Jeremiah 25:5
“They said, Turn ye again now every one from his evil way, and from the evil of your doings, and dwell in the land that the LORD hath given unto you and to your fathers for ever and ever:”
Calder et al v Attorney General of British Columbia
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/5113/index.do
“The plaintiffs’ claim is for the recovery of property “which has been granted or disposed of by or on behalf of His Majesty,” and it rests on the assertion that His Majesty could not effectively grant or dispose of that property because he lacked title thereto, owing to the invalidity of the forfeiture proceedings on which that title depended.”
His Majesty did not create the land, had no legitimate authority to grant title to land that was not his to grant.
MABO (2)
Government of the Commonwealth v Australian Government
https://constitutionwatch.com.au/australian-law-journal-australian-parliament-v-parliament-of-the-commonwealth/
Queen Elizabeth II v Queen of Australia
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/coronation_queen_of_australia
King Charles III v King of Australia
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/instrument_to_establish_king_of
Men and women of Deos Terrum will not fund war crimes.
The Australian Government has no locus standi over men and women of the Commonwealth or their property, without their consent.
King Charles III is the source and fountain of justice, and all power and authority flows from God into the King, and into his offices.
There being no “King of Australia”, the title “King of Australia” that the King of the United Kingdom adopts for use in relation to Australia and its territories, being geographical locations, as opposed to the 1953 Royal Styles and Titles Act which applies to the Commonwealth of Australia, which is a political union of people united under one federal indissoluble Commonwealth. One title applies to the political union of people, the other, since 1973, applies to the dirt under our feet.
The men and women of Deos Terrum have withdrawn consent to be governed by body corporate entities and choose to self-govern.
Proclaimed on the 2nd day of November in the year of Our Lord 2024.
The right to self-determination is a fundamental right recognized in international law and enshrined in key documents like the United Nations Charter and International Covenants on Human Rights. Article 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) states:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
This right is considered a cornerstone of human rights law and is viewed as jus cogens – a fundamental principle of international law accepted by the international community of states.
Men and women have the inherent right to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems, and to self govern to the extent that it does not infringe on the rights of others or violate laws (ie laws, not policy/statutes/victimless “crime”). This translates to the concept of life, inalienable rights, autonomy and self-governance. As articulated by the UN General Assembly:
Universal recognition of the inalienable right to self-determination was the most effective way the global community could guarantee protection of fundamental freedoms.
This statement from the UN reinforces the reality that self-determination is an inalienable right fundamental to the freedom of men and women of this realm.
Magna Carta
Clause 39: No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.
Clause 40: To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
Further information
“COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA” https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000805157&owner=include&count=40
Note the document Exhibit d, “Description of Commonwealth of Australia“, note switching of Commonwealth of Australia with Australia in key places.
DESCRIPTION OF COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/805157/000134100410001939/ex-d.htm
Commonwealth is the people, as per the Constitution which states in the Preamble:
WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established.
Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 (Western Australia)
Section 122 (6) Schedule 1 is amended by deleting “our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors” in the 2 places where it occurs and in each place inserting instead —
“ the State of Western Australia ”.
Section 123. The Criminal Code amended
(1) The amendments in this section are to The Criminal Code*.
[* Reprinted as at 9 February 2001 as the Schedule to the Criminal Code appearing as Appendix B to the Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913.
For subsequent amendments see 2001 Index to Legislation of Western Australia, Table 1, p. 89 and Acts Nos. 3, 6, 8 and 27 of 2002.]
(2) Each of the provisions in the Table to this subsection is amended by deleting “Crown” in each place where it occurs and in each case inserting instead —
“ prosecutor ”.
Are “Australian” courts sitting in the correct jurisdiction consistent with Clause 2 and Clause 5 of our primary law, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as proclaimed and gazetted under the Royal Coat of Arms, and, is the monarch that the court derives its power from, the monarch within the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, consistent with the primary law of the Commonwealth?
The Law of Nations
Book 1
Of Nations considered in themselves.
Chapter 1
Of Nations or Sovereign States.
§ 202. Their right when they are abandoned.
The state is obliged to defend and preserve all its members (§ 17); and the prince owes the same assistance to his subjects. If, therefore, the state or the prince refuses or neglects to succor a body of people who are exposed to imminent danger, the latter, being thus abandoned, become perfectly free to provide for their own safety and preservation in whatever manner they find most convenient, without paying the least regard to those who, by abandoning them, have been the first to fail in their duty.
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.
Many distinctions will be necessary, in order to give a complete solution to the celebrated question, whether a man may quit his country or the society of which he is a member.3 — 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown (§ 122), to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn. We have observed above (§ 212), that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it, on making it a compensation for what it has done in his favor,4 and preserving, as far as his new engagements will allow him, the sentiments of love and gratitude he owes it. A man’s obligations to his natural country may, however, change, lessen, or entirely vanish, according as he shall have quitted it lawfully, and with good reason, in order to choose another, or has been banished from it deservedly or unjustly, in due form of law or by violence.
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
United Nations General Assembly – 14 December 1960 (UN General Resolution 1514)
CHAPTER V
On 14 December 1960, a “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” was adopted by the General Assembly. By this, among other things, the Assembly solemnly proclaimed “the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations.” … By the operative part of the Asian-African draft resolution, the General Assembly—after solemnly proclaiming the “necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations”—would declare that:
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. 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.
.
.