http://larryhannigan.com

The Law and You

Dealing with Corporate Officers

Court Cases

The following extract comes out of the Fourth edition of “An Introduction to the Law of Contract” 2009 by Stephen Graw, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Titled: The Australian Law-Making Bodies

“The draft of a proposed Act of Parliament is referred to as a Bill. A Bill consists of a series of numbered clauses usually drafted by the parliamentary counsel at the request of the government and it is introduced a Parliament by the appropriate Minister.
    Each Bill has to go through three readings in each House of Parliament. At the first reading, the title of the Bill is merely read and a formal motion is made that it be read a first time and printed. There is no debate and, if the motion is carried, a date for the second reading is fixed. At the second reading, the Bill is debated on general principles rather than on detailed provisions. The Bill is not amended at this stage. If the motion for a second reading is passed, ,the Bill is refereed to a Committee for a detailed clause-by-clause examination and specific amendments are debated.  If the motion for a third reading is carried, the Bill is deemed to have passed through that House. The Bill is then sent to the other House of Parliament where a similar procedure is followed. If a Bill passed both Houses it is submitted for Royal Assent, which is given by the Queen or her representative-the Governor General or the relevant State Governor or the territory Administrator as the case may be. After Royal Assent the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and it becomes law from the date of its proclamation.”

This process of law making in Australia is verified under s58 of the Australian Constitution and s22 of the Australian Courts Act 1828.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 58
Royal assent to Bills
When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor General for the Queen’s assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen’s pleasure.
Recommendations by Governor General
The Governor General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.

Australian Courts Act 1828
Section XXII
That every Law or Ordinance so to be made as aforesaid, shall within Seven Days from the date thereof, be transmitted by the Governors of the said Colonies respectively to the Supreme Court, to be enrolled and recorded, and at the expiration of Fourteen Days from the Day of the Date thereof every such Law or Ordinance so to be made as aforesaid shall take effect.

A very important referendum result to consider in this matter was question 2 of the 1984 referendum, which was titled “Interchange of Powers”. This proposal sought to change the Constitution for the approval of the Commonwealth and the States to refer powers (interchange) to each other voluntarily. The writ was issued on the 26th of October 1984. The referendum was NOT carried. Nationally 47.06% of electors votes YES. It seems this proposal was an attempt to terminate the protective clause of s109 of the Australian Constitution which deals with inconsistencies of law between State and Commonwealth.

So why does every Victorian Act since 1986 state “The Parliament of Victoria enacts as follows:” ?

Research points to the introduction of the Australian Act 1986. This unlawful Act has given State Parliament’s the authority to exercise sovereignty and thus enabled them to create and pass laws inconstant to Commonwealth law by avoiding the requirement of Royal Assent. The Australian Act 1986 did not receive Royal Assent, failed a referendum, thus is Ultra Virus.

In the absence of Royal Assent, all Australian Subjects are instructed to treat an Act of law as null and void and unenforceable in any Court within the Commonwealth. If the laws of Australia are ecclesiastical and the supreme absolute and uncontrollable authority remains with the people, then why is this criminal behaviour continuing in this Christian Nation?

The following information is based on my own research and knowledge of our Australian Law. The author and publisher disclaim all liabilities in connection with the use of this information. Under the public benefit social security scheme, citizens may be subrogating their common law rights. It is the responsibility of all individuals to understand their contracts within the public system.

You may download the high resolution NO TRESPASSING sign in PDF form here:

Tresspasing_Sign.PDF

Flora News also has a great article on Fee Simple Title Property Rights. A must read!!

Fee_Simple_Explained.PDF

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

The following information is based on my own research and knowledge of our Australian Law. The author and publisher disclaim all liabilities in connection with the use of this information Under the public benefit social security scheme, citizens may be subrogating their common law rights. It is the responsibility of all individuals to understand their contracts within the public system.

The Sovereign electors confirmed in the 1984 referendum (Question 2) that the power of the State CANNOT override Commonwealth Law. This protection also confirmed in s109 of the Australian Constitution. This makes the Australian Act 1986 null and void and any State Parliamentary Act that stems from the Australian Act also of no effect to a Sovereign Subject. The creation of Public Law in Australian must conform to section 58 of the Commonwealth Constitution, requiring Royal assent to all proposed Bills. This instruction, procedure and process cannot be compromised. In effect, the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic), and the Infringement Act 2006 (Vic), both absent of Royal assent, are without doubt foreign private acts, and unenforceable in the Public, unless by the expressed consent of the Sovereign Subject.

An Act with Royal assent will begin with:

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of Victoria in this present Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same as follows (that is to say):

A Private (non public) act will begin with:

The Parliament of Victoria enacts as follows:

The same legal logic applies to our court systems. All MAGISTRATE Courts operating in Australia, are acting as private courts, as a private commercial arbitration, as a star chamber court (as defined under Habeas Corpus), as a court under limited jurisdiction. No MAGISTRATE court will exercice “their” private courts under Federal Juristiction as their private state Magistrate Courts Act 1989 Sec100 (2) has removed this public right, for their own protection. This is in direct violation with Sections s71 (all State courts to operate under Federal Juristiction) and s80 (Trial by Jury) Commonwealth Constitution. In effect they are unfit to exercise any jurisdiction in any matter either civil or criminal, without the expressed consent of the Sovereign Subject.

In conclustion, any and all attempts to contract prejudicial to a Chapter III Constitutional (Public) Court is VOID.

Furthermore, any and all MAGISTRATE courts cannot produce a Commonwealth Court Order affixed with the Royal Public Seal Identifier as required under the Evidence Act 1958 (Victoria) Section 78 and Evidence Act (Commonwealth) Section 150 and 151, to demonstrate any civil or criminal conviction. Public law under s12 of the Bill or Rights requires a Conviction before a fine can be issued. These actions are both a breach of contract for failure to provide consideration, and an attempt to pervert justice under s43 of the Crimes Act 1914 (CTH).

All Sovereign Subjects must expressively deny being subject to the jurisdiction of any and all Acts of Law which have not received Royal assent, deny being any kind of Citizen, and deny being subject to any and all commercial legislative tribunals under limited jurisdiction, or anything of like character.

A very interesting talk segment/videos concerning trust law and remedies withing political systems:

Frank O’collins – UNIVERSITY OF UCADIA

David Clarence – Estate Executor Letter

Dean Clifford – Trust Law

Howard Griswold Audio February 10, 2011 Constructive Trust, Executor, Bonds Registration of Private Property

Bill Turner – THE LAW AND YOU

From: Linda @ Lifestyle Investments
Subject: Signing your name in protest and under duress

This could be used for when you are signing anything that you don’t consent to:

• Drivers Licence
• Birth Certificates
• Licences of any kind
• Bank documents
• Council Docs

A Sign, or signature is the action as well as identifying mark such as a name, blood splotch, word or letter upon a Form, usually a Document. Hence a Signature being a unique distinguishing mark of agreement and Surety for an inferior Person.

The Bar want you to sign as surety

At key points in a Court case, the Bar members want you to sign certain documents. Why? Because your signature is like your vocalized consent – it can be legally interpreted as your agreement to be surety for an obligation and to perform as well as to waive other rights.

Do you have to sign? No you don’t. But in many cases, the Bar has designed a system so that if you don’t it is interpreted as dishonor so that they can invoke their power of attorney powers to declare you delinquent, incompetent and send you to prison anyway.

This is why you may have heard of people who refused to sign the papers when entering prison and yet were treated worse than most serious criminals, with complete apparent ignorance of their rights- why? because the system is designed at certain points where you MUST sign.

So how do you overcome an unjust and unfair system that forces a man or woman to sign under duress, against their will and yet interprets such signatures as valid under Canon Law? The answer is making sure you signature follows a clear mark of duress.

Vi Coactus

Before you sign anything under duress, in order not to be unfairly determined as in dishonor and incompetent, you may lawfully initial in large letters the letters V.C. where you will sign before your signature, then sign your name after- always after.

What V.C. stands for is Latin for Vi Coactus which means literally “under constraint”.

This should normally be sufficient on any document which you are forced to sign to bear witness to the fact that it was done under duress.

Now, at the earliest opportunity before the court or official, you can make it known that upon review of your signature it can be proven to have been forced under threat and coercion and so cannot be used as legally binding agreement.

In some locations and in some prisons as this knowledge grows, it is possible that law enforcement officials may start to reject such signatures, adding more threat and force on a person to sign without using V.C.

It is your choice remembering that if you allow such criminal intimidation and torture to prevail and do sign without protest then the system can simply lie and state you made such a sign of your “own free will”.

So if they tear up the paperwork and demand you do it again, stating that such a signature is unlawful then such claims are against the laws of the Roman Cult Canon Law – the actual law that underpins their own statutes and regulations. However, if after several attempts they still refuse, there is a second method equally valid- the use of ellipse.

The use of ellipse

When the treat of intimidation or outright rejection of lawful protest is too great, then a second and equally valid method of signing under protest is permitted, namely the use of three full stops placed first, followed by the signature so that the three dots are not obscured by the signature.

This is called an ellipse eg “…” and indicates that legally there was a form of words you wanted to state but were unable due to some event, in this case because of threat and coercion.

Thus, at the earliest opportunity the ellipse can be revealed and it can be stated that you intended to write V.C. but were prevented therefore nullifying any agreement.

Protecting your Rights by Signing Documents
“WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
by Lynne Meredith

It is a maxim of American law that any statute contrary to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, is null and void and no Citizen is bound to obey an unconstitutional law.

“An unconstitutional statute, though having the form of law, is in reality, no law and imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power on anyone and justifies no actions performed under it…” (late Am Jur 2d Sec. 256).

It is also a maxim of the Common Law that no Sovereign American Citizen of the 50 Republic states can be compelled in any action against his or her will. The 50 Republic states currently have an admitted [Territorial] “Government de facto,” which Black’s 2nd Law Dictionary defines as, “a government not established according to the Constitution … a government deemed unlawful, deemed wrongful or unjust, which nevertheless receives habitual obedience from the bulk of the community.”

When the Citizen educated in the constitutional, lawful and just (de jure) American law decides he or she no longer wishes to join the herd of habitually obedient (enslaved) sheeple being led to slaughter by blind and unquestioned obedience to unconstitutional, unjust, and unlawful laws, he or she is sometimes faced with defacto employees and foreign agents, uneducated in law, oblivious to our Constitution and drunk with a false sense of power. Faced with guns, handcuffs and a potential night in jail while the law is debated, such a Citizen can be put in a position of “compromise” in order to “buy their peace.” There is a remedy and recourse, out of “de facto” statutes and back to “de jure constitutional law.”

Typically all it takes to “buy your peace” with the de facto government agent or official is a signature. In their mind, you have consented to waive your rights. However, if you write the words, “Without Prejudice” above your signature, you are declaring that you are not waiving any of your rights under the Constitution or Common Law and any document containing the words “Without Prejudice” cannot be used as evidence against you, in Court or otherwise.

“Where an offer or admission is made “without prejudice,”… it is meant as a declaration that no rights or privileges of the party concerned are to be considered as thereby waived or lost…” Black’s Law Dictionary.

The following information comes from Bouvier’s 1914 Law Encyclopedia, under “Compromise.”

“It must be permitted of men to buy their peace without prejudice to them. It has been held that one may buy his peace by compromising a claim which he knows is without right (Daily v. King 70 Mich. 568, 44 N.W. 959) but the compromise of an illegal claim will not sustain a promise.” Read v. Hitching. 71 ME 590.

Documents Signed “Without Prejudice” are Not Admissible as Evidence “It may, however, be considered settled that letters or admissions containing the expression in substance that they are to be ‘without prejudice’ will not be admitted in evidence…an arrangement stating the letter was without prejudice was held to be inadmissible as evidence … not only will the letter bearing the words, “without prejudice” but also the answer thereto, which was not so guarded, was inadmissible …”. Ferry v. Taylor 33 Mo. 323, Durgin v. Somers, 117 Mass 55, Molyneaux v. Collier 13 Ga. 406.

“When correspondence had commenced “without prejudice” but afterwards those words were dropped, it was immaterial; 6 Ont 719.

When you do not want to be “presumed” to be waiving rights or acquiescing to de facto statutes, you should sign all documents, “without prejudice,” above your signature. These documents cannot then be used as prima facia evidence against you. However if you are making claims that you may want to use as potential evidence in your favor, do not sign “without prejudice.”.