Continuing on the foundations of what is Common Law we can see through Case Law that the High Court goes into defining it a little further as being the ancestry of what brought us together as a Commonwealth of Australia. Sir Owen Dixon remarks very clearly that we do not see it as a body of legal doctrine, therefore demonstrating that it is not written as legislation, but is in fact the ancestral laws that were built up over hundreds of years to give the people the God given rights to forge the Constitution in the first place through Debates of Federation in 1898.
We can also see here that Sir Owen Dixon speaks of the legislature as being separate from the Common Law and that this forms as a part of the Commonwealth of Australia a unit in whole. We have already discussed the fact that Law, Public Act and record, and the judiciary are defined separate at Section 118 of the Constitution at Clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 and here we have confirmation of this principle that the legislation and common law are separate in nature but form the unit that is the Commonwealth of Australia.
72. Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (“Political Free Speech case”)  HCA 25; (1997) 189 CLR 520; (1997) 145 ALR 96; (1997) 71 ALJR 818 (8 July 1997)
Sir Owen Dixon: “We do not of course treat the common law as a transcendental body of legal doctrine, but we do treat it as antecedent in operation to the constitutional instruments which first divided Australia into separate colonies and then united her in a federal Commonwealth. We therefore regard Australian law as a unit. Its content comprises besides legislation the general common law which it is the duty of the courts to ascertain as best they may. … The anterior operation of the common law in Australia is not just a dogma of our legal system, an abstraction of our constitutional reasoning. It is a fact of legal history.”
Without a line of authority the Commonwealth of Australia could not define this unit in whole. It is the Preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA that gives definition and meaning to this line of authority. We have already discussed briefly at Fact 25, 26 and 28 the foundations to this line of authority under the blessing of Almighty God, and looked at the foundation stone in law to the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign and independent nation.
Rule of Law is reliant on this foundation and line of authority. To be able to hold rule of law proper, it is done in the ancestry of your forefathers and the holy spirit of the ANZAC forming the trinity of God along with all of you as Sons of the Commonwealth of Australia. This is something that this Australian Government, and Lawyers especially do not want to discuss because it undermines their very ideals of what Rule of Law actually means.
Leviticus 26:45 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.
From the comments of Professor Dicey in 1885 we can see that Rule of Law is reliant on the Courts of Land, rather than the Courts of Admiralty that we see across Australia today flying Admiralty Blue Ensigns of this Australian Government. The ideal that no man is above the law and everyone is subject to the ordinary laws of the land are the result of the biblical land claim laid down by ANZAC and established within International Law through the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent Imperial Conference 1926 defining separation from the United Kingdom.
Genesis 28:18 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.
Genesis 1:9 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
We can now see that the Common Law is a result of the ordinary law of the land founded in the blessing of Almighty God. A land claim defined through the Shrine of Remembrance along with the covenant in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA demonstrate this foundation.
73. RULE OF LAW
The rule of law, as outlined by Professor A V Dicey in 1885, can be broken down into three main concepts: no man could be lawfully interfered or punished by the authorities except for breaches of law established in the ordinary manner before the courts of land, no man is above the law and everyone, whatever his condition or rank is, is subject to the ordinary laws of the land, the result of the ordinary law of the land.
3. The Constitution (the law) is the result of previous judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons. This means the constitution is not the source of the law, but the consequence of inherent rights. We don’t derive our rights from the Constitution; the Constitution is the result of our rights.
The rule of law underpins the way Australian society is governed. Everyone – including citizens and the government – is bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws.
We advance the rule of law internationally by actively promoting adherence to the global rules-based system and helping to build effective governance and stability in our region.
a) Rule of Law of the Australian Government is international promoting adherence to global rules based system.
b) A line of authority in the Crown allows Rule of Law
c) The Constitution defines the rights of Private Persons as opposed to Members of the Public.
d) The Constitution is not the source of law, it is the consequence of inherent rights.
e) We don’t derive our rights from the Constitution, the Constitution is a result of our rights.
The Constitution became the law, through the God given right and foundation of the holy trinity of God. It is the people that gave the constitution form and the ability to stand, not the other way around.
The Attorney-General of Australia has remained dead silent on questions of Rule of Law and in the last months changed his web site removing the page on Rule of Law and having his legal teams rewrite it. Today they speak of Citizens and Government being obligated to Rule of Law but do not speak of a Line of Authority in which that capacity is given. They refuse to recognise the Line of Authority as defined by Ancestors in the Treaty of Versailles 1919.
It is very easy to see that the Australian Government and the office of Governor-General of Australia are outside of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA. No title is defined for these two entities within the Constitution and it is very clear from this renaming of Government from the Government of the Commonwealth which is defined in the Constitution to the Australian Government is outside of law.
What is to be noted is that the Attorney-General of Australia Christian Porter has through his new Rule of Law web page defined the advancing of Rule of Law internationally by actively promoting adherence to the global rules-based system. It is clear that the line of authority on which he relies is not Australian.
74. South Australia v Commonwealth (“First Uniform Tax case”)  HCA 14; (1942) 65 CLR 373 (23 July 1942)
Latham CJ said in the First Uniform Tax Case (1942) 65 CLR 373: A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour – but such a decision is not an element which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it – and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab initio (at 408).
a) A Law made outside of Law is no Law at all.
Justice Latham defined that a law made outside of law is no law at all and is a power invalid ab initio. Ab initio means from the beginning, so in effect Justice Latham is saying that from the very inception of a law, it has no lawful right.
It can be demonstrated that all law within the Commonwealth of Australia since at least 1973 is ab initio having no foundation in the Constitution at all with office by title not in agreeance with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900. With the States realigning themselves with the “Australia” created in 1973 through their request via Australia (Request) Act 1985 it can be demonstrated that they have left the power of the Covenant of God to link themselves with a power foreign to the Commonwealth of Australia therefore defining anything created by a State at law being ab initio since 1985.
75. ultra vires
(ul-tra vi-reez also veer-eez), adj. [Latin “beyond the powers (of)”]
(I8c) Unauthorized; beyond the scope of power allowed or granted by a corporate charter or by law <the officer was liable for the firm’s ultra vires actions>. – Also termed extra vires. Cf. INTRA VIRES. [Cases: Corporations Cd370(1),385.] ultra vires, adv. ultra vires compromissi (al-trd VI-reez [also veer-eez] kom-pr<l-mis-l). [Law Latin] Hist. Beyond the force of the submission to arbitration; beyond the authority of the submission. – An arbitration award, for example, could be reduced ifthe award was greater than the submission warranted.
a) A law beyond the scope of power is ultra vires
This now brings to the fact that as “Australia” instead of the “Commonwealth of Australia” by title, it is outside of the scope of power defined by title in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA. This makes all actions by this Australian Government ultra vires, unless some right was given to this Australian Government to act in the way it has.
We can see by the definition of ultra vires that it speaks specifically of being beyond the force of the submission to arbitration. Arbitration is a key word here, and key to discovering what is going on.
As a side fact we look at the International Arbitration Act 1974 that was put in place just before the entire Parliament of the Commonwealth was sacked and a duumverite parliament put in in its place.
We can see here that arbitration of national debts is taking place under the model law. Model Law is UNICTRL laws of the United Nations due to the fact that the Commonwealth of Australia was required to take part in arbitration to pay off its debts and this was done in internationally recognised laws agreed upon in treaty. This would be the Rules of Usufruct.
75B. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT 1974 – SECT 16
Model Law to have force of law
(1) Subject to this Part, the Model Law has the force of law in Australia.
(2) In the Model Law:
“arbitration agreement” has the meaning given in Option 1 of Article 7 of the Model Law.
“State” means Australia (including the external Territories) and any foreign country.
“this State” means Australia (including the external Territories).
What we can see here is that an Arbitration Agreement is put in place at which Administrators in “Australia” by way of the Rules of Usufruct are managing the payment of debt through an international system managed by the United Nations.
We can see that “Australia” is being treated as “a State” in this system rather than a Sovereign and independent Commonwealth of Australia and we can also see that “Australia” is defined as “this state” including external territories.
We now start to see what Christian Porter as Attorney-General of Australia is now saying in his freshly drawn up web page on the Department of Attorney-General web site when he speaks of actively promoting adherence to the global rules-based system and helping to build effective governance and stability in our region. It is a common precedent in the Law of Nations by Vattel that a country that doesnt follow its treaties shows other countries that it doesnt follow its treaties and therefore opens itself up to war.
What we have here is a foreign administrator managing the debts of the Commonwealth of Australia through Rules of Usufruct in full agreeance with the principles of arbitration manages by the United Nations.
One of the first-recorded uses of this phrase was by the character Lady Macbeth in Act 3, Scene 2 of the tragedy play Macbeth (early 17th century), by the English playwright William Shakespeare, who said: “Things without all remedy Should be without regard: what’s done, is done” and “Give me your hand. What’s done cannot be undone. – To bed, to bed, to bed!”
a) Fact: Things without remedy should be without regard
Many would think this situation to be without remedy, but knowing the rules of usufruct is knowing the holy scripture. It is strange to think that the principles of war and peace are features prominently in a bible, however the truth of the matter is that the known and established natural laws as defined in the Law of Nations fit perfectly with the premise of God.
There is remedy in knowing you are captive to a power outside of God like Esau forgiving his inheritance for a bowl of IMF Soup. It can now easily be seen that the people acted like Cain and slew the faith that was the foundation in covenant and instead chased the almighty dollar instead of living in the blessing of Almighty God. The people did then join the towers of Babel and in todays age start to see those towers crumble and Babel fall.
Even so, the people can return to the inheritance, albeit poorer than Joseph who remained in the faith and grace of God all along. It is the returning to the covenant of God that gave the people a freedom from the oppression.
Luke 15:14-15 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. 15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
This puts new meaning on being captive, and heathens in the eyes of Almighty God. We start to see that we as a people are not acting in his covenant and that Administrators are running the creation of the trinity of God in place of the people in the blessing of Almighty God. Now we can see two masters and the warnings that were given by Gods word.
Matthew 6:24 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
We can now also see that the Grace of God is living in his inheritance, through Commonly accepted law of the land. And how the warnings become relevant.
Romans 6:14 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
By following the Internationally recognised “Natural Law” we can see that the Holy Scripture forms the basis of remedy in this situation. We can see as well that Vattel Law of Nations is defined “Natural Law” and confirms the standing of Countries in Treaty with one another.
77. CITATION: KULDIP SINGH, J.
Equivalent citations: AIR 1994 SC 853, II (1993) BC 546 SC, 1994 (1) BLJR 216, JT 1993 (6) SC 331, 1994 I OLR SC 201, (1995) 109 PLR 293, 1993 (4) SCALE 277, (1994) 1 SCC 1, 1993 Supp 3 SCR 422, 1994 (1) UJ 1 SC JT 1993 (6) 331 1993 SCALE (4)277 JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J.- “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.
a) A judgment in a court whether superior or inferior is null and void if obtained by fraud.
Through full faith and credit of like countries, we can see by judgement in India, that the English Law still forms a basis in its current independence. Dubbed the “Green Judge” Kuldip Singh demonstrates in citation that fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical and temporal. Any judgement or decree based in fraud has no validity and becomes a nullity and non est in the eyes of the law. This precedent follows through to every court, whether the highest or the lowest, and can therefore be challenged in any court.
We can see this in maxims of law, and through investigation of the facts have now been able to demonstrate that a fraud against the people from the beginning remains a fraud.
QUAE AB INITIO INULTIS FUIT INSTITUTIO EX POST FACTO CONVALESCERE NON
An institution void in the beginning cannot acquire validity from after matter.
FRAUS LATET IN GENERALIBUS.
Fraud lies hidden in general expressions.
DOLO MALO PACTUMSE NON SERVATUUUM.
An agreement induced by fraud is not valid.
QUAERERE DAT SAPERE QUAE SUNT LEGITIMA VERE.
To investigate is the way to know what things are really lawful.
FRAUS EST CELARE FRAUDEM.
It is fraud to conceal a fraud.
NULL PACTIONE EFFICI POTEST UT DOLUS PRAESTETUR.
It cannot be provided in any contract that fraud can be practiced