On July 3, 2023, Mike Holt was summoned to appear in the Melbourne County Court, despite his many warnings to the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions and the Courts that they have no jurisdiction over him by S 80 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900/1.
But the judges in the Supreme Appeals Court, and the County Courts refused to acknowledge that they are all bound to the Constitution by Clause 5. As a result, Mike was forced to pay to travel to Melbourne to stand trial.
The trial was a farce. Mike was severely restricted in how to conduct his defence, even though the court strove to make it appear they were being as helpful as possible. But each time Mike wanted to raise issues, either about jurisdiction or legal points, the judge cleared the jurors out while the points were debated in a closed court under a suppression order.
As a result, the carefully prepared defense Mike had ready to present could not be made. Instead, he was forced to listen to the lawyer twist the truth in an attempt to put ideas into the jury’s minds.
Ultimately, Mike was convicted, despite presenting a witness who testified that he only learned about the existence of a suppression order after he published an article about a 2019 trial that he believed was unfair and designed to make an example of an innocent man.
After the jury was sent out of the court to consider the evidence and return with a verdict they were address by the court manager, called a ‘tipstaff’, in the jury room. We don’t know what the jury was told about how to arrive at a decision, but the result was that they returned a Guilty verdict. It is quite possible that the jury were told to return a guilty verdict. We’ll never know, will we?
But the FACT is, there should never have been a trial. Mike has harmed no one. There is no body, which in most cases is required for a trial to even begin. And Mike has never been convicted of any crimes in his whole life. It is clear that Mike is being targeted because he has been publishing articles exposing the massive fraud perpetrated on the people of the Commonwealth of Australia by the political party liars, thieves, criminals and traitors.
After the jury returned a Guilty verdict, the judge chose not to impose a sentence immediately. As she admitted, there has never been a case like this ever tried in Victoria before, so there are no guidelines for her to follow.
In addition, Mike was self-represented throughout his trial and the judge ordered him to find a lawyer before he appears for sentencing.
While Mike searches for a lawyer, he has also been researching the law. Throughout his trial he reminded the judge that the inalienable Rights of everyone in Australia are protected by Federal Commonwealth law in the:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19(2).
The judge refused to accept that Federal law overrides State law. She admitted that Mike was being tried for breaking a Victorian law.
No wonder the Themis statue above the entrance to the Supreme Court looks so sad. She’s clearly showing that we can get no justice in their courts. (Read, Who is Themis?)
At the start of the Trial, Mike’s first question was, “Is this court convened under Clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900?
The judge refused to give a straight answer. Instead, she said there was no need to discuss it as she assured Mike that the court was properly convened. But the question is, by which laws was it ‘properly convened’?
The judge ended the trial with an order for Mike to appear by video link on September 1 for a mention hearing to learn if he has appointed a lawyer.
Readers can learn the facts about the long process that ended with Mike on trial here:
Chronology of Events for Mike Holt Trial
The Next Step
While searching for a lawyer, Mike has also been busy researching and writing with the aid of a legal expert an appeal to the Supreme Court Appeals Court to rule the charge and trial against Mike null and void. The reasons are shown in the PDF below.
Mike filed this on 29 August 2023. At the same time, he also filed a criminal complaint with the AFP against the judges who have committed Treason by refusing to acknowledge the Constitution, and attempted to pervert the course of justice by dragging Mike through their courts without jurisdiction over him.
These matters are pending at the time of writing this article.
6 thoughts on “Mike’s Trial and Aftermath”
…wot a joke …”Tipstaff” …the local rubbish dump has those…what a corrupt country this is , i hope we can turn it around,
and I hope your efforts cause them some real grief and that it gets some attention in the media when you win . go well mate…
By what appellation were you addressed in “court” Mike?
As Mike, or as “MR. HOLT” ?
“Federal Register of Legislation
Acts Interpretation Act 1901
Part 2—Definitions
estate includes any estate, interest, charge, right, title, claim demand, lien or encumbrance at law or in equity.”
title, Title, “TITLE”.
If Mr., “MR” is one of the above in the system of the event you were experiencing (“LEGAL FICTION”), then the classification “beneficiary, Beneficiary, “BENEFICIARY” must also be one of the above, (“LEGAL FICTION”). i.e. The Cestui que Vie Trust Estate (“LEGAL FICTION”) that the “charge” was made against (the Legal “NAME” in the “BIRTH CERTIFICATE” given to you by your Mother) that was created for your benefit, making you the Beneficiary of that Estate, and you instruct the Trustee:
“Crimes Act 1900 No 40
4 Definitions
Trustee means a trustee on some express trust howsoever created, and includes the heir or personal representative of such trustee, and every other person upon whom the duty of such trust shall have devolved, and also any official manager, assignee, liquidator, or other like officer, acting under any Act relating to joint stock companies or to bankruptcy or insolvency and also an executor or administrator.”
to discharge the charge as it is their legal duty to defend the Cestui que Vie Trust Estate.(see Cestui que Vie, Blacks Law Dictionary 4th edition)
So they give you 2 choices: representation or self-representation.
What about acting in the capacity of the Beneficiary of what is being represented?
Actually, what is being re-presented and where did the presentation originate from?
Now that might be an important question.
“In addition, Mike was self-represented throughout his trial and the judge ordered him to find a lawyer before he appears for sentencing.”
What foundation can be referenced that obligates Mike or “MR HOLT” to comply with the purported “Justices” order to acquire the services of an esquire?
This is all very good information, but it is useless when we are dealing with criminals.
Thank you Mike.
165.55
It’s only an imagination until you experience it, then it becomes a memory.
Martin Bryant should of tried out for the Olympics. Maybe will still could of had our own protection if he had. Then again, was it inevitable.
Good luck speaking with the Esquire.
This might be useful Mike if you’re not already doing it:
Bar Grievance complaints, but somehow make sure it gets to their insurance provider
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nd83edeaYg
A good question would have been ” Please state where this court gets its exemption from section 5 of the commonwealth constitution act which states that the act and all laws of parliament of the commonwealth under the constitution shall be binding on the courts, judges and people of every state?” I require you to answer the question!