Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean, ArthurWankspittle

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:27 am

Gday. A few years ago I came across the 'freeman stuff' and even used a bit of it in a plea trial situation for an alleged speeding offence. (Refused to answer to the NAME, approach the bar, asked the judge if he had an interest in the matter, etc). At the time the judge's response seemed to validate my methods but in hindsight I realised why so many 'freemen' see the court's responses as validation rather than simply protocol mixed with frustration.
I ended up using the statute law to win at trial anyway and have since fought three more speeding fines using the law against itself (won another, two others are in appeal).
In doing my due diligence on FMOTL stuff I came across Quatloos a couple of years back and have been prowling this site occasionally ever since. I decided to join so I could get some opinions on the following ideas propagated by another 'judicial activist' I know (he calls the freeman ideas BS).
The below is quoted from one of his posts and seems to make some sense. I would like to hear your opinions on it....


G O K wrote:"Understanding the law #2 Prize Law takeover of Australia 1988

The following disclaimer is used in Australia for “my gov” agreements, the taxation office, seemingly all government departments that claim that Australians are subject to these courts in the A.C.T.
“These terms of use are governed by the laws of the Australian Capital Territory, Australia and you agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Australian Capital Territory.”
https://my.gov.au/mygov/content/html/terms.html

But what does it mean?
People tick these disclaimers oblivious of the gravitas.
Here are these courts
2014-11-20_201837
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C ... c353261684
It took me 5 years to figure out that the law is surprisingly simple.
Protestant rights are protected by an ingeniously simple device – Contractual Monarchy.
The monarch is sworn to defend the protestant Christian faith and uphold our common law rights to gain the throne.
If he or she fails to keep that contract they and their heirs lose evevrything and are replaced by a monarch who will.
That’s the law established long ago after many wars between catholics and Christians.
It seems that the current monarch doesn’t like this state of affairs but is bound by the genius of contractual monarchy. To escape this brilliant law the queen has brought the mountain to Mohammed. Instead of abandoning her side of the contract and risking a forfeiture of the Crown, she has fooled us into abandoning our side of it.
A clever ruse has been conducted to trick Christians into technically abandoning their side of that contract leaving the monarch free to rule as she pleases.
That ruse is based on the American model of claiming independence which frees the monarch of any contractual obligation in law then we become aliens of the Crown.
With freemasons controlling the courts, they can secretly work for the monarch,making crucially important decisions in law, which facillitate use of Prize Law (which is international) to then conquer countries secretly. And just as secretly take the citizens of a country as Prizes. Which oddly enough makes sense in Prize Law. Which I discovered by reading an American Prize court decision from 1814.
That established 3 important principles internationally.
1- To use Prize law , war can be declared on a THING , such as debt
2- Prizes can be taken on land and sea
3- Taking part of the Prize is considered taking the whole.
(brown versus US 1814 )

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_c ... 67840920...
Once you have made British Subjects aliens of the Crown and established a few crucial decisions in Prize Law the next step is to declare a secret war to facillitate use of Prize Law to take what were protestant British subjects with rights as enemy citizen Prizes. Treasure.
Making property of us. When people are made property , they are slaves.
Slaves have no rights. Not even rights over their own children. Which many of us have experienced first hand.

Australian citizenship was created in 1948 and it initially had the same rights as British subjects (which Australians were at that time) This encouraged many people to swap status.
However in 1986 Bob Hawke’s federal government passed the Australia Act, changing the nature of Australian citizenship. Australian citizenship no longer had the same rights as British Subjects, it was an alien of the Crown.
bob hawke
In 1988 the Australian Capital Territory Self Government Authority was formed ostensibly to govern the small area of Canbera and its surrounds.
Unusually, it was formed using Imperial Prize Acts.
Unusual because according to Bob Hawke , English law no longer applied in Australia.
And also unusual because the A.C.T is a landlocked territory with no likely danger of buccanneers invading. (Jervis Bay is its own government again ( which is another can of worms)

But perhaps not unusual if Australians did not form that government. If it was government formed by a foreign Crown entity the authority of Imperial Acts makes perfect sense.
Most people think USA is a spverogn country but what if USA was the Catholic Crown taken the same way Australia was taken?
Then the presence of Americans in Australia (armed forces stationed in Darwin etc) makes alot of sense all of a sudden.
As does the bizzare practice of American presidents declaring war on a thing – drugs, terrortism etc
So next time youre asked to tick this disclaimer, hesitate and ask for more detailed information first.
“These terms of use are governed by the laws of the Australian Capital Territory, Australia and you agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Australian Capital Territory.”


edited by AndyK to separate Struth from quoted material -- as if it matters

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10780
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby notorial dissent » Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:17 am

Welcome to Quatloos.

'Struth, in the English sense of the expression. First a simple technical question to start. Were you dropped repeated on your head as a baby, or just simply thrown out with the bathwater. Not really important but all I'm up to tonight is idle curiosity, since there is nothing else here to play with.

'Struth man, what a load of codswallop. Just how many pints did it take you to get to this state?

'Struth man, you're from the culture and civilization that gave us the mother of all parliaments, and this is the best you can do??? Shame shame shame on the Australian school system.

I do sincerely want to thank you for sharing your little fantasy with us though, not often we get to see anything so well and truly codswallopy. You've lightened an otherwise intensely boring evening. You haven't engendered any thought however since none is needed for this, or any other real action except the occasional snicker at a particular piece of exceptional nonsense and total ignorance of your culture and government, that I admit does take a certain amount of effort. Nice try and thank you for playing. If you come up with a more believable and better written fantasy do let us know.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5736
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:46 am

I thought it best to follow the "Don't feed the trolls" rule. We've been here before. Numerous times.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10780
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby notorial dissent » Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:44 am

True, my apologies.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Ozydude
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:56 pm

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Ozydude » Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:51 am

'Struth, you are a bloody idiot and an embarrassment to other Australians.

You clearly have no clue about the law and are regurgitating the same stuff that comes from the likes of Larry Hannigan, Wayne Glew, Cliff York, Ross Bradley and Lyn Bennetts, just to name a few?

To other Quatloos members, 'Struth is not representative of the average Aussie.

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:06 am

Mate, what's your problem?
One of you attacks me as if this thesis is my own.
Another calls me a troll?

This is how you treat people who ask questions?
I know this site has had its fair share of FMOTLers post stuff in the hope of proving a point. I assure you I am not doing that. The post above is part of a debate on a 'freeman' forum. The chap promoting this idea has certain issues... he tends to call anyone who disagrees a mason, Jesuit, or a collaborator (his term for myself because I work within the system to try and prove that justice can be achieved within it, using the laws and the court system we have rather than the usual freeman tactics).
I have made a point of following up his 'smoking guns' with emails to various govt departments to find out why users of myGov have to accept ACT jurisdiction, etc.
I was hoping someone here would have the intelligence to formulate a response and give me more ideas on avenues to investigate to disprove his theory, but all I get are childish attacks so far.

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:15 am

Looking back at my initial post possibly I should have changed the font colour or something for what I was quoting as it does appear that I am putting forward the theory myself. My apologies.

Still, although I have so far won two cases using the law and system we have (two more are in appeal) I am largely ignorant of and untrained in law so would appreciate some pointers as to how to logically be devils advocate for this bloke's theory. Anyone here (hopefully a solicitor or similar) have some summary findings to read where someone has used a similar argument to this gent's in court?
I have already gone down the Sue V Hill track wherein the court found the UK to be a 'foreign power'.

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:20 am

For the record...
Only the first paragraph (to the first line break) is my words, the entire rest of the initial post is a quote.

Ozydude
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:56 pm

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Ozydude » Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:53 am

Sorry mate, I re-read your post and apologise for the misunderstanding.

What the other person has posted is nonsense. I have had a look at my gov terms but can't find the reference to the ACT.

I am not a solicitor, but I have done the police prosecutors course. I am currently a policy development officer and have plenty of hands on experience in analysing legislation.

You need to look at what law or issue the person is fighting (e.g. traffic fine, council rates, tax, etc.). The biggest problem I have found is that these people often omit the core issue or key facts. The other things is whether their "fight" is with the commonwealth, state or local govt.

If you need to reference case law or legislation go to http://www.austlii.edu.au.

Hope that helps.

Ozydude
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:56 pm

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Ozydude » Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:06 pm

Ok, found it. My guess is that the government department that controls my gov is solely based in Canberra and any breach of the terms for my gov can only be prosecuted in the Australian Capital Territory.

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:07 pm

No worries mate. I understand.

I'm not real popular with police prosecutors :D

One recently tried to deceive the court I was in because I asked for a piece of evidence she did not want to provide. When I told the judge that she was either incompetent or attempting to deceive the court she looked like she was about to explode.

It seems like they do not like an untrained truck driver showing them up in court and beating them with their own laws.

I use austlii a lot. It's been extremely useful.
Re the myGov thing... It's in the Terms of Use,
"7.4 Governing law

These terms of use are governed by the laws of the Australian Capital Territory, Australia and you agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Australian Capital Territory."

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:12 pm

Ozydude wrote:Ok, found it. My guess is that the government department that controls my gov is solely based in Canberra and any breach of the terms for my gov can only be prosecuted in the Australian Capital Territory.

That's a better explanation than the department could give me. (Nobody knew)
BTW, thanks andyK for editing my original post. Not sure what the comment 'as if it matters' is about though?
Is it just me, or is this forum hard to use with an iPad?

Ozydude
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:56 pm

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Ozydude » Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:20 pm

Struth wrote:I'm not real popular with police prosecutors :D
/i]


LOL... I'm not popular with truck drivers. Work for TMR

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:53 pm

Ha... I bet :D

I'd be interested in your thoughts re my latest 'win'... The prosecution folded after I requested a pattern approval number as per The National Measurements Act 1960. And this was after they went to a lot of effort to dig up impressive looking documents from the National Measurement Institute too. No pattern approval number though :whistle:

Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 616
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Hyrion » Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:48 pm

Struth wrote:I'd be interested in your thoughts re my latest 'win'...

If you're truly interested in opinions on your case, it'd be best to post documentation concerning the case itself. The ruling, arguments, etc.

A reference to the case, identification of the location of the courthouse, etc. so someone could potentially pick up the documents from the Court itself - assuming they're available to the public even if not officially posted - would also be highly beneficial.

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:21 pm

It didn't get to a hearing.
I pled not guilty and gave the prosecution a notice of intention to challenge on the grounds their evidence was inadmissible unless the speed measuring device had pattern approval as required under the National Measurements Act.
They advised the court via email that they intended to not offer any evidence and that the matter can be removed from the hearing list.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6341
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby wserra » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:25 pm

Hyrion wrote:If you're truly interested in opinions on your case, it'd be best to post documentation concerning the case itself. The ruling, arguments, etc.


Matter of fact, that's kind of expected on this board. If you claim a personal legal victory, you must back it up with documentation - documentation which, if not online, is at least verifiable by a trip to the Courthouse. Reason: we've seen many, many claims of wins on nonsensical theories which turn out to be due to the cop not showing up. I'm not saying that applies here.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Dai Kiwi
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:06 am
Location: An Island South of the Equator

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Dai Kiwi » Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:00 pm

Some quick comments on the 'theory':

Australian Federal agencies/departments/etc will be governed by the laws of the ACT for the purpose of disputes/compliance because as national agencies they don't belong to any single state.

Most countries in the Commonwealth still have some British laws on the books which date back to before they became self-governing. These are usually referred to as 'Imperial Enactments in force' or similar. Exactly which ones, and which sections of which ones, varies from country to country (and state to state for Aus/Can). At some point there will have been a law passed by the country/state which says: only the following pieces of 'Imperial' legislation are still in effect. That's what the reference to Prize Courts is about.

The bit about the ACT being landlocked is a red herring. The Prize laws have applied to aeroplanes as well as ships since 1939. What that part of the legislation does is enable the ACT to deal with prize cases, which is appropriate both because of Australia's federal nature (e,g, actions by the Australian Navy) and because Canberra does have an airport.

As for the rest of it, incoherent and incomprehensible are words which come to mind.

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4944
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:03 pm

Struth, like so many before him, has offered nothing more than "because I said so" to buttress the novel legal claims which he makes. Until and unless he can do MUCH better than he already has, by offering proof of his assertions which we can review and verify, his assertions do not even merit being taken seriously.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Arthur Rubin » Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:09 pm

I thought the author of the original text was going to declare war (there is no precedent, as far as I know, for seizing property of the enemy in a "secret" war), and issue letters of marque (sp?). If so, it would have been new nonsense....

(Remember, if someone does this, you saw it here first....)
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95


Return to “Other Countries/Regions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest