My Oath! I Swear

The political parties and their slave master minions have operated illegally and unconstitutionally in Australia for more than 50 years.

When the Australian Parliament took control of the Governor General in 1960, they started changing the governing rules mandated in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, including the Oath that all public servants were required to take.

Every time they changed the Constitution without a referendum they committed a crime. Ever since 1960 we have been ruled by a ruthless criminal enterprise calling itself the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT. The political parties have lied and cheated us of our rights. These people are liars, thieves, criminals and TRAITORS! and we must treat them as such.

Would you vote for a criminal and a traitor to represent you in anything?

So why would you vote for them to rule over you?

Where is their authority?

Recently, I asked the Chief Federal Prosecutor, Anita Peretko, to send me a copy of the Oath she was supposed to take when she became a prosecutor. Her reply was surprising, and illuminating.

You can read the actual email she replied to me here:
https://commonlaw.earth/affidavit-michael-thomas-holt/

This is what she wrote:

Dear Mr Holt,
Persons in my role are not appointed in the same way a judicial officer might be appointed. I am
a regular, contractual employee, as one might be an employee in any private business, except
that my employer is the Australian government.

All Australian government employees agree to uphold the Australian Public Service values, but
there is no specific oath for persons in my office.

Aneta Peretko Senior Federal Prosecutor Organised Crime and Counter Terrorism Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Aneta.Peretko@cdpp.gov.au www.cdpp.gov.au

Since she is not a Commonwealth public officer who has taken an Oath to the true Crown, as stated in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 Schedule, she has no authority to prosecute anyone in a court. As she admitted, she is merely a private person employed by a private corporation calling itself the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT, registered as a corporation in the USA.

The only valid Oath that may be taken by anyone under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution is one of these:

OATH

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

AFFIRMATION

I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

The Police Oath

The police have no more authority than Anita Peretko, or anyone else who has not sworn the true Oath. This is what the police swear or affirm:

Whenever you speak to the police ask them which Oath they took. If they know it (most of them can’t even remember it), ask them who is OUR SOVEREIGN LADY THE QUEEN? If they can’t show that she is a living, breathing woman ordained as the representative of the British Crown, then the ‘sovereign lady the queen’ is a FAKE!

The ‘sovereign lady the queen’ is merely a name on a piece of paper registered to the US registered private corporation. It’s all a fake and unconstitutional. They have no power, no authority, and We, the People of the Commonwealth of Australia are under no obligation to obey anything they say.

Police Powers?

The following judgments make it very clear that the police do not have the power or authority to stop you for any reason unless they suspect you have committed a crime.

1. Regina v Banner (1970) VR 240 at p 249 – the Full Bench of the Northern Territory Supreme Court
In this judgement, the NT Supreme Court handed down a ruling that, “(Police officers) have no power whatever to arrest or detain a citizen for the purpose of questioning him or of facilitating their investigations. It matters not at all whether the questioning or the investigation is for the purpose of enabling them to ascertain whether he is the person guilty of a crime known to have been committed or is for the purpose of enabling them to discover whether a crime has or has not been committed. If the police do so act in purported exercise of such a power, their conduct is not only destructive of civil liberties but it is unlawful.”
2. Andrew Hamilton Vs Director of Public Prosecutions – Justice Stephen Kaye – Melbourne Supreme Court ruling – 25 November 2011
“It is an ancient principle of the Common Law that a person not under arrest has no obligation to stop for police or answer their questions. And there is no statute that removes that right. The conferring of such a power on a police officer would be a substantial detraction from the fundamental freedoms which have been guaranteed to the citizen by the Common Law for centuries.”
3. Magistrate Duncan Reynolds – Melbourne – July 2013
“There is no common law power vested in police giving them the unfettered right to stop or detain a person and seek identification details. Nor, is s.59 of the (Road Safety) Act a statutory source of such power.”

NOTE: None of the above precedents have been overturned on appeal or in the High Court. They still stand today and you can point out to the police that they are acting unlawfully if they continue to detain you without due cause to believe you have committed a crime.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW AND THE LAW CANNOT VICTIMIZE YOU