discussion with you on this topic.

Wolf, have you physically gone through all the Queensland government gazettes for 1994 and 1995, in an attempt to find where the TORUM Act was gazetted?

There is about 800 pages for each year and its all on microfiche. Do you have any idea how brain numbingly tedious and time consuming it is, trying to find information on microfiche?

Black wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:36 pm Wolf, have you physically gone through all the Queensland government gazettes for 1994 and 1995, in an attempt to find where the TORUM Act was gazetted?

Why would I do that?
Is it not a basic maxim of law that it is up to whomever brings the claim to prove the claim, not the defendant (or do you think, like my last judge, that it is okay for the defendant to be assumed guilty until he proves his innocence?)

Hi Wolf,

Umm, your entire defence in Court relied on a claim the TORUM Act 1995 was never proclaimed, and you never bothered to take the time to look and see for yourself?

Your story still doesn't add up. Courts don't pull out certified copies of gazetted proclamations every time a new matter is heard, for the satisfaction of Defendants. Prosecutors don't dig up gazetted proclamations either.

Here's what I think: That act was proclaimed and gazetted just like every other Act. You've left a few bits and pieces of the story out.

I know the TORUM Act was effective as of the 1st July 1995. I also know the first amendment to the TORUM Act was in the July 7th 1995 edition of the Queensland Government Gazette. So, it's gazetted proclamation must have appeared anytime before the June 3Oth edition of the Queensland Government Gazette. I suspect it could be anytime within six or twelve months before it became effective.

When I have nothing better to do, I'll have another chop at finding it. Don't worry, this isn't the yowie we're talking about. It is physically real, it won't turn invisible, and it can be found.

"your entire defence in Court relied on a claim the TORUM Act 1995 was never proclaimed"
No, it did not, whatever gave you that idea?

The fact it was never proclaimed was ONE factor in my defence (and I am sure you would admit, a pretty serious one at that).

If any evidence is questioned in court by the defendant, it is a fact of law that the claimant MUST PROVE the evidence to be true. Otherwise the evidence has NO place in the matter and should be discarded.

Similarly if a man is to by tried under a 'law', and the validity of said law is questioned, validity MUST be proven by the one bringing the claim. This is a basic maxim, agreed upon by the High Court over and over again....

R V KIRBY (1956);
“A federal constitution must be rigid. The government it establishes must be one of defined powers; within those powers it must be paramount, but it must be incompetent to go beyond them.” (Par 3)
And in WAKIM (1999);
“A legislature can not , by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitutional power where none exists.” (Para 193)
And to Chief Justice Latham’s findings in SOUTH AUSTRALIA V COMMONWEALTH (1949), para 12;
“...the Commonwealth Parliament, unlike the Parliament at Westminster, depends for its existence and for its powers on a written Constitution.” And in para 13; “A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all.”


To enforce such legislation in the ‘normal course of business’ would be appropriate but not when it has been formally challenged. In this case it would be up to the prosecution to appeal for a determination in the appropriate appellant court. After such a challenge that has NOT been answered with evidence nullifying it the court CANNOT then make a ruling using said legislation for to do so would be in breach of the process of law.

Are you implying otherwise? If so, it is people like you that enforce and perpetuate the very corruption the posts mentioning my court appearances were all about.

Wolf, it is not the responsibility of the Court or the prosecution, to prove to you, a said Act which has been passed in parliament, was not properly proclaimed by publishing in a government Gazette. It is the job of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a defendant committed an offence under an Act and to negative any defence to the offence offered by the defendant.

To offer such a defence, one would have to 1) produce proof in some form every act which is proclaimed must be gazetted, and then 2) that the TORUM was never proclaimed and gazetted and is therefore invalid.

In 23 years of the TORUM Act 1995 being in effect, not one solicitor has ever challenged the validity of the very Act as a defence for their client, and not one person has ever successfully challenged it's validity in Court.

Not even you, Wolf.

So in your opinion it is acceptable for the defendant to be assumed guilty until they prove their innocence?

If you are really a lawyer, no wonder the system is screwed with that ethos being taught at law school.

I repeat, it is a basic maxim of law that the claimant MUST prove their claim. If ANY evidence is challenged, including the act, the claimant MUST prove the validity of the evidence. It is after all impossible to prove a negativ, is it not?

How could it be at all possible for a defendant to prove proclamation does NOT exist?

Wolf, you've got a few things muddled up, that's all.

No person is assumed guilty, they are all presumed innocent until proven guilty. You were presumed innocent as well.

I'm not quite following your rationale. If you believe a claimant must prove their claim, why did you rock up to Court, claim the entire TORUM Act was invalid, and then not back up that claim with any enquiries you've made, or any evidence whatsoever????

No, Wolf, any evidence challenged, does not necessarily include an Act itself, unless you reasonably think an Act has been repealed and you were charged under the wrong Act?

Unfortunately for you, the TORUM is one of the most prolifically used acts in Queensland since 1995. Half a million people plus, annually, either receive fines under the TORUM Act or face court charged with an offence under the TORUM Act. It replaced a previous traffic Act, but it hasn't been repealed or replaced by any other Act.

Since you've brought it up, I'm not aware of any Acts that somehow missed being published in a Government Gazette. How about you, Wolf?

Ask yourself, why would any Magistrate entertain your baseless claim, especially considering you were too lazy to do any homework yourself? Every other law in Queensland and the Commonwealth managed to be properly proclaimed and published in a Government Gazette, but somehow, (and conveniently for you) you say the TORUM wasn't, and our government hoped nobody would notice?

If you had been diligent, you could have proven the proclamation wasn't published at least, (if it wasn't published) by producing a copy of every page of every Queensland Government Gazette in the 12 months prior to July 1st 1995.

But we both know what you would find in there if you did that, don't we Wolf?

If you like, I can recommend some excellent books and material on real Australian law?

Joseph, you are simply off track and wrong.
Are you at all trained in law?

Firstly, I never claimed the act was illegitimate. As the defendant it is not my place to make or prove any claims. In fact, in court I never make statements (claims), only ask questions.
I merely questioned it and asked for evidence of proclamation. In that situation it is entirely up to the prosecution to provide proof it is a legitimate act. If said prosecution does not provide such proof it is the duty of the magistrate to toss the matter out. 'This is a simple maxim of common law.

Secondly, I was told IN COURT that under the act I was presumed guilty until I proved myself innocent!
This is a total breach of basic common law. (Which is why the matter in question was transferred to a 'special' court and a 'special' judge... the regular magistrates did not want to deal with this issue)

Thirdly, there are apparently many acts that have not been proclaimed out of sheer arrogance. You see, under the 'fake' laws (corporate legislation) they do not need to proclaim the acts because, and this is an important point, the courts are no longer under Commonwealth Jurisdiction.

Australia operates under commerce NOT common law as prescribed by the constitution. Every judge knows this. In fact Justice Kirby said a couple of years back that the country needs to return to constitutional law, but he was largely ignored.

You obviously have some learning to do about the tricks they played on the people to sneak in Corporate Australia as a fake governing body. There are plenty of resources on the other forum you joined, including all my written submissions for every matter, followed by breakdowns of the court appearances.

I ask again, are you trained in law/training in law?

Wolf, I admit there is a barrier when discussing this with you. Where I have studied law subjects at a tertiary level, and am familiar with Court practise, I'm not sure you have looked too far beyond what is being broadcast about the law in those "legalese" sites you are either a member of, or very familiar with.

I've gone through the blogs and discussions on both those sites you recommend, and there is no sign of your written submissions or court appearance breakdowns. I'd love to read them.

Firstly, you asked the prosecution to produce for you, evidence the TORUM Act was proclaimed, and the prosecution didn't. Your error is in thinking the Prosecution is required to provide to you evidence to your satisfaction the Act in question is proclaimed and thus a legitimate Act. The prosecution doesn't.

The court just needs to be satisfied the Act in question has been proclaimed by the governor general and is in effect. Unfortunately for you, in the case of the TORUM, the Court is satisfied.

Your argument that if the prosecution fails to do as you ask, then the Magistrate must toss your matter out, is incorrect. It's not a maxim of common law at all. It was your defence, and you produced no evidence to substantiate your defence.

Secondly, who in Court told you you were presumed guilty until proven innocent? All court proceedings are recorded onto audio, which leads to your next fascinating point. What was the name of this "special court" your matter had to be heard in, and the name of this "special judge or magistrate"? Maybe your matter was referred to an indigenous urban court? This means the same court building, but Nunga court being held on a certain day of the week.

Thirdly, you used the word, "apparently" when stating there are many Acts that have not been proclaimed due to sheer arrogance. That's not a fact my friend, that's an opinion. I dare you to name one of these unproclaimed Acts.... just one.

Courts being no longer under Commonwealth jurisdiction, is another opinion. I'm sorry but I don't even understand what you mean by Australia operating under commerce law not constitutional law and Australia operating under a fake governing body? These statements don't even make sense to me.

Commerce law is encompassed within the Australian Constitution. Take out your copy of the Australian Constitution if you don't believe me...

Geeze mate, how many times do I have to tell you? It was the MAGISTRATE who told me I was guilty until innocent. Out of his own mouth, IN COURT! I ask you again... is that your idea of a good legal system?

And you are simply wrong on so many points. It IS the duty of a court to follow through if an important piece of evidence is questioned (the act one is being prosecuted under being the MOST important piece). It is simple enough for prosecution to do... produce evidence of proclamation.

I have listed high court precedent and given you the link to the discussion on the other site, perhaps you should find it, read it, and disusss it there?

Your attitude towards the 'law' is not surprising, seeng as you have 'studied it at tertiary level'. The 'officially trained' are the very same ones who commit treason by swearing an oath to a foreign entity. They call it the Justice system and they are correct, they simply have misspelled it. It should say JustUS, because if you're not in the club you are abused of your rights.

I won three matters and despite winning, I lost because the court always refused to grant costs. I had to lose money to attend court but despite losing my 'accusers' ALWAYS got paid... is that justice to you? The courts are supposed to operate under Equity, where is it? I have yet to see any.

On that 'other' site is plenty of evidence and information detailing how our government has been quietly changed under the citizens' feet, and I'm not going to spend the hours necessary to dig it all up to convince you. It's there for you to find if you are seriously interested.

Wolf,

Are you talking about the Larry Hannigan site? Otherwise, you're going to have to send a direct link to all your written submissions and court breakdowns. I CANNOT find them.

The publishing of the proclamation of the TORUM in a government Gazette is NOT questioned by the Court, it is only questioned by you who has no reason to question it in the first place. Like I explained to you, it would have been easy for you to prove it wasn't gazetted, if it wasn't, but you didn't bother to look, because you knew you would find it. You've been playing a silly game.

It's very easy for prosecution to produce evidence of proclamation, but its a time consuming and time wasting exercise if they have to do it for every court matter. The bottom line is, if you wanted to see the proclamation of the TORUM in a government Gazette, you could have easily found it yourself. You didn't want to. You wanted to pretend it wasn't done.

Funnily enough, I have not found any suggestion in the free man of the land or sovereign citizen material and propaganda, suggesting the TORUM was not proclaimed, properly published, and is an easy way out of any traffic offence.

If there were any truth to your absurd question, your trusted brethren would have been all over it like an oily rag. Even they know better!

I'm curious as to where you got the idea from in the first place?

I'm talking about the southernfreemen site.

I thought you said you studied law at tertiary level? If you did you would know It is impossible to prove something does not exist. Or has our education system gotten that bad they don't even teach lawyers properly anymore? Twould not surprise me in the least.

And the prosecution would not have to do it over and over. How many defendants do you think have asked for evidence of proclamation? I doubt I was the first. In fact I know some in Victoria who have used this lack of vital evidence supporting the prosecutions case and had matters withdrawn because of it.

If it existed it would be a simple matter to demonstrate its existence once, get it set into the precedental history so future prosecutors could quickly answer the defendent's concerns and the matter could move on to equally important ones like the false assumption state legislation overrides federal, which I also questioned to no avail.

I repeat, what you think is 'our' government is not...

...succinctly stated a few years ago by the late Professor G. Clements (an eminent UK QC and emeritus Professor in law at Cambridge). He summed up the situation thus,

"The continued usage of the Australian Constitution Act (UK) by the Australian Governments and the judiciary is a confidence trick of monstrous proportions played upon the Australian people with the intent of maintaining power. It remains an Act of the United Kingdom.After joining the League of Nations in 1919 Australia became a sovereign nation. It had no further legal power to use, alter or otherwise tamper with another nation’s legislation. Authority over the Australian Constitution Act lies not with the Australian government nor with the Australian people, it rests solely with the UK. Only they have the authority to repeal this legislation ..."

...contrary to much of domestic Australian legal opinion, Australia became an independent sovereign nation following Mr. William Morris Hughes, Prime Minister and Commonwealth Attorney-General, together with Sir Joseph Cook, signing the multi-lateral Treaty of Peace at Versailles, France in June 1919. This included the Covenant of the League of Nations, along with many other important documents in International Law. Particular attention should be paid to clauses I, X, XVIII, and XX of the Covenant. (go to

The 'Australian' Constitution is United Kingdom law.

In "An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia", the 9th clause of which is usually referred to as the 'Australian Constitution' was, is, and remains conditional upon the first 8 covering clauses of that Act, a current Act of domestic law of the United Kingdom Parliament.

Under Section 128 of Clause 9, minor alterations to the Constitution may be made by the Australian people. However, the Australian people may not alter, in any way, Clauses 1 to 8 of the Imperial Act. Since the Australian people have only ever had the right to change sections 1 to 128 of clause 9 of that Act, it follows that covering clauses 1 to 8 remain law in Australia.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act passed through the UK Parliament in June 1900, to commence as law in Australia on the 1st of January 1901. Since the people of Australia have only ever had the right to change Sections 1 to 128 of Clause 9 of this Act, it follows that covering clauses 2, 6 and 8 remain law in Australia. (See Joosse v ASIC HCA 1998 159 ALR 260 or go to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/hca/ ... M35/1.html ) This means that British colonial law still operates in Australia and that Australia is a self governing colony of the United Kingdom as stated in that Act (see clause . However, the High Court of Australia has recently ruled that the United Kingdom is a foreign power, and that the UK Parliament cannot have any effect on the Governments of Australia (Sue v Hill HCA 30 of 1999 or seehttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/30.html). Hence, if British colonial law continues to operate in Australia, then this constitutes a clear breach of international law, along with the duties and responsibilities of the Australian and the United Kingdom governments, as both were Foundation Members to the League of Nations, and the United Nations. The Covenant and the Charter of both bodies, respectively, bind these nations.

The Australian people do not have ultimate control over the 'Australian' Constitution. In mid-July 1995 the Lord Chancellor of the UK in answer to a Parliamentary question asked in the UK Parliament about the Australian Constitution, stated:

"The British Constitution Act 1900 was for self government. It was never intended to be and is not suitable to be the basis for independence. The right to repeal this Act remains the sole prerogative of the United Kingdom. There is no means by which under United Kingdom or international law this power can be transferred to a foreign country or Member State of the United Nations. Indeed, the United Nations Charter precludes any such action”.

(This response was confirmed by letter from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, dated 11th Dec 1997, under the hand of Mark Armstrong, Far Eastern and Pacific Dept)

Australia is an Independent sovereign nation.

"By this recognition Australia became a Nation, and entered into a family of nations on a footing of equality. We had earned that, or, rather, our soldiers had earned it for us. In the achievement of victory they had played their part and no nation has a better right to be represented than Australia."

(William Morris Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia, House of Representatives, Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, 10th September, 1919)

During the 'Great War', the United Kingdom held Imperial War Conferences, to which the Dominions were finally invited to in 1917, as a result of their contributions to the war effort. It was at the 1917 Conference that the UK resolved to start the Dominions on the path to independent nationhood.Resolution IX stated:

The Imperial War Conference are of the opinion that the readjustment of constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with during the War and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities. They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based on a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth…"

Further, both as the result of the Dominions' World War I contributions, and the forceful position advanced by the United States President, Woodrow Wilson at Versailles, the United Kingdom, initially reluctantly, granted the Dominions the right to attend the Peace Treaty negotiations in their own right. This was followed by King George V instructing the Australian Governor-General, R. M. Ferguson, to issue a Head of State full powers document on the 23rd April 1919, being in "good and due form" authorising Mr. Hughes and Sir Joseph Cook to attend the Peace Conference and to negotiate, and sign the Treaty of Peace, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia. The emancipation of the Australian nation was recognised by the other signatories to the Treaty by these other independent nations allowing Australia, and the other former Dominions, to sign as separate nations. The United Kingdom no longer signed Treaties on behalf of Australia. The instrument through which this was achieved is also known as the Treaty of Versailles. (see http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/versa ... tents.html ) The unanimous ratification of this action was finalised in the Commonwealth of Australia Parliament on October 1st 1919. Australia immediately became a Member State of the League of Nations and the International Labor Organisation. Membership of these organisations was only available to sovereign nation states.

As recently as November 1995, the Australian Parliament through the release of a report by the 'Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee’ restated the historical events leading up to the achievement of independence, referring to the 1917 Imperial War Conference Resolution IX at para. 4.12, and clearly stated at para. 4.13 that Australia was now a sovereign nation:

"Australia became an independent member of the League of Nations and the International Labour Organisation in 1919."

and further in 4.13:

"This admission to the League and the International Labour Organisation involved recognition by other countries that Australia was now a sovereign nation with the necessary 'international personality' to enter into international relations “.

('Trick or Treaty? Power to Make and Implement Treaties, ISBN 0 642 24418 9 or see http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ ... /index.htm )

On July 14, 1996, investigators working in the archives of the League of Nations, held in Geneva by the Swiss Government, found the original copy of the Leaguer of Nations Covenant. Interspersed among the text is a commentary in italics by Sir Geoffrey Butler, KBE, Fellow in International Law and Diplomacy at Corpus Christie College, Cambridge University.

The discovery of the original copy of the Covenant revealed Sir Geoffrey's commentaries had been part of this crucial document from the beginning, not added later as historians had believed.

Full significance of Article I of the Covenant has never been widely understood by the people of Australia, whose future was irrevocably altered by the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919.

Sir Geoffrey Butler's comments went to the heart of the events. His commentary on Article I states:

"It is arguable that this article is the Covenant's most significant measure. By it, the British Dominions, namely New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Canada have their independent nationhood established for the first time. There maybe friction over small matters in giving effect to this internationally acknowledged fact, but the Dominions will always look to the League of Nations Covenant as their Declaration of Independence. That the change has come silently about and has been welcomed in all corners of the British Empire is the final vindication of the United Empire Loyalists."

The law of one nation may not be used to govern over another nation.

From the moment people gain independence they have a claim to, and possess the right of, self-determination. They are sovereign over their affairs (see the Covenant of the League of Nations, Art. 10, and the Charter of the United Nations, Art. 2 paras 1 and 4;http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml , together with resolutions 2131 [xx] 1965 & 2625 [xxv] 1970).

From that moment, the laws of their former colonial master become ultra vires. For it to be otherwise is to offend both common sense and the first principle of international law - the right to self-determination! If this is not so, than the United States of America remains today as a collection of colonies of Great Britain! From October 1st 1919 'An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia' became ultra vires, with regard to Australia. Its continued use by political parties to claim the power to establish a parliament to govern over the Commonwealth of Australia, that is, the Australian people, (see Quick & Garran "The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth" 1901 at page 366) constitutes an offence against international law. It represents political interference by the United Kingdom and a denial of Australian citizens' inalienable right to self-determination.

From October 1st, 1919 the British Monarch became irrelevant to Australia. From October 1st 1919 Australia became a republic. From October 1st, 1919 it has been necessary to create a political and judicial system capable of bridging the legal void created when sovereignty changed from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the people of Australia. That necessity still exists.

If confirmation of this change in Australia's status from a "colony" to being "accepted fully into the community of nations of the whole world" is required, the Balfour Declaration 1929 ( see http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/places/cth/cth11.htm), the Report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee 1926 - Extracts at page 348, ( see 'II. ¾STATUS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THE DOMINIONS' describing the Dominions as "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs"), and Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations make interesting reading.

By using UK law to claim power, parliamentarians and others become agents of a foreign power.

By relying on this current Act of domestic law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom the Australian Parliament is definable as an extension of the Parliament of the UK. The Governor-General, State and Territory Governors, individual parliamentarians, Senators and all others involved in government, including members of the judiciary, are definable as agents of the UK. That is, agents of a power foreign to the Nation State, the Commonwealth of Australia. This scenario manifests right down to the policeman on the beat!

The much-vaunted Statute of Westminster Act 1931 (UK) (see http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/places/cth/cth12.htm) was a thinly veiled attempt to patch up a broken legal system for the Dominions. Since it was design to operate beyond the shores of the UK, it failed the requirement under Article XVIII of the Covenant of the League of Nations as it was not registered with the Secretariat, and therefore never became a valid international instrument. It had no operational effect beyond thew shores where it was created, the United Kingdom.

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

Wolf,

At the risk of having yet another question I ask of you go unanswered, which university have you studied law at?

1. Was this "special" court your matters were heard in, an indigenous court?
2. Name just one Act which has been proven the proclamation was not published. Just one.
3. Explain why neither the freemen of the land or sozereign citizen movements mention or support this belief of the TORUM proclamation not being published which means it's a get out of jail free card for anyone facing a traffic offence.
4. If not from one of your freedom fighting brethren, where did your belief come from?
5. Why can't you provide a direct link to your court matter breakdowns? Exactly where will I find them?
6. Do you have your own copy of the Australian Constitution?

Now, we're not talking about the Yowie here. This is off topic and we're talking law.

It may be impossible to prove a negative when discussing the Yowie, because at this point in time, the Yowie is still regarded as a myth, but not law my friend. Not law.

I already told you how to prove that negative regarding the non-publishing of the TORUM proclamation. It had to be published in the Queensland Government Gazette. All those gazettes physically exist. All you had to do was produce a copy of each page of each Qld Government Gazette for about 12 months prior to the TORUM coming into effect on July 1St 1995. A primary school student could have done it. If it isn't there, you've just proved a negative. It's common sense.

Ask yourself this, Wolf, who do you think receives copies of the Queensland Government Gazette, Australian Government Gazette, and other state gazettes? These days it's all online, but back in 1995, who do you think received copies? Magistrates Courts, law firms, solicitors, lawyers, barristers, and even police stations?

Now, I don't know why you did it, but you've just copied and pasted loads information directly into your next two posts. Lots and lots of quotes from people and links to other articles. I don't recognise any of the words as even your own. It's all other people's words, or bits and pieces you've written in posts on other sites.

I'll reduce it all for you into two sentences.

All State laws are thoroughly checked first before they are passed, to make sure they are in line with, and do not go against, what is written in the Australian Constitution. The Australian Constitution is a broad outline and State laws are specific.