8/9/2019 RTA Letter

1/6

DATEYOUR NAME

YOUR ADDRESS

Roads and Traffic AuthorityTHEIR ADDRESSTHEIR PHONE DETAILS

Attention : THE CONTACT NAME

RE: Infringement Number: XXXXX

I submit to you for your review and consideration the following;

As a law abiding person, I am fully prepared to comply with any valid laws that may be inforce from time to time in New South Wales. Please consider the contents andramifications carefully before you proceed with any further action in this matter.

However, not withstanding that, I am in receipt of compelling evidence that the Motor Traffic Laws, and subsequently all other NSW law, namely the Fines Act, which you havesought to apply, are invalid.

Please consider the following historical facts:

1. Continued existence of current New South Wales law depends on British Colonial Lawin the form of The New South Wales Act (1823)(4 Geo. IV. c. 96),The AustralianConstitution Act (1842)(5 & 6 Vic. c. 76), The New South Wales Constitution Act (1855)(18& 19 Vic. c. 54.), the Colonial Laws Validity Act (1865)(28 & 29 Vic. c. 63), theCommonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) [Short Title], namely s106 to s120,The Constitution Act 1902 No 32, and the Australian State Constitution Act (1907) (7 Ed.VII. c. 7). Parts or all of some of these acts have subsequently been repealed.

The Commonwealth Constitution contains no aspect of sovereignty and Section 8 of thatAct defines the Commonwealth as a self governing colony. The full title of the Actactually is,

The British Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK.

The British Colony component of the long title is well hidden from the public to concealits true colonial nature. Quick and Garran 1, the authors of the Bill which became theConstitution, expand on the meaning of Under the Crown to include the Commonwealth...is constitutionally a subordinate and not an independent Sovereign community or state.

2. It is clear that from the 10th January 1920, when Australia was recognised as a

1 The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth , Quick J and Garran R, 1901 Ed, Legal Books, reprinted1995, p367.

8/9/2019 RTA Letter

2/6

member of the League of Nations, and therefore an independent nation, that BritishColonial Law became invalid (c.f. Hong Kong on the 1st July 1997). When His MajestyKing George V accepted the credentials of Sir Joseph Cook, Australias first HighCommissioner to the UK, on 11 th November 1921, the King welcomed the representativeof our ex-colony, the newly independent nation of Australia. Since that time there has notbeen a referendum to adopt the old Constitution nor to re-introduce a new Australian

Constitution.

3. According to the International Law Commission of the United Nations, Australiansovereignty was recognised by the other international powers via the mechanism of thesigning of treaties, an alternate mechanism to armed revolution or a grant of independence by the Imperial Power.

Also, if you refer to the Australian Federal Parliament 1995 Senate - Legal andConstitutional Reference Committee Report on the Commonwealth Power to Make andImplement Treaties, para 4.13 (last sentence),

This admission to the League (of Nations) and the International Labour Organisationinvolved recognition by other countries that Australia was now a sovereign nation with thenecessary international personality to enter into international relations.[16] 2

And while still on this point, the Australian Government has historically relied on itsExecutive Power under s61 of the Federal Constitution to allow it to enter InternationalTreaties. The use of this section has recently been disallowed by the United Nations asbeing invalid at International Law because it was subordinate to the United kingdomGovernment. This has forced the Australian Government to fall back to claiming their Sovereignty, and hence ability to enter and maintain these 4,000 odd internationaltreaties, was attained via membership to the League of Nations. The logical implicationsfor the New South Wales Government and what it claims to be its laws are obvious.

4. The High Court of Australia, in Minister v Teoh (1995), made it clear that treatiesoverride action and municipal law. In this case, the Treaty of Versailles overrides theStatute of Westminster Act UK(1931) and the subsequent Statute of Westminster AdoptionAct (1942), used to supposedly justify continued use of colonial law in the Australianstates. The United Nations Charter overrides the Australia Act (1986) which attempts toconfer independent sovereignty to the Australian Nation. In the Robert Woods Case(1988), the High Court also declared the United Kingdom a foreign power.

5. Further research has shown that since the United Kingdom via the Balfour Declaration

of 1926 acknowledged the completely equal status in all aspects of the United Kingdomand Australia, as well as the other Dominions, then if Australia was not independent in1926, then neither was the United Kingdom. Further recognition of Australias independentsovereign status by the United Kingdom is seen with the signing of the Washington NavalTreaty in 1922 by both Australia and the United Kingdom.

6. Under International Law, specifically the Treaty of Versailles (i.e. Article X of theCovenant of the League of Nations) and the United Nations Charter (Articles 2.1 and 2.4),it is an offence for the law of any nation to be applied within the territory of other sovereignnation members of those two organisations. This is one of the basic principles of

2 [16] H.V. Evatt, The Royal Prerogative , Law Book Co., 1987:p. 151; J.G. Starke, The Commonwealth in InternationalAffairs in R. Else-Mitchell (ed.), Essays on the Australian Constitution , 2nd ed., Law Book Co., Sydney, 1961, 343 at349. R. Stewart, Treaty Relations of the British Commonwealth of Nations , MacMillian Co., New York, 1939:pp. 152-3,being the statement made by the British Prime Minister, Mr Lloyd George, at the 1921 Prime Ministers Conference.

8/9/2019 RTA Letter

3/6

sovereignty. In effect, this is what you are trying to do, by claiming British Colonial Law(derived from a foreign power) applies in Australia (the territory of another sovereignnation member)!

7. The Letters Patent issued by Her Majesty Queen Victoria I in 1900 to the first Governor,the Earl Beauchamp (William Lygon), KCMG, of the soon to be formed new state of New

South Wales, became invalid on her death on the 22 January, 1901. Under the Bill of Rights 1689 and other British law, all writs of the sovereign, including Letters Patent, diewith the sovereign. New Letters Patent were not issued by her successor, His MajestyKing George V for the continued role of the Governor. Hence, the Constitution Act 1902No. 32 was never legally passed into law. (No attempt by the former Prime Minister, R. J.Hawke, to correct this same problem for the Commonwealth in 1984 has any effect in law,as Australia was already an independent sovereign nation.) And even if this Act did attainlegal status, it would have ceased to have effect no later than when Australia joined theLeague of Nations on 10th January, 1920!!

8. Whilst the Governor of New South Wales may assert that her powers are not

dependent on the Letters Patent issued by the Queen, but derive from royal prerogativesin the Australia Act 1986 , it is plain to see that this Act is wholly dependent on theCommonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) for its validity, and hence, isinvalid. Subsequently, no royal power exists in New South Wales, and Royal Assentcannot be given to the bills that you are relying on, either at the time of passing throughParliament or later. How can an independent sovereign nation have its laws effectivelyvetoed by the head of a foreign nation? This is exactly what Bignold 3 describes in relationto the powers of the Governor.

9. More recently, the British Government has stated and has provided documentation withregard to the legislative powers of the United Kingdom Parliament. No act of the

Parliament of the United Kingdom nor act that looks to the Parliament of the UnitedKingdom for its authority is valid in Australia or its territories in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom and the Charter of the United Nations. When asked specifically aboutthe following acts:

(1) The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)(2) The Westminster Act 1931 (UK)(3) All State constitutions(4) The Australia Act 1986 (UK)

the British Government referred to their previous reply, as stated above.

If you subsequently claim that the justification for the exercise of your power comes fromthe Crown, then the consequences of your actions will place Her Majesty QueenElizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in breachof the Charter of the United Nations, and subject to action by the War Crimes Tribunal. Itwould be prudent to clarify this with the Lord Chancellerys Office in London.

Since these opinions are based on historical fact rather than judicial precedent (save thedecisions of the High Court of Australia mentioned above which merely clarify our international position), there is no remedy which can be applied to validate all current lawother than a new constitution, freely adopted by the people of New South Wales and the

3 Imperial Statutes in Force in New South Wales , H.B. Bignold, Barrister-at-Law, Law Book Co., 1913 : vol 1, p. 21 &24.

8/9/2019 RTA Letter

4/6

Australian people as a whole. It is by no means certain the people would re-adopt Motor Traffic Laws and Regulations as you currently apply them.

It is therefore clear that if a Police Officer or Court Official wishes to impose any order or hear any case, it is therefore necessary for them to produce proof that they have validlegal authority to use foreign colonial law which overrides the protections in treaties

recognised by the High Court of Australia, namely the Covenant of the League of Nationsand the United Nations Charter.

Because those governing Australians continue to use United Kingdom law (and swear oaths of allegiance to the Queen of a defunct sovereignty) they, and all establishedinstruments of administration are definable as agents of the United Kingdom. In assumingthe role of assisting the Local Court to prosecute me for the alleged offence and therebyimpose an illegal fine on me you too have become definable as an agent of a foreignpower (that is, the government of the United Kingdom) and because you are acting in thatrole within a territory and against citizens not under the control of that power you aredescribable as a terrorist!

It is a requirement under international law that any judge, magistrate or law officer mustsupply evidence of the valid legal authority upon request to satisfy the requirements of Article 14 of the 1966 United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights only allowinghearings before competent courts.

As a result I require from you, clear and unequivocal proof that the Motor Traffic Laws,Regulations and the Fines Act (1996) you are imposing have a valid basis in InternationalLaw, alternatively, if you can supply the following:

(1) written permission by the United Nations to use foreign law in contravention of

Articles 2.1 and 2.4 of the United Nations Charter,(2) written permission from the United Kingdom parliament to continue the use of

U.K. Law in Australia in contravention of U.K. Law and International Law, and,

(3) written evidence of clearly expressed permission by the Australian people, since

1920, for the continued use of foreign colonial law,

then this requirement will be met.

Until such time, I demand that you:

(1) withdraw the Enforcement Order Q1467131, and

(2) cease any further action by yourself or your officers in this matter.

Failure by you and/or your officers to comply with these demands, will place yourself andthose relevant officers in breach of international law. Being specific, the International Courtof Justice (IJC) views illegal confiscation of property and unlawful action against thecitizens of its member nations as Crimes Against Humanity, and then, this matter, can bedealt with by the International Criminal Court (ICC), under their statues on terrorism 4.

4 The crime of terrorism is defined as undertaking, organizing, sponsoring, ordering, facilitating, financing, encouragingor tolerating acts of violence against another State directed at persons or property and of such a nature as to createterror, fear or insecurity in the minds of public figures, groups of persons, the general public or populations, for

8/9/2019 RTA Letter

5/6

For you to continue to knowingly assist in the perpetuation of the situation amounts bothto a misguided act of loyalty as well as constituting an act of treason against the

Australian people.

By way of a recent parallel situation, the report of the International Criminal Tribunal

(Yugoslavia) reveals that, that Tribunal considered human rights abuses as more seriousthan war crimes and placed economic deprivation at the upper end of the penalty scale.While I doubt that you will comprehend that you are in my matter directly involved inan illegal act of economic deprivation (for which the United Nations penalty scale is fromfive (5) to twenty-five (25) years) if you decide to continue in your activities I suggest that,after you have had a laugh about this letter with your friends, you take the time toconsider your position, as you have been given notice.

In addition, you should note that an International Criminal Tribunal can authorise any reparations that it deems fit. Accordingly, individual offenders may be subject to openended liability. Moreover, advice received from counsels in the United Kingdom is that the

damages that will be awarded by their courts will be in the nature of extraordinary punitive damages. This has led to a number of such counsels seeking to pursue suchclaims on the basis of a percentage of the damages to be awarded in each case.

If you force me to commence this action, I will seek to have you charged with CrimesAgainst Humanity (or terrorism as the case maybe), and an international warrant for your arrest will subsequently be issued. Since Interpol does not operate in Australia, theresponsibility for execution of these warrants resides with the Australian Federal Police.

Once this action is commenced, you as a public servant cannot receive the protection of

your employer/master, nor the New South Wales Government, and you becomepersonally liable for all the consequences that flow from your actions. By acting under invalid laws and without legal authority, you do so as a private individual and personallyassume all responsibility, including repayment from your own private assets for anydamages and reparations which maybe later sought.

To impose British Colonial Law within New South Wales is a breach of the 1947 GenevaConvention No IV, and it fits within the definition of a war crime under that convention. Thepenalties prescribed under this section of international law used to include capitalpunishment and substantial prison sentences. It is fortunate that the Second OptionalProtocol 5 calls for the abolition of the death penalty. The principle: Ignorance of the law is

no excuse applies in the International Criminal Court, but Denial of responsibility due tofollowing what you believe to be valid legal directions will not be viewed as a validdefence in this court. This was shown to be the case at Nrmberg, and more recently inthe former Yugoslavia, and in Rwanda, when the International Criminal Tribunals were insession. I take this opportunity to inform you that the United Nations is justified in usinglethal force against breaches of its charter.

I am willing to appear before a court possessing valid legal authority under internationallaw so I await you urgent reply and action. Until such time, the Enforcement Order whatever considerations and purposes of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or such other nature that may be invoked to justify them .

5 Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of theDeath Penalty, Article 1 .

8/9/2019 RTA Letter

6/6

referred to above remains a document without legal validity. Please note that Article 51 of the United Nations Charter entitles citizens to individual or collective self defence by anymeans necessary as allowed under the rules of war against actions of illegal governmentsor courts applying foreign law.

I await your response.

YOUR SIGNATURE____ YOUR NAME