The Autochthonous Expedient

Autochthonous (or-tok-thun-us) Meaning: The arrogated right assumed by State Magistrates and Judges that they are no longer part of the courts, judges and people under the Constitution, but self-proclaimed sovereign citizens who believe they are above the law.

“Citizens” have only the rights the State gives them, whereas We the People as subjects of the King and members of the Commonwealth of Australia have natural Common Law rights protected by our Constitution.

Magistrates and Judges often accuse those of us who know our rights in the law of being ‘sovereign citizens’… but they are the ones who are the true ‘sovereign citizens’. Do not be fooled!

Sadly, the King himself and the sovereign citizen Magistrates and Judges refuse to recognize our rights under the Constitution.

King Charles III is unsuited to his position as a result of his failure to enforce and understand the Constitution that he is supposed to work under while he allows these criminals to get away with their crimes against the people. The King is also bound to our laws under the Constitution.

Mike’s Legal Ordeal

Mike Holt, a resident of Queensland, has been tried in a Melbourne County Court for contravening a Supreme Court Victoria suppression order. He has filed and had rejected, an appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeals. The Registrar made a unilateral decision to reject Mike’s filing without allowing it to be heard and considered before a court of at least three judges, as required by law. This was a breach of the law by the Registrar that attracts a penalty of 17 years imprisonment.

Mike has also filed a case against the King, 4 Judges, including the Chief Justice of the High Court, and a High Court Registrar in the High Court and had his case rejected. The registrar claims that Judges cannot be hauled into court as they are immune from prosecution. But this is not true. Everyone in Australia is bound to obey the Constitution by Clause 5, and no judge or magistrate is above the law!

The action against Mike is in the name of the King, and the King is a Commonwealth Public Official because He acts under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and Constitution. (Definition of a Commonwealth Public Official: (n) an individual (other than an official of a registered industrial organisation) who holds or performs the duties of an office established by or under a law of the Commonwealth; The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is our supreme law.)

This is just one of a raft of legal problems with this case against Mike that need airing, as many other Australians may be suffering the same sort of attacks on their rights and freedoms as Mike has. When Mike finally makes the High Court understand that they are bound by law to hear his case, a success in the court will have a far-reaching effect on how the law is administered in Australia.

The Open Courts Act 2013 — Suppression Orders

First, let’s look at the OPEN COURTS ACT 2013, under which Mike was charged.

S 21: Where a proceeding suppression order applies
(1) A proceeding suppression order or an interim order applies only to the publication or disclosure of information in a place where the order applies, as specified in the order.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a proceeding suppression order or an interim order is not limited to applying in Victoria and may be made to apply anywhere in Australia.
(3) A proceeding suppression order or an interim order must not be made to apply outside Victoria unless the court or tribunal is satisfied that having the order apply outside Victoria is necessary for achieving the purpose for which the order is made.

Under this Act at S 21(2) Only the Parliament of the Commonwealth can make such an order, and no such order can be made by a Judge to apply anywhere in Australia.

S 31(a) requires an order to be published on the door of the courtroom where a trial is taking place, and S 31(b) only states, “in another conspicuous place where notices are usually posted at the place where the trial or tribunal is being held.”

Therefore, a Melbourne Court cannot reasonably expect their Suppression Order to be seen and read by someone living in another state.

If a charge is levelled against anyone for contravening a suppression order, it must be issued in accordance with the requirements of our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, Section 80, which states, “80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed (author’s emphasis), and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.”

Therefore, Mike should never have been summoned to a trial in Victoria for an act he performed in good faith in his home state of Queensland.

But the “legal practitioners” don’t care about the law. They operate under the autochthonous expedient, and as a result Mike was summoned to a Melbourne County Court where he was tried and convicted, even though he pointed out to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) (who ordered his indictment) and the County Court Judges that he is a resident of Queensland and therefore the trial should have taken place in Queensland.

However, the Judge concurred with the CDPP and refused to change the court venue, stating that they have no jurisdiction in Queensland!!

To quote Mike, “Then what the hell am I doing in a Victorian Court?”

The Judge waffled as she tried to justify their illegal actions and went ahead with the trial anyway. Yet another breach of law…. Perverting the Course of Justice!

Mike pointed out many times that he never should have been charged for contravening a suppression order issued in Melbourne, Victoria, as he is a Queenslander, and therefore there is no reasonable way he could have been aware of a suppression order taped to the door of a courtroom in Victoria.

The law does not stipulate when a suppression order is issued that covers the whole of Australia that it must be published in easily available media in all states. How is someone living in Queensland supposed to know there is a suppression order issued in Victoria if that order is only taped to a courtroom door in Victoria and nowhere else? Mike has pointed out in his submission to the High Court that this flaw could be remedied by adding to the law a requirement for the courts to publish a suppression order in public media in each state.

This flaw in the law has caused media companies much trouble in the past. They must constantly check the courts to ensure that they are not contravening a suppression order before publishing anything about contentious trials. The courts do not send out a notice to them. Nor do they publish the Orders anywhere except on the courtroom door. It’s ridiculous!

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

During his trial in Melbourne County Court, Mike pointed out to the Judge that he was protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states, “19(2). Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

The Covenant was passed into Federal Law in 1980. It is designed to protect our already existing Inalienable Rights…. rights that we are all born with, including the right to Freedom of Expression in any way, shape, or form.

The County Court Judge sitting on Mike’s trial refused to acknowledge this Federal Law and decided to continue the trial anyway: Another flagrant breach of the law under Constitution Sections 80 and 109! But these Judges, Magistrates, Registrars and Police seem to think they are above the law and can blithely ignore it whenever they wish.

Mike is taking his case to the High Court to teach these criminals that they are not above the law, and that the people of Australia expect much better than we have been served with over the last 120 years or so since 1903 when the autochthonous expedient was applied.

This was compounded when Whitlam came to power and acted like a pigeon with diarrhea to overturn our Constitutional Law in his efforts to establish a de-facto Republic of Australia. Ever since then, the government has done everything it can to align with the UN Agenda 21/30 plan to change the laws to suit their agenda for a One World Government under the ‘guidance’ of the son of a Nazi, Klaus Schwab, and that protector of our health who is not a doctor, Bill Gates.

Australian governments have even conducted two referendums asking us to approve changing to a Republic and the Australian people have voted with a resounding NO each time.

We do not want to become their kind of Republic.

The Reprints Act 1992

But the States have continued to try and change the law to suit their UN master’s agenda. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Goss brought in the Reprints Act 1992.

What does ‘reprint’ mean?

You would think it’s pretty obvious, but not to these two devious bozos. To them, ‘reprint’ is the rewriting of a legal Act to incorporate change. In other words, these two clowns brought in this act to give the Queensland government, and all state governments thereafter, the right to take an existing law passed lawfully under our Constitution and re-write it to suit their own agenda.

But it gets worse!

After they rewrite (reprint) an Act they Copyright it to their Brigalow Corporation registered in the USA. Then they tell everyone at the bottom of the ‘reprinted acts’ that it is for educational purposes only, and that this bogus rubbish is a real law. And because most people are unaware of the law, they have accepted this without question. But now, We the People are waking up and seeing these criminals for what they really are. For more information about this, visit this page and watch the video. It’s one hour long and you will want to watch every second.

The Attack on Mike’s Rights

Once the CDPP was ordered by Supreme Court Victoria justice Elizabeth Hollingworth (the Judge who originally issued the suppression order she claims Mike contravened) to serve a summons on Mike, they sent the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to raid his home under a Search Warrant that was also illegally issued.

The AFP stole Mike’s computers, hard drives, phone, and documents to search for evidence. He still has not got them back, even though they completed a forensic examination of them at least 3 years ago.

Two High Court cases have already stated that the police cannot conduct a search of anyone to try and find evidence of a crime. They must have evidence before they search. They had none in Mike’s case. The County Court Judge tried to excuse the search warrant by saying that the two cases below apply only to police stopping someone in the street. But the FACT is, if you read the wording, it is clear that the police have no right to try and find evidence through questioning or any other means by detaining or questioning someone. They must already have evidence of a crime before they can execute a search warrant. See these cases
(Your Rights and the Police (

Regina v Banner (1970) VR 240 at p 249 – the Full Bench of the Northern Territory Supreme Court
Andrew Hamilton Vs Director of Public Prosecutions – Justice Stephen Kaye – Melbourne Supreme Court ruling – 25 November 2011

The Trials

Finally, in late 2022 he was summoned to stand trial in Melbourne County Court, but Mike refused to travel to Victoria from his home in Queensland, citing that he was protected from prosecution in a Victorian court by Constitution Section 80.

A month later, he was arrested by a squad of AFP police outside his home, kept in the Maroochydore holding cells overnight, and then flown to Melbourne where he was thrown into prison for a total of six days, without trial. This goes against our Magna Carta which guarantees that everyone is entitled to a trial before conviction and imprisonment.

He was finally able to get released thanks to the generosity and strength of a woman supporter whom he had never even met. But this lady put up the bail money, and even hosted Mike overnight at her family home before he was able to catch a plane and fly home to Queensland at his own expense.

Mike was summoned back to Melbourne again to stand trial in July 2023. This time, he flew to Melbourne after appealing to his supporters to donate the money he needed to fly to Melbourne and stay for however long the trial took. The response was very generous and as a result Mike and his wife were able to fly there and back and to stay in the city close to the courts.

When he walked into the courtroom, he told the Judge that he had filed a 78B Notice to all Attorneys General, and therefore the trial could not go ahead until they all answered the charges he had laid out in the Notice. So, the trial was adjourned to the end of July.

Mike returned home and then had to fly back to Melbourne a few weeks later again at his own expense and that of his supporters, where he finally stood trial. By then, the Attorney Generals had refused to have anything to do with the case, even though by law they are bound to act on a 78B Notice. But such is the state of our judicial system that these people just ignore the law to suit their own agenda.

However, Mike could no longer try to stop an illegal trial so he appeared in the County Court Melbourne where a jury was sworn in and the trial took place.

Mike could not believe the people who comprised the jury. Not one of them dressed for the occasion. The all trooped in looking like a bunch of homeless people. Nor would any of them meet his eyes throughout the trial. He even commented to his wife during the trial that the jury was acting very strangely. So, he was not surprised when they returned a guilty verdict.

The Judge stated that she could not pronounce sentence straight away, as there had never been a trial of this type in Victoria before and there was no precedent, so she needed time to consider the facts of the case before determining a sentence. She pointed out that the law requires a sentence of five years imprisonment so this was a serious case, and she would not make a hurried decision. She set the sentencing for December 12, 2023, but this has been delayed yet again because Mike is attempting to file his Constitutional Writ.

The Appeals

As soon as he was convicted, Mike immediately filed an appeal against the trial in the Supreme Court Appeals Court, but as usual the registrar refused to accept it. This is a common occurrence for anyone who tries to self-represent. The registrars simply refuse to let us ordinary mortals into ‘their’ courts.

So, Mike has been forced to file a Writ of Prohibition in the High Court. He has been rejected twice so far by the High Court. The registrar’s reasons are that Mike has indicted the Chief Justice and three other Judges in his Writ. He has quoted a law the High Court made giving themselves immunity from prosecution. However, this ruling breaks Constitutional law, so Mike is pushing the registrar hard to get his case accepted.

It is Mike’s contention that he has been defamed and targeted and trespassed upon by the police, the CDPP, and various Judges throughout his ordeal. This is called the Autochthonous Expedient in the law, and it is defined in Classic Austlii like this:

“A citizen who complains that he has been defamed by a governmental official, or who suffers a trespass to his person or property, should be entitled to protection from the courts and consequent redress without having to make fine distinctions as to whether the slander, libel, or trespass arose from some action, unauthorized or not, by Commonwealth, State, or local law, and his complaint must not be open to the risk that one tribunal to which he is invited to resort has not, but another has, the appropriate jurisdiction to entertain that complaint and grant him full redress. It is hardly necessary to recall that the assimilation of all causes of action at common law and the creation of courts of comprehensive jurisdiction were the great victories of the reforming legislation of 1833 and 1852 in England and of the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875.”

It should be noted that Acts passed in England before our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 came into effect remain valid Australian law.

So, now Mike must wait for the High Court Registrar to accept his case for a hearing. This is a true test of the judicial system under Chapter III of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901. A positive decision in the High Court will affect every Australian, and it should be a catalyst for reforming the judiciary.

We must all wait in the hope that Mike is successful. If he is, he will have saved Australia from certain destruction, and helped safeguard the rights of all.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *