Articles - The Courts
See also: Who’s Who in Court
Search this website
Ideally, a Court would be a place where people could settle their disputes in front of a jury of 12, with unbiased "judge" presiding. Unfortunately that is not the case today as there can be no such thing as an "unbiased judge", nor any "unbiased individual" for that matter. The KJV 1611 with all of its 133 books is the only true law. Mordacai's decree in Esther chapters 8, 9, 10, is of special importance, (to be in another article) Let's read in the King James Bible: 1st Corinthians Chapter 6, ... God's way to settle disputes.
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust (Govt courts), and not before the saints? (Bretheren)
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. (Bretheren)
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. (Govt courts)
7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? (Conned in court)
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, (See Mark 10. 11-12) nor effeminate , nor abusers of themselves with mankind,(Sodomites)
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
So you see that there is no need whatsoever for Christians to go to court nor pay for a solicitor or the other vultures therein.
History (his story) written by Dave H who has been there, done that, in court 2011.
Dave writes -
I'm realising it will take a while to get to the point where you walk out of court without a conviction.
I'll start with the history lesson..
'Might is Right' is the absence of law. It is the way of the world, where the strong tells the weak what is what. And the weak either comply or die. Law is the agreement between civilised men to decide might is right through war. The winner of the war makes the law. And that's where law comes from. Principles are established via war. The last relevant internal war on which our law is based on was in 1688. This is the foundation of law in the British Commonwealth countries. Much history is hidden by our education system.
Imagine if there was an agenda by MacDonalds to make us all think their food is health food. We wouldn't believe it today, but they planned long term to educated our kids at school to believe it was healthy via control of TV and told us it was healthy. In 2 generations it's feasible that most people would be unaware that anyone ever thought that MacDonalds was anything but health food.
Well that's what's happened in many areas. What everyone knew in our grandfathers day that very few know today, is that the Vatican is trying to take over the protestant countries. The Reformation really bugged Rome and they have been seeking revenge ever since.
Now, before you start vibrating, I am not Catholic bashing - Most lay people Catholics are decent people who know little of the history of the Vatican and its goals. Many protestant churches today very are pro-vatican, especially the big Pentecostals. You don't have to look hard to find Freemasons, Templar pastors and Baphomets active therein with their "prosperity doctrine" tactics and the "secret rapture" to neutralise people, as well as promoting the vile NIV bible. http://www.larryhannigan.com/which_bible_can_i_trust.htm
Somehow the knowledge that Australia began as a clean protestant country, has been forgotten. because the Catholic church has taken control of education and the media to fool us into believing the opposite, or to be completely oblivious to our grandparents beliefs.
Like it or not, believe it or not, religion is behind the power driving this battle between the Roman church and those who want to be free of its control. That is the basis of our law today and it's none of the governments business what we do, providing we follow the 2 basic laws of 'Love God' and 'Love thy neighbour as thyself.' ie - don't harm him or his property
The protestant revolution in Europe saw men awaken to the fact that the Roman church was anything but Christian. Many scholars realised this and they fought against being controlled by it.
In England, where our law was formed, they had several revolutions to oust Catholic monarchs. The people wanted to be free of the Roman church and they kept winning these wars. The last war being the Glorious Revolution of 1688, where the papist monarch fled to France and a Dutch monarch of an entirely different line was invited in by the English people to act as executive of their law. Pretty much the same role as our governor general as opposed to the monarch being a dictator as he had been prior.
In previous revolutions that century, after winning, the protestants had tried rule via parliament without a monarch. That system was flawed and failed. They decided that having a monarch as executive is the best system, with a monarchy being subject to the law, rather than the old system with the monarch above it.
What is important to note re: 'The law', is that it was the people who made the law, not the parliament nor the monarch. This was the true revolution for freedom in history, rather than the American or French which were organised by and for the benefit of the Roman catholic church.
The foundational law is called the Bill of Rights 1688. which I'll go into another time because there is a lot of power in that law for us in Australia today. And it tells you a lot about who holds power. See the full version -
or a short summary - http://www.larryhannigan.com/billofrights1688.htm
Its worth a read, you may see history is repeating itself and you may also notice that even though its hundreds of years old, it is easier to read than any piece of legislation that comes out of parliament today.
Many people don't know that in the early days in Australia, it was against the law for any Catholic to hold any public office. specifically because they had proven in the past to use that position to further the interests of the Pope, and to give preference to other Catholics. Today the Australian public service is dominated by Catholics.
Now with these protestant revolutions of the 17th century in England, the church must have seen the writing on the wall now that the printing press enabled KJV to be available to anyone. English people were never going to be ruled by the pope again, so the Vatican decided to try to rule covertly, through Freemasonry and to that end they inveigled William of Orange to their cause. This protestant monarch, supposedly just brought in to uphold protestant law, laid the foundations of covert papal rule. Whether he did it wittingly for the catholic church or was conned, I don't know.
Anyhow he did this by creating the Sovereign City of London. One square mile within London, subject to no one, and containing the Bank of England. Within this city is another country or sovereign state called the Temple, known as middle Temple and inner Temple. This is the hub of the BAR association, to which all lawyers owe allegiance. The Temple is controlled by the sovereign Knights of Malta who today directly control our law and courts through the BAR association on the surface, and freemasonry below the surface. The Sovereign Knights of Malta are a Papal order and therefore have no business in our courts.
BAR - British Admiralty Registry ? Bastards and Robbers ?
Odd as it may seem to us today, we used to elect our judges from the townsfolk we knew. They weren't lawyers but ordinary people, farmers, Church Elders of Honour, or what have you. This is our real law and the way we are supposed to govern ourselves. There should be no lawyers in a Common Law court, as they owe allegiance to a Papal order, contrary to law. (The temple is a foreign country unrecognised in our Constitution or the British Constitution. Why obey them or their agents?)
So the beak looking down at you from the bench is not your master, nor does he have de-jure power. He is a Papist working against you and the law. Treat him as such. Real law demands a judge elected by the people and a jury of your peers for all matters as per 1st Corinthians Chap 6, for Criminal and civil, and yes, we used to have Juries for civil matters in Australia too.
Originated in France, not 100% sure on that,, but in our system they were created by a renowned Irish pig breeder named Robert Peel. A protestant by the way, hence the earlier explanation. And of course, a Freemason. He created it around 1830 (approx) in that sovereign city of London which is outside the law. It took a generation or so before it was incrementally established in the rest of Britain.
The reasons he gave for establishing it was to protect the widows and orphans that had no British subject to protect them. As strange as it may seem to us now, in Divine law we have to protect ourselves, our family and our possessions and with the use of arms if necessary. That's our responsibility, not the police nor the government's.
Back then people were opposed to the idea of police because they were concerned it was a threat to their liberties. And since 1688 where you see in the Bill of Rights, it is against the law to have a standing army patrolling the streets - the people had none. Today our "police" are merelyarmed security agents, revenue raisers, employees of foreign owned companies registered in Washington. We need good police of course, who have the duty to uphold the Laws of God, the same as the Queen vowed to do, but has miserably failed since the day of her coronation.
They had swords and guns and protected themselves, and extortion and corruption were as rife then as is so today. Often times people would be unable to catch thieves themselves and bring them before the court, so an industry developed called the "thief takers".
The courts paid a bounty to the thief takers to catch criminals. They were also paid by the individual who had their goods stolen, much the same as the Sheriff in the early American west. It was a lucrative business and steeped in graft. The thief takers evolved into organised crime, whereby they were in control of the thieves themselves and played the system for profit.
The police are the coalition of the thief takers, organised under Freemasonry and given certain rules to follow. To create order or organise crime, they are literally criminals. Their job is to break the law in orderto make money. And I'm pretty sure they're still receiving bounties from the court as in ye olden days, although I don't have the financial nous to prove it. They are certainly a business, a foreign owned business by the way, and have absolutely no right to do anything to you. They have no law behind their existence. they have treason laws against their existence. In fact it is your duty to regard and treat them in the same manner you would a foreign army invading your country. Strange as that may seem.
Anyhow in practice, they find their way into our courts by assuming the role as part of the executive tier of government. The 3 tiers of government being - the parliament - executive - judiciary, which in the Westminster system are designed to oppose each other and keep each other in check. Anyone who has been to a court lately will realise that the judiciary does not oppose the executive.They're in cahoots. In fact many beaks are ex-police. They'll steal your car, your house, and even a third generation family farm to get income and protect their jobs.
What in fact should be happening is if we have a grievance with someone we bring a prosecution against them ourselves by walking into court. People are so ignorant of the law these days, they ring the police instead.
Remember that as an employee, the police's main role is to generate revenue - they're a business (not government). They do this by enforcing policy and statutes contrary to law. And yes occasionally they actually catch criminals, but this is the cover, a very minor part of their operation for their real reason to exist.
Prior to the police, courts were held maybe once a month in Australia. They have incrementally imposed so much unlawful policy and thousands of statutes on us that courts are open every day of the week in order to process it. Go into court as an observer as add up the $$ collected - staggering.
Organised crime in every town is in the masonic lodge. There'll be one in your town somewhere, if you look for it.
You do not have to ever stop for police, or speak to police or follow any direction they give you. In fact it is your duty to oppose them. This was upheld last year 2012:
Melbourne court rules random police checks 'not lawful'.
"Magistrate Duncan Reynolds ruled "there is no common law power vested in
police giving them the unfettered right to stop or detain a person and seek
identification details." Magistrate's ruling is consistent with DPP v Hamilton,
Supreme Court of Victoria 2011: Justice Kaye: "It is an ancient principle of the
Common Law that a person not under arrest has no obligation to stop for police,
or answer their questions. And there is no statute that removes that right."
So point is, police are nobodies. they have no place in our law. They're criminals and traitors so treat them as such. Isaiah 5.20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
I should add, that I know what Australia's system used to be like, not through history books which are propaganda, but a family history. My grandma was custodian of her great grandfather and his brothers who acted as judges in the early days in Melbourne They were sheep farmers or horse breeders, not lawyers, and there were no police back then. No police, yet little crime. Why? Because of our true Israelite stock, we're pretty decent people and if everyone owns a gun, the not so decent people tend to be careful.
Our real system is pretty much like old American westerns. that's the closest thing to English Protestant law we have experienced . Old movies. Waltzing Matilda by the way confirms we didn't have police.The swag man wasn't worried about "police" because they didn't exist in Australia then. He was worried about the 'troopers', a carry over from the penal settlement, but not part of protestant law .
OK That hopefully wraps up the English history you need to know. Its about who has the power to make law.
As I said earlier the Bill Of Rights 1688 derived from the KJV is our foundational law. Now the fact its called the Bill of Rights tells us a lot about who has the power to make law, content notwithstanding.
Remembering that prior systems they tried, included no monarch, then rule by parliament, which in practice was more oppressive than rule by a monarch. That lesson has been learned and catered for.
So the people have what in our law is divine right and only the people have the power to make new law. This is done via Referendum in Australia. Now if you think about it for 2 minutes, you'll realise that if parliament had the power to make a new law, then there would be absolutely no need for the device of a Referendum.
Don't we vote on which party gains power every 4 years, and this gives them a mandate to make new law? If that was true, why on earth do we have Referendum?
The truth of parliament's power is found in the title of the foundational law, The Bill of Rights 1688. What is a Bill? It is a proposal put before parliament. It doesn't even pretend to have any power. The Bill is considered and debated in parliament and either rejected, amended or
accepted before it becomes legislation. So why on earth is our foundational law given the name "Bill" which on the surface would make it powerless. The reason is that it was made law by the people. They were making the point that they were no more subject to parliament than they were to a monarch. Or in other words, it was law upon writing it, Being passed by parliament is irrelevant. And they reinforced this by retaining the name "Bill" of rights, even after it was enacted by parliament in 1689 and became an "Act" of rights.
The people have the power in our law, or divine right, if you prefer, and only we can make new law. Parliament only has power to make legislation inside the law. But for 300 odd years have been trying like hell to assume power they simply don't lawfully have.
The importance of retaining the name "Bill" of rights is reinforced by its use in the American law by men who of course were already free under protestant English law prior to their revolution. They were familiar with the reason it was called a "Bill".
There has been a war going on since 1688 in our law to undermine it by those who lost power when the people gained divine right through revolution. They, being the Catholics, the lords and so on of parliament, and the monarchy. And to that end they created their theories of law.
One of the chief theorists was a man named Jeremy Bentham. His opinion was that the people didn't have rights. that they should be ruled by masters. And that process is best achieved by giving power to the parliament to legislate for the common good. He didn't fight any war to make the law, His opinion, while having no weight behind it, has nevertheless had enormous impact on our freedoms. His theories have been put in practice by those who work for the Temple.
Important to note that Bentham worked and lived at the middle Temple, previously mentioned. Upon his death, he bequeathed money to establish a university for Catholics in England.
Chief fairy of NSW 'justice' one Judge Spiegelman, is a good source of information regarding the influence of Bentham on our current set-up. Although naturally he's a fan of Bentham. Lawyers like to debate the law amongst themselves, pretending they have power as judges to decide what law is. And if you buy into it, then they're right ... gotcha eh. Don't buy into it.
Now you know who lawyers serve and what they are. You can confidently reject them and their opinions with the force of true law behind you. Its up to us to simply say "NO. you don't have the power to make law over me". If challenged? Well it's earlier explained why they don't .
If you look at the set-up today you'll see its pretty much as Bentham postulated. Parliament making laws willy nilly for what they deem is the common good and ignoring our rights in the interests of some faux moral or other such as SAFETY. Well they don't have the power to do so, and they know it. So what they make instead of laws, is "administrative policy". And then they have to con us into thinking it has the force of law. They do this through saturation advertising, control of cultural media, education, fear, ignorance, apathy and so on.
The King James Bible is the supreme law, made so by protestants prior to 1688, but ratified in 1688. Until the papists have another war to change that law, its still the law. But they have permeated the modern churches too with their fraudulent bibles ie NIV, new King James etc see http://www.larryhannigan.com/which_bible_can_i_trust.htm
Something else that needs to be explained is that these Knights of Malta, as well as being the hub from which the BAR association extends throughout the protestant world, also monopolised western medicine, destroyed their competitors around 100 years ago. They have used their control of the courts, through their other arm, to license certain drugs as well as prohibit others. There is some circumstantial evidence that marijuana, which used to be an over the counter medicine, can cure cancer. And that cancer, which was almost unheard of prior to vaccination, may have been introduced intentionally. Eradicating the cure would be a good idea if your intention was to quietly kill millions of protestants through cancer. There are many theories on why marijuana/hemp was outlawed, and this one has no more merit than any other, as far as I know. I am not advocating people smoking the stuff, that is rather stupid - smoke cow dung will give funny and dangerous effects too if you want to destroy your brain.
But the major point being, the BAR Association and Western medicine are run by the same people who reside in a country few people know of and who have no lawful power in Australia to tell us what to do, anymore than the Vatican does. Western medicine being identifiable by its logo the Caduceus (the medical logo with the entwining snakes). But that might be an area too weird for most, and while being relevant in court to me, maybe too twilight zone for most.
THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION.
There are no constitutionally formed courts in Australia anymore. and no constitutionally formed parliaments. So when the beak rattles of this or that from a "criminal code" or any other pretend law. It will be legislation written by an unconstitutionally formed parliament. It has nothing to do with you .. none of your business. In fact following the directives of a defacto government is treason. Say so, and he will probably let you walk without putting up a fight. They won't argue it., they should just ignore you as you turn and walk out. Don't ask permission or wait for an ok. Remember, you're the government, you own the country and he is an imposter. Say what's what and walk out. So the Australian Constitution is useful to you in that sense. Remember no bail, AND no requirement to return to court.
Now, If they arrest you later and lock you up, that is a massive criminal assault and that can cost them individually millions of $ compensation if you pursue it. Why do they do it ? They know the people are waking up and are afraid - so they resort to the ancient bully tactics of fear and force and theft. That is one reason they disarmed us.
Ok now some more recent history. In 1972 while Australian men had just been overseas fighting communism, Gough Whitlam (a temple lawyer) quietly staged a communist coup in Australia. Firstly they abolished the Church of England, which played an important role in upholding protestant freedoms and they then stole the whole bloody country we own.
Whitlam and Lance Barnard held an unprecedented 2 man parliament. (no other members were in the house, traitors through their silence, but probably didn't have the guts to do the dirty work) And they passed the Names and Titles Act. What this Act did was to transfer all the current Commonwealth held entities into the ownership of a foreign corporation. A counterfeit of our real self owned common wealth, with a similar name called the Commonwealth of Australia corporation.
They took control of the treasury and bullied and bribed the public service to switch allegiances. (a public service dominated by Catholics) And since then no Acts of parliament are lawful I used the treason defense to get out of a supposed prison sentence and also used it on the ATO successfully simply by letter.
This might explain why so many people, who weren't even alive when Whitlam was prime minister see him as a folk hero. All media hype by the catholic church. the man is Australia's biggest traitor. Communism was created by the catholic priests and phony jews by the way and is still controlled by them today.
Some of you may be aware that this counterfeit government has control of our treasury and stolen all our public owned assets, and the public service. Some of you may not. This info is freely available if you look for it online, or http://www.larryhannigan.com/who_owns_it.htm
But remember, you have a duty to expose and disobey all Acts made by this treasonous defacto government. Which include all Acts made since 1972. This is probably the simplest and easy to use approach to not being convicted for any crime where there is no victim or property damage. It was the basis of my approach
How you do that in practicality is to simply state that it is treason to knowingly obey or honour defacto government. And treason is a hanging offense by the way.
After Whitlam and Barnard passed this treasonous Act, they then passed the death penalty Abolition act. Which I'd do too, if I was them , but of course it has no force of law and the death penalty for treason is still in force.
Today instead of the 3 independent tiers of constitutional government, we have that one foreign owned corporation introduced by Whitlam and every state parliament, court , branch of the public service is a subsidiary company of it. I've had this confirmed by the Australian Securities and Exchange in writing by the way. Its as real as cancer. And why I bothered giving away my edge, doesn't matter - here's my spiel. This is what I want you to know and care about -
The country is being taken over by the Vatican religion. Last time they had power they peeled the skin off protestants. Us ... by the millions. So we should be awake up to it and stand up to them. Pretty bloody quickly.
Anyhow, enough of the preaching.
Now you know who all the players are when you get busted.
The real law versus policy made by a corporation, and the different levels that make you immune from them. Right up to the simplest one. which once again is - It would be treason for you to either obey the policies of this defacto coup or honour its courts.
Done it myself. Possibly the only guy to have succeeded in telling them to stick it up their jumper regarding prison and fines. Also did it this way after a raid by the tax department - ATO.
If you took the time to read this and checked independently whether I'm talking out my backside re: facts, you should now have the sand required to win in court.
I should round this off by explaining what true Parliament's real job is. Keeping in mind, I'm talking about Constitutional Parliament, not the made-for-TV facade we have going on at the moment. They're bean counters. Their job is to spend the common wealth according to the wishes of the people in their local area. The common wealth being our primary industry assets. Minerals, forests, waterways and so on.
That's what administrative policy is. Instructions to public servants. It is a kind of law in one sense. but limited only to that purpose, but they're conning us big time, They're all wannabe lawyers, especially local council employees - they think they're smarter than everyone else. And we're too stupid to know the difference.
Well you know now. so give it to them. ... Dave H
The Middle Temple http://www.middletemple.org.uk/about-us/
(Up until 6 months ago , this site proudly claimed that the temple was sovereign and was under the control of the Sovereign Knights of Malta. A papal order. And that Queen Elizabeth had given them commission to command our courts. They have since taken that admission off their official site, however they still admit Vatican authority)
this also confirms the Sovereign Knights of Malta is a catholic brotherhood
01 People Power in the Court
Title Are you facing Court ?
from England and applicable here - well done! Click image for video.