Most of you are not aware of the fact that Steven has been defending against the State of Queensland within the Magistrates Court of Queensland over matters of jurisdiction relative to the foundations of the Commonwealth of Australia and the lineage retained by the State of Queensland in that Commonwealth.
Before we look at what was done.
We must state, that enough evidence is now put on the record for all of you to stand united in a claim and defend that claim without the need to break any more laws. It was a matter of choosing what to break, so as to be able to challenge the State of Australia to its lineage.
To do this. We have put the Federal Red Ensign on record in evidence.
We have also gathered enough evidence in relation to knowing what the blessing of Almighty God is so as to be able to define what is not it. By knowing how the foundations are placed in the first place, gives you the ability to see what is on those foundations or what is mimicking them and not them in the real world. We are able to define specifically what ANZAC did in the Great War 1914-1918 and how that has been pushed to the wayside since 1967.
This blessing of Almighty God is a practical and real creation that is built by following the instructions that are laid out in the Scripture. Most people don’t see a creation that they themselves must maintain and build, they see morals and dilemmas that frame the way a society thinks and lives. We are going to investigate this creation in the coming years. Yes years, because its complicated.
What was done and why.
Lets start with the why. We all know why were discussing these topics, its not to undermine a society or make it crash, its to get to the core foundations and define them as the truth, so that we as a people can live in knowledge that everything created is based in that truth instead of a lie. In the last 40 years, this question has been raised by numerous individuals, many that have been through the court systems to be able to see that something doesnt add up in the way things are being managed in this country.
Its a question, that has loomed for years, that remains unanswered, giving the question itself more credence in the silence. Its many questions, but at the core of it all it relates to Sovereignty. The question is are we a truly Sovereign and Independent Country based on true foundations at International Law?
AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT 1986 – SCHEDULE 2
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Australia is obligated via the Human Rights Commission Act 1986 wherein at Schedule 2 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is attached, Australia being signatory to this International Agreement becomes subject to it under the practices of Vattel’s Law of Nations where in it states that if a country fails to follow its treaties and conventions, it opens itself up to war by demonstrating to other countries that it fails to adhere to its obligations.
Under Article 1, it is defined that “all peoples” have a right of “self-determination”. This is in the case of International Laws is not defined as the individual who may speak on special appearance, it is for the people, as a whole who are spoken for through general appearance. To speak generally, is to speak on behalf of a larger whole, it is an accepted diction or language in general making for a jural society and language or juris-diction.
With this right defined in Federal Legislation, and Internationally agreed upon, the question then becomes… Do all Australians have a right of self-determination? And in that one would have to ask… What is a right of self-determination?
It is this very concept that leads to questions of Sovereignty. And what it means to be a Sovereign Country before the worlds of countries in the International Community. When you have former a Prime Minister telling you in his own words that Australia has lost its sovereignty over matters of war and peace to the United States, the concept of a full sovereign position internationally becomes more of a question of jurisdiction.
We have forged a line of questioning in the facts series, we have laid down a historical record by way of the whitepapers, and now we have established evidence of record that these questions remain unanswered and still at challenge regardless of the outcomes. Without establishing the foundations before public at large, these questions will continue to linger in the minds of an impressionable internet connected community.
So, rather than anybody further attempting to discover freedoms only to harm themselves in the long run by not following rule of law as it stands in the country today, whether de facto or de jure, it is being stated that none of us, including myself, need venture into breaking any other laws in this country. Biblically speaking, we are told to obey our Magistrates and Governors as they are our guides and tutors out of guardianship.
The questions are now on the table, and the relevant standing against a flag of the forefathers of this Commonwealth of Australia established in a court and put on record in evidence. We can move forward now without further making any challenges relative to breaking any laws just to establish evidences on record.
This brings us to what was done to get here.
Firstly, as we have discussed this is not about breaking the law, its about establishing on the record, evidences that demonstrate a standing or position. Regardless of the outcomes, this has been established by the submitting of evidence before the court, and on the record. As we discussed above that evidence being the Federal Red Ensign Land War Flag relative to the Hague Conventions IV War on Land 1907 and established ANZAC Lighthorseman Land Forces.
First and foremost. What protects you from asking question, and having to break a law to establish a claim that may or may not be rightful in its own standing.
Criminal Code Act 1995
No. 12, 1995
80.3 Defence for acts done in good faith
(1) Subdivisions B and C, and sections 83.1 and 83.4, do not apply to a person who:
(a) tries in good faith to show that any of the following persons are mistaken in any of his or her counsels, policies or actions:
(i) the Sovereign;
(ii) the Governor‑General;
(iii) the Governor of a State;
(iv) the Administrator of a Territory;
(v) an adviser of any of the above;
(vi) a person responsible for the government of another country; or
(b) points out in good faith errors or defects in the following, with a view to reforming those errors or defects:
(i) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
(ii) the Constitution;
(iii) legislation of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country;
(iv) the administration of justice of or in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country; or
(c) urges in good faith another person to attempt to lawfully procure a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country; or
(d) points out in good faith any matters that are producing, or have a tendency to produce, feelings of ill‑will or hostility between different groups, in order to bring about the removal of those matters; or
(e) does anything in good faith in connection with an industrial dispute or an industrial matter; or
(f) publishes in good faith a report or commentary about a matter of public interest.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1). See subsection 13.3(3).
We can see by the Criminal Code, that attempting to clarify specifics about the foundations of the Commonwealth of Australia, including with the Sovereign and Sovereignty is protected by Code, this used to be part of the Crimes Act 1914 at Section 24F before it was removed by National Security Legislation. It is still however a part of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cwlth). We have also seen that this ideal is protected by International Covenant to which the government is signatory.
Now to the what.
Before we open up to the what, let us first address something.
You can see by the image above, that I am lucky to be alive. I did a 2 1/2 pirouette through the air landing on that right front corner to roll 5 times over the roof. I had hit a big dip in the road that I couldnt see in the shadow of the trees in the afternoon sun. I was not under the influence of anything and had a difficulty seeing the road in the shadow of the trees.
After the accident, dusk hit, and I realised I was so remote that I would be lucky if anybody came past. I broke my scapular, the hardest bone in your body, I split into three pieces. I climbed out of the windscreen because it was the only way to exit the automobile. I was lucky, a worker from the local mining company came past and I was taken to the local pub, where a Mining Nurse came from the mine to patch me up till I could get to hospital two nights sleep later.
You are more likely to be passively driving local streets, and BAM something unforeseen happens and you become the participant of something unexpected. Travelling by automated machine is a risk at all times, and to do that while under the influence of any mind altering substances increases that risk innumerably, its not worth the risk.
It is in this we must say that we do not condone the use of any machinery, especially the use of automobile on the highways and byways used by the common folk. You increase the risks of harm and injury, not only to yourself, but especially to others.
In saying this, it is however a victimless crime until trespass has occurred.
There are two physical aspects to the use of an automobile or machine carriage on the highways and byways. The first of them is your competence to be able to operate said machinery. The second is the road-worthiness or maintenance of that machinery, regardless of its type or location.
When it comes to your competence, one is tested to see if you are capable of operating the machinery in the conditions provided, which may or may not include rules for operating safely by oneself, or amongst others participating in the same venture. This would be the case of shared highways and byways.
There is no issue here with a society testing that competence, and re-testing it in relation to age or health conditions. The issue becomes paying for it yearly, when you are already proven competent. You are paying the State to use what essentially is yours by inheritance from your forefathers. (The same could be said for Rates, but not for this discussion).
In the United Kingdom, the essential “motherland” of the “law”, we see that a licence to use the highways and byways is issued and lasts for life or unless proven incompetent through age or health (or other). What led to Australians having to pay ever increasing fees just to use Private Conveyance on the Highways and Byways of the Crown?
The secondary here is the equipment being in full working order so as not to cause risk of damage and harm by failures. Maintaining a car can at times be expensive. However, if you are found to have been lax in the maintenance of the machinery you use, you could under a Duty of Care be found liable for its failure.
Roadworthy of the machinery is not a problem. However, if you travel to the Northern Territory which is Federal Jurisdiction by nature of it being a Territory of the Commonwealth, they dont pay to have their vehicles checked by the Transport Authority. It is free to put the automobile over the so called “pits” for inspection. This is not the same in the State which have ever increasing fees for the privilege.
Ones automated machinery should be maintained, and you should realise that liabilities can come from negligence of that maintenance if you seriously harm someone. Its not worth the risk is it.
In saying all of this, Registration on the other hand happens once, it happens the moment you enter their Registry and attach the plate to you by your persona. You should not be required to pay every year for a plate that you can attach to a different machine given re-registration to that new machine. The plate is by identification linked to you. It does not have to be cancelled, nor paid for yearly.
In saying all of this
There are very few victimless crimes that you can commit on purpose so as to adhere to federal legislation in making a claim of self determination and putting evidences on record. Most of the available choices would be committed on the so called “road-ways”.
Remember God told us that we were up against Principalities of this world.
Ephesians 6:12 Authorized (King James) Version
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
We are told to stand in our Houses, the House of Spiers, executed by the Head of the House in the Office of Executor, and we are told to do this by prayer and rod. What this means is by recorded observation and provided tools.
Exodus 7:12 Authorized (King James) Version
12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.
Numbers 17:2 Authorized (King James) Version
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and take of every one of them a rod according to the house of their fathers, of all their princes according to the house of their fathers twelve rods: write thou every man’s name upon his rod.
We can see that every man, father of their houses, we have a double meaning happening in that we have a described 12 here, but we can see that every one is linked by this belief in a foundation, everyone has a link by its creation.
Numbers 17:9Authorized (King James) Version
9 And Moses brought out all the rods from before the Lord unto all the children of Israel: and they looked, and took every man his rod.
We have this continued creation in Moses as well as Aaron independently, with one defining a record through the others observations. Moses was quite dumb to speak remember, and Aaron spoke for him on many occasion.
Revelation 12:5Authorized (King James) Version
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
We can also see how this ideal is what brings forth one of those houses to become executor of the Commonwealth as the Four Estates of the Kingdom. The faith in the feminine marrying up with the masculine by soul. We have seen now, how we have every right to question its lineage in a line of authority, and rule of law given that line of authority to hold it.
In short we can question our heritage. Lest we Forget. What should we remember?
So we come to what was actually done.
Steven by way of using his automobile took the registration plates off the back of the machinery and instead posted a sticker of the Federal Red Ensign in the size of the removed registration plate. Federal Red Ensign stickers were also placed on the front left and right quarter panels.
The automobile in question had itself been over the Queensland Transport Registration Inspection for a full 180 point check recorded on camera when it was purchased due to a problem with the second hand car dealer. It has since been kept in A1 condition with all repairs seen too, and new tyres as well. We have made sure there is zero wrong with the car with regards to safety.
There has always been this question of jurisdiction, and standing with God, and defining that jurisdiction and the validity of said jurisdiction. These things cannot be held by force alone or they are found out in the long run as we have demonstrated through white papers and facts series.
This of course eventually led to being pulled over by police. Except not in the sense that they targeted me in traffic. I pulled into a Road Side Breath Test location. This is something I remember them introducing when I was young, everybody hated the fact that the government had taken a liberty to trespass on a person.
In this stop its obvious that the registration would have come into it, but it was not enough to challenge the situations jurisdictions with in the court to therefore establish evidence on record. This would have led to fines on the spot amounting to unregistered and uninsured. Insurance in a con, its required because you are poor and the State is the insurer to the Banks, you cant afford to pay your way, the State is doing it for you.
I went through an Alcohol Breath Test to demonstrate that I was not under the influence as it is non obtrusive form of safety check. Again introduced by the State without Referendum of the People as to how they shall be treated at Common Law, this becomes a trespass in itself in that it involved trespass of the physical body in that a straw is placed in ones mouth, considered to be the private not public. This obviously came up negative, Steven hasn’t drunk alcohol in 20 years.
This is when an officer uses the Legislation to form you as Guilty without any proof of any guilt by getting a drug swab test. This is now a full invasion of the body, and Nuremburg Protocols demonstrate that forced medical procedure is a no no. This is also backed up the Constitution at Section 51(23a) in that Medical Conscription is a no no. We shall not be forced to perform any kind of medical procedure, especially by non medical professional staff.
In the State of Queensland, if you refuse to take a drug test, you are immediately assumed to be guilty of a crime, even if you haven’t committed one. Steven made sure of it while he was driving around without Registration. He has smoked Cannabis in the past, but not for at least 3 years. Your licence isnt cancelled, they havent got the ability to do that, they use their police to stop you from using the “roads” within what they believe is the Boundaries of Queensland. Clause 8 of the Constitution Act repealed the Boundary at Federation. Queensland doesnt have a boundary at law.
This has led to a court case, and more. We wont go into the specifics of this. But a court trial was held that took over 5 hours of defence and cross examination including the watching of body cam footage of one of the police officers. The Police did not act professionally, and there is more to this that will come out later.
The Federal Red Ensign has been submitted as evidence, as well as images of my previous car accident to demonstrate that this was a challenge of jurisdiction in the matter and not wilful abuse of the law. The magistrate reserved the matter for decision which has been pending for the last couple of months. This decision will be given soon.
Im not sure what the outcome will be. But I would like to state on the record, that it doesnt matter either way, because of the Federal Red Ensign it is going to have to be defined at law at some stage to be able to define the jurisdictions at play and define at law the standing each has on the matter.
Until this Federal Red Ensign is distinctly and specifically identified and the jurisdiction linked to said Ensign demonstrated through Lineage and Rule of Law. The court has opened a door. For all of you. Which is why im saying that from here on out you need not break the law to challenge the notion that something is wrong. Its on court record. Use it. Challenge it.
This has opened a door to a Federal Court of Appeal being a Federal Matter and a matter of Constitutional Question. They cannot escape this fact. This also opens the door to the Human Rights Commission and then the Federal Court on Human Rights. International Rights that also bring into question Sovereignty if we are obligated to outside rules. Then there is of course the High Court on matters such as Sue v Hill and the ramifications of religion and secular governance.
You can see now we are getting to the core of the matter. So please, no need to break any more laws. A law that has no victim at the core, with no mens rea and and no actus rea and cannot be compos mentis of its own volition. The person that is the State of Queensland. And they cannot be victim, they are the Magistrate, the Police Prosecutor, the Registrar, they are all parties outside of Steven. Now you can see the problem.
So regardless of which way this goes. You have 13 Constitutional Questions to ask, and a Federal Red Ensign that was used to establish and define what it means by jurisdiction, and a line of authority to hold rule of law. These judges are going to have to really define this into the future. Because all of the scruff work is done. Now its matter of moving forward with the evidences on the table.
Steven has been without his licence for 11 1/2 months now. So has already been punished for the offence in numerable ways because he lives rurally and requires transport to go shopping. We can only await the outcomes now. And use what has been put on the record into the future.