DATEYOUR NAME

YOUR ADDRESS

ATTENTION: NAME OF PERSON THEIR COMPANY NAMETHEIR ADDRESSTHEIR CONTACT NUMBERSTHEIR EMAIL ADDRESS

Re: XXXXXXXXXX

Dear XXXXXXX,

The following letter is putting you on notice that if you continue with your current course of action against myself or assist in the sale of the property (or write in whatever the action is against you) known as XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, I will take it that you have reviewed this entire letter, understood its contents, but disregarded the consequences of persisting with your illegal course of action.

Although I long ago relinquished any sanguine hopes that anyone in your position could in any way be influenced by the contents of this letter, please understand that I am forwarding same so that there is proof that you were made aware of these issues and I am therefore able to initiate legal proceedings against you once the issues raised in the various decisions of David Claude Fitzgibbon-v-Her Majesty’s Attorney General of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have been finalized by the United Kingdom government. The secondary reason for me forwarding this letter is my obligation to present the truth to Australian citizens who are placed in the invidious position of unwittingly committing a human rights offense. For me to do less is to invite the possibility of a potential charge of misprision. Although I know that you will disregard the matters that I am conveying to you in this lengthy communication, by doing so you will place yourself in dire legal and financial jeopardy and you will have no credible defense to my claim.

As I am making you aware of the legal invalidity of the actions which you propose to take there is no doubt that any actions taken by you will, at a latter date, attract attention. I wish to assure you that academics the world over, along with various lawyers within the United Kingdom – solicitors, senior counsels and an increasing number of British politicians - agree with the arguments and facts submitted to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and you personally in this letter. You can also be assured that judgments pertaining to these issues and handed down by Australian courts are, at best, unsafe and at worse, hilarious.

For various reasons, not least being national media controls via D-Notices, it is unlikely that you will be aware that all levels of government in Australia have been – for several years – under serious challenge. The process has now reached an advanced level overseas. Shortly the non-English print media will publish the facts. These media articles will arise from the fundamental platform on which

Page 1 Initial:_______________________

all levels of government within Australia, as well as its organs put in place to administer and police decisions of Australian governments, is a current Act of the United Kingdom Parliament: The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900! These media articles will also cover the fact that even if the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (UK) is valid, its terms have not been complied with by either the British or Australian governments.

The ‘Australian’ Constitution, being the ninth clause of the aforementioned Act of the Westminster Parliament, ultimately remains under the control of the United Kingdom Parliament! That is, the ‘Australian’ Constitution is under the control of the Parliament of a power foreign to Australia and its people!

Immediately Australia achieved independence, The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.) became ultra vires within the sovereign, independent territory of Australia. So, despite historical connections, the ‘Australian’ Constitution, being part of a colonial law, ceased to have valid application in Australia from the moment Australia became independent! At the same time, the Monarchy, through the fact that it only possesses authority as an integral part of the United Kingdom legislature, became an irrelevancy with regard to the internal affairs of Australia. These assertions have been proved by numerous Answers to Freedom of Information Applications both by the Federal Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Correspondence from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office together with letters on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II from Buckingham Palace also verifies these facts.

A copy of the Submission requesting the appointment of an International Criminal Tribunal (Australia) to deal with those individuals who continue to illegally exert power on Australian citizens through the application of invalidated British colonial law within the sovereign territory of Australia is available upon the Internet at the following address should you wish to peruse a copy: www.basicfraud.com (and I strongly suggest you research this entire website and all the information it contains) alternatively, just Google ‘Australia: The Concealed Colony’. For your information, this Submission was forwarded to and accepted by the 185 Member States of the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Human Rights Commission and the International Criminal Commission, all of the United Nations. Advice received is that the aforesaid Submission has reached an advanced stage of consideration by the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations. Moreover meetings between Australian citizens and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour have taken place in Geneva. However, the matter has not rested with the United Nations alone. On or about Friday 25th October, 2002 criminal litigation was initiated in the court system of the United Kingdom. This litigation dealt with executive authority within Australia. Should you be interested I advise that the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, 1981 (U.K.) makes interesting reading and can be found via the Internet or in the National Library in Canberra.

Fundamentally, your problems will arise from the fact that the United Nations has confirmed that from at least the 24th October, 1945, the United Kingdom law, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.) has been ultra vires within Australia. Moreover, as will be revealed shortly, the government of the United Kingdom is aware of the problem and the fact that it must now be deal with it.

Because of the invalidity of the ‘Australian’ Constitution within the territory of Australia, subsequent to the Australian people gaining their independence and sovereignty, the Office of the Governor-

Page 2 Initial:_______________________

General became purely titular, possessing no authority to give ‘Royal’ ascent with regard to section 58 of the ‘Australian’ Constitution. Bills of law assented to by Governors-General can have no valid legal application to Australian citizens within the sovereign territory of the Commonwealth of Australia. Action based on belief to the contrary is unenforceable under British, European and international law.

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 – such as the court systems of Australia – are definable as agents of the United Kingdom. In assuming the role of illegally selling the aforesaid properties and relying upon Australian Bills of law which are purported to be enacted, you too have become definable as an agent of a foreign power

I have been informed that certain sections of the government of the United Kingdom have confirmed that with regard to the cases recently initiated within that country and the European Court of Human Rights, the documentation that is to be relied upon is correct and that they are in agreement with the argument, analysis and conclusions to be advanced. Senior legal counsels of the United Kingdom have opined that the criminal charges are indefensible.

Moreover (and as an influencing factor within the United Kingdom government) attention should be given to the advice of the European Rights Commission that the legislative powers of the Parliament of the European Union supersede that of any individual Member of the European Community and that, that Parliament has the power to repeal legislation of European Community Member States which conflicts with the human rights principles adopted by the European Community.

International human rights declarations have been adopted and incorporated in the European Convention on Human Rights which, inter alia, states that all government shall be by the people. This Convention was adopted into United Kingdom law via the Human Rights Act, 1998 (U.K.). In other words, the condoning of, or even the neutral stand adopted by, the United Kingdom in relation to the matter of the continued use of its invalidated colonial law to govern Australians is strictly prohibited under European Community rules and now by United Kingdom law.

Further, the same conclusion is reached by a different deduction offered by an eminent jurist who was a consultant to the President of the United States of America. (The significance of this lies in the fact that the U.S.A. is a Member of the Security Council of the United Nations). This jurist has advised that the Human Rights Act, 1998 (U.K.) and the Treaty on European Union, 1993 along with the Charter of the United Nations, 1945 invalidates in its entirety, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.). He further pointed out that all legislation passed by theUnited Kingdom is subject to the Human Rights Act, 1998 (U.K.). This Act in turn incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights. Interestingly, because the Human Rights Act, 1998 (U.K.) makes no reference of exclusion relating to the current Act of domestic law of the United Kingdom, namely the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.) and because that Constitution Act does not per se contain exclusion clauses regarding the Human Rights Act, 1998 (U.K.) then the United Kingdom Parliament’s statute namely the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.) has been invalidated by way of the United Kingdom’s own 1998 Human Rights legislation. Since various Articles within the Charter of the United Nations, 1945 forbid the transfer of legislation such as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.) from one Member State to another United Nations Member State and in addition, since the

Page 3 Initial:_______________________

United Kingdom adopted a policy entitled ‘the doctrine of transformation’ in 1991 (which rules that International law has automatic superiority to domestic United Kingdom law) in the event of a conflict between the two (2) then, both United Kingdom law and International law absolutely stand in the way of the existing political and judicial system adopting or attempting to validate the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.).

Despite the devious (and at times, awkward) pronouncements emanating from the United Kingdom it is clear that the British have maintained an historic lie. Concomitantly the United Kingdom has attempted to create a set of legal criteria which it is hoped will ultimately render their Queen and Parliament immune from wrong doing before the eyes of the world, while leaving Australians who have chosen to assume the power to govern and administer over the Australian people, to answer for their actions before the International Criminal Tribunal (Australia), a court of the United Kingdom and/or the European Court of Justice. Whichever body acts upon these issues, rest assured that the present Australian authorities will have no influence.

For you to continue to knowingly assist in the perpetuation of the situation by relying on invalid ‘Australian’ laws amounts both to a misguided act of loyalty as well as constituting an act of treason against the Australian people. No doubt you will believe that the U.K. or European courts have no jurisdiction within the Commonwealth of Australia, but that is a matter for you. You may wish to have the Lloyds’ Underwriters confirm this for you in writing.

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 you take the time to consider your position, as you have been given notice. As an individual with access to the Internet, telephone and postal service if you continue to act against me, after I have initiated my claim against you, you will be denied any defense as to your lack of knowledge of the facts I am outlining herein.

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 compensation that will be awarded will be in the nature of “extraordinary punitive” damages. This has led to a number of such counsels and the solicitors who will instruct them, seeking to pursue such claims on the basis of a percentage of the damages to be awarded in each case.

Accordingly, you would be well advised to exercise extreme caution in relation to this and any othermatter involving the divesting of property or the harassment of individuals who have cited, on Constitutional grounds, the invalidity of the laws applied in Australia. If you proceed you will be doing so in the face of undeniable, factual and historical evidence and in contradiction of publicly available documents. Nonetheless, should you decide to do so you will not be alone. Again, my strong advice to you is that as you have indemnity insurance you present this letter to your insurance underwriters and ask them for an answer to the obvious questions.

Although I have every reason to opine that you will not take up this information, nonetheless, it is offered upon the basis that the Lloyds’ Underwriters sought advice some years ago from the most

Page 4 Initial:_______________________

eminent independent legal professionals available to them. Advice has been obtained that Australians who are ultimately relying on international underwriters will be asked to show how their indemnity insurance can be relied upon in the face of their concealment of material facts dealing with the issues raised herein. No doubt they will produce learned legal opinions written by Australian lawyers with no qualifications in international law, but that will be a matter for them. As such, individuals like yourself, should you decide to pursue me under invalid Australian laws, will find themselves personally liable for any damages awarded against them, together with being responsible for their own legal expenses. Again, the primary purpose of this letter is to put you on notice so as to allow me to more easily initiate legal action!

In short, should you decide to continue to act in this matter, you will have chosen to play an instrumental role and one that will become the subject of litigation in a tribunal over which the authorities presently operating in Australia will have no authority. It is clear to me, but sadly to few Australian lawyers, that the outcome of the proceedings commenced will be contrary to the current pronouncements of Australian courts and what passes for Australia’s legal profession. Such an outcome will, in turn, illustrate that the terms of any indemnity insurance held by you have been voided.

The fundamental legal principle involved is simple and easily understood. I strongly advise that you – as an individual – carefully examine the matters contained in this letter. When doing so please remember that, in matters involving human rights, individuals are considered to be solely responsible for their actions and the “I was only doing my job” Nuremberg defenses of ‘acting on advice’, ‘acting under direction’, ‘acting under orders’ or any justification which involves a ‘superior authority’ (such as an unsafe court decision) does not present as an acceptable defense.

In this matter you cannot afford to accept the advice of another. In the interests of your own ‘self-preservation’ you must become a student of the situation to avoid becoming a participant. If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me by post or email.

Yours sincerely,

YOUR SIGNATURE YOUR NAME

¨The Commonwealth of Australia’s armed forces during World War I displayed a fighting ability, courage, and endurance which made them a legend wherever they fought. All of them were volunteers. Sixty-one thousands, seven hundred and twenty of them died and ennobled the soils of France and Gallipoli. Over 155,000 of them were wounded. All carried the scars of war for life as a badge of honour¨.

“…By this recognition Australia became a nation, and entered into a family of nations on a footing of equality. We had earned that, or, rather, our soldiers had earned it for us. In the achievement of victory they had played their part and no nation has a better right to be represented than Australia…”

Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, William Morris Hughes House of Representatives Wednesday, 10th September 1919.

Page 5 Initial:_______________________

WEBSITE REFERENCES:

www.basicfraud.com

www.members.westnet.com.au/unrealneil

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versailles.html

www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/GovGen.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20001204150500/http:/www.institutetr.com.au www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality04.htm

www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/08/1091903444867.html

www.principalityofcamside.cc/Audio/OzAudioIntro.htm http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/young_and_free.htm

cc. Elizabeth II The Right Honourable Queen of the United Kingdom Baroness Jan Royall of Blaisdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Leader of the House of Lords & Buckingham Palace Lord President of the CouncilLondon SW1A 1AA  Privy Council Office

2 Carlton GardensLondon SW1Y 5AA

Kevin Rudd M.P. Ms Quentin Bryce ACPrime Minister of Australia Governor General of theGPO PO Box 6022 Commonwealth of AustraliaHouse of Representatives Government HouseParliament House Dunrossil DriveCanberra ACT 2600 Yarralumla. ACT 2600

Page 6 Initial:_______________________