supreme court common law defence

Upload: veligekas

Post on 29-May-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/9/2019 Supreme Court Common Law Defence

    1/11

    Form 6 (version 3)Rule 14.3

    DEFENCE

    COURT DETAILS

    Court SUPREME COURT - NSW**Division Common Law**List XXXXXXXRegistry SydneyCase number XXXX of 2008

    TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS

    [First] plaintiffTHEIR NAME

    **Number of plaintiffs XX

    [First] defendant YOUR NAME**Number of defendants XX

    FILING DETAILS / ADDRESS FOR SERVICE

    Filed for YOUR NAMEAddress for service YOUR ADDRESS OR SOLICITORS** Telephone YOUR NUMBER OR SOLICITORS** Fax YOUR NUMBER OR SOLICITORS

    PLEADING AND PARTICULARS

    The defendant relies on the following facts and assertions:

    Constitutional and Jurisdictional Submissions

  • 8/9/2019 Supreme Court Common Law Defence

    2/11

    1 The matter before the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales at Sydney

    depends upon the valid appointment of the Governor of the aforesaid State and the valid

    appointment by such State Governors of Justices of the aforesaid court.

    2. The laws pertaining to the use of the Royal Sign Manual, under which the Commission of

    Appointment of the Governor of New South Wales is issued are solely domestic laws of the

    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and therefore lie outside thejurisdictional authority of the courts of New South Wales.

    3. On 7th May 2001 the Attorney General of the Commonwealth, in response to an

    application under theFreedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) stated that no documents exist

    conferring authority or rights of usage in respect of the Royal Sign Manual upon the Queen

    of Australia. The rights of usage in respect of the Royal Sign Manual are held exclusively

    by Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by

    virtue of legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament.

    See Annexure A

    This is confirmed inHalsburys Laws of England, Vol 8(2), Para 908.

    See Annexure B.

    4. The appointment of any Governor of the State of New South Wales who allegedly

    appointed Justices of the Supreme Court of the aforesaid Statewas defective and void since

    the source of his authority derived directly from a Royal Prerogative, which did not, and

    does not, exist in Australian legislation or law.

    5. As a direct consequence of the appointment of New South Wales Governors being

    defective and void no lawful appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court in that State was

    ever valid. Consequently, this matter must be dismissed.

    6. The Proclamations issued subsequent to the Australia Act, 1986 (Cth) allegedly

    appointing Governors of the State of New South Wales are stated to be pursuant to

    Commissions issued under the Sign Manual by QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND,

    Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories.

    7. The aforesaid Commissions further state, inter alia "Passed under the Royal Sign

    Manual

    8. The Royal Sign Manual referred to in the aforesaid Commissions is comprised of a

    number of enactments of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

    Northern Ireland, (such as the Great Seal (Offices) Act 1874, the Crown Office Act 1877, theGreat Seal Act 1884 and the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery Act (1874)) empowering theQueen referred to in Section 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK), to sign.

    9. The United Kingdom Acts creating and governing the use of the Royal Sign Manual were

    not adopted as Australian law under the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act, 1942 (Cth).

    10. Authority does not exist in any enactment creating the Royal Sign Manual for the Queen

    of Australia - as a separate Monarch from the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great

    Britain and Ireland or the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

    Ireland - to sign a Commission under the Royal Sign Manual appointing a Governor for theState of New South Wales in the manner which the aforesaid Commissions purport to be

    signed. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office in their reply to a query form Mr. W.

    Boulton, dated 11 June 2003, confirmed this point.

    See Annexure C.

  • 8/9/2019 Supreme Court Common Law Defence

    3/11

    11. Authority does not exist to use the Royal Sign Manual for the appointment of a

    Governor for the aforesaid State under the aforesaid Commission. No such executive

    authority has been conferred on the Queen of Australia to appoint such a Governor either by

    the law of the Commonwealth of Australia or that of the State of New South Wales.

    Moreover, no such executive authority has been conferred on the Queen of Australia to

    appoint such a Governor by any legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland. An examination of the records of the Privy Council of

    the aforesaid kingdom likewise reveals no authorisation by that council for Queen Elizabeth

    II to make such an appointment.

    12. The Defendant further submits that Royal Assent given by the Governor of the State of

    New South Wales to the appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court of that State is

    defective and cannot be rectified. Consequently, the ability of Justices of the aforesaid court

    to hear and determine matters of law is voided and any decisions so made by such Justices

    can have no effect in law.

    PARTICULARS

    13. The right to use the Royal Sign Manual is not one of the Royal Prerogatives which exist

    as inherited rights of the Monarch and therefore cannot be used without the consent and

    approval of the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland -

    as prescribed by United Kingdom law, see paragraphs 8 and 11 above. As such, the

    appointment of Orders, Warrants and Commissions as identified in the Sign Manual are

    subject to Orders in Council from the Privy Council granting the monarch the authority to

    sign such instruments as Commissions and Letters Patents. See Halsburys Laws ofEngland, Paras. 907 and 920,See Annexure B.

    14. The courts of New South Wales have no jurisdiction over the laws that control the use of

    the Royal Sign Manual. These are laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

    Northern Ireland alone and no jurisdictional rights over these laws have been delegated to

    the parliaments or courts of the Colonies, Dominions, States or Commonwealth of Australia.

    This has been further confirmed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in their reply to

    a query form Mr. W. Boulton, dated 11 June 2003, where they state:

    The Queen, in her role as Head of State of the United Kingdom and as such advised

    by British ministers, has no executive power exercisable within the Commonwealth

    of Australia. The monarchs role as Queen of Australia is separate from her role inrelation to the United Kingdom and in its fulfilment she is advised by Australian

    ministers.

    See Annexure C.

    15. Neither the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) nor any of theconstitutions of the States or Territories of the previously referred to Commonwealth

    contain any inherent or implied authority over Acts of the Imperial Parliament such as the

    Crown Office Act 1877, the Great Seal Act 1884 the Great Seal (Offices) Act 1874 asamended and the Clerk of the Chancery Act 1844.

    16. The Commonwealth Attorney Generals Department has admitted in a response dated 7th

    May 2001 to a Freedom of Information Application dated 11th April 2001, that no

    documents exist from the United Kingdom government or parliament conferring on the

    Queen of Australia - as a separate national monarch - the right to use the Royal Sign

    Manual.

  • 8/9/2019 Supreme Court Common Law Defence

    4/11

    See Annexure A.

    17. No Commonwealth or New South Wales legislation exists in relation to the conferring

    or use of the Royal Sign Manual within the Commonwealth of Australia or the aforesaid

    State.

    18. The use of the Royal Sign Manual is therefore a clear and unequivocal statement that theauthority being applied is that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

    Northern Ireland as delegated to the monarch of the United Kingdom at the time.

    19. In the context of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the

    Westminster Parliament of the United Kingdom holds sovereignty and the monarch is the

    symbol of that national sovereignty. The use of the Great Sign Manual by the Monarch is at

    the discretion of the Privy Council and this is signified by the Council issuing an Order in

    Council to the Monarch authorising her to use the Great Sign Manual to give effect to the

    wishes of the Parliament. This is the procedure required by the United Kingdom parliament

    in the issuing of Letters Patents for, conferring titles, offices and authority to perform

    particular functionsSee Annexure B, Para. 920.Letters Patent and other documents under the Great Seal.

    20. In the alternative, where the Plaintiffs claim that the authority of the Governors of the

    State of New South Wales was valid and consequently that appointments of Justices of the

    Supreme Court of New South Waleswere validly and lawfully made, then upon productionof the Order in Council from the Privy Council authorising the Queen of Australia to give

    due authority under the Great Sign Manual to the aforesaid Governors I will obey all New

    South Wales laws and consent to any decisions of the aforesaid court. Until such time as the

    Plaintiffs can verify the validity of the appointments of the previously mentioned Governors

    at the time of Royal Assent being given to such judicial appointments this matter must be

    adjourned and stayed pending the production of the said Orders in Council to this court.

    David Claude Fitzgibbon-v-Her Majestys Attorney General of the United Kingdom of

    Great Britain and Northern Ireland

    21. I advise and ask this Court to note that the matter of David Claude

    Fitzgibbon-v-Her Majestys Attorney General of the United Kingdom of Great

    Britain and Northern Irelandwas heard before His Honour Justice Lightman of the

    Chancery Division, High Court of Justice, Royal Courts of Justice on Monday, 31 st

    of January and Tuesday, 1st of February 2005. The Judgement in that aforesaid

    matter was delivered on Wednesday, 9

    th

    of February 2005. This judgement isavailable from the Internet.

    22. In paragraph 16 of his judgement, Justice Lightman of the High Court of

    Justice, Chancery Division stated, It is for the Australian courts to apply Australian

    law to

    determine the capacity in which HM the Queen is acting, the appropriate seal and

    the consequences (if any) if the wrong seal is used. However, as Mr. Fitzgibbons

    litigation deals inter alia with matters contained in this my Notice of Grounds of

    Defence the better course would be to await the decision of the European Court of

    Human Rights which has advised that no defence to Mr. Fitzgibbons claim hasbeen filed and that the time allocated for such a filing by the government of the

    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has expired.

  • 8/9/2019 Supreme Court Common Law Defence

    5/11

    23. I have received advice that as the decision of Lord Justice Waller and Sir

    William Aldous of the Court of Appeal Civil Divisionon Thursday, 21st April, last

    effectively wipes out the protections afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights for the approximately fourteen millions of British citizens livingoutside of the United Kingdom it is felt that Mr. Fitzgibbons litigation will be

    treated with an unexpected urgency.

    24. Although I appreciate that this court is not subject to the jurisdiction of the

    European Court of Human Rights, nonetheless the decision in Mr. Fitzgibbons case

    will affect all of the parties involved in my case including the presiding Judicial

    Officer. These consequences arise in part - from the provisions of the Human

    Rights Act, 1998 (U.K.).

    25. I submit that it would be prudent that no decision be handed down in my case

    until such time as a decision in the matter of David Claude Fitzgibbon-v-Her

    Majestys Attorney General of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NorthernIreland has been delivered by both the European Court of Human Rights and the

    European Court of Justice.

    26. I appreciate that the Plaintiffs will oppose such a delay and that this court

    may well dismiss my request. This opposition will be in spite of both the Courts and

    Plaintiffs limited understanding of the grounds of the Fitzgibbon case and will be

    assisted by the fact that neither have any knowledge of the documentary evidence to

    be relied upon or discussions that have taken place between the parties to those

    proceedings. Despite my providing information that will allow both this Court and

    the Plaintiffs to easily make their own inquiries as to the validity of the issues I have

    raised it is expected that no investigation has been or will be undertaken.

    Nonetheless, I have merely sought to place the facts upon the record and the

    consequences that have been outlined to me by numerous people involved with Mr.Fitzgibbons European litigation. I am also aware that the Chief Justice of the

    Supreme Court of New South Wales has been served with documentation relating to

    Mr. Fitzgibbons claim.

    27. I am aware of recent advice that has been issued by the Crown Solicitors

    Office of New South Wales, however for the benefit of both the Court and the

    Plaintiffs in my matter I herewith provide the following internet web references

    which provide some information pertinent to the matter of David Claude

    Fitzgibbon-v-Her Majestys Attorney General of the United Kingdom of Great

    Britain and Northern Irelandand ipso facto, this my Defence.

    www.basicfraud.com

    http://www.members.westnet.com.au/unrealneil/index_files/Page389.htm

    http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-

    8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-05,RNWE:en&q=david+fitzgibbon+lightman

    http://lists.enzyme.org.nz/pipermail/anarchynz_lists.enzyme.org.nz/2004-

    December/000012.htmlhttp://www.worldlii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/114.html

    http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol14/articles/timebomb.shtml

    http://www.basicfraud.com/http://www.members.westnet.com.au/unrealneil/index_files/Page389.htmhttp://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-%208&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-05,RNWE:en&q=david+fitzgibbon+lightmanhttp://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-%208&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-05,RNWE:en&q=david+fitzgibbon+lightmanhttp://lists.enzyme.org.nz/pipermail/anarchynz_lists.enzyme.org.nz/2004-December/000012.htmlhttp://lists.enzyme.org.nz/pipermail/anarchynz_lists.enzyme.org.nz/2004-December/000012.htmlhttp://www.worldlii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/114.htmlhttp://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol14/articles/timebomb.shtmlhttp://www.basicfraud.com/http://www.members.westnet.com.au/unrealneil/index_files/Page389.htmhttp://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-%208&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-05,RNWE:en&q=david+fitzgibbon+lightmanhttp://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-%208&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-05,RNWE:en&q=david+fitzgibbon+lightmanhttp://lists.enzyme.org.nz/pipermail/anarchynz_lists.enzyme.org.nz/2004-December/000012.htmlhttp://lists.enzyme.org.nz/pipermail/anarchynz_lists.enzyme.org.nz/2004-December/000012.htmlhttp://www.worldlii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/114.htmlhttp://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol14/articles/timebomb.shtml
  • 8/9/2019 Supreme Court Common Law Defence

    6/11

    28. Alternatively, should this Court wish to proceed I have received advice that I

    will be able to seek compensatory damages in a British Court under the provisions of

    the Human Rights Act, 1998 (U.K.) once the judgement has been given by the

    European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. I have also

    been informed that British solicitors and senior legal counsels will pursue such

    claims with no fees payable until successful completion of such litigation.

    29. A copy of Statements of Claim bearing plaint number 10503/06, together with a

    copy of this my Defence have been forwarded by way of airmail to Elizabeth II,

    Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland advising her

    that as these actions are being taken in her name and before a court that displays her

    Royal Coat of Arms, once a decision is given in Mr. Fitzgibbons case I will be

    taking legal action for compensation against her personally and/or her government.

    Non-Constitutional Grounds of Defence

    30. FILL THIS SECTION IN WITH ANY OTHER LEGAL ARGUMENTS OF

    YOUR OWN THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

    ..

    YOUR NAME

    DATE

    Attachments X pages

    SIGNATURE

    SignatureYOUR SIGNATURE

    Name YOUR NAME

    Date XX / XX /200X

  • 8/9/2019 Supreme Court Common Law Defence

    7/11

    **AFFIDAVIT VERIFYING

    Name YOUR NAMEAddress YOUR ADDRESSOccupation XXXXXXXXXOn [date], I **say on oath/**affirm:

    1. I am the [first] defendant.2. I believe that the allegations of fact contained in this defence are true.

    3. I believe that the allegations of fact that are denied in this defence are untrue.

    4. After reasonable inquiry, I do not know whether or not the allegations of fact that are

    not admitted in this defence are true.

    **SWORN/**AFFIRMED at

    Signature of deponentYOUR SIGNATURE

    Signature of witness

    Name of witness

    Capacity of witness

    **Address of witness

    [On separate page]

    HOW TO RESPOND

    You can respond by:

    Filing a reply if the proceedings are in the Supreme Court or the District Court

    Seeking leave to file a reply if the proceedings are in a Local Court.

    You can get further information about the forms that need to be filed to respond from:

    The registry

    A legal practitioner

    LawAccess NSW on 1300 888 529 or at www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au.

  • 8/9/2019 Supreme Court Common Law Defence

    8/11

    REGISTRY ADDRESS

    Street address Law Courts Building, Queens Square

    Level 5, 184 Phillip Street, Sydney 2000Postal address GPO Box 3, Sydney 2001

    Telephone (02) 9230 8111

    [On separate page]

    PARTY DETAILS

    Parties to the proceedings

    PLAINTIFF[S] DEFENDANT

    THEIR NAME YOUR NAME

    FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT DEFENDANT[S] FILING THE DEFENCE

  • 8/9/2019 Supreme Court Common Law Defence

    9/11

    [First] defendant

    Family name OR company name YOUR SURNAME OR COMPANY NAMEGiven names OR ACN CHRISTIAN NAME OR ACNAddress YOUR ADDRESS**Telephone YOUR NUMBER**Fax YOUR FAX (if applicable)

    [On separate page]

    HOW TO COMPLETE THIS FORM

    THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT TO BE FILEDDo not include any information about the proceedings on this part of the form. In theseinstructions, UCPR means the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

    ** OPTIONAL INFORMATIONSome information in this form may not be relevant to your proceedings. An item markedwith ** may be omitted if it is not relevant to your proceedings.

    COURT DETAILS / TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS

    Copy this information from the originating process.

    FILING DETAILS / ADDRESS FOR SERVICEInclude details about:

    the defendant for whom the form is to be filed (eg. first defendant)

  • 8/9/2019 Supreme Court Common Law Defence

    10/11

    the defendants address for service. This must generally be within New South Wales(see UCPR 4.5).

    If the defendant is represented by a solicitor:

    the address for service must be the office of the solicitor or the solicitors agent

    the name of the firm, its ACN or ABN number, telephone number and street addressmust be included

    a DX address and/or email address can be included if service will be accepted by DX orby email (see UCPR 10.5(2))

    the solicitors reference number and court user number may be included.

    If the defendant is not represented, information must be included about the defendantsbusiness or residential telephone number, fax number and email address, if any.

    PLEADING AND PARTICULARSUse numbered paragraphs. List the facts and assertions on which you are relying. Forfurther information, see UPCR Part 14.

    SIGNATUREThis form must be signed by:

    The solicitor for the defendant, a solicitor belonging to the same firm or organisation asthe defendants solicitor, a solicitor acting as agent for the defendants solicitor, or asolicitor belonging to the same firm or organisation as the defendants solicitors agent.

    If the defendant does not have a solicitor, an authorised person, or the defendant.

    Include information about the capacity in which the person is signing the form.

    AFFIDAVIT VERIFYINGYou must verify this form by affidavit if you are filing it in the Supreme Court or DistrictCourt, unless you are defending a claim for damages for:

    Defamation

    Malicious prosecution

    False imprisonment

    Trespass to the person

    Death

    Personal injury.

    If you are verifying the form on behalf of the defendant, replace paragraph 1 with the

    following information:

    1. I am [give details of the capacity of the person making the affidavit and thefacts that qualify the person to make the affidavit] and am authorised toverify this defence on [his/her/its] behalf.

    For example, if the defendant is a corporation, insert the words I am an[officer e.g. director] of [name of corporation] and am authorised to verify thisdefence on its behalf.

    If a legal practitioner or commissioner for affidavits witnesses the affidavit, include theaddress of the legal practitioner or commissioner for affidavits. (see UCPR 35.7A).

    PARTY DETAILSThis information must be on a separate page. List each plaintiff and each defendant.

    FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT DEFENDANT[S] FILING THE DEFENCE

  • 8/9/2019 Supreme Court Common Law Defence

    11/11

    You must provide further information unless you have filed an appearance in theproceedings. If the defendant is not represented, information must be included about thedefendants business or residential telephone number, fax number and email address, ifany.