DATE

YOUR NAME
YOUR ADDRESS

ATTENTION: NAME OF PERSON

THEIR COMPANY NAME
THEIR ADDRESS
THEIR CONTACT NUMBERS
THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS

Re: XXXXXXXXXX

Dear XXXXXXX,

The following letter is putting you on notice that if you continue with your current course of action
against myself or assist in the sale of the property (or write in whatever the action is against you)
known as XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, I will take it that you have reviewed this entire letter,
understood its contents, but disregarded the consequences of persisting with your illegal course of
action.

Although I long ago relinquished any sanguine hopes that anyone in your position could in any way
be influenced by the contents of this letter, please understand that I am forwarding same so that there
is proof that you were made aware of these issues and I am therefore able to initiate legal
proceedings against you once the issues raised in the various decisions of David Claude Fitzgibbon-
v-Her Majesty’s Attorney General of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
have been finalized by the United Kingdom government. The secondary reason for me forwarding
this letter is my obligation to present the truth to Australian citizens who are placed in the invidious
position of unwittingly committing a human rights offense. For me to do less is to invite the
possibility of a potential charge of misprision. Although I know that you will disregard the matters
that I am conveying to you in this lengthy communication, by doing so you will place yourself in
dire legal and financial jeopardy and you will have no credible defense to my claim.

As I am making you aware of the legal invalidity of the actions which you propose to take there is no
doubt that any actions taken by you will, at a latter date, attract attention.

I wish to assure you that academics the world over, along with various lawyers within the United
Kingdom – solicitors, senior counsels and an increasing number of British politicians - agree with
the arguments and facts submitted to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and you personally in this letter.
You can also be assured that judgments pertaining to these issues and handed down by Australian
courts are, at best, unsafe and at worse, hilarious.

For various reasons, not least being national media controls via D-Notices, it is unlikely that you will
be aware that all levels of government in Australia have been – for several years – under serious
challenge. The process has now reached an advanced level overseas. Shortly the non-English print
media will publish the facts. These media articles will arise from the fundamental platform on which

Page 1 Initial:_______________________
all levels of government within Australia, as well as its organs put in place to administer and police
decisions of Australian governments, is a current Act of the United Kingdom Parliament: The
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900! These media articles will also cover the fact that
even if the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (UK) is valid, its terms have not been
complied with by either the British or Australian governments.

The ‘Australian’ Constitution, being the ninth clause of the aforementioned Act of the Westminster
Parliament, ultimately remains under the control of the United Kingdom Parliament! That is, the
‘Australian’ Constitution is under the control of the Parliament of a power foreign to Australia and
its people!

Immediately Australia achieved independence, The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act,

1900 (U.K.) became ultra vires within the sovereign, independent territory of Australia. So, despite
historical connections, the ‘Australian’ Constitution, being part of a colonial law, ceased to have
valid application in Australia from the moment Australia became independent! At the same time, the
Monarchy, through the fact that it only possesses authority as an integral part of the United Kingdom
legislature, became an irrelevancy with regard to the internal affairs of Australia. These assertions
have been proved by numerous Answers to Freedom of Information Applications both by the Federal
Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and by the Government of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Correspondence from the British Foreign and Commonwealth
Office together with letters on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II from Buckingham Palace also verifies
these facts.

A copy of the Submission requesting the appointment of an International Criminal Tribunal

(Australia) to deal with those individuals who continue to illegally exert power on Australian citizens
through the application of invalidated British colonial law within the sovereign territory of Australia
is available upon the Internet at the following address should you wish to peruse a copy:
www.basicfraud.com (and I strongly suggest you research this entire website and all the
information it contains) alternatively, just Google ‘Australia: The Concealed Colony’. For your
information, this Submission was forwarded to and accepted by the 185 Member States of the
General Assembly, the Security Council, the Human Rights Commission and the International
Criminal Commission, all of the United Nations. Advice received is that the aforesaid Submission
has reached an advanced stage of consideration by the Human Rights Commission of the United
Nations. Moreover meetings between Australian citizens and the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights, Louise Arbour have taken place in Geneva. However, the matter has not rested
with the United Nations alone. On or about Friday 25th October, 2002 criminal litigation was initiated
in the court system of the United Kingdom. This litigation dealt with executive authority within
Australia. Should you be interested I advise that the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, 1981 (U.K.)
makes interesting reading and can be found via the Internet or in the National Library in Canberra.

Fundamentally, your problems will arise from the fact that the United Nations has confirmed that
from at least the 24th October, 1945, the United Kingdom law, the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.) has been ultra vires within Australia. Moreover, as will be revealed
shortly, the government of the United Kingdom is aware of the problem and the fact that it must now
be deal with it.

Because of the invalidity of the ‘Australian’ Constitution within the territory of Australia, subsequent
to the Australian people gaining their independence and sovereignty, the Office of the Governor-

Page 2 Initial:_______________________
General became purely titular, possessing no authority to give ‘Royal’ ascent with regard to section
58 of the ‘Australian’ Constitution. Bills of law assented to by Governors-General can have no valid
legal application to Australian citizens within the sovereign territory of the Commonwealth of
Australia. Action based on belief to the contrary is unenforceable under British, European and
international law.

Because those governing Australians continue to use United Kingdom law (and swear oaths of
allegiance to the Queen of a defunct sovereignty) they and all established instruments of
administration – such as the court systems of Australia – are definable as agents of the United
Kingdom. In assuming the role of illegally selling the aforesaid properties and relying upon
Australian Bills of law which are purported to be enacted, you too have become definable as an
agent of a foreign power

I have been informed that certain sections of the government of the United Kingdom have confirmed
that with regard to the cases recently initiated within that country and the European Court of Human
Rights, the documentation that is to be relied upon is correct and that they are in agreement with the
argument, analysis and conclusions to be advanced. Senior legal counsels of the United Kingdom
have opined that the criminal charges are indefensible.

Moreover (and as an influencing factor within the United Kingdom government) attention should be
given to the advice of the European Rights Commission that the legislative powers of the Parliament
of the European Union supersede that of any individual Member of the European Community and
that, that Parliament has the power to repeal legislation of European Community Member States
which conflicts with the human rights principles adopted by the European Community.

International human rights declarations have been adopted and incorporated in the European
Convention on Human Rights which, inter alia, states that all government shall be by the people.
This Convention was adopted into United Kingdom law via the Human Rights Act, 1998 (U.K.). In
other words, the condoning of, or even the neutral stand adopted by, the United Kingdom in relation
to the matter of the continued use of its invalidated colonial law to govern Australians is strictly
prohibited under European Community rules and now by United Kingdom law.

Further, the same conclusion is reached by a different deduction offered by an eminent jurist who
was a consultant to the President of the United States of America. (The significance of this lies in the
fact that the U.S.A. is a Member of the Security Council of the United Nations). This jurist has
advised that the Human Rights Act, 1998 (U.K.) and the Treaty on European Union, 1993 along with
the Charter of the United Nations, 1945 invalidates in its entirety, the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.). He further pointed out that all legislation passed by the
United Kingdom is subject to the Human Rights Act, 1998 (U.K.). This Act in turn incorporates the
European Convention on Human Rights. Interestingly, because the Human Rights Act, 1998 (U.K.)
makes no reference of exclusion relating to the current Act of domestic law of the United
Kingdom, namely the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.) and because that
Constitution Act does not per se contain exclusion clauses regarding the Human Rights Act, 1998
(U.K.) then the United Kingdom Parliament’s statute namely the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.) has been invalidated by way of the United Kingdom’s own 1998
Human Rights legislation. Since various Articles within the Charter of the United Nations, 1945
forbid the transfer of legislation such as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900
(U.K.) from one Member State to another United Nations Member State and in addition, since the

Page 3 Initial:_______________________
United Kingdom adopted a policy entitled ‘the doctrine of transformation’ in 1991 (which rules that
International law has automatic superiority to domestic United Kingdom law) in the event of a
conflict between the two (2) then, both United Kingdom law and International law absolutely stand
in the way of the existing political and judicial system adopting or attempting to validate the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (U.K.).

Despite the devious (and at times, awkward) pronouncements emanating from the United Kingdom it
is clear that the British have maintained an historic lie. Concomitantly the United Kingdom has
attempted to create a set of legal criteria which it is hoped will ultimately render their Queen and
Parliament immune from wrong doing before the eyes of the world, while leaving Australians who
have chosen to assume the power to govern and administer over the Australian people, to answer for
their actions before the International Criminal Tribunal (Australia), a court of the United Kingdom
and/or the European Court of Justice. Whichever body acts upon these issues, rest assured that the
present Australian authorities will have no influence.

For you to continue to knowingly assist in the perpetuation of the situation by relying on invalid
‘Australian’ laws amounts both to a misguided act of loyalty as well as constituting an act of treason
against the Australian people. No doubt you will believe that the U.K. or European courts have no
jurisdiction within the Commonwealth of Australia, but that is a matter for you. You may wish to
have the Lloyds’ Underwriters confirm this for you in writing.

By way of a recent parallel situation, the report of the International Criminal Tribunal (Yugoslavia)
reveals that, that Tribunal considered human rights abuses as more serious than war crimes and
placed ‘economic deprivation’ at the upper end of the penalty scale. While I doubt that you will
comprehend that you are – in my matter – directly involved in an illegal act of economic deprivation
(for which the United Nation’s penalty scale is from five (5) to twenty-five (25) years) if you decide
to continue in your activities I suggest that you take the time to consider your position, as you have
been given notice. As an individual with access to the Internet, telephone and postal service if you
continue to act against me, after I have initiated my claim against you, you will be denied any
defense as to your lack of knowledge of the facts I am outlining herein.

In addition, you should note that an International Criminal Tribunal can authorise any reparations
that it deems fit. Accordingly, individual offenders may be subject to ‘open ended’ liability.
Moreover, advice received from counsels in the United Kingdom is that the compensation that will
be awarded will be in the nature of “extraordinary punitive” damages. This has led to a number of
such counsels and the solicitors who will instruct them, seeking to pursue such claims on the basis of
a percentage of the damages to be awarded in each case.

Accordingly, you would be well advised to exercise extreme caution in relation to this and any other
matter involving the divesting of property or the harassment of individuals who have cited, on
Constitutional grounds, the invalidity of the laws applied in Australia. If you proceed you will be
doing so in the face of undeniable, factual and historical evidence and in contradiction of publicly
available documents. Nonetheless, should you decide to do so you will not be alone. Again, my
strong advice to you is that as you have indemnity insurance you present this letter to your insurance
underwriters and ask them for an answer to the obvious questions.

Although I have every reason to opine that you will not take up this information, nonetheless, it is
offered upon the basis that the Lloyds’ Underwriters sought advice some years ago from the most

Page 4 Initial:_______________________
eminent independent legal professionals available to them. Advice has been obtained that Australians
who are ultimately relying on international underwriters will be asked to show how their indemnity
insurance can be relied upon in the face of their concealment of material facts dealing with the issues
raised herein. No doubt they will produce learned legal opinions written by Australian lawyers with
no qualifications in international law, but that will be a matter for them. As such, individuals like
yourself, should you decide to pursue me under invalid Australian laws, will find themselves
personally liable for any damages awarded against them, together with being responsible for their
own legal expenses. Again, the primary purpose of this letter is to put you on notice so as to allow
me to more easily initiate legal action!

In short, should you decide to continue to act in this matter, you will have chosen to play an
instrumental role and one that will become the subject of litigation in a tribunal over which the
authorities presently operating in Australia will have no authority. It is clear to me, but sadly to few
Australian lawyers, that the outcome of the proceedings commenced will be contrary to the current
pronouncements of Australian courts and what passes for Australia’s legal profession. Such an
outcome will, in turn, illustrate that the terms of any indemnity insurance held by you have been
voided.

The fundamental legal principle involved is simple and easily understood. I strongly advise that you
– as an individual – carefully examine the matters contained in this letter. When doing so please
remember that, in matters involving human rights, individuals are considered to be solely responsible
for their actions and the “I was only doing my job” Nuremberg defenses of ‘acting on advice’,
‘acting under direction’, ‘acting under orders’ or any justification which involves a ‘superior
authority’ (such as an unsafe court decision) does not present as an acceptable defense.

In this matter you cannot afford to accept the advice of another. In the interests of your own ‘self-
preservation’ you must become a student of the situation to avoid becoming a participant.
If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me by post or email.

Yours sincerely,

YOUR SIGNATURE
YOUR NAME

¨The Commonwealth of Australia’s armed forces during World War I displayed a fighting
ability, courage, and endurance which made them a legend wherever they fought. All of them
were volunteers. Sixty-one thousands, seven hundred and twenty of them died and ennobled the
soils of France and Gallipoli. Over 155,000 of them were wounded. All carried the scars of war
for life as a badge of honour¨.

“…By this recognition Australia became a nation, and entered into a family of nations on a
footing of equality. We had earned that, or, rather, our soldiers had earned it for us. In the
achievement of victory they had played their part and no nation has a better right to be
represented than Australia…”

Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, William Morris Hughes

House of Representatives Wednesday, 10 th September 1919.

Page 5 Initial:_______________________
WEBSITE REFERENCES:

www.basicfraud.com

www.members.westnet.com.au/unrealneil

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versailles.html

www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/GovGen.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20001204150500/http:/www.institutetr.com.au

www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality04.htm

www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/08/1091903444867.html

www.principalityofcamside.cc/Audio/OzAudioIntro.htm

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/young_and_free.htm

cc.
Elizabeth II The Right Honourable
Queen of the United Kingdom Baroness Jan Royall of Blaisdon
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Leader of the House of Lords &
Buckingham Palace Lord President of the Council
London SW1A 1AA  Privy Council Office
2 Carlton Gardens
London SW1Y 5AA

Kevin Rudd M.P. Ms Quentin Bryce AC

Prime Minister of Australia Governor General of the
GPO PO Box 6022 Commonwealth of Australia
House of Representatives Government House
Parliament House Dunrossil Drive
Canberra ACT 2600 Yarralumla. ACT 2600

Page 6 Initial:_______________________