See also

St. Mary’s mediation agreement

Common law notice of want of jurisdiction

§t Mary’s Community
20 M0rival£ Street (pO gox 344-9) §outh Brisbane Old 4101
Phong: (07) 3844 5806 fax: (07)38465207
Small: sme@mgrMVafg.org.au Mieah projects Inc ph: (07) 3844 9122

Most Reverend John A Bathersby DD Archbishop of Brisbane 790 Brunswick Street New Farm Queensland. 4005
25 February 2009
Re: St Mary’s Community

Your Grace

The members of St Mary’s Community remain in shock regarding your decision to terminate Peter Kennedy as Administrator of our faith community.

As a community we have sought to engage respectfully with you over the past six months and we continue to feel ignored by your refusal to meet with us. At no time in our communication have you acknowledged the input and the role of the laity of St Mary’s Community.

As Catholics we fully understand your position and authority within the Roman Catholic Church. It is with much dismay that we have witnessed the Canonical process unfold in a manner in which we feel there to be a grave misuse of power. You have acted on the belief that St Mary’s Community is out of communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

We as a community testify that:

1. Peter Kennedy is a man of faith who leads this community with integrity and honesty. We reject the claim that Peter’s ministry has caused harm to ecclesiastical communion as stated in your decree to remove him. St Mary’s Community is testament to just how many people have found their rightful place within the church through Peter’s actions and faith. Our claim, in fact, is that Peter’s ministry has delivered immense benefit to ecclesiastical communion at St Mary’s;
“fl Catholic Community of Brisbane

Peter Kennedy has not been given fair or due process according to natural
justice or Canon law. Any openness to receiving evidence in relation to
the allegations made by Richard Stokes in a formal manner involving the
community would, we feel, have provided you with an enormous amount
of testament to just how ill-founded the allegations concerning the
community and Peter Kennedy are. We strongly believe that Peter has
not been given procedural fairness in accordance with Canon Law;

St Mary’s laity have been considered insignificant and ignored, as not
being capable of entering into dialogue with you or having any
constructive role to play in this conflict. This community has been denied
it’s baptismal rights and it’s right to be treated with dignity and respect as
part of a Catholic faith community by your refusal to see us as equal
stakeholders alongside yourself and Peter Kennedy;
Tuesday’s events of publically presenting, via the media, an invitation to
Peter Kennedy for mediation appears to be a process which has
absolutely nothing to do with actual mediation and further dismays us.
The invitation appears to be an attempt to intimidate and position Peter
publically as being non-cooperative. There has been no attempt to enter
into genuine discussion through a mutually agreed upon process. It would
appear that both in the choice of the mediator (appointed without any
negotiation) and the refusal for mutually agreed terms of reference for
mediation that the imbalance of power underpins all actions in relation to
the resolution of the issues.
Your Grace, whatever the outcome, we consider that you may have missed the opportunity to engage with us the community, a community of people who aspire to the equality and dignity of each of us and not simply a community of followers of a priest named Peter Kennedy.

We are people of faith and community, built on the solid ground of our Catholic traditions and the lived realities of our lives, a faith grounded in the world in which we live. We are proud of who we are despite your apparent misconceptions. We are glad to have experienced a Vatican II vision of church that allows spirituality and justice to exist hand in hand in all that we do as a community and as individuals.

We urge you to revoke the decree of Peter’s termination as Administrator and enter into formal and authentic mediation with representatives from the community and Peter Kennedy.
Your Grace, together we could demonstrate true reconciliation and faith as testament to that which we believe in as a Catholic community.

We implore you to accept this invitation.

Yours sincerely
Marg Ortiz
Chair
St Mary’s Community Council

*******************************

                                                                                                                                   17th  April, 2009

  COMPLAINANT

  Denis Bruce Walker

  RESPONDENT

  Archbishop John Bathersby,

 “Archbishop of Brisbane”,

   Archbishop’s House,

   790 Brunswick Street,

   (P.O. Box 936)

   New Farm, Queensland,

   4005

   In the capacity as Respondent for, and

   In the right of the “Roman Catholic Church in Australia” and “The Corporation of the Trustees of              

   the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane”.

   and

   In the capacity as Respondent for the State of Queensland

   (in the right of Her purported Royal Highness

  “Queen Elizabeth II  of Australia”

   Buckingham Palace

   London England SW1A1AA)

TAKE NOTICE: I am aware that Fr. Peter Kennedy will vacate St Mary’s Catholic Church, South Brisbane, as you ordered, as from the 20^th of April ‘09 and that this will be under protest and duress.  I am aware he has been concerned that members of his congregation might respond to your decision with actions that are potentially volatile, such as blockades. To avoid such conflict, he has informed me that he will leave, and he will do so in a peaceful manner. 

TAKE NOTICE: As Peter  Kennedy has signed a Treaty with me, this necessarily affects me and the ongoing relationship with Peter Kennedy and St Mary’s community, born out of the Treaty process. Therefore, I wish to make clear that I will also leave the site of St Mary’s where we were carrying out our Treaty business, under PROTEST AND DURESS, and in a peaceful manner.

TAKE NOTICE: I am obligated to uphold my relationships and commitments made with members of the St. Mary’s community.

                                                                               1.

TAKE NOTICE: On November 30^th ‘08, I , Bejam Kunmunara Jalo Nunnuccal Kabool, (Denis Walker, son of Oodgeroo Nunuccal, Custodian of the Land Minjerribah) signed a Treaty, with Fr. Peter Kennedy on behalf of the St Mary’s community, which also included the support of Karen Walsh and Micah Projects.

I am an elder of the Nunuccal Nation, and the Gurrigindinarmi regional governance. A ceremony involving hundreds of parishoners, and members of several nations of the Gurringindinarmi, confirmed/sealed this treaty signing. A bunya tree, significant to the Gurringindinarmi region, was planted in the grounds of St Mary’s, as part of the ceremony. Fr Kennedy, and the St Mary’s community decided to fly the Indigenous flags to show their respect, and they placed our Treaty in the church so all could appreciate it.  An elderly Indigenous woman who was baptised at St Mary’s, has requested that following her death, her ashes be scattered around the bunya tree. I had many meetings about the Treaty and St Mary’s  with Fr Peter Kennedy, Fr Terry Fitzgerald, Karen Walsh and other Micah staff, and members of the Steering Committee. We discussed how to save the St Mary’s community, and how St Mary’s/Micah and the Treaty Circles might be able to work together to improve the situation for Indigenous people in the inner city area and further afield. Micah, especially as it is a government funded body with specific criteria required  by  it to address issues for Indigenous people, expressed concerns that it was having difficulty engaging the Indigenous community in the area. The Treaty process provided an opportunity and structure to address these matters in a way that is relevant to Indigenous people, and with the proper authorities and discplines guiding it. I invited Fr. Peter, Fr Terry, Karen Walsh, and others to my island, Minjerribah, for cultural heritage education programs.   

TAKE NOTICE: I signed this Treaty in good faith, as I believe Fr Peter Kennedy did, on behalf of the St Mary’s community. Over three hundred and fifty signatures of people who attended that day, (copies of which are attached to this letter), are testimony of the support St Mary’s congregation has for the Treaty.

TAKE NOTICE:  By signing this Treaty, Fr Peter Kennedy and the St Mary’s congregation have acknowledged Indigenous peoples’ Sovereignty, and their role as invaders and colonisers. On behalf of St Mary’s community, Fr Peter Kennedy made a commitment to actively address genocidal practices by way of assisting in the fruition of the Treaty Circle agenda/objectives.  These are -

                    1.’Moongalba’ restoration

                    2. Meeting of Elders

        3.Ownership of Indigenous informations – Digitisation of the Ooodgeroo Collection 

           held at Fryer Library and other places for Elders Treaty Circle,as beginning the

           process of Indigenous ownership of Indigenous Intellectual property/cultural 

           knowledge systems.

        4. Dry Camps – to rehabilitate, regenerate people in country.

        5. Enterprise – Economic development to eminate out of dry camps’ processes.

        6. Cultural Heritage Education Programs(CHEP) – development as requisite to  Sacred 

           Treaty Circles

                    7.Elders Sacred Treaty Circle to set the agenda for Mens’, Womens’, Treaty and

           Initiation  Circles.                   

                                                                                    2.

TAKE NOTICE: The dismissal of Fr Peter Kennedy from St. Mary’s is unlawful. It undermines the integrity and ability of the St Mary’s community to acknowledge and manifest truth and spiritual oneness. Not only does the Indigenous community suffer as a result of your decision, but St Mary’s as a whole community misses the opportunity to engage with the Indigenous community in a positive and constructive process that embraces and respects Indigenous peoples’ authorities and disciplines. Furthermore, your actions restrict the education and healing that is required in our community to nurture a positive future.  

PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE OF WANT OF JURISDICTION, THE PROCLAMATION OF SOVEREIGNTY, NOTICE OF WANT OF RESPONSE, AND THE SCHEDULE OF FEES that have been served upon you by  myself –

TAKE NOTICE:  In the failure to meet requirements under International and Commercial law (contract and equity), in the dismissal of Indigenous Law and culture, in the rejection of Common Law, in the denial of historical events – Archbishop John Bathersby, “ Archbishop of Brisbane”,   representing  “ The Corporation of the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane”  and “The Roman Catholic Church in Australia” – acts unlawfully and you are liable.

TAKE NOTICE:  Any further actions taken by you or your agents, that are detrimental to the Treaty process, the Indigenous community or St Mary’s community are UNLAWFUL and will be met with a bill for damages. 

 Peace,

******************************

BEJAM KUNMUNARA JALO NUNUCCAL KABOOL

(Denis Walker)

                                                         BILL TO DATE

 Archbishop John Bathersby

 “Archbishop of Brisbane”

 Archbishop’s House

790 Brunswick St,

(P.O.Box 936)

New Farm, QLD 4005

In the capacity as Respondent for,and

In the right of the “Roman Catholic Church in Australia” and the “Corporation of Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane”

and

In the right of Her purported Royal Highness “Queen Elizabeth II of Australia”

Buckingham Palace

London, England SW1A1AA                              

DATE: Friday, April 24^th,  2009

BILL PERIOD: 30^th November ‘08  - 24th April ‘09

PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE OF WANT OF JURISDICTION, THE NOTICE OF WANT OF RESPONSE, THE PROCLAMATION OF SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE SCHEDULE OF FEES – ALL OF WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH VIA  REGISTERED MAIL – YOU ARE NOW LIABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING FEES

CHARGE:

“If I, or any sharing in My Sovereignty, be they Adult or Child, have our liberty and freedom to live and practice our culture and law (necessarily asserting our Sovereignty), interfered with and/or derogated,                    

THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR (3,000.00) dollars, gold/ silver specie, in lawful coinage for Australia (AUD) per user and per issuer per fiction in portion thereof ON A PRO RATA BASIS IN 6 MINUTE INCREMENTS”

Fr. Peter Kennedy has signed a Treaty, and therefore shares/supports my Sovereignty.  Your actions prevent his, and the community of St Mary’s, participation in, and learning about, my culture and law.

We have spent valuable time, energy, and resource (which could have been devoted to the Treaty business), trying to negotiate with you.

Your actions prevent me, my family and the Indigenous community from practicing our culture and law.

                                                                               1.

Your lack of response and communication with myself or any Indigenous people in this process reveals your disrespect and derogation of our Land, Law, and Culture.

FEE: $240,000

(Time period Nov. 30^th ‘08 – 24^th April ‘09 = 20 weeks; based conservatively on 4hrs per week activity that has been disrupted, cancelled, or post-poned)

CHARGE:

“If I, or any sharing in My Sovereignty, be they Adult or Child, are questioned, interrogated or in any way, harassed or otherwise regulated and controlled,ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR (1,000.00)dollars,gold/silver specie, in lawful coinage for Australia (AUD) per user and per issuer per fiction in portion thereof ON A PRO RATA BASIS IN 6 MINUTE INCREMENTS”

Fr. Kennedy, members of the St Mary’s Community, myself and other Treaty members have, due to your actions, been engaged in meetings, mediation, interviews, and various forms of correspondences with you and your agents. Considerable time, energy, and resource have been wasted. Your actions have resulted in a great deal of stress for all concerned and ill health for some individuals.

FEE: $80,000

CHARGE:

“If I, or any sharing in my Sovereignty, be they Adult or Child, are subjected to any adjudication and or judicial process other than that afforded under Our Sovereign Law, FIVE MILLION DOLLARS PER COURT APPEARANCE (5,000,000.00) dollars, gold/ silver specie, in lawful coinage for Australia (AUD) per event plus THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR (3,000.00) dollars, gold/ silver specie, in lawful coinage for Australia (AUD) per event per person per hour or part thereof on a pro rata basis in 6 minute increments.”

Fr. Peter Kennedy and the St Mary’s Community have been subject to a decision making process that  is illegally operating in my country. Within the realm of your own Catholic Canon you have not followed due process in your dealings with Fr. Peter Kennedy in this instance, but also you fail to adhere to your own Papal Bull and Catholic Church policies on relationships and processes concerning Indigenous peoples. 

FEE: $5,000,000

                                                                             2.

CHARGE:

“If I, or any sharing in my Sovereignty, be they Adult or Child, are hindered in enjoying my Estate,  TEN MILLION DOLLARS (10,000,000.00) gold/ silver specie, in lawful coinage for Australia (AUD) per event”

Due to your actions, Fr. Peter Kennedy and the community of St Mary’s will not be able to engage with my people on my island Minjerribah.

Due to your actions, Fr. Peter Kennedy, the St Mary’s community and  the Indigenous community will not be able to share our Faith and our oneness, at the St Mary’s Church, which has been constructed on land stolen from the Gurringindinarmi.   

FEE: $10,000,000

CHARGE:

“If I, or any sharing in My Sovereignty, be they Adult or Child, are hindered in the practice of any cultural, spiritual ceremony upon my Estate,TEN MILLION DOLLARS (10,000,000.00), gold/ silver specie, in lawful coinage for Australia (AUD) per event plus THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR (3,000.00) dollars, gold/ silver specie, in lawful coinage for Australia (AUD) per event per person per hour or part thereof on a pro rata basis in 6 minute increments.”

Fr. Peter Kennedy,  St Mary’s Community, myself, my family and the Indigenous community have been hindered in the practice of our ceremonies, both on Minjerribah and in the Gurringindinarmi nations.  

FEE: $10,000,000

CHARGE:

“If I, or any sharing in My Sovereignty be they Adult or Child are hindered in accessing the use of My Estate and Resources, TEN MILLION DOLLARS (10,000,000), gold/ silver specie, in lawful coinage for Australia (AUD) per event plus THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR (3,000.00) dollars, gold/ silver specie, in lawful coinage for Australia (AUD) per event per person per hour or part thereof on a pro rata basis in 6 minute increments.”

Due to your actions, all those involved in the Treaty Circles, including Fr. Kennedy, the St Mary’s Community, and the Indigenous community (locally, regionally, and nationally), will be hindered in accessing material, cultural, and spiritual realms of My Estate and Resources.

FEE: $10,000,000

                                                                              3.

SUM OF FEES PAYABLE -

                                                 $      240,000

                                                 $        80,000

                                                 $   5,000,000

                                                 $ 10,000,000

                                                 $ 10,000,000

                                                 $ 10,000,000

       Total :                               $ 35,320,000

See here……
Oodgeroo accuses Brisbane archdiocese over St Mary’s Treaty

The “Oodgeroo of the tribe Noonuccal, Custodian of the land Minjerribah, Peace Prosperity and Healing, Sacred Treaty Circles” has lodged a complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission againstBrisbane Catholic Archbishop John Bathersby, the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane and their lawyers, alleging discrimination against Aboriginal people.

The Oodgeroo Treaty Circles have complained that the Archbishop has discriminated against Aboriginal people by refusing to acknowledge the validity of a treaty between Father Peter Kennedy on behalf of the St. Mary’s South Brisbane parish and Bejam Denis Walker on behalf of the Noonuccal and other Aboriginal people.

The law firm Thynne and Macartney, acting on behalf of the Archbishop and the Corporation of the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane, have written to Bejam Denis Walker and described the St. Mary’s treaty as having no legal effect or validity and stated that the Archbishop will not enter into any discussions or negotiations as to the implications of the treaty.

A spokesperson for the Oodgeroo Treaty Circles, John Tracey, said…….

The St. Mary’s Treaty was signed during a well-attended mass with the congregation of St. Mary’s and members of the local Aboriginal community witnessing it. The treaty was celebrated in coroborree in accordance with Aboriginal customary law and written on paper in accordance with non-Aboriginal law. It is real.”

“The Archbishop has appointed Ian Callinan to mediate between himself and St. Mary’s. When Ian Callinan was a high court judge he had to be forced off the Hindmarsh Island case because of his bias against Aboriginal claims of rights and interests. The Archbishop’s choice of mediator is an example of the contempt of Aboriginal law, culture and rights that he appears to hold. His blanket refusal to discuss the treaty is another.”

“The Oodgeroo Treaty Circles are asking the Archbishop and the Brisbane Archdiocese to confirm and support the St. Mary’s treaty which involves innovative Aboriginal welfare and social justice programs such as dry camps, a cultural heritage education program and the facilitation of Aboriginal men’s, women’s and elders business. The treaty process provides non-Aboriginal Australians a direct relationship with Aboriginal culture and programs. This path of healing is being obstructed by the Archbishop’s refusal to even acknowledge Aboriginal rights and interests, let alone work pro-actively with them.”

More info

http://treatynow.wordpress.com/

from Sean (a.k.a. John Tracey) of the Oodgeroo of the tribe Noonuccal, Custodian of the land Minjerribah, Peace Prosperity and Healing, Sacred Treaty Circles.

For those who do not know me, I am a long term resident of West End and have been a treaty member since 1989.

This letter has been written in consultation with the elder of the Oodgeroo Sacred Circles, Bejam Denis Walker who has asked me to publish my considerations, however it represents the opinion of myself only and for which I take full responsibility.

I am concerned to have read in the media that Peter Kennedy has described the assertion of Aboriginal sovereignty as a matter of symbolism. According to many current media reports he has said…….

“While the indigenous claim of sovereignty may be legally uncertain, the symbolic gesture was “very powerful”, Father Kennedy said.”
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/tent-embassy-plan-to-save-rebel-church/2009/02/11/1234028113125.html

It seems that perhaps Peter may not have fully understood the treaty he has signed if he considers Aboriginal sovereignty to be legally uncertain and symbolic.

To describe assertions of sovereignty as symbolic directly undermines those assertions.

Bejam has served on the Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane a proclamation of Sovereignty and a Notice of Want of Jurisdiction. In international law, Common law, commercial law and Aboriginal customary law these are legitimate and legal statements that can underpin a range of very real court actions relevant to St. Mary’s and beyond. They are not a symbolic ambit claim but a real instrument of law.

The only uncertainty about Aboriginal sovereignty and customary law is in the illusions of the Queens law, which by way of its underpinning of Terra Nullius is itself way beyond legally uncertain and exists only as a pirate regime in this country. There is no uncertainty about the legality of customary law nor the illegality of the Queen’s law.

There is nothing symbolic in the survival of customary law in the face of brutal attack from the Queens law.

I have seen the St. Mary’s treaty, which is a contract between Peter Kennedy and Bejam Denis Walker.

The terms of the treaty obligations of St. Mary’s are explicit – to provide assistance to “The Agenda” which is a clearly defined list of activities – http://treatynow.wordpress.com/the-agenda/

In the last month I have attended two meetings at St. Mary’s, called by Bejam to begin the process of assisting “the agenda”. In both cases the meeting was cancelled because nobody from St. Mary’s turned up.

If St. Mary’s remains so busy fighting the Catholic hierarchy or doing business as usual that it does not have the time or headspace to properly deal with the treaty and customary law then it cannot make any claim to being a part of the treaty or customary law process with any integrity, even if they do appropriate the symbols of these things into their own liturgical self identity and their fight with the Catholic hierarchy.

For nearly thirty years The Oodgeroo treaty process has been a real and non-symbolic instrument of Aboriginal customary law. In all that time it has very rarely gone public, as 95% of customary law is private family business. For St, Mary’s to now sign a treaty in such a high profile way and then neglect the obligations of the treaty and describe Aboriginal customary law as mere symbolism is tokenism and a betrayal of the principles of the treaty process.

St. Mary’s appears to have, to date, simply adopted the symbols of Aboriginality to confirm its own needs and agenda.

After the 1967 referendum, Oodgeroo said….. “Looking back, the only major improvement has been the 93% ‘Yes’ vote of the referendum of May 1967; but this improvement did not benefit the black Australians though it eased the guilty conscience of white Australians in this country and overseas.
It can be regarded therefore as a victory for white Australians who formed a coalition with black Australians. Black Australians must be seen as stooges for white Australians working in the interest of white Australians.”
http://treatynow.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/whiteness-and-blackness-in-the-koori-struggle-for-self-determination-by-dr-gary-foley/

If St. Mary’s are serious about being a part of the real law of this country then they need to abandon their own white, self centred illusions of their symbolic role in the Aboriginal struggle and the symbolic Aboriginal role in the St. Mary’s struggle. Simply applying Aboriginal symbols to a white agenda is an empowerment of white illusion, not Aboriginal law and power.

Symbolism and tokenism without substance and action is just a manifestation of mainstream white psychology that embodies a basic disconnection from the reality of this country’s history and contemporary circumstance, a basic inability to be conscious as to the nature of the country and our place in it.

Symbolism and tokenism allows the pirate invader consciousness and historical reality to remain unchallenged and unchanged. Symbolism is just cosmetic trimmings around the edge of white power. Kevin Rudd used Aboriginal symbolism in the apology, but this did not necessitate any change in his racist and paternalistic indigenous policies.

To even begin to deal with Aboriginal oppression or any other issue including ecological survival, non-Aboriginal Australians must somehow transcend the impotence of symbolism and manifest in historically real ways – or else the momentum of the status-quo is uninterrupted..

The treaty process is about direct engagement with, and assertion of, a real and certain Aboriginal law that by the grace of Oodgeroo and Bejam has been offered to non-Aboriginal Australians to participate in. This is a real and non-symbolic alternative to psychological and civic adherence to the illegal pirate law of the Queen or of the Catholic Church.

Jumping ship, so to speak, from the pirate invader law and psychology into Aboriginal customary law necessarily requires the abandonment of the illusions of the pirate invader matrix and an embrace of the reality of customary law. Without embracing the historical reality of customary law, right here right now, then we cannot leave the pirate ship, we must cling to its security for our own existence. Raising the Aboriginal flag on the pirate ship is meaningless tokenism that only adds to the illusions of that pirate ship.

The details of the St. Mary’s treaty are clear, the philosophy and law of Oodgeroo and Bejam are clear, the desperate need for the empowerment of customary law is clear but as long as St. Mary’s deals with these things in symbolic and tokenistic ways then they are just another manifestation of the disconnected psychology and law of invader consciousness.

I urge St. Mary’s to go back to the drawing board, read the treaty they have committed themselves to and then get down to the business of fulfilling their obligations to the treaty and customary law.

Then and only then can the St. Mary’s community begin to be educated in Aboriginal law and perspective through direct engagement in that very real historical process. Then and only then can they be in communion with Aboriginal people rather than run the risk of becoming opportunistic users of Aboriginal people

Abandon the consciousness of symbolism, Get Real!

1 Corinthians 4: 20 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.

Sean, a.k.a. John Tracey
kurityityin@yahoo.com

by Germaine Greer

from Times Online

“For 40 or maybe 60 millennia, Aboriginal peoples managed fire proactively, setting alight woodland, scrubland and grassland, so that they could pass freely, so that game was driven towards them, so that fresh green herbage was available. Aboriginal languages have dozens of words for fire. As the Endeavour sailed up the eastern coast, Captain Cook noted that the skies were darkened with smoke by day and lit up by fire at night.”

“The cause of these disasters is not global warming; still less is it arson. It is the failure to recognise that fire is an intrinsic feature of eucalypt bushland. It cannot be prevented but it can and should be managed.”

Fire is an essential element in the life cycle of Australian forests. Season by season sclerophyll or “hard-leaved” woodlands build up huge amounts of detritus, shed leaves, bark and twiggery, which must burn if there is to be new growth. Many Australian species, including most of the eucalypts, need fire if they are to complete their reproductive cycle. Seeds encased in woody receptacles need their capsules to be split by fire before they can be released to germinate.

For 40 or maybe 60 millennia, Aboriginal peoples managed fire proactively, setting alight woodland, scrubland and grassland, so that they could pass freely, so that game was driven towards them, so that fresh green herbage was available. Aboriginal languages have dozens of words for fire. As the Endeavour sailed up the eastern coast, Captain Cook noted that the skies were darkened with smoke by day and lit up by fire at night.

In the national parks of Australia, the importance of regular burning is well understood. Elsewhere the emphasis has been on prevention. Attempting to prevent fire in most of Australia is simply postponing the inevitable. Bushland that is not burnt regularly turns into a powder keg, as the fuel load inexorably increases. When dry eucalypt woodland goes up, it explodes, turning into a veritable firestorm. If no wind is blowing, it creates its own wind.

The Australian governments, state and federal, are well aware of the cost of fire to the economy. People who want to build houses in sclerophyll woodland will be told that any space between the floor of the house and the ground must be sealed, and even that they have to clear the native vegetation for a radius of as much as 50 metres from the house walls. At the same time people in the most desirable seaside suburbs will be prevented by law from clearing native vegetation. Some of the most valuable real estate in Victoria is bordered by beachfront reserves that are an endless succession of thickets choked with tinder-dry dead wood.

The most disheartening aspect of the Kinglake disaster is that since its foundation in the 1880s the township has suffered regular bushfires, in 1926, in 1939, in the 1960s, in the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983; two years ago almost to the day 1,500 hectares were destroyed by fire, but nothing was learnt. The cause of these disasters is not global warming; still less is it arson. It is the failure to recognise that fire is an intrinsic feature of eucalypt bushland. It cannot be prevented but it can and should be managed. Unless there is a fundamental change of policy across all levels of government in Australia, there will be more and worse fires and more deaths.

by John Tracey

“Yet the form of bush that is protected in the national parks of today, places without the human species, are a phenomenon of the last hundred years, younger than many Australian urban centres. The removal of human beings from the bush in the last two hundred years has turned our wilderness areas into overgrown untended gardens.”

The Green movement has built a concept of wilderness, without consultation with Aboriginal people, we have generalised that concept, politicised it and it is now a significant issue on the Australian political landscape. Yet the way we have described the natural environment bears no resemblance to its ancient reality.Modern Australia began with the legal principle of Terra Nullius, meaning a land with no law or government, no sovereign population. The British declared this continent to be Terra Nullius after Captain Cook “discovered” it, which allowed the British Crown to claim possession of the land in accordance with international law. Terra Nullius of course is a lie and was found to be such by the Australian High Court when Eddie Mabo proved that his family had owned their block of land since before Captain Cook.. Anthropologists and Aboriginal people assert that there was, prior to Cook and up until today, a complex and sophisticated system of law, government, economy and language, all the defining points of a sovereign nation.

Despite the high courts findings, Terra Nullius remains as the legal foundation for the sovereignty of the crown in Australia which in turn is the foundation authority for the parliament, courts, police, military and every other migrant legal institution.

Modern Australian conservationism dovetails with the legal fiction of Terra Nullius. Both deny the reality that this country was and still is occupied by a large complex Aboriginal society.

The conservation values of the Australian Bush are usually articulated in terms of species of plants and animals, geological considerations and often last and least, cultural heritage; usually a description of the history of the European colony and, occasionally, a reference to native title holders or Aboriginal place names (with little understanding of the meaning of either).

The principles of ecology and biodiversity have made us aware of the devastating consequences to an eco system if a particular species of plant or animal is removed. For example if a particular bird becomes extinct, the seeds it used to carry do not propagate and the insects it used to eat swell in numbers. Insect plague and reduced propagation in turn affects an infinite number of other organisms, radically degrading the systems of the ecosystem. The balance of bio-diversity has become an accepted principle in green ideology, yet how much have we considered the devastating consequences of removing the human species from wilderness eco-systems? For thousands of years humans interacted with the bush which provided them with all of the resources of daily life.. Human society and the natural eco systems evolved as one. Today we protect places in national parks and nature reserves and pretend that we are preserving their ancient integrity. Yet the form of bush that is protected in the national parks of today, places without the human species, are a phenomenon of the last hundred years, younger than many Australian urban centres. The removal of human beings from the bush in the last two hundred years has turned our wilderness areas into overgrown untended gardens.

Bushfire management is one example that highlights our misunderstandings of the bush. Conservationists have often argued that preventative burning strategies threaten eco systems; and they are right. Many farmers and fire authorities say the only way to avoid super-fires is to burn forest litter, and they are right also. In the old days the landscape was scattered with sacred campfires burning twenty-four hours a day providing a wide range of functional and spiritual purposes. These fires, along with hunting and cleansing fires, were fuelled solely by forest litter, gently and gradually cleaning the bush in a way that does not disrupt the sacred ecosystems that sustained the fire makers.

It has been a long time between sacred fires in many of our protected areas and as such they have degenerated into dormant infernos awaiting ignition.

Environmentalism tends to subscribe to the notion that the natural habitat of the human species is towns and cities, this is our territory and we should stay out of the territories of the other species. Centuries old notions of the evolution of humanity identify a progression from living in the bush in a savage and unsophisticated consciousness, through the epoch of barbarism into civilised society. This Darwinian notion conforms to the idea that the habitat of the modern human is urbanity. The inherent contradiction of this is it is the city structure that is doing most damage to the habitats of all species, including human. As a product of feudalism, industrialisation and capitalism, cities have grown as ever extending cancers, totally destroying the ecosystems of Europe and almost completing that process in Australia. By the simple evolutionary imperative of survival of the species, industrial civilisation represents a failure, it is our greatest threat as a species. the development of urban civilisation has been a process of ignorantly shitting in our own nests for millennia. Compared to the hundreds of thousands of years or more of sustainable human society in the bush, urban society is a dysfunctional devolution and disintegration.

If we are serious about preserving the Australian environment and indeed the human species we must take direction from Aboriginal people, their traditions of are the only record of the true history and nature of the bush, including how humans manage it. Aboriginal culture itself is a working example of a social ecology, including law and the individual and collective consciousness’ that have been created by the interrelationship between human society and the wilderness.

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.

99: The Complainant relies upon his Legitimate Expectation under International Law, that, until such times as the agents, assigns, officers and representatives of the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA”/ ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN AUSTRALIA have provided the evidence sought by the Complainant evidencing the authority of the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA”/ ROMAN CATHOLIC CHUCH , its’ agents, assigns, officers and representatives, that He has the right to legitimately expect that the legal position, as the Complainant puts forth in this NOTICE OF WANT OF JURISDICTION, is true and correct.

100: The Complainant relies upon the fact that,
100.1: if the Complainants’ understanding of the Constitutional situation in Australia – as detailed herein – is incorrect, the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA”/ ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN AUSTRALIA, its agents, assigns, officers and representatives have a Duty of Care Obligation to the Plaintiff to detail their evidence to the contrary to the Complainant.

101: For the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” to fail to provide the requested documented evidence of the Head of authority of the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” to the Complainant, whilst patently, clearly knowing the Complainant was waiting upon such information to be provided in order to make a decision(s) (based upon such information if it could be provided) to comply with the laws the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” purport to be legitimate, and then after failing to provide such information, to summarily deprive the Complainant of his rights pursuant to International Law is both:
101.1: negligent, and

101.2: incompetent, and,

101.3: criminal, and,

101.4: illegal, and,

101.5: damaging to the Complainant.

102: The “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” owes a Duty of Care to the Complainant to provide the evidence that the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/ “NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” relies upon, to evidence its’ Head of authority etc.., immediately, prior to further exercising its’ illegal statute and other laws and its’ absent jurisdiction against the Complainant.
20.

103: The Complainant has, in writing, verbally and by action, notified the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND” that the Complainant has no intention of breaching any reasonable LAWFUL Law.
104: The Complainant has no intention of recognizing nor complying with any law which derives its’ authority from:

104.1: a foreign power, and or,

104.2: a foreign government, and or,

104.3: an illegal government.

105: The Complainant has every intention of defending his Human Rights, including those as recognized under International Law.

106: The Complainant intends to,
106.1: comply with Common Law, and,

106.2: comply with legitimate statute law, and,

106.3: live peaceably with his fellow Sovereign Independent Individual, Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian Citizens.

107: The Complainant, has never had, does not have, and cannot perceive a time when, the Complainant has, does or will willfully breach any law that can be evidenced to be lawful and enforceable in respect of the Complainant pursuant to International Law (the same basis upon which Australia as part of the “coalition of the willing” entered Iraq).

108: In the High Courts’ Teoh case the majority extended this principle to say that unincorporated treaties could give rise to a legitimate expectation that decision-makers would act in accordance with the Convention. The following extracts indicate the approach that was adopted.
108.1: Mason CJ and Deane J said:
‘ratification by Australia of an international Convention is not to be dismissed as a merely platitudinous or ineffectual act, particularly when the instrument evidences internationally accepted standards to be applied by courts and administrative authorities………………. Rather, ratification of a Convention is a positive statement by the executive government of this country to the world and to the Australian people that the executive government and its agencies will act in accordance with the Convention.

It is not necessary that a person seeking to set up such a legitimate expectation should be aware of the Convention or should personally entertain the expectation; it is enough that the expectation is reasonable in the sense that there are adequate materials to support it.’

21.

109: SECT 6 of the British “Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK)”, states:
109.1:6. “The Commonwealth” shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.

“The States” shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called “a State.”

110: Section 80 of the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 UK” states:
110.1: Trial by jury
80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.

111: Pursuant to the above facts the Complainant is not legally bound to acknowledge the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/“NATION STATE AUSTRALIA” or “STATE OF QUEENSLAND/NATION STATE AUSTRALIA government” agent, assign, officer or representative as having been created pursuant to any legal authority or created upon any legal basis, unless and until the requested documented evidence of such purported legal authority is provided and the Complainant has been afforded an opportunity to validate or disprove such evidence.

Pursuant to the above facts:

The Complainant DEMANDS:
1: That the matters concerning the Complainant be held Sine Die (including all correspondence, Judgments, orders and or actions) until the STATE OF QUEENSLAND/NATION STATE AUSTRALIA/ ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN AUSTRALIA satisfies the Complainants’ valid concerns regarding the:

1.1: Source of power, and,
.
1.2: Head of power, and,

1.3: Authority

22.

of the STATE OF QUEENSLAND/ NATION STATE AUSTRALIA/ ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH over the Complainant.

2: That, in relation to the Complainant, before ANY further legal action is commenced and or continued by the STATE OF QUEENSLAND/ NATION STATE AUSTRALIA/ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, that the STATE OF QUEENSLAND/ NATION STATE AUSTRALIA/ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH provide to the Complainant those documents which are required and necessary to prove the claim to jurisdiction over the Complainant, including:

2.1: Letters Patent establishing the “Office of Governor – General for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Irelands’ Colony of The Commonwealth of Australia” under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filled in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London England.

2.2: Letters Patent establishing the “Colony of QUEENSLAND” under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto, recorded and filled in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto

2.3: Letters Patent establishing the “Office of Governor for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland’s Colony of QUEENSLAND” under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filled in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London England.

2.4: The Writ of Commission for the “Governor General of The UK Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia” under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filled in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London England.

2.5: The Writ of Commission for the “Governor of The UK Colony of QUEENSLAND”, under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filled in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London England.

23.

2.6: The Writ of Commission for the “Chief Justice of the UK Colony of The Commonwealth of Australia”, under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filled in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London England.

2.7: The Writ of Commission for the “Chief Justice of The UK Colony of STATE OF QUEENSLAND”, under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filled in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London England.

2.8: The Writ of Commission for the Police Commissioner of the “UK Colony of STATE OF QUEENSLAND” under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filled in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London England.

2.9: The Writ of Commission for the “Minister of The Crown, known as the Attorney General” of The UK Colony of STATE OF QUEENSLAND” under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filled in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London England.

2.10: The Writ of Commission for the “Minister of The Crown, known as the Attorney General” of The UK Commonwealth of Australia”, under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filled in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London England.

2.11: The Writ of Commission for the “Senior Registrar of the Magistrates Court of The UK Colony of STATE OF QUEENSLAND”, under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filled in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London

24.

2.12: All documents you personally, and individually, rely on to establish your “head of Power” under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filed in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London

2.13: All documents you personally, and individually rely on to establish “your claimed Authority” under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filed in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London

2.14: All documents you personally, and individually rely on to establish your claimed “Jurisdiction” under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filled in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London

2.15: A clear printed text of the oath sworn by any Judicial officer who hears and or proposes to hear any matter in relation to the Complainants’ matter.

2.16: A current, legally binding, valid and legitimate Constitution; written and approved BY ALL the individual Independent Sovereign People of the independent entity Member State of the United Nations, Internationally recognized as “The Commonwealth of Australia”: expressing their freely given will of SELF- DETERMINATION under a Referendum (Plebiscite) conducted with the Authorised blessing of the International Community and International law; stating the source of that AUTHORITY, the date of APPROVAL and REGISTRATION with The Secretariat of The United Nations which shows acquiescence by the Australian people to any Domestic British legislation.”.

2.17: A current, legally binding, valid and legitimate Constitution; written and approved BY ALL the individual Independent Sovereign People in the STATE of QUEENSLAND evidencing their freely expressed will of SELF- DETERMINATION to be subject to ANY “government”, “law”, “court”, “judge”, “magistrate”, “justice of the peace”, “police officer”, “prison officer”, “officer of the court”, “clerk of the court”, agents”, or ANY other thing or person which is subaltern to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, proven by a Referendum (Plebiscite) conducted with the AUTHORISED blessing of the International Community and International law; stating the source of that AUTHORITY, the date of APPROVAL and REGISTRATION with The Secretariat of The United Nations.

25.

2.18: The Document whereby ALL the Individual Independent Sovereign People of the Commonwealth of Australia requested Queen Elizabeth the second, on the Throne, (re-established by ALL Sessions I & II William and Mary 1688), in The High Court of The Regent’s Parliament of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, to represent them as their Sovereign.
2.19: Either:
2.19.1: A current legal and binding Treaty, dated BEFORE the 10th of January 1920, between the Aboriginal Nations and Peoples of Australia and the Parliament of the United Kingdom of England and Ireland, under the Royal Sign Manual and Royal Signet, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, recorded and filled in the office of Chancery of the Lord High Chancellor, in the High Court of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Dominions thereto belonging, located at Westminster, London, which Treaty evidences the acquiescence to British Colonial or other Law by the Independent, Sovereign, Indigenous Nations and Peoples of Australia,
or,
2.19.2: A current legal and binding Treaty, dated AFTER the 10th of January 1920, between the Aboriginal Nations and Peoples of Australia and the Colonial Government of Australia and or the Governments of the States of the Commonwealth of Australia, which Treaty evidences the acquiescence to Australian Statutory law and or British Colonial and or other law by the Independent, Sovereign, Indigenous Nations and Peoples of Australia.

3: Should the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND” not be able to produce all the above required and purportedly existent and purportedly “available” EVIDENCE OF THE PURPORTED AUTHORITY of the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND” and or the court or courts it is proposed will hear these matters, to the Complainants’ COMPLETE SATISFACTION by the Friday 15th August 2008, the Complainant demands that the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND” provide Certified Documentation evidencing:

3.1: Written permission from the United Nations to use Foreign Law, including British Domestic Law, in contravention of Article 2: paragraphs 1 and 4 of the United Nations Charter of 1945;

3.2: Written permission from the League of Nations to use Foreign Law in the Commonwealth of Australia in direct contravention of Articles I, X and XX of the League of Nations Covenant of 1919.

3.3: Permissions, in writing, from The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Parliament to continue to use United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Law in the Independent Sovereign Nation State of The Commonwealth of Australia, Assented to, and Duly Signed and Sealed, under The Great Seal of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, by King George the Fifth, and Counter-Signed by The Lord High Chancellor of The High Court of Parliament of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and

26.

3.3.1: including an Authentic, Certified Copy of Documentation evidencing the Registration of same by The Office of the Clerk of The Crown in Chancery of The High Court of The Parliament of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Westminster, prior to January 10, 1920.

4: Clear written evidence of the freely expressed permission by ALL the Individual Independent Sovereign People of The Commonwealth of Australia, for the continued use of Foreign Colonial Law, within:

4.1: The Commonwealth of Australia, and,

4.2: the State of QUEENSLAND, and,

4.3: within the Boundary of the land area within the continent of Australia, after January 10, 1920; (when clearly ALL FOREIGN LAW (Colonial, Imperial or otherwise) was deemed to be ABROGATED and ultravirus with respect of Australia at International Law under the TERMS AND CONDITIONS of Membership to the League of Nations, under The Covenant of The League of Nations Covenant 1919, Upon the several Independent Nations Entity States signing The Covenant at the Peace Conference at Versailles.
4.3.1: Both The Commonwealth of Australia and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and) Ireland were ORIGINAL Independent Signatory Nation Member States.

5: Clear written Certified evidence of Full General Assembly of The United Nations’ Revocation of its Resolution 2625 (XXV) of October 24, 1970 Declaring ALL British Acts (both Colonial and Imperial) as legal and binding on the Individual, Independent Sovereign people of Australia.

6: Evidence that;
6.1: All Constitutions (including Australian 1900 UK & WA, SA, Vic, Tas, NSW and Queensland).
6.2: The Statute of Westminster 1931,

6.3: Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, and,

6.4: The Australian Acts (UK and CTA),
are not NULL AND VOID in respect of the Commonwealth of Australia..

7: Full written Certified evidence of WHY the British Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of England and Ireland, assented by the Regent on the Throne in the High Court of THAT Parliament at Westminster, being a FOREIGN ACT OF A FOREIGN NATION, IS NOT registered at the United Nations in Geneva nor New York, as a RECIPROCAL MUTUAL TREATY which is required under International Law before it (as a Foreign Law) can be exercised within the land of the Commonwealth of Australia.

27.

8: That the any other “court” other than the purported High Court of Australia, so as to facilitate this matter being determined by the only purported “Australian” court which is purportedly authorised to hear challenges to the purported “Australian Constitution” and or defences taken pursuant to International Treaties, pursuant to Section 80 of the “Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 UK” , set this matter aside for hearing by the purported High Court of Australia, which, pursuant to the particulars of this NOTICE OF WANT OF JURISDICTION, is the ONLY purported “court” in Australia which might purportedly possibly have the purported authority to hear this matter under “Australia’s” purported “Constitution” (ie: the “Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 UK”).

9: That the STATE OF QUEENSLAND/NATION STATE AUSTRALIA/ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, its’ agents, assigns, officers and representatives accept, acknowledge and comply with the Complainants rights as a Sovereign on Gondwanna Land (Australia).

10: That the STATE OF QUEENSLAND, its’ agents, assigns, officers and representatives accept, acknowledge and comply with the Complainant and do not interfere with the rights of the Complainant to exercise His Sovereign rights within and upon His Sovereign land, Minjerrabah, within and upon Gondwanna Land (Australia)

Pursuant to the above FACTS and DEMANDS:

TAKE NOTICE that if you fail to produce the required documented evidence of the purported authority of the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/NATION STATE AUSTRALIA/ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH by the ___________________________________2008, and or fail to comply with the aforesaid Demands OR demonstrate a proper DEFENCE against ALL the FACTS upon which this NOTICE OF WANT OF JURISDICTION is founded, then it shall be taken that the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/NATION STATE AUSTRALIA/ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ADMITS:

1: THAT the facts as stated in this NOTICE OF WANT OF JURISDICTION are true and correct AND,

28.

2: THAT the demands arising from those facts are proper and reasonable AND,

3: THAT the Demands of this NOTICE OF WANT OF JURISDICTION must be complied with AND,

4: THAT the Complainant is entitled to costs and damages for any breach of the Complainant’s rights as stated herein as afforded by the Schedule of Fees forwarded to the Office of the Premier of the STATE OF QUEENSLAND, AND,

5: THAT any public or private harassment and intimidation of the Complainant and his family and community by officers the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND”/NATION STATE AUSTRALIA its’ agents, assigns, officers and or representatives under direction of the Queen of the Parliament of the Untied Kingdom of England and Ireland in her illegal purported capacity of the “Queen of Australia” are remedial by way of an action determinable by the Elders’ Council of the Complainants Nation.

6: THAT it understands, and accepts that actions against those officers referred to in paragraph 5 (immediately above) would be taken against those officers, personally.

7: THAT it has no authority at law to use any law which has its’ head of authority in either the;
7.1: Parliament of the Untied Kingdom,
And/ or,
7.2: the Monarch of the Parliament of the United Kingdom,
and /or,
7.3: Parliaments of THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA or any state and or territory thereof,
and /or,
7.4: the Queen of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in her purported and illegal capacity
as the “queen of Australia”.

………………………………..
Dennis Bruce Walker

Signed before me this ……. Day

of ………………………….2008
At ………………………………………. ………,
……………………………….. (JP./Notary)

29.

Angus Rabbit is a Cherbourg Murri elder based in Brisbane. He is “The Man” of Queensland country music.