www.basicfraud.com

PRESS RELEASE

[Solicitor’s Firm , Address & contact details deleted]
LEGAL CHALLENGE TO AUSTRALIAN SOVEREIGNTY

[Firm name deleted] solicitors have been instructed by a leading group of Australian historical researchers to mount a challenge in the High Court seeking as declaration that Australia is truly an independent nation. The UK court will be asked to consider whether or not that present law and executive function in Australia is flawed and invalid. This challenge may well have a significant impact upon Canada and New Zealand. Australian legal Counsel has already stated that such a challenge should take place. UK Counsel's opinion is being sought.

Notes to Editors - By declaration at the Imperial Conferences of 1917,1921 and 1923 the United Kingdom government commenced the process of independence for the five named dominions, Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Newfoundland. After the inter-imperial Relations Conference of 1926 the Balfour Declaration reiterated the policy decisions. By legislation commencing in 1931 the United Kingdom Parliament gave its imprimatur to the process and formally recognised de jure the separation of sovereignty which had already taken place de facto. However, within the executive branch of the United Kingdom Government it appears that elements exist which do not agree with the actions of the Parliament and who seek to negate the legislation by means of proclamations and appointments under other United Kingdom legislation, including powers authorising the use of the Royal Sign Manual for the creation of Orders, Warrants and Commissions. By applying that legislative power to lands no longer under sovereign authority in places and jurisdictions which are no longer dependencies of the United Kingdom as required by law, these persons have misled Her Majesty with the deliberate intent of subverting the laws of the United Kingdom Parliament.
In short it appears that certain individuals decided to defy the Parliament to maintain as long as possible the trappings of Empire and have proceeded to continue making appointments as if the Commonwealth of Nations is simply the British Empire under another name. The view of the Secretariat of the Commonwealth of Nations is that Her Majesty's position in each of the member realms of the Commonwealth of Nations is titular only with no continuing executive authority.
On balance there is a strong presumption that the later legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament prevails giving independence to the Dominions including Australia and that the Commissions of Appointment insofar as they confer executive office and authority are a nullity. It also appears clear that the current sovereign has never possessed the power of executive appointment in the Dominions having ascended to the throne after the demise of the appointment and executive powers as the result of independence legislation.
CONTACT [Solicitor’s name, Firm name &contact details deleted]
WORD/AUSTRALIAPRESSRELEASE1/392001
……………………………………………………………………………………………
On the 25th of September, 2000 the following advertisement appeared in The Melbourne Age newspaper at page 9:
To citizens, former citizens and governments of the countries listed below are hereby given notice that following successful submissions by counsel acting on behalf of the Commonwealth Government a number of decisions in the High Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia and various State Supreme Courts have clearly defined Australia as not having become a fully independent sovereign nation until 1986. Further the courts have decided that Australia was not a fully independent sovereign nation prior to World War 2. Without that sovereign nation status the declarations of war against the listed countries on the following dates: Germany 3rd September 1939, Italy 11th June 1940, Finland, Romania, Hungary & Japan 8th December 1941, Thailand (Siam) 2nd March 1942 have no legal standing under international law. The internment of citizens of the listed countries as enemy aliens, seizure of property and assets belonging to such citizens, or belonging to corporations domiciled in those countries was illegal. Damage caused to the national infrastructure of the countries was likewise illegal.
Attention of the above citizens or their heirs and successors is drawn to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under article 36 of its Statute and in particular to the provisions for the awarding of damages and reparations against offending governments which have breached international treaties between their nation and Australia.
An information pack has been prepared, including extracts from the court judgements mentioned, to allow any person affected by the above to consult their own legal advisers and their governments about initiating legal action for recovery and damages. The information is provided as a public service at no charge.
Interested parties should write to:  alberthfish@yahoo.co.uk
Questions:
1 How can Australia, New Zealand and Canada vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations if they are not actually nations, if they rely on a foreign Queen - herself appointed as a trumped up public servant by a foreign parliament?
2 Are the UN treaties entered into by Australia, New Zealand and Canada still valid and enforceable?
3 During the Second World War, Australia declared war on Japan. How could the Australian government do this if Australia wasn't a sovereign nation? Will the Australian people be liable for war reparations to the Japanese people and companies effected by our wartime activities? Also check the fact that Australia, but not the United Kingdom, declared war on Thailand, so it can't be said that Australia was not acting alone as a sovereign nation.
4 How can the United Kingdom talk about human rights with a straight face – except as a cover for their long established greedy self-interest and why are the forged signatures of Queen Elizabeth II all in the top right-hand corners of Australian Vice-Regal Appointment documents?
5 John W. Howard as Prime Minister of Australia travelled to the UK and put pressure on Justice Lightman to decide Fitzgibbon's case in the way Lightman did and (now retired) Justice Lightman told David Claude Fitzgibbon this! So much for British justice and the British courts!
6  http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j3083/fitzgibbon-v-hmattorney_general.htm
7 If you or someone you know has investments – perhaps with Managed Retirement Funds – in Australia, New Zealand or Canada, how safe are those investments in jurisdictions with no valid or internationally enforceable legislation?

 http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j 3083/fitzgibb...

Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 114 (Ch)

Case No: CH/2004/APP/0447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London,
WC2A 2LL

Date: 09/02/2005

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

DAVID CLAUDE FITZGIBBON Appellant /Claimant

- and -

HM ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent
/Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Leolin Price QC and Mr Eason Rajah (instructed by Messrs Beynon Nicholls, 27
Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1NE) for the Claimant/Appellant

Mr Jonathan Crow (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, Queen Anne s Chambers, 28
Broadway, London SW1H 9JS) for the Defendant/Respondent

st st
Hearing dates: 31 January 1 February 2005

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this
Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

.............................

 http://rapidshare.com/files/207076473/0-fitzgibbon-v-hmattorney_general.pdf.html

 http://www.filefactory.com/file/af40ddc/n/0-fitzgibbon-v-hmattorney_general_pdf