CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
TAKE NOTICE: that I,****************, the First Defendant, hereby Challenges the Jurisdiction of the Court which is the legal procedure for resolving the issue of judicial authority. This measure is necessary in the light of these proceedings are being conducted summarily without the Court obtaining my clear and unequivocal Consent to be without a Jury, in accordance with the mandates of English Common Law for the administration of Justice ….Justice being “the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs”.
This Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court is to be filed in this Court and is to be determined by a Special Jury.
This Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court is made on all grounds, including Subject Matter, Relationship and Competency.
In any action, both parties must give their clear and unequivocal consent to be without a Jury. Without that consent, the Court has no Jurisdiction to proceed summarily and the Jurisdiction of the Court must be challenged. This Challenge can only be judged by a Special Jury. Should a Judge or Magistrate disregard or dismiss this Challenge, then he or she is liable to punishment for Contempt of Court, which is “interfering with the administration of Justice, as defined above. Should a Judge or Magistrate disregard or dismiss this Challenge, that is a violation of Due Process and the Rule of Law.
Due Process is a course of legal proceedings according to rules and principles that have been established in a system for jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private rights. Due Process derives from early English Common Law. The first concrete expression of the Due Process idea embraced by Anglo-American law appeared in the 39th Article of Magna Carta 1215. (Encyc. Brit.)
“Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.” (Jagens v. Lavine, 415 S.Ct.768). “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.” (Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910). “Where there is an absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial
proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.” (Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 382; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471).
I do not consent to be without a Jury. The Court has not obtained my consent to be without a Jury which is clear and unequivocal. I have not signed a Memorandum of Consent to be without a Jury and allow this Court to proceed summarily.
I am a flesh and blood human being and “have liberty in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 2: 4).
The Right to Trial by Jury is an inalienable Right of all Freemen (Part 1 - Constitutional Enactments listed in the NSW Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 No. 30, Second Schedule).
It is the Rule of Law that is (1.) The supremacy of law. and (2) a feature attributed to the UK constitution by Professor Dicey (Law of the Constitution, 1885). It embodied three concepts: the absolute predominance of regular law, so that the government has no arbitrary authority over the citizen; the equal subjection of all (including officials) to the ordinary law administered by the ordinary courts; and the fact that the citizen’s personal freedoms are formulated and protected by the ordinary law rather than by abstract constitutional declarations.(Oxford Reference, A Dictionary of Law, Oxford University Press).
The first FACT to establish is the JURISDICTION of our own country and here follows is a PUBLIC NOTICE proclaiming Australia to be a COMMON LAW JURISDICTION which is to say that AUSTRALIA is a DEMOCRACY where SOVEREIGNTY lies with the PEOPLE - meaning that “the ultimate authority to make and impose laws” is with the PEOPLE.
THE COMMON LAW COURTS OF AUSTRALIA
BE IT KNOWN that the Commonwealth of Australia is a Common Law Jurisdiction and that all the Courts of Australia are Common Law Courts where Free Men can exercise their inalienable Right to Trial by Jury.
So essential to the preservation of Truth, Justice, Freedom and Democracy is the Right to Trial by Jury, that any denial of this Right constitutes Treason against the People of Australia. No Federal or State Parliament can abolish or diminish this Right protecting Life, Liberty and Property.
It is the duty and responsibility of Jurors to judge the facts and law presented to them, so that they can administer Justice to all parties in any action.
In any action, unless a Court obtains the clear and unequivocal consent of all parties to be without a Jury, that Court has no Jurisdiction to proceed summarily and any such awards, doings and proceedings shall be held to be null and void.
Capacity: Freeman-on-the-Land & Sovereign Human Being.
AUSTRALIA is a COMMON LAW JURISDICTION.
COMMON LAW is the LAW OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE.
AUSTRALIA is a COMMONWEALTH and any attempt to DISENFRANCHIZE the PEOPLE is not only UNLAWFUL – it is TREASON.
To try to take away the Rights of the People is TREASON.
To try to CORPORATIZE Australia is TREASON.
To try to ALTER the CONSTITUTION without the CONSENT of the PEOPLE is TREASON.
The registering of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA with the
UNITED STATES SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION as CIK (0000805157),
SIC: 8880 - American Depositary Receipts, State location: DC | Fiscal Year End: 0630
Business Address:1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW,C/O AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY
WASHINGTON DC 20036, is TREASON.
The privatization of COURTS of AUSTRALIA, or any infra-structure regarded as the PROPERTY of the PEOPLE, is UNLAWFUL…it is THEFT…it is TREASON.
“The PRICE of LIBERTY is ETERNAL VIGILANCE”
AUSTRALIANS are a FREE PEOPLE.
I am a FREE MAN.
I am NOT a bonded SLAVE and I am NOT a legal fiction.
I will DEFEND MY RIGHTS and those of my CHILDREN with all my heart and all my strength.
Lord Thomas Denning once said that “The purpose of a court in a civilized society is the vindication of men’s rights and the enforcement of just causes.” And I come to Court believing that “a Court is a place where Justice is administered”.
Now however, in every Court in the Land, RIGHT and JUSTICE are being DENIED, contrary to the edict of Magna Carta of “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay Right or Justice.”
A plaque at the Magna Carta Monument in Canberra’s Parliamentary grounds says: “Magna carta is now seen as a traditional mandate for trial by jury, justice for all, accountable government and no arbitrary imprisonment.”…. but it is as if this wonderful commemorative feature in our nation’s capitol were something to keep a secret instead of being proud of. The Magna Carta Monument is a permanent physical testament to our our HERITAGE, our CULTURE and our LAW.
Many Australians are now awakening and beginning to fight for our LAWS and our LIBERTIES.
John Wilson is an Australian who continues to be persecuted by the Australian Judiciary for claiming his Rights as a Free Man. He describes a slave as “(i) a person who has NO Right of Consent; (ii) a person who has NO Right to property; and (iii) a person who has NO Right to Trial by Jury”.
John Peter Bauskis is another Australian who continues to be persecuted by the Australian Judiciary. On Friday, the 4th of August 2006, a Judge of the NSW Supreme Court, Michael Frederick Adams, had charged and was also judging John and another Australian, Peter Rutherford, for Contempt of Court for wearing a T-shirt in Court with the words, “TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMOCRACY”. When John Challenged the Jurisdiction of the Court, Adams said, “On what grounds?” John said, “We have not given our consent.” - to which Adams said, “Your consent is immaterial.”
The disregard the Australian Judiciary have for the Rights of Australians is demonstrated, again using Contempt of Court as an example, is the fact that, in the Referendum of 1988, the Australian people voted overwhelming NOT to exclude Contempt of Court from Trial by Jury when the question was put to alter section 80 of the Australian Constitution. That is the Will of the People. However, the Australian Judiciary unanimously DENY Australians their RIGHT to Trial by Jury for Contempt of Court. This is a VIOLATION of ALLEGIANCE to their “Sovereign Lady, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second”, as they have sworn in their Judicial Oaths, but TREASON against the People of Australia.
In England in the latter part of the 16th century and into the first part of the 17th, the Rights of Englishmen were denied in what was known as the “Star Chamber Court”which was eventually ABOLISHED because it was “intolerable. The Act to Abolish the Star Chamber was called the Habeas Corpus Act of 1641 which laid down severe punishments for Judges who offended by denying any accused their Right to Trial by Jury.
In Australia, we have those Charters of Liberty, ie: Magna Carta 1215, the Petition of Right 1627, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1641 and the Bill of Rights 1689, entrenched as “Constitutional Enactments” – and yet, the Australian Judiciary continue to conduct Star Chamber Courts” which are popularly known as “Kangaroo Courts”. A “Kangaroo Court” is defined as “a court that acts unfairly or dishonestly or disregards legal rights or disregards legal procedures”. The Australia Judiciary have invented for themselves what they call “A Doctrine of Immunity” which is repugnant in every way because NO ONE is above the LAW.
Australian Sheriffs and Police enforce the wickedness of this unbridled exercise of absolute power.
There is a legal maxim which says that “Force ought to follow Justice and not precede it.” However, Australian Sheriffs and Police carry out the unlawful orders of the Australian Judiciary and even take it upon themselves to violate People’s Rights on many occasions, as do other mere Statutory Bodies like the State Debt Recovery Office when they persecute victims of the Australian Judiciary.
I am a Freeman, the equal of any other Freeman, and have the Right to the lawful Judgment of a congregation of twelve other Freemen gathered together as a Jury, with each Juror asking “So help me God”, in order that they can administer Justice.
I am a sovereign human being created by God.
A Legal Maxim says, “Rights never die”.
The words of the Royal Coat of Arms say, “Honi soit qui mal y pense” and “Dieu et mon droit” …. while, in all the Courts in America, appear the words, “In God We Trust.”
I am of the People and Australia is a Democracy, which translates from the Greek to “People Rule”. We the People exercise our Sovereignty, ie: our ultimate authority to make and impose laws, through the unanimous Judgments from Trials by Juries. These Judgments are the Common Law.
“Common law doth control Acts of Parliament and adjudge them when against common right to be void” (Lord Edward Coke).
No Act of Parliament can take away my Right to Trial by Jury.
No “evil counsellors, judges and ministers” can be allowed to subvert and/or extirpate the laws and liberties of the People (see: Bill of Rights 1688).
To deny Trial by Jury is to deny Democracy …..and to deny Democracy is Treason, ie: a violation of allegiance.
MAGNA CARTA 1215, CAP XXXIX: "No freeman shall be taken indeed imprisoned, either dispossessed, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, nor pass over him, nor send over him, except by means of the legal judgment of his own equals indeed the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, Right or Justice.".
The CONFIRMATION OF THE CHARTERS, 1297 says: “…that the Great Charters of Liberties and the Charter of the Forest, which were made by common assent of all the realm, in the time of King Henry our father, shall be kept in every point without breach….we have granted that they shall be observed in all points, and that our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other officials which under us have to administer the laws of our land, shall allow the said charters in pleas before them and in judgments in all their points….And we will that if any judgment be given from henceforth, contrary to the points of the charters aforesaid, by the justices or by any other ministers that hold plea before them against the points of the charters, it shall be undone and holden for naught.”
The PETITION OF RIGHT, 1627 says: in section 3. “And where also by the statute called, The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, it is declared and enacted, That no freeman may be taken or imprisoned, or be desseised of his freehold or liberties or his free customs, or to be outlawed or exiled, or in manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.” and in section 8. “That the awards, doings and proceedings, to the prejudice of your people in any of the premises, shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example.”
The SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE ACT No. 49, 1900 says under section 3. “(1) In any action by consent of both parties the whole or any one or more of the issues of fact in question may be tried, or the amount of any damages or compensation may be assessed by a Judge without a jury.”.
The COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT No: 21, 1899 are relevant to the conduct of proceedings in this or any matter before the Supreme Court of New South Wales: “s.256. Upon the hearing of any motion or summons, the Court or Judge may, upon such terms as the Court of Judge thinks reasonable, order any document to be produced, and any witness to appear and be examined viva voce, either before the Court or a Judge or before a commissioner for affidavits; and upon hearing such evidence or reading the deposition may make such rule or order as may be just”.
“s.257. (1) The Court or Judge may by such rule or order, or by any subsequent rule or order, command the attendance of the witnesses named therein for the purpose of being examined or the production of any document mentioned therein”.
“s.259. The Court or judge may amend any notice of motion, rule nisi, writ, pleading, affidavit, jurat or title of affidavit, record, praecipe, or other proceeding used before the Court or Judge not likely to mislead the opposite party on any point essential to the merits of the case, and may award such reasonable costs of such amendment as to the Court or Judge seem fit.”
The INTERPRETATION ACT No. 15, 1987 says under section 30. “(1) The amendment or repeal of an Act or statutory rule does not: …(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act or statutory rule.”.
Every person is entitled to NATURAL JUSTICE which is described as the “Rules of fair play, originally developed by the court of equity to control the decisions of inferior courts and then gradually extended (particularly in the 20th century) to apply equally to the decisions of administrative and domestic tribunals and any authority exercising an administrative power that affects a person’s status, rights and liabilities.
Any decision reached in contravention of natural justice is void as ultra vires. There are 2 principal rules: (1) The first is the rule against bias (ie: against departure from the standard of even-handed justice required of those who occupy judicial office) - nemo judex in causa sua (or in propria causa). This means that any decision, however fair it may seem, is invalid if made by a person with any financial or other interest in the outcome or any known bias that might have affected his impartiality. The second rule is known as audi alteram partem (hear the other side). It states that a decision cannot stand unless the person directly affected by it was given a fair opportunity both to state his case and to know and answer the other side’s case.”.(Oxford Reference A Dictionary of Law, Oxford University Press, Third Edition).
HALSBURY’S LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460): “Consent to summary jurisdiction The consent to be tried summarily must be clear and unequivocal and a failure to carry out the procedures for obtaining the consent will deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine the matters summarily.”
Thomas Jefferson said in 1821: “The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”.
No Statutory Laws no Rules nor Regulations can take away my Right to Trial by Jury.
I repeat: Lord Edward Coke once said, “Common law doth control Acts of Parliament and adjudges them when against common right to be void.”.
Common Law is the Law of the People, by the People and for the People.
Acts of Parliament (ie: mere Statute Law) endeavouring to take away the Right to trial by Jury are ultra vires.
People are not subject to Statute Law, which is inferior to Common Law,
and are only accountable to Common Law that is made and imposed by their equals, ie: accountable only to Juries.
Judges have sworn to “well and truly serve” the Crown, as has the Sheriff of Queensland. It is the duty of a Sheriff “to ensure that people can exercise their rights in court in safety”. Sheriffs who enforce the denial of the Right to Trial by Jury are as culpable as the Judge or Magistrate committing that treasonous offence.
“A man who exercises his rights harms no one”…a Legal Maxim.
“Trial by Jury is the Palladium of Liberty” (anon).
The denial of my Right to Trial by Jury is sinister, vile and reprehensible.
All Acts of Parliament in Australia since 1919, with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, have not been lawfully enacted due to the fact that there have been no Orders in the Privy Council, ie: the Queen-in-Council, for the Appointments of any Vice Regal executive representatives of the Crown of the United Kingdom to grant the “Royal Assent” to enact Statute Laws, which was the procedure when the Commonwealth of Australia was “under the Crown of the United Kingdom” as per the Act of the UK Parliament to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (Victoria 63 & 64, Chapter 12, 9th July 1900). It follows that all the Appointments of Judges and Magistrates are also fraudulent.
“A Judge without jurisdiction is to be disobeyed with impunity”…a Legal Maxim.
Australia is a Democracy which literally means that the PEOPLE RULE, ie: Sovereignty lies with the People who exercise that “ultimate authority to make and impose laws” by way of the unanimous Judgments of 12 Free Men empanelled as Jurors who ask, :”So help me God”, in order that they can administer Justice.
I am a FREEMAN-ON-THE-LAND and NOT IN BONDAGE to any person posing as a Judge or Magistrate.
A legal maxim is that “A deed or charter not in being is not valid”. There is NO CONTRACT between me and anyone, natural or artificial, with whom or which I have not entered a contract that satisfies all of the 8 essential elements for the creation of that contract. If anyone tries to assert otherwise, then they must produce that original and valid contract in court and put it before a Jury.
No Freeman-on-the-Land is under the Jurisdiction of any Officer of any Court or any Statutory Body, Person or Entity.
To be in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Constitution, for a person to hold the Office of a Judge of any Court in Australia, that person must be appointed by the executive representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In Queensland, that representative of the Crown of the United Kingdom ought to be Govern-General of the Commonwealth of Australia or a State Governor who has been properly appointed by Her Majesty by way of an Order for that Appointment from the Queen-in-Council, ie: the Privy Council. However, it is a fact that the Privy Council make NO ORDERS appointing executive representatives of Her Majesty to the Commonwealth of Australia nor to any State of Australia.
On the 14th of August 2003, John Wilson sent the following email and received the email appearing below that:-
From: John Wilson [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 14 August 2003 23:59
Subject: Appointment of the Governor-General of Australia
I would like to view the Order Approved at the Council appointing the new Governor-General of Australia, Major-General Michael Jeffrey.
Please send me internet directions/instructions on how I can see the
I am sorry but there is no Order for this appointment.
Privy Council Office
2 Carlton Gardens
London SW1Y 5AA
Tel 7210 1030
Fax 7210 1071
Therefore, it is irrefutable that all persons posing and acting as Judges and Magistrates in Australia are frauds.
If these impostors caused no injustice to anyone, this situation might be tolerated … but that is not the case.
The Holy Bible says, in Ecclesiastes 3 verse 16 that “Moreover I saw under the sun: In the place of judgment, Wickedness was there; And in the place of righteousness, Iniquity wasthere.”
We must never forget that ALL LAW HANGS ON LOVING GOD and LOVING ONE’S NEIGBOUR AS ONESELF (Matthew 22: 40) and so, when injury is deliberately done by one human being to another human being, that is wrong.
To ENSLAVE anyone is wrong…. and denying anyone their Right to Trial by Jury is as wrong as wrong can be.
Only in January of 2012 has a video been produced by an Australian lady, wife and mother, which tells of how we are being exploited and abused because we don’t know the LAW and the TRUTH of the LAW. This video can be seen on the Internet at www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs1ntqa5M2k&feature=youtu.be
We are told in the Holy Bible that “People are destroyed for the lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4: 6) and one can couple that with legal maxims which say, “Trials ought to be held where juries have the best knowledge” because “Truth is the mother of justice.”.
No one can judge any one else.
We are all equals before the courts and the law ……. and we all have the inalienable Right to the lawful judgment of our equals when 12 other human beings are empanelled as Jurors who determine what are the facts, what is the law, and who judge the justice of the law, whether the law is being appropriately applied, what are the moral intentions of the accuse and, having considered all that, they vote for a verdict and judgment entirely according to their individual consciences – which is why each Juror prays for guidance with the words, So help me God.”
FOR THESE REASONS, I CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.
Capacity: Defendant and Sui Juris