NO JAB – NO PAY is illegal and unlawful PLUS 25 Questions to ask Gov’t.
NO JAB – NO PAY IS ILLEGAL and UNLAWFUL
No Civic Conscription as per The Constitution 1901
Section 51 xxiii(A): (xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;
Also, the fluoridation of municipal water is another “forced medication”. Hence this is a breach of Section 51 (xxiiiA).
Questions to ask and Council, Police or Govt Dept or Debt Collector
I, John-Henry of the family Doe make oath and state as follows;
- “By stepping outside the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia a person changes the matter from public into private, meaning that they can be held liable with full commercial liability in their own private capacity.”
As you and your colleagues are, or have access to the top legal minds:
Representatives in this Great Country known as Australia and: would be fully aware of the universal maxim of law: (there are as many opinions as there are people: Once a Fraud, always a Fraud) So to remove all: assumption: presumption and: conjecture: the first 25 questions please answer Yes or No and attach all supporting documents also: please answer the following 5 questions and attach all supporting documents. As I AM not interested in your opinions I require the facts (documents).
- A question at law: Are all Acts Constructed in accordance with the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 UK, Commonwealth Constitution 1901 and the Letters Patent 1900 UK? Yes/no
- A question at law: Are there any supporting documents that have received Royal Warrant: that confirms the Australian Parliament and the State and Territories are permitted to change the swearing of oath?
- A question in law: Are all Acts Constructed in accordance with Orders 1:5 (a) of the Commonwealth Statutory Rules 1901 to 1956 page 2609?
- A question in law: Do all Acts bear the Correct Royal Seal of Scotland and Australia? Yes/No
- A question in law: Do all Acts have the correct Royal Assent?
- A question in law: have all members of the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament taken their Oath or Affirmation in accordance with Section 42 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 UK and Commonwealth Constitution 1901 and Schedules? Yes/No
- A question in law: Are all Writs/Warrants written in the name of our Sovereign lady the Queen Elizabeth II Heirs and Successor?
- A question in law: Have all States and Territory receive Royal Warrant to be able to en-Act their State and Territory constitutions?
- A question in law: Have all States and Territory Constitutions been constructed within the parameters set out in the great Australian Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 UK?
- A question in law: Is the Removal of the Crown or anything to do with the Crown to limit the power of the Crown, breach of allegiance and an attempt of sabotaging the Commonwealth?
- A question in law: If any of the members of the parliament that have not sworn their Oath in accordance with Section 42 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK and its schedule: the 1900 UK Letters Patent this would mean that they are in breach of Section 44s of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK Letters Patent. This would mean that they are in breach of the Parliament rules and are not able to give the vote to create laws?
- A question in law: Can the Federal: State: and: Local Government provide the documents with Royal Warrant that show that they have the authority to make and enforce laws?
- A question in law: Is the Australian Government a De-jure Government? Yes/No
- A question in law: Are Australian birth certificates being traded on the stock exchange? Yes/No
- A question in law: Have the 4 conventional and: 5 stylised versions of the Commonwealth of Australia Coat of Arms that are illustrated in the Australian styles manual 6th edition on page: 296 – 297 been issued Royal Warrants? Yes/No
- A question in law: Are the 4 conventional and: 5 stylised versions of the Commonwealth of Australia Coat of Arms that are illustrated in the Australian styles manual 6th edition on page: 296 – 297. S the Australian Government. (COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (corporation) registered in the UNITED STATES SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION as CIK (0000805157): SIC: 8880 – American Depository Receipts: State location: DC I Fiscal Year End: 0630 The Parliament of Australia has more than 150 persons) a privately owned American company/corporations?
- A question in law: Are all legal: lawful binding documents written in accordance with the Australian styles Manual 6th addition?
- A question in law: Are all legal: lawful binding documents written in accordance with the English Styles manual?
- A question in law: If you change the name of the Commonwealth Government to that of Australian Government without following the correct procedures (by way of Referendum) is that not an attempt to overthrow the Commonwealth Government of Australia? Yes/No
- A question in law: What date was the last Act passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia?
- A question in law: What date was the last Act passed by the Parliament of the Australia?
- A question in law: How can the Australian Government change a Commonwealth Government department?
- A question in law: What date did Australia received Royal Assent to change from the Great Seal of Great Britain and Ireland?
- A question in law: How does one amend and alter Commonwealth Acts without following the Commonwealth Statutory Rules 1901 to 1956 and the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 UK and: the Letters Patent 1900?
- High Court of Australia: 8th of May 2013: in New South Wales. High Court Slams Retrospectively – DPP v. Keating  8 May 2013:
The High Court criticised the amendment as creating a “Statutory Fiction” This is a clear reminder by the High Court of the presumption against retrospective Legislation and the need for law to be certain and ascertainable: not arbitrarily changed later to patch up a problem.
- High Court of Australia: R v Davidson  HCA 46, (1954) 90 CLR 353.
“A registrar was not an officer of the Bankruptcy Court and a legislative attempt to confer upon a registrar the power of making a judicial order was therefore void.
- High Court of Australia 11 – 2015: 8 April 2015 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and allied Services Union of Australia & Ors Vs Queensland Rail & Anor
(this case makes it clear that if you are a trading company with an ABN: working for profit you fall within the parameters of section 51 xx of the Australian Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 UK and: the Letters Patent)
- Sheriff to take official oath
A person appointed to the office of Sheriff is to take the official oath before a judge and soon as practicable after being appointed.
- Forge & Ors v ASIC  HCA Trans 22 (7February 2006) High Court ruling (the Australian Commonwealth Constitution is the Highest law of the land) – GLEESON CJ: GUMMOW J: KIRBY J: HAYNE J: CALLINAN J: HEYDON J: CRENNAN J: (Makes is clear that the Commonwealth Constitution is the highest law of the land).
- COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA ACT – SECT 42
Oath or affirmation of allegiance:
Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution.
- I,……., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God!
- I,……, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Her heirs and successors according to law.
(NOTE: — The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)
- THE KING V CASEMENT  1 K.B. 98 High Court ruling (Treason is a breach of allegiance)
Trespass applies as you are trespassing on my private person that’s falls within the parameters of Crown copy right Act1911.
Rulings by the High Court of Australia – (on Trespass)
- Kuru v State of New South wales  HCA 26 (12 June 2008)
- New South Wales v Ibbett  HCA 57; (2006) 231 ALR 485; (2006) 81 ALJR 427 (12 December 2006)
- Plenty v Dillon  171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004 (7 March 1991)
- George v Rockett  170 CLR 104 (20 June 1990)
- Halliday v Nevill  HCA 80; (1984) 155 CLR 1 (6 December 1984)
- Commonwealth v New South Wales  HCA 34; (1923) 3 CLR 1 (9August 1923)