COMMON LAW AND COVID19
This article is part of our insight series regarding COVID19 and navigating the implications in Australia and beyond. To get notified by email when new COVID19 insights are released, please subscribe for updates on our contact page.
Whether as a person, employee or a business owner, in respect to the COVID19 pandemic it is extremely important to understand your legal rights and the legal system itself.
In order for the Australian people to take back their civil liberties, basic human rights and their ability to earn an income, it is key to inform yourself and others of the reality around what is in fact the 'law' vs the 'legislation' and 'acts' we are fed by the mainstream media and reiterated by the legal system that profits from your ignorance.
It is critical to realise you are restricted by only one thing; your own lack of knowledge and a fear of government, authorities, police or any fines or legal ramifications you are threatened with. All of these threats do no exist unless you give consent. It is quite literally an 'opt in' if you agree to it.
For an overview of Common Law, watch this video overview here.
To better understand your rights, the difference between legislation and laws here.
What is the regular and legal role of a police officer outside of and within the current COVID19 pandemic?
Police officers were originally appointed as ‘Peace Officers’ but as populations grew, so did their roles.
The Police Act (below) is in fact unlawful as it sits outside our Constitution as those in our NSW Parliament that are responsible for our laws have sworn an unlawful oath to the Queen of Australia who is a mystical patron of the political parties.
Consequently, the Queen of Australia has no authority over the people. This ‘fake Queen’, established by political dissenters, holds no land, has no collateral and gives no authority. It is simply a statutory ‘mystical’ patron of the political parties Australian Government. Further to this, our politicians have taken a false oath to a ‘mystical’ patron, or a person who does not exist. The Queen of Australia holds no land and is only a title on a piece of paper.
The Legal System
Australia has adopted its legal system from the United Kingdom’s common law, which allows us to enjoy the presumption of innocence and the right to remain silent. The law courts were always open courts of record to ensure transparency where trial by jury was by our peers, ensuring that legal precedents moved forward in line with social values and community expectations.
The Constitution was written to define the roles of the courts and the parliament - both state and Commonwealth - to ensure a separation of powers and it was written with Common Law in mind. Yet, just over a hundred years later this has been erased. So how did this happen and who is responsible?
“The Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people: it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government".
American Founding Father
The writers of the Constitution would never have thought that the parliament itself would at some point undermine justice, the Constitution and our system of Common Law. In order to control the legal system, all they had to do is to take away our protections, the presumption of innocence, a trial by jury and the right to remain silent, thus overriding Common Law with the law of the parliament. All laws beginning in 1973 until now are VOID.
Justice cannot work under the veil of secrecy and it cannot be written into legislation nor can it operate within a court system that has its hands bound by self-interest.
If a law or legislation is created to remove the inalienable rights of the nation’s citizens, then that legislation is unlawful, illegitimate and is in fact a criminal offense. The reality is our current government are dictators who have absolutely no right or authority to remove the rights of the citizens.
"This society in which we live is radically changing. What previous generations saw as evil is now being embraced as being good. It is a dangerous and slippery slope upon which we stand when we reject what Solomon called “The Beginning of Wisdom”.
Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1970 to 1981 is on record for stating that, “the current legal and political system in use in Australia and its States and Territories has no basis in law.”
Please refer link: https://www.facebook.com/100036379479946/posts/166568161232499/?d=n
Without the authority of the Crown as contained in our Commonwealth Constitution; councils, police, local courts and Parliament for example have no authority and are acting unlawfully. This creation of the ‘Queen of Australia’ is a mystical patron of the political parties created in 1973 and was made ‘ultra vires’ - meaning an act that requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, intra vires, is an act done under proper authority.
We have seen a number of citizens being approached by police and threatened under `martial law' or `COVID19 Restrictions’ and many are concerned with forced vaccinations. These are the legal facts.
In relation to any attempt to force vaccinations upon its citizens is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, Article 6, sections 1 and 3.
Under the United Nations Human rights, Article 7, no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman punishment or degrading treatment or punishment such that our government is inflicting upon the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia at present. This behaviour is construed as being criminal and a deprivation of liberty and a citizen’s consent is required. This also applies to police officers attempting to enforce the law for social distancing and other draconian laws, unlawfully passed by a de jure de facto government.
No government shall force its citizens into undertaking any such actions that deprives their liberty. This includes enforcing tracking apps and other such obtrusive devices.
In relation to the draconian and unconstitutional manner in which police officers are accosting decent citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia and penalising them with fines and jail sentences is unlawful. These police officers obviously have no understanding of the law, nor do they wish to acknowledge they can and will be held responsible for any unlawful acts they commit without your consent.
It is the responsibility of every police commissioner to ensure that their officers are sworn to the correct oath. At this point in time, they do not have the lawful authority under our Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901 to arrest, detain and fine citizens of the Commonwealth as they are sworn officers of a ‘Private Corporation, e.g. NSW Police ABN 43 408 613 180.’
These fines will not hold up in a court of law. No private corporation can legally fine you. They do not have the lawful authority as set out in our Commonwealth Constitution 1901.
Police Act 1990 No 47
Current version for 1 March 2020 to date (accessed 13 May 2020 at 16:17)
Part 1 Section 3
(1) In this Act police officer means a member of the NSW Police Force holding a position which is designated under this Act as a position to be held by a police officer.
6 Mission and functions of NSW Police Force
(1) The mission of the NSW Police Force is to work with the community to reduce violence, crime and fear. (NOT instill fear into the community).
(2) The NSW Police Force has the following functions -
(a) to provide police services for New South Wales,
(b) to exercise any other function conferred on it by or under this or any other Act,
(c) to do anything necessary for, or incidental to, the exercise of its functions.
(3) In this section police services includes -
(a) services by way of prevention and detection of crime, and
(b) the protection of persons from injury or death, and property from damage, whether arising from criminal acts or in any other way, and
(c) the provision of essential services in emergencies, and
(d) any other service prescribed by the regulations.
(4) A reference in this section to the functions of the NSW Police Force includes a reference to the functions of members of the NSW Police Force.
(5) The provision of police services in emergencies and rescue operations is subject to the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 and to the Essential Services Act 1988.
(6) Nothing in this section confers on the NSW Police Force a power to provide a police service in a way that is inconsistent with any provisions applicable to police officers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002.
The main function of Law Enforcement Powers Responsibilities Act is to codify and govern the exercise of specific police powers. If police do not comply with provisions within LEPRA, this may, but does not always, lead to evidence being unable to be used in court under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995.
Consolidation of Common Law
Within LEPRA, there are many provisions that essentially reflect the exercise of police powers within existing common law. This is evident in section 231 of LEPRA which dictates that only `reasonably necessary’ force must be used to make an arrest. Parts of LEPRA also extend the common law,. This includes section 10 which regulates the ability of police to enter into premises to arrest individuals, a power previously found in the case Lippl v Haines (1989) 18 NSWLR 620.
Re-allocation of existing provisions from other Acts.
LEPRA also contains sections that relocate guidelines concerning police powers from other Acts. For example, Part 16 of LEPRA, which relates to the power of police to detain an intoxicated individual, very closely mirrors the Intoxicated Persons Act 1979. Further, Part 9 of LEPRA ("Investigations and questioning") contains provisions that essentially copy what used to be Part 10A of the Crimes Act 1900. Sections 114 and 115 in Part 9 of LEPRA outline the circumstances in which police may detain someone for investigative purposes as well as the appropriate length of time for an investigation period. New powers and safeguards created Part 4 of LEPRA describes the power of police to undertake different categories of searches without a warrant. Specifically, division 4 contains provisions which permits personal searches. This includes searches generally and strip searches. Sections 33 and 34 contain rules in relation to ensuring the privacy and appropriateness of strip searches, including a provision that specifies that children under 10 must not be strip-searched.
Section 99 of LEPRA expands the scope of the previous common law power of police to arrest. This is primarily due to the broadness of the list of `reasons’ which constitute the need for arrest (section 99, sub-section (1)(b)), as well as the lack of a provision which governs circumstances in which an officer `must not arrest’ an individual.
Part 7 of LEPRA codifies crime scene powers not previously enshrined in legislature. It outlines the circumstances where police are able to set up a crime scene as well as the power to prevent individuals from entering, tampering with or recording crime scenes.
Part 15 of LEPRA contains restrictions on the exercise of police powers. Section 202 outlines how police must give their details as well as any warnings to an individual `as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so’ when exercising a power, or beforehand when specifically giving directions or requesting an individual carry out a particular task. Section 203, sub-section (1) specifies that police must also warn an individual when the law specifies that they must `comply with a direction, requirement or request’.
What to do and say when you are confronted by a police officer both inside or outside your home and told you are breaching a social distancing, COVID19 Restriction, martial law or told to 'move on'?
"Officer, if I am under arrest or being detained, please tell me why I am being detained or arrested, if not I am free to go. Please tell me".
"If I am not free to go, please tell me why?"
"I wish to exercise all my lawful rights as a living breathing man / woman, including my right to silence".
"I do not consent to being search. If I have not been arrested and/or charged I wish to be released without delay. Please do not ask me questions because I do not understand or consent".
Police should not be stopping you or questioning you without a valid reason. Social distancing is NOT a valid reason. To stop someone and question what they are doing is not a valid reason unless their actions are suspicious, or they have broken the law. A person is not under the law unless they break the law. Break the law and you come under the law.
I can say `NO’ if the police ask permission to search me or my property. Saying `NO’ does not mean I have something to hide - it is my common law right.
I can leave unless I am being detained or arrested.
If I am being detained or arrested, I have a right to know why, and a right to speak or seek advice privately from a support person without delay.
I can only be strip-searched in private by officers of the same sex and there needs to be a valid reason to do so.
I have the right to know a police officer’s name, rank, serial number and station.
I have the right to request a more senior officer to the scene and if I am being abused, I have the right under common law to report that officer.
What to do if the police do arrest you and legal recourse within the existing law courts and separately the Common Law Courts.
If you are arrested and charged with breaking the ridiculous and unlawful social distancing ‘laws’ you will most likely be called to front the local court where they will try to charge you with breaking one of their regulations or rules.
Of course, these rules and regulations are unlawful and unless you know how to deal with the situation, they will most probably try to ‘stitch you up’. Even lawyers who confess to have your best interest at heart don’t really serve you as you would expect because, in reality, the solicitors are actually working for the state before they serve you.
Your best chance of justice is in a Common Law Court where you present your evidence to a jury, who are your equal in a court of law; not a corrupt judge within the structure of the illegal, ‘legal’ system, will only have their own interests at heart and that of the state.
If the other party does not attend the court, then a default judgment will be made in your favour. This system of justice is quick, fair and non-judgmental, as against the legal system, which has convoluted process and procedures and there is never any guarantee of true justice because a judge makes the decision based upon collecting revenue for the state.
Go to the Common Law Courts website for more - www.CommonLawCourt.com
For an overview of Common Law, watch this video overview here.
To better understand your rights, the difference between legislation and laws here.