This document is to provide you with the knowledge aswell as to fill in and send of to the authorities announcing your new hors de combat status.
You must familiarise yourself with the information provided, even keep a hard copy to hand over if required.
Without formally asserting the claim and the knowledge, the Id. card is virtually useless as it is not recognised by authority as a valid form of identicication. That is why your driver's licence # is displayed.
I have puposely left my name in places to show you. So this : ? means replace/insert with your relevant information.
Read it well and ensure you fill it in correctly ??
---------------------------------
COPY-EDIT-PASTE ???
---------------------------------
?
I....(given names).... of the ...(surname)... Estate,
D.O.B. XX/XX/XXXX
Licence # XXXXXXXX
Current mailing address : ........................................................
email : .............................................................
Cannot continue this futile battle with your administration and actively claim the status of : "hors de combat".
As stipulated in the Australian Treaty Series 1910/8, the Laws of the Hague Convention III-IV 1907 and the Laws of the Lieber Code are currently enforced.
? http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1910/8.html
The Estate of the Commonwealth of Australia, is being "administered" by a "hostile, occupying, receivership administration".
All Law enforcement bodies, courts and government departments are in fact Foreign to our Constitution and Do Not carry Rule of Law !
Articles 39-40 of the Lieber Code General Orders #100 specifically state :
• Article 39.
The salaries of civil officers of the hostile government who remain in the invaded territory, and continue the work of their office, and can continue it according to the circumstances arising out of the war - such as judges, administrative or police officers, officers of city or communal governments - are paid from the public revenue of the invaded territory, until the military government has reason wholly or partially to discontinue it. Salaries or incomes connected with purely honorary titles are always stopped.
• Article 40.
There exists no law or body of authoritative rules of action between hostile armies, except that branch of the law of nature and nations which is called the law and usages of war on land.
In my defense, l have familiarised myself with and invoke the protection of :
• Hague Convention
Article 47
"hors de combat"
? https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/cus.../eng/docs/v1_rul_rule47
AND :
• "Divine Providence in Sacred Honor".
Lieber Code
Section II
Article 31 - 38
? http://www.lawofwar.org/general_order_100.htm
From any unlawful, unsolicited contract to joinder in personage and usury.
Personage :
Arbitrarily creating an Estate Trust named after Me, and claiming that l am this "person", the government have falsely claimed to own Me, My assets and literally buy and sell Me on stock exchanges, "ship" Me in and out of ports, and tax Me according to Martime Law.
Jurisdiction :
Juris-diction is of 2 kinds, of the subject matter and of the person, and both must concur or the judgment will be void in any case in which the (a) court has assumed to act, the difference being that jurisdiction of the subject matter given by law cannot be conferred by consent, while jurisdiction of the person may be obtained by consent. Rabbit v. Frank C. Webber and Co. 130 N. E. 787,788.
§ But consent by a living man or Sovereign must be knowingly, willingly and intentionally.
§ Consent by assumption or presumption is treachery, and/or fraud and/or treason.
§ Benedict on Admiralty 6th ed. Volume 1 Section 17, page 28:"As no court other than a court of Admiralty can enforce maritime liens, no other court can displace, discharge or subordinate them. Neither the State courts nor the United States courts on their common law, equity and bankruptcy sides can divest, transfer to proceeds or adjudicate the maritime liens, unless the maritime lienor voluntarily submits themselves to the jurisdiction."
§ I am not a "person" – in that I am not a mask. The word, "person", is derived from the Latin word, "persona", which means "mask". A mask is a form of disguise usually over the face to hide the wearer's identity and to establish another being, ie: another something that exists.
Title XXXVII INSURANCE:
Chapter 624 INSURANCE CODE:
ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS 624.04 "Person" defined.--"Person" includes an individual, insurer, company, association, organization, Lloyds, society, reciprocal insurer or interinsurance exchange, partnership, syndicate, business trust, corporation, agent, general agent, broker, service representative, adjuster, and every legal entity. That the United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. In re Merriam, 163 US 625.That Title 28 USC 1330 states that the United States District Court has to grant permission for the suit to be pursued once the court has been supplied sufficient proof that the united states citizen is actually a corporate entity and not a living man upon the land.Title 28 USC 1602-1611 (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged, and a demand of proper jurisdiction to be completely proven.
Supreme Court case of 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed.57; 3 Dall. 54), defines governments:
§ "governments are corporations." In as much every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons."Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
§ "There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
§ "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
§ "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150.
§ "A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
§ "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
§ "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
§ "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
§ "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.
§ "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
§ "The fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
§ "An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640.
§ "Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract." Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596.
§ "When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially". Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.
§ "A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational." ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.
§ "Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal.
Residency:
Residency means you have a presence with a purpose. When you complete that purpose, you will return to your domicile. An example is a doctor's residency in a hospital. The doctor is there to complete his purpose, and when he is finished he leaves.
A domicil needs no purpose. It is not necessary to justify your presence at your domicile. It is your permanent home.
For jurisdictional purposes, namely the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, Sec 8, Clause 3), your claim of residency of a state is used to subject you to regulation under the interstate commerce clause.
§ When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.
§ Some Defendants urge that any act "of a judicial nature" entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum, (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349.
§ "Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction." Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)
§ "A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts." Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)
§ "Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction." Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974)
§ "There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign." Cooper v. O'Conner, 99 F.2d 133
§ "When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction." State use of Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697.
§ "The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act." Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F 417.
§ "A Judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity." Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S.Ct. at 544-545; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 380, 98 S.Ct. at 1106. Mireles v. Waco, 112 S.Ct. 286 at 288 (1991).
§ "A Judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S.Ct. at 544-545; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 380, 98 S.Ct. at 1106. Mireles v. Waco, 112 S.Ct. 286 at 288 (1991).
§ "The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
§ "If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void." In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), "he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason."
§ "When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost." Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.
Sir/Maam,
You, your sub-ordinates and all facilitating corporations are now barred from any further contact !
And will be in breach of Hague War on Land Rule 47 protocols, and Lieber Code General Orders (art. 31-38) and considered a War Crime against a Non-combatant and Non-belligerent.
I suggest an investigation into this matter by your administration is required to ensure the correct system of Laws are being adhered to, because if you do not cease and desist all operations and correspondence pertaining to my "person in law" and my "flesh n blood living being, of man", and carry on with unlawful joinder to a "dead" corporate entity, l will escalate this to the relevant authorities to deal with it as they see fit.
?
BRETT ROBERT PAINE, is Not my name !
Brett Robert PAINE, is Not my name !
Mr. PAINE is my fathers name, and his fathers, before he !
That is a deceitful way to join a living man to a "dead" entity in corporation law.
The only lawful place to write a name in ALL CAPS, dog latin, is on a tombstone.
Lawful and Legal are two separate systems of Law !
Institutions are Not registered by A.B.N. #'s.
A.B.N # holders are considered to be "private entities" !
VICPOL are an A.B.N. registered incorporated "body" and in law carries the same weight as Chubb Security or McDonalds.
I am Not your employee, therefore l need not adhere to your policies or regulations, that's not to say that l will not be mindfull of God's Laws... the Ten Commandments !
Do No harm, cause No suffering.
I do Not live upon the seas of Admiralty Law, l live upon the Land of Common Law.
I am NOT a "Sovereign Citizen". That is an oxymoron, a conflict of interests.
A citi-Zen Cannot be a Sovereign, full stop.
However, l Do hold Sovereignty.
Only but one shiney Pearl in a Crown.
• Citizen definition :
The term is shortened from mushin no shin (????), a Zen expression meaning the mind without mind and is also referred to as the state of "no-mindness". That is, a mind not fixed or occupied by thought or emotion and thus open to everything. It is translated by D.T. Suzuki as "being free from mind-attachment".
I am a Sentient, self aware Man !!!
Eagerly awaiting your respose.
Failure to respond will envoke Tacit Consent.
You have 28 days to respond.
<> FORMAL DECLARATION <>
Attn :..(insert name of institution/minister)....
I do not want War, l am a peaceful non-combatant, non belligerent, that knows his rights !
But I must insist that you to uphold those Birthrights given to me by God.
Therefore... I recind my Citizenship to the corporate entity known as "The Australian Government" and return to the Kingdom of Australia formerly known as The "Commonwealth of Australia" from hence forth.
?
I,(state your Christian name) Son/Daughter of (state father’s Christian name, if deceased type in ALLCAPS), do hereby accept my inheritance and rescind all Pledges to Australia through act of Citizenship and hereby announce my Oath of Allegiance by Rule of Law, as per the Schedule to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK/PGA.
?
I, (state your Christian name), Son/Daughter of (state father’s Christian name, again ALLCAPS if deceased), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Victoria, her Heirs and successors according to Law.
So help me God.
I choose to serve and honour the Gods of my Fathers, my allegiance cannot be forced nor can it be denied or ignored.
Respectfully.
?
(Your Christian name)
Dated this day : The......... of............ in the year of Twenty-twenty of the Kings reign.   
?
Signed :....(sign a hard copy)..... ???