It’s quite technical, full of drama, and a great challenge – taking away the authority of the judge. The defendant clearly knows exactly what he’s doing. It must take a lot of knowledge to carry out such a challenge. The judge is clearly not acting as an agent of the Crown. Australia is a corporation. He has no authority.
The technicalities are well explained afterwards, why the plea has validity, and the judge has no authority in the court. The Crown is The City Of London, which in turn is owned by The Vatican. They rule us by the law of the sea. The defendant makes clear that he ‘stands on the land’. I’d love to understand more of tis, if I can get five minutes away from the noise of kids! I hope you are in a place where you can take in more than I can. Leave some comments for me.
The relevant person, Paul Andrew Mitchell:
And the important point-of-departure document:
GORDON comments –
- A phrase used in the Magna Carta to refer to the then established law of the kingdom (as distinct from Roman or civil law); today it refers to fundamental principles of justice commensurate with due process; “the United States Constitution declares itself to be `the supreme law of the land'”
The law of the sea
- Law of the Sea is a body of international law that concerns the principals and rules by which public entities, especially states, interact in maritime matters, including navigational rights, sea mineral rights, and coastal waters jurisdiction. …
The Secret People.