DATE

YOUR NAME
YOUR ADDRESS

Roads and Traffic Authority

Attention: THE CONTACT NAME

RE: Infringement Number: XXXXX

I submit to you for your review and consideration the following;

As a law abiding person, I am fully prepared to comply with any valid laws that may be in
force from time to time in New South Wales. Please consider the contents and
ramifications carefully before you proceed with any further action in this matter.

However, not withstanding that, I am in receipt of compelling evidence that the Motor
Traffic Laws, and subsequently all other NSW law, namely the Fines Act, which you have
sought to apply, are invalid.

Please consider the following historical facts:

1. Continued existence of current New South Wales law depends on British Colonial Law
in the form of The New South Wales Act (1823)(4 Geo. IV. c. 96),The Australian
Constitution Act (1842)(5 & 6 Vic. c. 76), The New South Wales Constitution Act (1855)(18
& 19 Vic. c. 54.), the Colonial Laws Validity Act (1865)(28 & 29 Vic. c. 63), the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) [Short Title], namely s106 to s120,
The Constitution Act 1902 No 32, and the Australian State Constitution Act (1907) (7 Ed.
VII. c. 7). Parts or all of some of these acts have subsequently been repealed.

The Commonwealth Constitution contains no aspect of sovereignty and Section 8 of that

“The British Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK”.

“The British Colony” component of the long title is well hidden from the public to conceal
it’s true colonial nature. Quick and Garran1, the authors of the Bill which became the
Constitution, expand on the meaning of “Under the Crown” to include “the Commonwealth
...is constitutionally a subordinate and not an independent Sovereign community or state.”

2. It is clear that from the 10th January 1920, when Australia was recognised as a
1
The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, Quick J and Garran R, 1901 Ed, Legal Books, reprinted
1995, p367.
member of the League of Nations, and therefore an independent nation, that British
Colonial Law became invalid (c.f. Hong Kong on the 1st July 1997). When His Majesty
King George V accepted the credentials of Sir Joseph Cook, Australia’s first High
Commissioner to the UK, on 11th November 1921, the King welcomed “the representative
of our ex-colony, the newly independent nation of Australia”. Since that time there has not
been a referendum to adopt the old Constitution nor to re-introduce a new “Australian
Constitution”.

3. According to the International Law Commission of the United Nations, Australian

Also, if you refer to the Australian Federal Parliament 1995 Senate - Legal and
Constitutional Reference Committee Report on the “Commonwealth Power to Make and
Implement Treaties”, para 4.13 (last sentence),

“This admission to the League (of Nations) and the International Labour Organisation
involved recognition by other countries that Australia was now a sovereign nation with the
necessary ‘international personality’ to enter into international relations.[16]”2

And while still on this point, the Australian Government has historically relied on it’s
Executive Power under s61 of the Federal Constitution to allow it to enter International
Treaties. The use of this section has recently been disallowed by the United Nations as
being invalid at International Law because it was subordinate to the United kingdom
Government. This has forced the Australian Government to fall back to claiming their
Sovereignty, and hence ability to enter and maintain these 4,000 odd international
treaties, was attained via membership to the League of Nations. The logical implications
for the New South Wales Government and what it claims to be it’s laws are obvious.

4. The High Court of Australia, in Minister v Teoh (1995), made it clear that treaties
override action and municipal law. In this case, the Treaty of Versailles overrides the
Statute of Westminster Act UK(1931) and the subsequent Statute of Westminster Adoption
Act (1942), used to supposedly justify continued use of colonial law in the Australian
states. The United Nations Charter overrides the Australia Act (1986) which attempts to
confer independent sovereignty to the Australian Nation. In the Robert Woods Case
(1988), the High Court also declared the United Kingdom a foreign power.

5. Further research has shown that since the United Kingdom via the Balfour Declaration
of 1926 acknowledged the completely equal status in all aspects of the United Kingdom
and Australia, as well as the other Dominions, then if Australia was not independent in
1926, then neither was the United Kingdom. Further recognition of Australia’s independent
sovereign status by the United Kingdom is seen with the signing of the Washington Naval
Treaty in 1922 by both Australia and the United Kingdom.

6. Under International Law, specifically the Treaty of Versailles (i.e. Article X of the
Covenant of the League of Nations) and the United Nations Charter (Articles 2.1 and 2.4),
it is an offence for the law of any nation to be applied within the territory of other sovereign
nation members of those two organisations. This is one of the basic principles of

2
[16] H.V. Evatt, The Royal Prerogative, Law Book Co., 1987:p. 151; J.G. Starke, ‘The Commonwealth in International
Affairs’ in R. Else-Mitchell (ed.), Essays on the Australian Constitution, 2nd ed., Law Book Co., Sydney, 1961, 343 at
349. R. Stewart, Treaty Relations of the British Commonwealth of Nations, MacMillian Co., New York, 1939:pp. 152-3,
being the statement made by the British Prime Minister, Mr Lloyd George, at the 1921 Prime Ministers Conference.
sovereignty. In effect, this is what you are trying to do, by claiming British Colonial Law
(derived from a foreign power) applies in Australia (the territory of another sovereign
nation member)!

7. The Letters Patent issued by Her Majesty Queen Victoria I in 1900 to the first Governor,
the Earl Beauchamp (William Lygon), KCMG, of the soon to be formed new state of New
South Wales, became invalid on her death on the 22 January, 1901. Under the Bill of
Rights 1689 and other British law, all writs of the sovereign, including Letters Patent, die
with the sovereign. New Letters Patent were not issued by her successor, His Majesty
King George V for the continued role of the Governor. Hence, the Constitution Act 1902
No. 32 was never legally passed into law. (No attempt by the former Prime Minister, R. J.
Hawke, to correct this same problem for the Commonwealth in 1984 has any effect in law,
as Australia was already an independent sovereign nation.) And even if this Act did attain
legal status, it would have ceased to have effect no later than when Australia joined the
League of Nations on 10th January, 1920!!

8. Whilst the Governor of New South Wales may assert that her powers are not
dependent on the Letters Patent issued by the Queen, but derive from royal prerogatives
in the Australia Act 1986, it is plain to see that this Act is wholly dependent on the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) for it’s validity, and hence, is
invalid. Subsequently, no royal power exists in New South Wales, and Royal Assent
cannot be given to the bills that you are relying on, either at the time of passing through
Parliament or later. How can an independent sovereign nation have it’s laws effectively
vetoed by the head of a foreign nation? This is exactly what Bignold3 describes in relation
to the powers of the Governor.

9. More recently, the British Government has stated and has provided documentation with
regard to the legislative powers of the United Kingdom Parliament. No act of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom nor act that looks to the Parliament of the United
Kingdom for its authority is valid in Australia or its territories in accordance with the laws of
the United Kingdom and the Charter of the United Nations. When asked specifically about
the following acts:

(1) The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

the British Government referred to their previous reply, as stated above.

If you subsequently claim that the justification for the exercise of your power comes from
the Crown, then the consequences of your actions will place Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in breach
of the Charter of the United Nations, and subject to action by the War Crimes Tribunal. It
would be prudent to clarify this with the Lord Chancellery’s Office in London.

Since these opinions are based on historical fact rather than judicial precedent (save the
decisions of the High Court of Australia mentioned above which merely clarify our
international position), there is no remedy which can be applied to validate all current law
other than a new constitution, freely adopted by the people of New South Wales and the

3
Imperial Statutes in Force in New South Wales, H.B. Bignold, Barrister-at-Law, Law Book Co., 1913 : vol 1, p. 21 &
24.
Australian people as a whole. It is by no means certain the people would re-adopt Motor
Traffic Laws and Regulations as you currently apply them.

It is therefore clear that if a Police Officer or Court Official wishes to impose any order or
hear any case, it is therefore necessary for them to produce proof that they have valid
legal authority to use foreign colonial law which overrides the protections in treaties
recognised by the High Court of Australia, namely the Covenant of the League of Nations
and the United Nations Charter.

Because those governing Australians continue to use United Kingdom law (and swear
oaths of allegiance to the Queen of a defunct sovereignty) they, and all established
instruments of administration are definable as agents of the United Kingdom. In assuming
the role of assisting the Local Court to prosecute me for the alleged offence and thereby
impose an illegal fine on me you too have become definable as an agent of a foreign
power (that is, the government of the United Kingdom) and because you are acting in that
role within a territory and against citizens not under the control of that power you are
describable as a terrorist!

It is a requirement under international law that any judge, magistrate or law officer must
supply evidence of the valid legal authority upon request to satisfy the requirements of
Article 14 of the 1966 United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights only allowing
hearings before competent courts.

As a result I require from you, clear and unequivocal proof that the Motor Traffic Laws,
Regulations and the Fines Act (1996) you are imposing have a valid basis in International
Law, alternatively, if you can supply the following:

(1) written permission by the United Nations to use foreign law in contravention of
Articles 2.1 and 2.4 of the United Nations Charter,
(2) written permission from the United Kingdom parliament to continue the use of
U.K. Law in Australia in contravention of U.K. Law and International Law, and,
(3) written evidence of clearly expressed permission by the Australian people, since
1920, for the continued use of foreign colonial law,
then this requirement will be met.

Until such time, I demand that you:

(1) withdraw the Enforcement Order Q1467131, and

(2) cease any further action by yourself or your officers in this matter.

Failure by you and/or your officers to comply with these demands, will place yourself and
those relevant officers in breach of international law. Being specific, the International Court
of Justice (IJC) views illegal confiscation of property and unlawful action against the
citizens of it’s member nations as Crimes Against Humanity, and then, this matter, can be
dealt with by the International Criminal Court (ICC), under their statues on terrorism4.

4
The crime of terrorism is defined as “undertaking, organizing, sponsoring, ordering, facilitating, financing, encouraging
or tolerating acts of violence against another State directed at persons or property and of such a nature as to create
terror, fear or insecurity in the minds of public figures, groups of persons, the general public or populations, for
For you to continue to knowingly assist in the perpetuation of the situation amounts both
to a misguided act of loyalty as well as constituting an act of treason against the
Australian people.

By way of a recent parallel situation, the report of the International Criminal Tribunal
(Yugoslavia) reveals that, that Tribunal considered human rights abuses as more serious
than war crimes and placed ‘economic deprivation’ at the upper end of the penalty scale.
While I doubt that you will comprehend that you are – in my matter – directly involved in
an illegal act of economic deprivation (for which the United Nation’s penalty scale is from
five (5) to twenty-five (25) years) if you decide to continue in your activities I suggest that,
after you have had a laugh about this letter with your friends, you take the time to
consider your position, as you have been given notice.

In addition, you should note that an International Criminal Tribunal can authorise any
reparations that it deems fit. Accordingly, individual offenders may be subject to ‘open
ended’ liability. Moreover, advice received from counsels in the United Kingdom is that the
damages that will be awarded by their courts will be in the nature of “extraordinary
punitive” damages. This has led to a number of such counsels seeking to pursue such
claims on the basis of a percentage of the damages to be awarded in each case.

If you force me to commence this action, I will seek to have you charged with Crimes
Against Humanity (or terrorism as the case maybe), and an international warrant for your
arrest will subsequently be issued. Since Interpol does not operate in Australia, the
responsibility for execution of these warrants resides with the Australian Federal Police.

Once this action is commenced, you as a public servant cannot receive the protection of
your employer/master, nor the New South Wales Government, and you become
personally liable for all the consequences that flow from your actions. By acting under
invalid laws and without legal authority, you do so as a private individual and personally
assume all responsibility, including repayment from your own private assets for any
damages and reparations which maybe later sought.

To impose British Colonial Law within New South Wales is a breach of the 1947 Geneva
Convention No IV, and it fits within the definition of a war crime under that convention. The
penalties prescribed under this section of international law used to include capital
punishment and substantial prison sentences. It is fortunate that the Second Optional
Protocol5 calls for the abolition of the death penalty. The principle: “Ignorance of the law is
no excuse” applies in the International Criminal Court, but “Denial of responsibility due to
following what you believe to be valid legal directions” will not be viewed as a valid
defence in this court. This was shown to be the case at Nürmberg, and more recently in
the former Yugoslavia, and in Rwanda, when the International Criminal Tribunals were in
session. I take this opportunity to inform you that the United Nations is justified in using
lethal force against breaches of it’s charter.

I am willing to appear before a court possessing valid legal authority under international
law so I await you urgent reply and action. Until such time, the Enforcement Order
whatever considerations and purposes of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or such other
nature that may be invoked to justify them” .

5
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the
Death Penalty, Article 1.
referred to above remains a document without legal validity. Please note that Article 51 of
the United Nations Charter entitles citizens to “individual or collective self defence” by any
means necessary as allowed under the rules of war against actions of illegal governments
or courts applying foreign law.

I await your response.

YOUR SIGNATURE____
YOUR NAME