@@commonlawrights9514 no common law here bud. Sir Harry Gibbs was a member of the High Court of Australia from 1970 to 1981 and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1981 to 1987. He stated: “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. 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.” "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." Kings are not supposed to rule us. They are supposed to uphold "gods" law and protect us.
@@commonlawrights9514 Why do you think they changed in 1973, "They know" But it's still false, They have no authority, No rule of law, Read this, you understand all legislature must have line of authority? Where did Q Victoria get authority from? Authority of the Crown to rule is derived from the divine right to rule. It is bestowed on all monarch's in Europe by either Rome or Constantinople. Since Henry VIII was excommunicated no King of England had this divine right. Kings are not supposed to rule us. They are supposed to uphold gods law and protect us. Bet it gets worse, Because there is no evidence Jesus was related to the Royal family of Judah. You see, there is no evidence in Jewish culture that return to life from death is possible. The reincarnation was invented later in Rome to effect a certain act of probate. Hebrews 9:16 You see the church wanted the Law of God but also wanted the power of Rome The Law must stay in Jerusalem. So, to move the Law (Torah) from Jerusalem to Rome the Church made Jesus a king. Here is the legal trickery In Jewish culture the King writes a scroll of the Law and this is placed in the Temple. So, if Jesus returns from the dead, bequeaths the Law to the Church and dies again, the Church ends up with ownership of property to do as it wishes. This allows claim for Bishop of Rome to rule in Jesus' name (as god). Now that Church has 'authority' it can do anything. First thing it did is to disregard the Law. Instead it adopted Roman Imperial law and Canon law written by some Greek monks. So ecclesiastical law is not Law of Jesus despite his statement that the Law is not to be changed. Church didn't change the Law, they simply adopted laws completely foreign to Jesus. It all went downhill from there. Under the Law a woman cannot be ruler. First Jewish Queen was liked, but was illegal, second Queed killed most of her own family. The entire line of legal authority in Europe is based on fraudulent probate, the theft of cultural property from the Jews. Now you will understand why the Church has tried to exterminate Jews? It is easier to proceed from crime when there are no witnesses. All the Jewish conspiracy theories come from the Church to maintain the hate. And all the wars in Europe have always been about sibling rivalry perpetuated by the Church. William of Orange who became king with Mary was a German, and renewed occupation of the Celts who for a time were in the royalty, Tudors & Stewart's. But beforehand it was Normans (Germans) ruling over Vikings (Germans), ruling over Saxons (Germans). Celts have been under occupation since Roman invasion, and have even forgotten who they are. Now all are 'British' though this is a term for the Celts who now are called Welsh. So taking the land is nothing culturally new to Europeans. They would have one way or another. So this is the story, No one has lawful authority in Australia!!. 1901 constitution is a nullity. European settlement is by fraud /theft and Genocide.
You could do what some of the archery and golf places do leaving a few loose arrows/golf balls around and pin up some notice/sign of warning that they are on an archer/golf field 😂 and to turn back immediately and call the property manager (you) and owner (mother) for "other side entrance" to avoid any harm, injury or loss. Its worth having a webcam of proof showing they read the notice as well. After that you're just doing some night vision archery hunting pests or aiming at targets 🤣 but if you got a nice flood light start swinging some golf balls
I’m not threatening anyone. As they have been negligent I need to defend myself. As I got assaulted by 4 armed people in my back yard I need to defend myself
Judging by your other videos, you belong on social media. You provoke the police (and others) just to get your video clips out there. I get it. You want to be “famous”. I watch a lot of different videos on YT and you rank up there with the likes of Larz and Bameron. You will do whatever it takes to get attention. It’s cliche but there is no such thing is bad publicity. I live safe in the knowledge that I let others be. I don’t whip out my phone every time I see the police. I don’t whip out my phone just to film people in the hope that it will rile them up. You do it for likes and subs. I don’t feel sad for you. I feel nothing for you. I watch clips and it reminds me that I am a good person. But seeing what you do makes me believe that you are an ASW. I commented on one of your other videos as well. The one where the police had a legitimate reason for pulling you over and you start sprouting your RU-vid/TikTok/Wikipedia law and think that you know more than the police. The problem is that you don’t know the law as well as you think. The vehicle you were driving was registered to an unlicensed person. Why wouldn’t they check it out? I refer to my original post on this video and standby what I said. I hope they are “busy” when you really need them.
You can't trespass someone from a property you don't own AND you can't trespass the Police. On top of the three court appearances you already have, you are heading for more. Please keep us informed (entertained)
There's literally dozens of precedents that conflict with your ignorant ideology, Court Date Citations New South Wales v Corbett [2007] HCA 32; 230 CLR 606 High Court of Australia 1 Aug 2007 2 citations: ALJR 1372-1373, 1382, 18-22, 87; ALR 43-44, 57 New South Wales v Fahy [2007] HCA 20; 232 CLR 486 High Court of Australia 22 May 2007 4 citations: ALJR 21, 27; ALR 412, 413, 1028, 1029 Cornwell v The Queen [2007] HCA 12; 231 CLR 260 High Court of Australia 22 Mar 2007 1 citation: Page 85, 865; Para 105 State of New South Wales v Kuru (2007) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-893 Australian Torts Reports 2007 6 citations: Page 69-705, 69690, 69703, 69704, 69713, Para 3, 79, 87, 93, 138-139, 161 New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57; 229 CLR 638 High Court of Australia 12 Dec 2006 2 citations Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 58; 217 CLR 274 High Court of Australia 18 Nov 2004 1 citation: Page 312; Para 105 Coleman v Power [2004] HCA 39; 220 CLR 1 High Court of Australia 1 Sep 2004 2 citations: Page 24, Para 10 Addison v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2004] 1 WLR 29 Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2002] HCA 49; 213 CLR 543 High Court of Australia 7 Nov 2002 1 citation: Page 558-559, 562-563, 577; Para 28, 43, 90 Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 8; 207 CLR 1 High Court of Australia 15 Feb 2001 1 citation: Page 19-20; Para 34-35 McLeod v United Kingdom 27 EHRR 493 European Human Rights Reports 1998 1 citation McLeod v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1994] 4 All ER 553 All England Reports 1994 2 citations: Page 560 Plenty v Dillon [1991] HCA 5; 171 CLR 635 High Court of Australia 7 Mar 1991 3 citations: Page 639, 647 George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; 170 CLR 104 High Court of Australia 20 Jun 1990 1 citation: Page 110-111 Halliday v Nevill [1984] HCA 80; 155 CLR 1 High Court of Australia 6 Dec 1984 7 citations: Page 9, 10, 20 Albert v Lavin [1982] AC 546 The Law Reports, Appeal Cases (Third Series) 1982 2 citations: Page 565 Morris v Beardmore [1981] AC 446 The Law Reports, Appeal Cases (Third Series) 1981 1 citation: Page 464 Eccles v Bourque 50 DLR (3d) 753 Dominion Law Reports, Canada, Third Series 1974 1 citation: Page 742-743 Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308 The Law Reports, Queens Bench 1964 1 citation: Page 320 Thomas v Sawkins [1935] 2 KB 249 The Law Reports, King's Bench 1935 10 citations: Page 255, 257 Ex parte Walsh and Johnson; In re Yates [1925] HCA 53; 37 CLR 36 High Court of Australia 18 Dec 1925 1 citation: Page 93 Great Central Railway Co v Bates [1921] 3 KB 578 The Law Reports, King's Bench 1921 1 citation: Page 581-582 Potter v Minahan [1908] HCA 63; 7 CLR 277 High Court of Australia 8 Oct 1908 1 citation: Page 304 Enever v the King [1906] HCA 3; 3 CLR 969 High Court of Australia 12 Mar 1906 1 citation Entick v Carrington 19 State Trials 1029 State Trials 1765 1 citation: Page 817 Unknown case title 73 ER 79
@@CrazyWhiteVanDriver 1. Another armchair lawyer I see. None of the cases you mention prevent Police from entering a property against the owners will if they are performing their duty and are authorised by law. None of the cases support your ignorant ideology.
@@toddpadilla8295 Kuru v State of New South Wales [2008] HCA 26 (12 June 2008) (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne And Heydon JJ) (High Court of Australia) 236 CLR 1; 82 ALJR 1021; 246 ALR 260 View on JADE
