EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
I am a former member of the High Court and I wish to take this unusual method of informing you about a matter that is going to deeply affect us all. Unfortunately, a document such as this is too easily “lost” in the bureaucratic jungle in which we operate.
A group of Australian Citizens have taken it upon themselves to test the validity of our current political and judicial system. Like you, I have lived my entire legal career with the assumption that the basis for our legal and political system, state and federal, was written in stone. This group has undertaken to present this paper when they test the legal system.
The group is articulate, well educated and counts some of our best legal minds amongst its members. One of Australia’s best known barristers is one of the group’s leading lights. It is far better informed with regard to international law than most members of the judiciary or for that matter, the legal academe. It has better international contacts than I would have thought possible.
After spending some time with the group leader, I was able to elicit its primary intentions. It is the introduction of a totally democratic system of government devoid of party politics operated by the will of the people incorporating a system of debit taxation which should go a long way to eliminating the current unemployment problem and also addressing other pressing social issues. An A.B.S. financial model supports the proposal.
The group has so far concentrated on matters relating to taxation, state and federal, minor industrial and motor traffic while undertaking not to present a criminal defence using their current presentation. I challenged the leader of this group to present any evidence he had with regard to the above defence so I could use my legal expertise to play the part of the devil’s advocate. It should be brought to your attention that the group has access to documentation that we members of the judiciary have little knowledge. I refer to the British Parliamentary Papers for the Colony of Australia for the years 1860 through to 1922.
These are photocopies of all documents, correspondence etc., between the states and later the Commonwealth of Australia, the British Crown and the British Government. They are very revealing documents and indicate the degree of chicanery in which the politicians of all shades were involved and as I can now see, at the expense of the legal academe and the judiciary. I present for your perusal the details of the group’s presentation along with my comment on each major item. The group relies solely upon historical fact and rejects political rhetoric and legal opinion unless based upon historical fact.
“The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom. It did not contain any substance of sovereignty and was a colonial act centralising self-government of the six Australian Colonies. Australia remained a colony of the United Kingdom.”
1a. Although the late Lionel Murphy attempted to show that there was an element of sovereignty in this act he failed. The international definition of sovereignty has been espoused at length and the above act although important in the development of Australia, did not have the authority of sovereignty. The historical evidence that Australia remained a British Colony post 1901 is overwhelming.
2. “Australia made an international declaration of its intention to become a sovereign nation when Prime Minister Hughes and his deputy; Sir Joseph Cook signed the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919. On its cognizance of signing this treaty, Australia was granted a “C” class League of Nations mandate over former German territories in the Pacific. In effect, Papua New Guinea became a colony of Australia achieving its own independence on 16 September 1975. The League of Nations became part of International Law on 10 January 1920 with Article X of the Covenant of League of Nations guaranteeing the sovereignty of each member,”
2A. The Significance of Australia joining the League of Nations as a foundation member has never been addressed in Australia before. Strangely, only one book has ever examined the question of Australian independence. Written by W. J. Hudson and M. P. Sharp in 1988 “Australian Independence” printed by Melbourne University Press. As both were members of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade at the time of authorship and had access to the, British Parliamentary Papers, I find it most interesting they have avoided any mention of these papers in their book. Their conclusion that Australia became an independent nation via. the Statute of Westminster in 1931 flies in the face of contradictory evidence within the above-mentioned papers and readily available historical fact.
Prime Minister Hughes’ address to the Commonwealth Parliament on 10 September 1919, “Australia has now entered into a family of nations on a footing of equality. Australia has been born in a blood sacrifice” demonstrates the politicians of the day were only too well aware of the change of status from a colony to that of sovereign nation while attempting to remain within the Empire. Prime Minister Bruce made this reply to the British Government in 1922 after a request for troops against Kernel Ataturk in the Chanak crisis. Bruce’s reply is contained in the British Parliamentary Papers: “We have to try to ensure there shall be an Empire foreign policy which if we are to be in any way responsible for it, must be one to which we agree and have assented. If we are to take any responsibility for the Empire’s foreign policy, there must be a better system, so that we may be consulted and have a better opportunity to express the views of the people of this country. We cannot blindly submit to any policy which may involve us in war.” This is a far cry from the declaration of war against Germany made on behalf of the British Colony of Australia by George V of the United Kingdom in 1914.
I have re-produced Bruce’s reply in full as I believe this reply contains clear historical evidence of a Prime Minister who was well aware of the change of status from a. colony to a sovereign nation.
The later Statute of Westminster 1931 was an acknowledgment of that status.
3. “Paragraph 4 of the Statue of Westminster Act 1931 contravenes Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Paragraph 1 of the Australia Act 1986 contravenes Article 2 paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.”
3A Paragraph 4 of the Statute of Westminster reads “No Act of Parliament of the United. Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that Dominion, has requested, and consented to the enactment thereof.” Paragraph 1 of the Australia Act is very similar: “No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory.”
I passed this one to the Federal Attorney General and asked him what was the source of this quite incredible authority that sought to overturn the authority legislated within the Covenant of the League of Nations in Article X and the Charter of the United Nations in Article 2 paragraphs 1 and 4.
He is unable to provide any documentation to support these clauses, Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations states: “The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression, the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.”
It is appropriate that I now introduce a statement by Sir Geoffrey Butler KBE, MA and Fellow, Librarian and Lecturer in International Law and Diplomacy of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge author of “A Handbook to-the League of Nations” used as a reference to the League by virtually all nations at that time. He refers to Article 1 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
“It is arguable that this article is the Covenant’s most significant single measure. By it the British Dominions, namely New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Canada, have their independent nationhood established for the first time. There may be friction over small matters in giving effect to this internationally acknowledged fact but the Dominions will always look to the League of Nations Covenant as their Declaration of Independence.
Article 2 paragraph 1 of the United Nation’s Charter states “The Organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Article 2 paragraph 4 of the Charter states ‘All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
In view of the above, the historical evidence for Australian Independence by 10 January 1920 when the League of Nations became part of International Law is overwhelming. When this evidence is reinforced with the contents of the Charter of the United Nations, the continued usage of any legislation that owes its very legitimacy to the parliament of an acknowledged foreign power cannot be supported by either legal opinion or indeed historical evidence.
Following discussions with members of the British Government relating to the Letters Patent or the Governor General and State Governors I find that these documents no longer have any authority.
Indeed, the Queen of the United, Kingdom is excluded from any position of power in Australia by the United Nations Charter and is excluded under UK law from the issue of a Letters Patent to other than a British Subject. A Letters Patent must refer to an action to be taken with regard to British Citizens.
| I therefore have come to the conclusion that the current legal and political system in use in Australia and its States and Territories has no basis in law. |
Click to buy: Australian Political & Religious Leaders TREASON Treachery & Sabotage
Following discussions with members of the British Government relating to the Letters Patent for the Governor General and State Governors I find that these documents no longer have any authority.
Indeed, the Queen of the United, Kingdom is excluded from any position of power in Australia by the United Nations Charter and is excluded under UK law from the issue of a Letters Patent to other than a British Subject. A Letters Patent must refer to an action to be taken with regard to British Citizens.
The Immigration Act. 1972 UK defines Australian Citizen as aliens.
The Governor General’s Letters Patent is a comedy of errors. We are greeted in the name of the Queen of Australia who suddenly becomes the Queen of the United Kingdom in the next paragraph of the Letters Patent. This Queen the gives instructions to the Governor General with reference to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK. Here we have a clear breach of Article 2 paragraph 1 of the United Nation Charter. Under both UK and international law, the Queen is a British Citizen.
State Governors are in a worse position as their authority comes from the late Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. Regardless of the validity of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK, if the authority of Governor General and the State Governors is invalid then so is the entire political and legal system of government.
When advised that the War Crimes Commission was taking an interest, I called them in Geneva. Under the 1947 Geneva Convention, they are empowered to look into eases here in Australia where it is alleged the law of a foreign country was enforced against a citizen of a member state of the United Nations. As they perceive that only the judiciary can actually enforce the law, the judiciary becomes their target. The group has already placed cases before them which they are currently investigating. If found guilty, the penalties are horrific and include the death penalty!
I could go on with more relevant information however I think now is the time for a summary. The group leader, a QC, states the obvious when he asked me how could a colony now acknowledged by all world nations to be a sovereign Nation retain exactly the same legal and political system it enjoyed as a colony without any change whatsoever to the basis for law.
This point alone requires an answer.
The High Court has already answered with regard to the position held by treaties signed by the Commonwealth Government in the Teoh case of 1994. “Ordinary people have the right to expect government officials to consider Australia’s international obligations even if those obligations are not reflected in specific Acts of Parliament: the rights recognised in international treaties are an implied limit on executive processes.”
Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice is the correct reference for you to refuse to hear a matter when an international treaty is cited as a defence.
My advice is to adjourn any case “sine die” that that challenges the authority of the Letters Patent. Under no circumstances hear a case that challenges the validity of a State or the Federal Constitution. It is the politicians who are using us as pawns without them having to face the music. These matters are of concern to politicians, let them sort out these problems and accept any inherent risks themselves!
NOTE from webmaster: All Bold, Bold/Italic, & Italic text is our emphasis to highlight certain important points. They were not part of the original letter.
35 thoughts on “Copy of Letter from Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs”
I am afraid as a lay person I don’t understand the severity what that all that means or how it could disadvantage the Australian people if challenged. Is there a challenge to the legalities of Australia’s sovereignty and or constitution. ?
I am concerned that a bill is being passed in relation to people entering Australia and the coronavirus but under that legislation it advises that the DNA of Australians will be passed on to the w. h. o organisation.
My DNA is my own. I do not give consent for it to be given to any international agency.
Thank you ,what now ?
Is there any update on this please?
The government has broken all the laws as far as im concerned & they had no legal right to sell out us as the people under a sovereign Australia but they did & made us a corporation & when they did that they never asked us the people if we wanted that because they knew we would say no so they did it quietly like theives in the night & they stole all our rights. None of them are any good because their all part of it the so alled government & everyone in it should be sacked & a new constitution be put together by the Australian people & a clause put in that at all times those put together to run the country must be transparent
Yep agreed.. We the people are taking action…
nationalstrikeaustralia.org
Finally these matters are gaining legs.
All these above mentioned documents can be found in, Australia The Concealed Colony, published in 1999.
A report to the United Nations on the continuance of the application of British law within the territory of the independent sovereign nation Australia.
The fictitious Queen of Australia….?!!!
Created by the Australia Act 1986….?!!!
Put simply all Governments State and Federal are all acting, ‘as if’, making it up as they go along.
Alice in Wonderland.
As Justice Kirby quite rightly said, when he stepped down from the bench.
‘All Australians are locked out of all decision making in their own country.’
I note that the extent of the true background law relating to Australian indepence from England has never been taught or properly defined in the Universities to date.
This may be because it lights an explosion that none of the academia wish to lose their grants and security over.
That said the issues outlined gel with my own experiences studying law and also mesh well with the issues which lead me to walk away from the profession in disgust after nearly two decades of practice.
My opinion as an academic, lawyer and a recognised jurispudence thinker is that these matters need to be dealt with and quickly as there are fundamental issues some of which are resulting in real harm to indigenous but also to ordinary Australians not the least for which is unfettered and unlawful excess of power within the Executive.
Surely, The People of the Commonwealth of Australia could gather together, research and investigate this fully in attempt to disclose the truth to all those trying to live lawfully as per our original constitution? I mean, whats stopping us? Is anyone interested in the solutions yet or we just gonna mull over the problems for a while longer?
I see even Sir Gibbs was passionate about our Constitution. The Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) was launched in June 1992 to preserve protect and defend the Australian Constitution, the role of the Crown in it, and our National Flag.
He died in 2005. Your Comment is from 2 years ago. Soon we both will be dead, history erased, new generations knowing the lies. Prison Planet, Rinse, Repeat. I see no change, and everything is all disordered and compartmentalized, segregated just like the American system… By design? Who knows…
Need more people, and those people to come together and stand on this side of the see-saw. Been fighting for years and still fighting, where is everyone else??
You are indeed right Man. The research has already been done. That’s what this website is all about. Read the articles, and then if you want to do something about the lies, the treason and the corruption we need knowledgeable people to organize Grand Juries to hear the evidence, and if the jury decides there is enough evidence the Grand Jury can then issue an Indictment against the individuals accused of committing crimes against the people. It’s up to each one of us to take responsibility. Instead of asking why hasn’t someone else done something, isn’t it time we all start asking, “What can I do, and how do I find others to help me do it?”
I agreed and so do thousands of us !!
nationalstrikeaustralia.org
nationalstrikeaustralia.org
Nothing new under the sun….No one remembers the former generations, and even those yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow them. Ecclesiastes chapter 1. BUT, I would like to add….Jesus said that heaven and earth may pass away but my words will never pass away. I choose Him, I choose Life. Seek Him and His righteousness and all other things shall be added on to us.
On the substack site “Liberty” will appear excerpts from this document, plus a summary of the US CIA/MI6 coup of Australia on 11 November 1975; then commentary of the illegally declared “suspension of the Australian Constitution” and adjacent legislation (Crimes Act 1914, Privacy Act 1988, and other Commonwealth acts) following the illegal mRNA mandate.
Australia is being run by an unlawful assembly who themselves are controlled by the White House, the Pentagon, the Trilateral Commission, the City of London, and individuals, including Rupert Murdoch, Frank Lowy, and Ross Garnaut.
What esteemed legal minds have been unaware of for decades, was the 1954 theft by Robert Menzies of the Welfare Fund, which was established in 1946 by the Chifley Government under the Social Services Act, which itself was mandated by the 1945 National Referendum. This Act specifically forbade any politician to interfere with the Fund, which was contributed to by every worker from gross income (therefore not a government tax) at a rate of 1/6 in the pound and remains the property of the workers, collectively. The age pension this provided was without a means test. Workers were free to secure supplementary employment without prejudice to their entitlement.
Consequently, Paul Keating’s imposition of a means test was illegal. As a result, tens of thousands of age pensioners have been forced into poverty which shortened their lives. Exacerbating their financial ruin was the 50% failed indexation reduction in value in recent decades.
Likewise, the imposition of a genetic manipulation injection that had been tested only on eight mice, has caused millions of deaths worldwide, as has been proved in many countries by former financial administrator, Ed Dowd. The endlessly repeated mantra that the mRNA injection was “safe and effective” was entirely devoid of scientific justification. In fact, several medicos who famously promoted the ‘jab’ have since condemned it.
Without pointing to any particular legal violation, it is abundantly clear that Australia is without any form of recognised government; merely an ad hoc multilateral dictatorship that is pauperising and killing Australian citizens.
This must end now.
Do you have a link to that substack article – there a quite a few “Liberty” substacks. thanks
Where has this letter from Sir Harry Gibb been sourced? Everything needs to be full referenced. You can’t just post something as significant and say this was written by Sir Harry Gibb without quoting the original source. One should be able to go and verify this.
If you do some research you will find it.
Your comment is a bit lame I think….do you have the proof or not.? Until I can verify this comment was in fact from Gibbs- as others have asked- then it would go against my principles of truth telling and therefore could not use it in any productive argument.
Then do your research and try to find a copy of the original. Don’t ask others to do what you want. It’s your responsibility.
This letter is false and that’s why you then are unable to cite it. https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/supposed-ex-chief-justice-letter-is-made-up-drivel/
Where do you get your information from? I got it from an associate of the Judge.
fact checked OMG!!! And you believe THAT!!!
Yeah, right. And you believe the fact checkers? Go figure!
That’s a great question Anthony. If Harry Gibbs wrote it, then it should exist somewhere that’s verifiable. To say ‘someone told me’ is not a valid citation. ‘Someone who is an associate’ is equally not valid as a reference, given that a number of people who did know Harry Gibbs have come out to say it is not like anything he would have written and they believe it to be a fake. So – where is the original letter? (It would be nice to think that he did actually write it, but that hope does not mean it actually was written by him.)
I am in agreement with your statement above in regards to citing valid sources. I do have to say here though, whether he DID or NOT write the letter surely we can verify the information contained within? I see a lot of people who are really quick to attack and discredit the alleged individuals WITHOUT even attempting to prove the information is right/wrong…
IMHO, the letter could have been written by a 12 year old for all we know but its not about who wrote it, but rather if the facts are true and if it is verifiable. If it is a false attribution BUT the information IS TRUE, then maybe ask this question; = Why did then, say, Julian Assange or Edward Snowden choose to use a different name ‘this time around’ to release said possibly truthful information, albeit, in the name of a respected and prominent former Chief Justice of the HCA who has already passed away? (*Ding Ding Ding grabs attention*)…. Whistleblower? The Law? Taking on Government? John McAfee? Do you prefer a Spanish or UK Prison Sir? Or Death? Maybe its all just a LIE? A good conspiracy theorist maybe? Or real disinformation? (is there such a thing?)….
So TIL, ‘The Illuminati’ held an emergency meeting in Cesme, Turkey after H.P Lovecraft made mention of occult secrets in his books. He was 46/47 years old when he died/faked death/was killed etc… The article was a very interesting read indeed, search: “MICROSOFT AND THE BAVARIAN ILLUMINATI” in your favorite ‘intelligence gathering engine’ – Google works best but is definitely NOT your friend…
I really wish people would come together and start verifying the facts together instead of wasting time arguing. For example, Sir Gibbs brother is still living according to Wikipedia (Amazing Source!) and 101 years of age and with 8 Children, bless his soul! Maybe even his wife? Don’t see many people in here talking viable solutions in getting this information verified properly.
Oh by the way theres some other really good ‘Science’-‘Fiction’ media that may also ‘pique your interest’. Those are entitled ‘1984’ by George Orwell or ‘The Matrix’ by The Wachowski Pronouns, maybe even ‘They Live’ by John Carpenter?
Turns out ‘Common Sense’ isnt actually ‘Common’. Maybe that’s why ‘Common Law’ is non-existent these days…
If common law is non-existent in your mind, then that’s why. Until you, and all of us, realize we were born free, but we have allowed the tyrants to shackle us in mental chains, we will continue to see negative comments like this bandied around. Free yourself, and common law will prevail. The two rules a common law man or woman lives by: Do no harm; and Take responsibility for our own actions.
I too want to verify this letter.
Agree.
1.The law of sovereignty seems convoluted when it’s a theme. In any case if it’s a theme of freedom of a nation to decide its fate of laws then let those of other nations as a united front take it away by force and then we state “we shall no comply unless thoroughly defeated with our face in soil our forefathers fort for either as captive colonists or born as free men and women …
2. The 1986 Australia Act removed the administrative constitution by UK of the States & curiously the territories and the states (territories) become stand alone constitutions with peoples plebiscite nor freedom of speech
Many people are wide awake now that the truth is emerging so clearly that the pandemic was a scam. But many are asking, “How can it be fixed?” But that is the wrong question. We should all be asking ourselves, what can I do to help fix it?”
Already, the various groups are cooperating and working to educate people about your rights, as well as prepare the groundwork for a remedy. But it takes a lot of hard work, and we need to know that they will have the support they need to clean house. Every Australian has a vested interest in bringing our country back to clean government and a fair judicial system. It’s up to each one of us to do anything we are capable of to bring that about.
Watch this website for announcements on progress.
Thank you so much for this informative site. I am writing from the UK. Does any of what has been written pertaining to UK laws as well ?
Fascinating read. I traced a lot of the current legal issues only back to the signing of the 1972 Lima Peru Accord (abbreviated name) and then followed closely by the Australia Act of 1985. Now to find that the issue of the Governors General across Australia is now called to question I now feel that every Magistrate, Judge and Politician have not be duly appointed to office. Now know that the judiciary are in fact acting in fraud lends further credence to the claims that each court is a court under admiralty law (trust and commerce) and further reinforces the “Strawman” hypothisis.
Thank you for this website and this publication of the letter from Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs.
Interesting reading the comments and the comment and mindset on display particularly in answer BECAUSE it cannot be sited IT therefore never existed and that’s the end of its because the censorship fuctcheckers past their decree it’s false hmmmm. I’d pose a few questions have you never seen or heard of government redacting information 👁👃👁 …. rejected information tends to be rather hard to find especially when you know how hard they’ve got their fingers into censoring the internet here in Australia you can’t search for s*** …. it’s hard to decipher whether or not they are actual real mindsets and positions or if you’re a bot and your reason for commenting in this fashion is compromised I’d like to think Australians aren’t that f****** stupid
I am a UK Citizen and wonder if I can use the BOE to pay off my mortgage account and how can I do this?
Would like to be able to print the letter cheers
So if the courts will not hear any case to question the validity of the stolen constitutional rights of commonwealth citizens how does this
move forward? By forming our own government,.
Will the existing system dare to attack this new entity should it end up in court…Where evidence of as of right constitutional theft can be proven..dare they?