The Superiority of private Land Ownership Rights

Under English law, the recognition of ownership must always include the ability to inherit. That recognition being accepted by English law as fee simple ownership.

Civil law can recognise Fee Simple BUT it is enshrined in an extremely tight constitution where it can not be interfered with.

The problem that our Australian Federal & State legislatures have is that statute law can not guarantee rights because the statute can changed or even repealed. In civil law countries (France, Germany etc) these rights are enshrined in their very tight constitutions. In common law countries these rights are enshrined in the common law itself although it must be said that civil law countries have elements of common law as well, and vice versa. However, in Australia they are progressively extinguishing the common law and replacing it with civil law without any enshrined constitutional mechanism that protect the rights lost by the removal of the common law. Single or multiple statutes can not accommodate those rights because they can be removed or altered at the whim of the parliament or "Polite Bureau".

With regards to land ownership those rights are tied up in an "Inheritable Estate" which in this country can only be Fee Simple. Lease hold titles are not inheritable because they are titles by virtue of a "Statute" and that statute can be altered or repealed therefore there is no security of inheritance.

Therefore if the legislature removes the "Inheritance" or can not guarantee the inheritance of a "title of inheritance" that once existed, but by virtue of a statute has been removed and IN DOING SO also imposes a penalty (for destroying ones inheritance and therefore private property) therein lies an "ABSOLUTE TAKING". The "Penalty" and criminal prosecution means that you have destroyed "Their Property" NOT YOURS therefore the inheritance has transferred to the Government and the "Public".


MABO and ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND and ANOTHER [1988] HCA 69; (1989) 166 CLR 186 F.C. 88/062 (8 December 1988)

Deane:

23. The question therefore arises whether the practical effect of the Act would, upon the assumption made for the purposes of the demurrer, be to produce a situation where the Torres Strait Islanders or the Miriam people(being "persons of a particular race, colour or national or ethnic origin") "do not enjoy a right that is enjoyed by persons of another race, colour or national or ethnic origin, or enjoy a right to a more limited extent than" such other persons within the meaning of those words as used in s.10 of the Commonwealth Act. In the light of what has been said above, the answer to that question must, in my view, be in the affirmative.

The practical operation and effect of the Act, even on the correct and more confined construction of s.3, are to single out the Torres Strait Islanders (including the Miriam people) for discriminatory treatment in relation to traditional proprietary rights and interests to and in their homelands. The confiscation or extinction of such rights and interests without any compensation or any procedure for ascertaining or assessing the existence and extent of the claims of particular individuals is a denial of the entitlements to ownership and inheritance of property, including the implicit immunity from arbitrary dispossession, which are "rights" for the purposes of s.10(1) of the Commonwealth Act.

That denial of rights is confined to the Torres Strait Islanders. It does not extend to persons of "another race, colour or national or ethnic origin". Its effect is that the Torres Strait Islanders, including the Miriam people, are denied ("do not enjoy") "rights", including the entitlement to immunity from being arbitrarily dispossessed, which are enjoyed by those other persons. That being so, that denial attracts the protective provisions of s.10(1) of the Commonwealth Act. In the context of the provisions of s.10(3), it would be anomolous if it were otherwise.

Mabo (2)

Deane and Gaudron:

69. The detailed findings of Moynihan J. of the Supreme Court of Queensland in relation to the issues of fact remitted to that court unavoidably contain areas of uncertainty and elements of speculation. Nonetheless, they provide, for present purposes, a sound basis for some generalizations in relation to native entitlements to the occupation and use of land within the Murray Islands under local law or custom at the time of their annexation to Queensland. It suffices, for the purposes of this judgment, to say that the Meriam people lived in an organized community which recognized individual and family rights of possession, occupation and exploitation of identified areas of land.

The entitlement to occupation and use of land differed from what has come to be recognized as the ordinary position in settled British Colonies in that, under the traditional law or custom of the Murray Islanders, there was a consistent focus upon the entitlement of the individual or family as distinct from the community as a whole or some larger section of it. It would seem that, with the exception of the area used by the London Missionary Society, those individual or familial entitlements under traditional law or custom extended to all the land of the Islands. It is true, as the learned Solicitor-General for Queensland submitted, that it is impossible to identify any precise system of title, any precise rules of inheritance or any precise methods of alienation. Nonetheless, there was undoubtedly a local native system under which the established familial or individual rights of occupation and use were of a kind which far exceed the minimum requirements necessary to found a presumptive common law native title. In circumstances where the strong assumption of the common law was unaffected by the act of State annexing the Islands, the effect of the annexation was that the traditional entitlements of the Meriam people were preserved. The radical title to all the lands of the Islands vested in the Crown.

The Crown's proprietary estate in the land was, however, reduced, qualified or burdened by the common law native title of the Islanders which was thereafter recognized and protected by the law of ueensland. It is unnecessary to determine whether the lands of the Islands became, upon annexation, Crown lands for the purposes of the Crown Lands Alienation Act. If they did, the common law native title of the Islanders was not extinguished but remained a burden on the underlying title of the Crown, and any provisions of that Act which would have the effect of modifying the common law native title or restricting the rights of use and occupation of the Islanders were, to that extent, inapplicable.


Newcrest Mining (WA) Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia [1997] [HCA]

One highly influential international statement on the understanding of universal and fundamental rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document is not a treaty to which Australia is a party. Indeed it is not a treaty at all. It is not part of Australia's domestic law, still less of its Constitution[479]. Nevertheless, it may in this country, as it has in other countries, influence legal development and constitutional interpretation[480]. At least it may do so where its terms do not conflict with, but are consistent with, a provision of the Constitution[481].

The use of international law in such a way has been specifically sanctioned by the Privy Council when giving meaning to express constitutional provisions relating to "fundamental rights and freedoms"[482]. Such jurisprudence has its analogies in the courts of several other countries[483]. The growing influence of the Universal Declaration upon the jurisprudence in the International Court of Justice may also be noted[484].

The Universal Declaration states in Article 17:

"1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

Whilst this article contains propositions which are unremarkable to those familiar with the Australian legal system, the prohibition on the arbitrary deprivation of property expresses an essential idea which is both basic and virtually uniform in civilized legal systems. Historically, its roots may be traced as far back as the Magna Carta 1215, Art 52 of which provided:

"To any man whom we have deprived or dispossed of lands, castles, liberties or rights, without the lawful judgment of his equals, we will at once restore these".

A more specific documentary embodiment of the notion may be found in Article 17 of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789[485]:

"Property, being an inviolable and sacred right, none can be deprived of it, except when public necessity, legally ascertained, evidently requires it, and on condition of a just and prior indemnity".

Like protections against arbitrary and uncompensated deprivation of property may be found in the constitutions of most civilized countries. In the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution it is provided that[486]:

"No person shall be ... deprived of ... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The original provision to this effect in the Indian Constitution[487] has been amended several times [488]. The provision required that no person should be deprived of that person's property save by authority of law and such law had to provide for compensation for the property so acquired or requisitioned[489]. The Supreme Court of India, while that test stood, insisted that provisions for compensation were a necessary condition for the making of a valid law providing for the acquisition or requisition of property by the state [490]. In other countries of the region property rights are constitutionally protected by the same two requirements. Thus, Malaysia's Constitution provides that there shall be no deprivation of property save in accordance with law and no valid law for compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation[491]. Similarly the Japanese Consititution provides[492] that "[p]rivate [p]roperty may be taken for public use upon just compensation". In South Africa, where the issue was much debated in the context of the rights of the dispossessed majority, the 1996 Bill of Rights provides that "[n]o-one may be deprived of property except in terms of a law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property"[493].

In effect, the foregoing constitutional provisions do no more than reflect universal and fundamental rights by now recognised by customary international law. Ordinarily, in a civilised society, where private property rights are protected by law, the government, its agencies or those acting under authority of law may not deprive a person of such rights without a legal process which includes provision for just compensation. Whilst companies such as the appellants may not, as such, be entitled to the benefit of every fundamental human right[494], s 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution must be understood as it commonly applies to individuals entitled to the protection of basic rights. It must be given a meaning and operation which fully reflects that application. In this way, in Australian law, it extends to protect the basic rights of corporations as well as individuals.

When the foregoing principles, of virtually universal application, are remembered, it becomes even more astonishing to suggest that the Australian Constitution, which in 1901 expressly and exceptionally recognised and gave effect to the applicable universal principle, should be construed today in such a way as to limit the operation of that express requirement in respect of some laws made by its Federal Parliament but not others. Where there is an ambiguity in the meaning of the Constitution, as there is here, it should be resolved in favour of upholding such fundamental and universal rights[495]. The Australian Constitution should not be interpreted so as to condone an unnecessary withdrawal of the protection of such rights. At least it should not be so interpreted unless the text is intractable and the deprivation of such rights is completely clear. Neither of these conditions applies here. Nor should arbitrary deprivation of property be lightly attributed to a constitution, such as the Australian Constitution, given the history of its origins and its purpose. That purpose is to be the basic law for the government of a free people in a nation which relates to the rest of the world in a context in which the growing influence of international law is of ever increasing importance.

The authority of Teori Tau apart, a correct understanding of the Constitution does not oblige a construction condoning a law made by the Federal Parliament for a territory providing for the acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms. The obstacle which Teori Tau presents to the adoption of the correct constitutional principle should be overcome. This may the more readily be done because that decision effectively breaks a promise given on behalf of the Commonwealth at federation adopting a safeguard, restriction or qualification on its lawmaking powers relevant to the fundamental rights of all persons from whom property is compulsorily acquired under federal law. That promise extends to the territories and to laws for the government of the territories. This Court should ensure that the promise is kept. The decision in Teori Tau should be overruled. Section 51 (xxxi) applies to a law made by the Federal Parliament under s 122. It therefore applies to the Conservation Act. It follows that the orders and declarations proposed by Gummow J should be made.

Pt 7. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD

What is Behind This

It is quite clear that those who have been put in power by the sovereign people of the State have, since 1992 when the original Acts were being framed, had a full intention in time, to bring about their own personal agendas, regardless of the wishes of the sovereign people who have, in good and open faith and intention, by secret ballot at elections, voted these people into positions of power and of trust and who must swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty that they will uphold Her laws for the benefit of the people of the State of QLD. That power has turned from the power granted by the people to the Legislative Assembly to make laws for 'peace welfare and good government' on behalf of the sovereign people of QLD using funds from taxes paid by the citizens of QLD and all of Australia, into a totalitarian system of Government, whereby we the people are subject to the corporation Government of the State.

The ramifications caused by these actions carried out over a long period of time by the Members of the body politic dating back as far as 1992 are so vast and wide spread it will take a long time to remedy and repair the whole system of government in QLD. The Parliament can make any laws they wish but I do not believe that under a democratic system of Government they are elected to Parliament to make draconian laws which remove the rights of the sovereign people to their use of their land without fair and just compensation.

Under the Constitution of Queensland 2001, by the removal of common law in the State of QLD, the public officials of this State can acquire an interest in private registered land without compensation, for the benefit of the State Government corporation. This also includes the property owned now and in the future as the sovereign people are in fact " an individual and a corporation" and therefore subject to the corporation Government of the State of QLD.

It is very clear from the time line of events that this was a well-planned manoeuvre to remove QLD from the Federation of Australia and through that action from the protection of the Australian Constitution and Common Law & Equity.

The former Premier said in the Second Reading Speech for the constitution, 'we all look forward to the day when we are a republic'. The people of the Commonwealth of Australia at referendum in 1999 voted against a republic but wished to retain the present system of Government with a clear separation of powers under common law and for the Commonwealth of Australia to remain exactly the same with a combined Federation of States as was created in 1901.

Mr Beattie also stated –
"But this Act is much more it is the fundamental law of QLD that underpins our system of government.

The entities it provides for include this Parliament, the Supreme and District Courts of this State and the system of local government that we know in QLD. The office holders under this Act include the Governor of QLD, the Ministers of the Crown and the judges of the Supreme and District Courts. This law is of supreme importance."

Further in the speech, the Premier stated "Our entity as a Sovereign State, the democratic ideals on which our State is built, rest on our Constitution".

Pt 5. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD

Sovereign People

We are all subjects of Her Majesty under section 117 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

The Parliament of QLD does not recognize the rights of the sovereign people inside the State of QLD.

What now happens to people who have been prosecuted, fined, imprisoned etc. under the civil law of QLD, which does not exist elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Australia. The people of QLD are still, under section 117 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and protected by Her laws as there has been no referendum under section 128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act to allow the separation of QLD from the Commonwealth of Australia.

Those of you who hold a Deed of Grant in fee simple in QLD, now only hold a statutory title, and that title is upheld by the civil laws of the Supreme and District Courts of the corporate Government of QLD and the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts who are inside the Government. Your common law estate in fee simple is now held by the corporate Government of the Sovereign State of QLD.

Under the definitions in the Acts Interpretation 1954(Qld), section 36, the definition of 'property' and 'land', the State of QLD now owns all your property, which includes money, real and personal property from the past and any future property which includes your will.

I refer to the definition of 'land' under section 22 - Meaning of certain words (aa) 'individual' and (c) 'land' of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth) and the definition of 'property' in section 130.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) The Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) is ultra vires to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth), Chapter 7 - The proper administration of Government; the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth).

The Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Q) defines property both present and future, owned by
you as an 'individual and a corporation' as subject to a statutory instrument only and that statutory instrument is not only applicable to your land, but all property that you, as a person in QLD now own, as opposed to the previous common law indefeasible deed of grant in fee simple. All land, including private land held previously in the common law estate of inheritance in fee simple by private individuals, is now held by the corporation of the State of QLD known as the Brigalow Corporation.

The only tenure that any financial institutions hold in land in QLD today, even though they may believe they hold an estate in fee simple, is in fact held by the corporation of the State, the Brigalow Corporation and is now the full property of the State. The lending institutions now only hold a statutory title and an interest only in the land by virtue of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 under which the rules of the Supreme and District Courts are found under section 12 of that Act.

The owners of that property taken by the corporation can only hope that the corporation has not used your real property as an asset to borrow funds for the corporation for whatever purpose. If the independent State corporation fails or borrowing is too extensive, it will again be the sovereign people who will bear the financial consequences.

Your Deed of Grant in fee simple is now a statutory title only, and that title is upheld by the civil laws of the Supreme and District Courts of the corporate Government of QLD and the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts who are inside the Government

Your land is now held by the Government of QLD in the Brigalow Corporation with no compensation paid to you for that acquisition. For “Even though the King may not enter” (Plenty v. Dillon [1991] HCA 5; 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004 (7 March 1991) the QLD Government and the delegated authorities thereof can, without fine or legal interference.

To have QLD become an independent Sovereign State and to remove the common
law, set up statutory civil law and have Queensland not recognize the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act but only that Act from section 9 onwards, a full referendum
would have been required of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia to enact,
validly, that QLD, from 29th January 1999 was now independent of the Commonwealth of
Australia and a State in its own right.

That did not happen.

In the Second Reading Speech for the Constitution the Premier stated that the Constitution would be 'broadly accessible' to the people of QLD. Considering that this Act has effectively removed all common law property rights from the people of QLD it should, one would reasonably assume, have been put to a referendum of the people.

The sovereign people of the Commonwealth of Australia have never been required at a referendum by virtue of section 128 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia to vote to allow "the State" of QLD to fracture the Commonwealth and become an independent sovereign state.

Pt 4. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD

Judicial Results

Because this new Constitution was presented to and passed b the Parliament of Qld without respect of reference to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act section 106, to the Queensland Constitution Act 1867 and without a referendum of the People as cited at section 53, this removed the Separation of Powers and recreated QLD as an independent, sovereign, corporation government outside of and not, therefore, subject to the laws of the Commonwealth or other States & Territories, in contradiction of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

The Common Law has been repealed from the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Q), Reprint No. 2, reprinted as in force 2 March 2001 © State of Q 2001, by the omission of Part 9 – Division Heading 4 Common Law & Jurisdiction; Division Heading 5 Equitable Jurisdiction; Division Heading 6 Criminal Jurisdiction - Section 199 Laws of England to be applied in the administration of Justice; Section 200 Common Law and General Jurisdiction of the Court, Jurisdiction at common Law; Section 2001 Equitable Jurisdiction; Section 202 Criminal Jurisdiction.

Courtesy of the Constitution of Queensland 2001 Chapter 4 – Courts – section 58 – Supreme Courts – the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is now of the State.

QLD is now outside the Commonwealth of Australia as an independent sovereign
State without common law, and the people are subject to civil and statute law only. The
'common law and general jurisdiction'; the 'Laws of England to be applied in the
administration of justice' and 'equitable jurisdiction' have been removed under the Supreme
Court Act 1995(Qld) Reprint number 2A dated 2nd March, 2001 under Schedule 2 of the
Constitution of Queensland 2001.

All private equity and inheritance in the State is the property of “the State”, see Corporations (Q) Act 1990 (Q), Reprint No 3, reprinted as in force immediately before 15 July 2001 ©State of Q 2006. All courts, including the Magistrates Courts, are inside the Parliament of QLD.

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of QLD is found in the Constitution of
Queensland 2001, Part 5 - Powers of the State. Therefore it is assumed that the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts of QLD must protect the 'assets' of the State of QLD and find only in favour of the State, not in favour of the registered ownersof private land who have lost, under the statute laws of QLD, the rights to use their fee simple land as they see fit.

The Constitution of Queensland 2001 Chapter 3, Sections 51 & 27 are ultra vires to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act at s109, s106, s107, s51 & s52 of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (C’wth). Ultra vires meaning Without authority. An act which is beyond the powers or authority of the person or organization which took it.

The common law and references to the Crown have been removed out of the Supreme Court Act 1995(Qld).

Civil law and statute law have a very different requirement for the committing of any offence, whether an indictable offence, a summary offence, a simple offence or an absolute offence such as a traffic offence where a guilty mind is not required to commit that offence.

Under the civil law system, which is now subject to the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules of the Supreme Court Act 1991(Qld), every person is guilty until they prove their innocence.

The Supreme and District Court, other courts and the Judges and Justices of those Courts are now inside the corporation of the Government, and not sworn representatives of the Crown. Under the Constitution of Queensland 2001, all documents are issued or signed under the Public Seal of the State. This would be any document appointing a politician, a Judge or any person who should swear an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign. The Governor now seals that document in accordance with the Constitution of Queensland 2001 section 37 with the Public Seal of the State therefore voiding the appointment of any of those people by the Sovereign but making those people in effect 'officers of the State' and subject to the 'Powers of the State' as cited in Part 5 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001.

Colour of Law v Black Letter Law

Black Letter Law
The black letter law refers to the basic standard elements for a particular field of law, which are generally known and free from doubt or dispute.

The phrase definitely refers to a distillation of the common law into general and accepted legal principles and is used commonly in the Australian legal system to mean well-established case law.

In common law, black letter legal doctrine is an informal term indicating the basic principles of law generally accepted by the courts and/or embodied in the statutes of a particular jurisdiciton.

Letter of the law is its actual implementation, thereby demonstrating that black letter law are those statutes, rules, acts, laws, provisions, etc. that are or have been written down, codified, or indicated somewhere in legal texts throughout history of specific state law.

This is often the case for many precedents that have been set in the common law. An example of such a state within the common law jurisdiction, and using the black letter legal doctrine is Canada. Being a monarchical state, with its roots invested in Colonial England, black letter law is that which is a term used to describe basic principles of law that are accepted by the majority of judges in most provinces and territories.

Contract, tort and land law are typical black letter law subjects, whereas administrative law, example, would be considered considerably less black letter.

Colour of Law
Color of is a legal term meaning "pretense or appearance of" some right; in other words, 'color of', as in 'color of law', means the thing colors (or adjusts) the law; however the adjustment made may either be lawful or it may merely appear to be lawful.

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may actually operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the color of law authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probably cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the 'color of law', that does not mean that the action was actually lawful.

Comparison of Common Law v Civil Law

Lawful De jure government .................................................De facto government

• God's Law / Common Law..... ................................................................Admiralty (law of the sea - corporate)
• Sovereign authority(people)..................... .........................................................Artificial entities (corporations)
• God-given Rights.......... .........................Privileges + civil, natural and political rights (ie: no protected rights)
• Unalienable Rights under God........................ ........................................Inalienable civil rights (not protected)
• Claim of Right................................... ...............................................................Color of right
• Ownership with fee simple title or contract................................... .............Color of right to possession by 'law'
• Full liability for actions............... ............................Limited liability ponzi scheme (Social Insurance/Security)
• Government based on sovereign authority..Corporate governments of defacto power or pretended authority.
• Organic Constitution................ .........................................Corporate Military Constitution acting on the citizen
• State statute that govern how officials uphold the law to protect our God-given rights... ……Federal and State
  commercial code that we volunteer ourselves into.
• Electors elect independant representatives......................... .......Voting in a two or more party corporate system
• Inhabitants............ ......................citizens/residents/persons (corporate entities with diminished political status)
• Births are recorded...........................................................................Births are registered (certificate)
• Sovereigns breaking God's law, Government officials braking lawful statute.. ..Breaching the peace (breaching de facto gov.- straw man citizen statutory/commercial contract - basis of thought crime).
• People are responsible for themselves and their own protection......... ......'citizens' want government to 'protect them' on a personal basis
• God-given right to own, keep and bear arms............... .......................................licensed privilege to have arms
• Intent to hurt or damage is what determines unlawfulness...........accidents or 'negligence' is considered a crime
• No conflict of interest in government (prosecutors were private).......... ........Corporate government pays salary of judge, prosecutor and POLICE.
• Courts are Constitutional...................................All courts are in equity (corporate) acting on corporate straw men names!!!
• Sheriffs and deputies (Citizens on Patrol:COPs).................. ...................... Peace officers (POLICE = POLICy Enforcer).
• Search warrants must be based on affirmation of a verified criminal complaint, based on probable cause by a judge that a crime was committed and signed by a judge.... ......... Searches based on belief, warrant signed by clerk only
• First hand knowledge of an injured party crime...................... ..................."Probable cause" to believe a 'crime' committed against corporate statute/by-laws (may or may not be an existing injured party).
• It's all about the facts in evidence of violation of rights or harm.... ............Charges based on allegation or reason to believe
• Habeas corpus can be presented to question nature and cause of charge/arrest/being held..... ….....No Habeas Corpus
• There is always an official court record................ ...................There is often not even an official court record.
• Consent not needed to try................ .............. Understanding and consent of accused needed to be prosecuted.
• No negotiable instruments.............................Informations and Warrants/Prisoner Bonds are negotiable instruments.
• Jury Nullification (juries try validity of the law, and the facts of case).............. ........Juries aren't instructed to try the law.
• Lawyer...........................................................................................................Attorney at BAR.
• Judge.................................................. .................................................................................Quasi-judge.
• Judicial................................................... .............................................................................Quasi-judicial.
• Lawsuit questioning law and facts........................ .............................................."lawsuit" of facts.
  
  And there is more.

Civil Law

What is it?
Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law, the primary feature of which is that laws are written into a collection, codified, and not determined, as in common law, by judges.
It holds legislation as the primary source of law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially-trained judicial officers.
The principle of civil law is to provide all citizens with an accessible and written collection of the laws which apply to them and which judges must follow.
It is the most prevalent and oldest surviving legal system in the world.
The primary source of law is the legal code, which is a compendium of statutes, arranged by subject matter in some pre-specified order; a code may also be described as "a systematic collection of interrelated articles written in a terse, staccato style."
Law codes are usually created by a legislature's enactment of a new statute that embodies all the old statutes relating to the subject and including changes necessitated by court decisions.
In some cases, the change results in a new statutory concept.

Civil Law Around the World
Because Germany was a rising power in the late 19th century and its legal system was well organized, when many Asian nations were developing, the German Civil Code became the basis for the legal systems of Japan and South Korea.

In China, the German Civil Code was introduced in the later years of the Qing Dynasty and formed the basis of the law of the Republic of China, which remains in force in Taiwan.

Some authors consider civil law to have served as the foundation for socialist law used in Communist countries, which in this view would basically be civil law with the addition of Marxist–Leninist ideas.

Even if this is so, civil law was generally the legal system in place before the rise of socialist law, and Eastern Europe reverted back to civil law following the fall of socialism.

Several legal insitutions in civil law were also adapted from similar institutions in Islamic law and jurisprudence during the Middle Ages. For example, the Islamic Hawala institution is the basis of the Avallo in Italian civil law and the Aval in French civil law.

Difference From Other Major Legal Systems of the World
Common Law

• also called, Anglo-American, English & Judge made
• source is case law & legislation
• lawyers control the courtroom
• judges must be experienced lawyers
• there is a high degree of judicial independence
• juries are provided at trial level
• courts share in the balance of power over policy making.

Civil law

• also called Continental & Romano-Germanic
• source is statutes & legislation
• judges dominate the court
• use career judges
• there is a high degree of judicial independence, separate from the Executive & Legislative branches of government
• juries adjudicate in conjunction with judges in serious criminal matters
• an equal but separate power in policy making

Socialist Law

• also called communism
• source is statutes & legisaltion
• judges dominate trials
• judges are career bureaucrats & party members
• judicial independence is very limited
• juries are often used at the lowest level
• courts are subordinate to the legislature in policy making
• found in countries like the Soviet Union

Islamic Law

• also known as Religious Law
• source is the Qur'un
• lawyers play a secondary role
• judges have religious and legal training
• judicial independence is very limited
• juries are not allowed
• courts and other government branches are subordinate to Shari'a.

Maritime Law

History in England
Eleanor of Acquitane, acting as regent for her son, King Richard the Lionheart, during the Crusades, established Admiralty/Maritime law in England
In England, special admiralty courts handle all admiralty cases.
These courts do not use the common law of England, but are civil law courts largely based upon Roman Law.

Difference between Common Law & Maritime Law
Littered throughout Law is the concept of "reasonable belief" (when detaining people or property) which is based on admiralty law, the law of the sea where the captain of a ship only needed reason to believe that his ship was in danger by those under his command to order that certain things be done to protect it's commercial goods and goals.
Everything in admiralty works backwards from due process common law. A person being guilty before being proven innocent.
In Common Law, crimes can only occur if there is there has been physical damage to someone or to property, AND if there was intent to hurt someone.
Accidents and "negligence" are not crimes.
But we can be charged and sued for negligence.
Suing is a function of the corporate world.
No longer does there need to be an existing flesh and blood injured party anymore to file a criminal affidavit to initiate criminal proceedings, just the breaching of a statute, a de facto corporate statute (breaching the peace), a by-law or regulation, where the 'injured party' is the state, or corporate entity.

Commercial Contracts
Today in our law courts, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into with each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty: The reason is the beneficial use and re-circulation of Reserve Bank Notes makes the federal government an automatic silent third party to the arrangements.
Admiralty jurisdiction has in many respects, “come ashore”.
It currently affects almost every element of our inland commercial society.
In the USA, Admiralty jurisdiction rules are used to settle claims and grievances regarding cargo, international conventions, financing, banking, insurance, legislation, navigation, hazardous substances from nuclear power plants, stevedoring (the unloading of a vessel at a port), and undersea mining and development, the navigable rivers of the United States, as well as world-wide off-shore oil drilling activity.

Maritime Law on Land
The reason why Admiralty jurisdiction is of concern to us is because our government is using jurisdiction attachment rules applicable to an Admiralty jurisdictional environment to on-land-based citizens where Admiralty jurisdiction does not correctly belong.

The only ordinary land based people who should properly be under the government’s in personam Admiralty jurisdiction are government employees (federal and state), military service personnel, and those who specifically contract into Admiralty Jurisdiction (such as employees working for a Defense contractor with a security clearance, and private contractors hired by government to perform law enforcement related work).

Maritime / Admiralty Law in Australia
The Federal Court of Australia operates under Admiralty Law under the Blue Ensign.

Magna Carta 1215 - the Great Charter

King John of England was crowned in the early 13th century.

He needed money for armies, but war losses, greatly reduced the state income, and a huge tax would have to be raised in order to attempt to reclaim these territories. Yet, it was difficult to raise taxes because of the tradition of keeping them at the same level.

John relied on clever manipulation of pre-existing rights which were easily broken and severely punished. He increased the pre-existing scutage (meaning a feudal payment to an overlord replacing direct military service) 11 times in his 17 years as king, as compared to 11 times in twice that period covering 3 monarchs before him. The last 2 of these increases were double the increase of their predecessors. He also imposed the first income tax, which raised what was, at the time, the extortionate sum of £70,000.

By 1215, some of the most important barons in England had had enough, and they entered London in force on June 10, 1215, with the city showing its sympathy with their cause by opening its gates to them. They, and many of the moderates not in overt rebellion, forced King John to agree to the "Articles of the Barons", to which his Great Seal was attached in the meadow at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. In return, the barons renewed their oaths of fealty to King John on June 19, 1215. A formal document to record the agreement was created by the royal chancery on July 15: this was the original Magna Carta.

Although enforced over the King by the Barons, the 62 clauses protected Common Law rights for every tier of English society and this document was truly for the sovereign men and women throughout Britain.

Simply put it dealt with
· A free English church and freeman rights forever.
· Protection of inheritance.
· Protection for widows.
· No more seizure of land to pay a debt.
· No usury for borrowing from money lenders.
· Cities will keep all their ancient liberties & customs.
· The right to a Common Law court.
· All trials to have a jury of peers.
· A freeman & a villein shall not lose his tools of trade to pay a debt.
· No bailiff can take food from another, but must pay; must not take another’s horse or cart; must not take another’s wood.
· One measure of weight & length to be used in the land.
· To be accused there must be witnesses.
· No man can be punished except by the judgment of his peers & the law of the land.
· No one will sell, refuse or delay, right & justice.
· All merchants may trade & travel.
· All judiciary to know the law of the land & honour it.
· All unjust fines to be returned.
· All land illegally removed to be returned.
· … that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid

Do we still have these rights in place? Aren’t these the very things that are being removed from us now?

Yet the English Monarchy were sworn to protect these rights with their lives!

Common Law

What is Common Law?
Historically, Common Law came from the Anglo-Saxon people of England, but it was well known throughout the tribes of Europe..
Common Law was the law for the free women and men living on the land. It existed, and controlled and ruled the land of England previous to the reign of William the Conqueror [1066], when the Normans conquered Anglo-Saxon England.
In it was the Golden Rule that deals with Social Justice.
In the negative form reading as: Do not unto others as you would not have others do unto you, and in the positive form as: Do unto other as you would have others do unto you.
Under Common Law, it is illegal to deprive anyone of his inalienable Rights (“inalienable” means
can not be given or taken away").
There is a Legal Maxim that says, "Rights never die", and the first Right of a Free man is the Right to Trial by Jury.

Where does Common Law come from?
It is on record in the Vatican --- The early Christian missionaries reported that the people of Northern Germany "already have the law".
It is suspected that early Phoenician or Hebrew tin traders taught these people the law many years before Christ Some sources report that Joseph of Arimathea who paid for the burial of Jesus (Greek) a.k.a. Yeshuah (Hebrew) sailed on a tin trading ship from Israel to Glastonbury in Britain and ministered the law and gospel to the Celtic people who lived there, and with their help established the first Christian congregation and church in what later became England.
This ministry in Britain by Joseph happened in the first century A.D., centuries before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church.

What governs Common Law?
The Biblical expression of the concept of common law can be found at Matthew 22:37-40 - Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
That is a profound request and whether or not we are believers in God, that request is at the heart of all manner of human rights, can only create human peace, would prevent abuse in families and workplaces, would give man back his right to live his life in harmony with other souls.
Yet, how can people pretend they live at the common law when they have hired benefactors to take away their neighbors' goods for their personal benefit?

Other ways of understanding Common Law is are:
- Women and men have the right to do anything they WILL to do so long as they do not infringe upon the similar rights of any other woman or man.
-Your freedom ends where my nose begins.
-Show the evidence that I have caused harm to another and then the law gives you the jurisdiction to proceed within the law against me (this is similar to the old latin phrase habeas corpus or show the body).

So to answer the question – What Governs Common Law?

You do. Each and every individual must use their freely God-given will to ensure that they treat their fellow man with respect and love.

What is a Deed?

The foundation of all land ownership is founded in the Hebrew/Christian faith that says "The Earth is The Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein." In other words; everything that exists belongs to God; we are all His property; so is the land, and we are occupiers of the land under a "Deed of Grant, in trust.

Legal definition of Deed – A sealed Instrument, containing a contract or covenant, delivered by the party to be bound thereby, and accepted by the party to whom the contract or covenant runs.

Now it is worth considering the fact that a Deed also evokes a Covenant, because a covenant is a very important word.

I previously mentioned that the basis of Common Law was biblical. Let’s look at the Coronation Ceremony of Queen Elizabeth II.

1. Elizabeth, daughter of King George VI, next in a line of succession to a Throne going back almost 1,000 years, ascended to it the same manner as Her predecessors
2. She publicly acknowledged Her own need for a saviour and accepted Jesus The Christ as that saviour.
3. She was handed a Christian Bible and accepted it as the standard by which She would Reign over Her people.
4. She was crowned with a Crown, the highest point of which is the Cross of Jesus Christ, as Head of all the countries then concerned.
5. Likewise, She accepted the symbols of the power of Her office; the sceptre and the orb. She is Commander-in Chief of all armed forces and police forces throughout those lands and members of those forces swear allegiance to Her.
6. She acknowledged that Jesus Christ had promised that He will return and stated that She would hand Him those symbols of power and then bow before Him.
7. This is why She and He predecessors are all known as "Regina" or "Regent;" because they stand in the place of another.
8. By right, we tell our "representatives" in Her Parliaments what laws we want passed and how we want to be governed, from day-to-day. Her representatives tell Her what we have collectively asked; She consults Her history (She has records of all the world's governments going back into that history), Her "Privy Council" and Her Bible and if these all agree to our request She issues Her Royal Ascent and it then becomes Law.
9. She can make no law.
10. She must remain above and out of politics.
11. No law has authority until She gives Her assent.
12. It is not the power She has that counts; it's the power that She denies others that they are concerned about and want to remove.

Queen Elizabeth has publicly declared that the Bible is the greatest book on earth. That ‘book’ must be used to make a sworn oath, it must be found in every court in this land, politicians are required under the Australian Constitution to swear their oath to the people of the commonwealth on that ‘book’.

The Oath of the Constitution is
I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

The Affirmation of the Constitution is
I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

We are not a democracy; we are a constitutional Christian Monarchy and it is not possible to be both. Only a republic can be a democracy.

Legal Definition of Covenant – In the Law of Contracts an agreement, convention or promise of two or more parties, by deed, in writing, signed, sealed and delivered, by which either of the parties pledges himself to the other that something is either done or shall be done, or stipulates for the truth of certain facts.

So, Her Majesty Queen Victoria, has pledged through her authority as the protector of the inheritance of the Crown (which is God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit), to Covenant with us through this Grant of land, this Deed of Trust. And because she gives a ‘Power of Attorney’ in the form of the Letters Patent to her servants the Parliament of Australia, the Governors and Governor-General, they are bound by that pledge just as surely as if it were their mouth that had spoken the words, their heads that had carried the Crown, and their hands that had accepted the scepter and the orb.

When these entities of corporate government dare to attempt to steal that which is not theirs in the form of this covenant relationship over our land, they are spiritually breaking the Word of God, wherein He promised to us, through Victoria, Her Heirs & Successors, the free occupation of our land.

------ § ------

Information about our Deeds

CONVEYANCING ACT 1919
23B Assurances of land to be by deed
(1) No assurance of land shall be valid to pass an interest at law unless made by deed .
50 Rights of entry etc
(1) Every right of entry, contingent remainder, and every contingent or executory or future estate, right, or interest, or possibility coupled with an interest, in property, may be conveyed by deed
(2) Any conveyance of a present right of entry in any land, other than a conveyance to the person in possession thereof, and any covenant or agreement for, or promise of a conveyance (other than as aforesaid) of the same shall be void as against the person in possession or those claiming under him or her unless the person conveying or covenanting, agreeing, or promising to convey, or the person through whom he or she claims has been in possession of the land within twelve months from the date of the conveyance, covenant, agreement or promise.

First point – no one can transfer an Interest in our land without holding the deed.
Remember an Interest is a partial ‘ownership’.
A Mortgage is an Interest until such time as the money is finally paid, hence the bank holds the deeds.
At all times we must know where our deeds are.
If we are to protect our land ownership we must hold the deeds.

Information has been given to us to indicate that banks are not providing the deeds when the mortgage is cleared and it has taken some people over 6 months to get their deeds. When they have been returned the deeds are stamped Archival and have holes punched in them. Other information has indicated that the relevant government departments in QLD have been destroying not only deeds, but any document carrying the Seal of the Crown.

A recent case in America concerned the Deutschebank foreclosing on 13 home owners. The court demanded the bank produce the deeds to prove their right of debt. They were not able to and the court refused to allow the foreclosure. At the point of the mortgage being signed, the bank sells the debt onto other customers, sometimes going through 3-4 hands. Therefore it is more common than not that the bank does not have your deeds any more and will not be able to find them.

In that event, apply to the court for a new copy.

Second point – Your deeds indicate all the rights on your land.
Which means that your deeds carry your title, any reservations, any mortgages, any easements, encumbrances, etc.
They are the legal proof of your rights on your land.
If it is not attached to your deed, is has no legitimacy over your land.

Three important High Court cases verify our land rights via the Torrens Title register.

• LAPIN & ANOTHER v ABIGAIL [1930] HCA 6; [1930] 44 CLR 166 (28 March 1930)
A bank mortgage was held over 2 parcels of land. The owner Lapin owed money to and handed over the deeds to a second party in exchange for paying out the bank. The new owner Heavener borrowed money privately from Abigail to pay out her bank mortgage, Abigail took a caveat over the land. Lapin contended he had not sold the land but only given the deeds as surety. As Lapin’s ownership was still registered under the Torrens Title, he was decreed as the real owner of the land.

“Under the Torrens' system it is registration of a dealing which operates to extinguish inconsistent equitable titles. The system provides the machinery of caveats in order to enable the owner of an equitable interest to forbid registration and thus preserve his equity.”

• PIRIE v REGISTRAR-GENERAL [1962] HCA 58 (1962) 109 CLR 619 (30 November 1962)
The registered proprietor of the land asked the Registrar-General to cancel a notification on their certificate of title and the RG refused. The High Court ruled in the land owner’s right.
“….it seems to me that it is not for the Registrar-General to decide whether an entry should be cancelled because it was not authorized by s. 88(3) and then to act upon his own decision, ……”

“It follows, I think, that the Registrar-General whose duty it is to put no unauthorized entries in the register book is under a corresponding duty to remove any that ought not to be there.”
“………the Registrar-General had, in effect, refused - and refused improperly - to issue to the applicant a certificate of title under the Act.”

• HILLPALM PTY LTD v HEAVEN’S DOOR PTY LTD [2004] HCA 59 (1 December 2004)
A portion of land had been divided, council had required an easement to the land-locked block be registered as attached to that portion. It was not done. At a later date, after blocks were sold, the new owner of the land-locked block demanded the court enforce the easement. Although the correspondence and council plans indicated the easement, as it was not attached to the deed it could not be enforced. The new own lost the case.

“The respondent now has no registered easement of way over the appellant's land. None is recorded as an exception, encumbrance or interest on the title to the appellant's land. Can the respondent compel the appellant to grant it such an easement and compel the appellant to construct a track along that easement?”

“"Notwithstanding the existence in any other person of any estate or interest which but for this Act might be held to be paramount or to have priority, the registered proprietor for the time being of any estate or interest in land recorded in a folio of the Register shall, except in case of fraud, hold the same, subject to such other estates and interests and such entries, if any, as are recorded in that folio, but absolutely free from all other estates and interests that are not so recorded".

Barwick CJ said in Breskvar v Wall:
"The Torrens system of registered title ... is not a system of registration of title but a system of title by registration. That which the certificate of title describes is not the title which the registered proprietor formerly had, or which but for registration would have had. The title it certifies is not historical or derivative. It is the title which registration itself has vested in the proprietor."

These 3 cases clearly show that nothing can be attached to our title without our permission, whether it is a mortgage, or an easement or whatsoever. However, government documents are giving fraudulent information on the truth of ownership.

A report published by the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs states –
“There are many forms of ownership title including –
• Common Law or Old System Title
• Torrens Title
• Company Title
• Strata Title
• Community Title
• Perpetual Lease or 99 year Lease
"The most common type of ownership is ‘Torrens Title’. This usually applies to a standard residential suburban house with its own yard. Some townhouse or courtyard blocks also have Torrens Title. As long as repayments on mortgages are kept up to date and there are no government or council plans to resume the land, Torrens Title offers the most permanency. As a Torrens Title owner you are responsible for the cost of all rates, services, maintenance and improvements to the property. Subject to regulations, you can alter the building or property. You might also have to meet the terms of any building ‘covenants’ you have signed. These are agreement with developers that have terms and conditions about alterations.”

The details of this whole document are not just in error, they are fraudulent and criminal. This document, designed to give details of home ownership, can only lead us to assume that government have a deliberate plan to remove true land ownership through deception and misinformation. As well, this document places government in false ownership of our land via such statements as “you are responsible for…all rates….”

A document from eChoice Home Loans, states “Old system titles can be converted to Torrens title.”

Information from QLD is that several years ago, landowners were encouraged to turn in their “old titles” and were then given a Torrens title registration. Torrens is now compulsory in QLD.

Domain Financial Services states – “Torrens Title is the most common form of property title in Australia. All previous and current owners are listed on the one deed, as are all previous mortgagees etc. Also know as "RPA" standing for "Real Property Act", the legislation that governs the operation of Torrens Title.”

And there are many properties for sale listed as Torrens Title properties.

Mr Kerry Shine, Minister for Justice and Member for Toowoomba in QLD stated that in a reply to a letter from a constituent, published in the Toowoomba Chronicle August 11, “Finally, in relation to Mr Patch's third enquiry (TC 25/07), Common Law land rights have not applied to Queensland freehold land since the introduction of the Torrens Land Title system in 1861 or the leasehold lands which are governed by the Lands Act 1994. The "Brigalow Corporation" simply administers land pursuant to this Act. This system functions effectively to protect the interest of private landholders in Queensland.”

Common Law land rights being a Grant in Fee Simple.