Case: Non-compliance to voting on jurisdiction grounds


Enlarge

Secret Instructions to Cook
Jump to Transcript below

The Crown versus Kaulfuss is a case where a Melbourne man has informed the Australian Electoral Commission of his conscientious decision not to vote at the 2011 Federal Election.

His principle reason given for this decision is that the Commonwealth of Australia and its agents have no jurisdiction or authority to enforce him to vote as Aboriginal people have never ceded sovereignty.

He points out that the High Court rejected the doctrine of Terra Nullius that Cook had used in 1770 to claim this land in the name of his Monarch and for Britain, and he refers to 'Cook's Secret Documents'.

- - - - - - -

Background

In August 2011, following a lengthy period of exchanged correspondence a Charge-Sheet and Summons was received requesting an appearance at the Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court on 19 October 2011.

A statement of 'no jurisdiction' was made at that appearance giving brief reasons as to why, consequently the magistrate adjourned the hearing until 19 January 2012. Outline published an ...

On 12 August 2010 I informed the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) by letter of my conscientious decision not to avail myself of the opportunity to vote at the 21 August 2010 Federal Election.

Reasons given for this decision were:

  • The continuing act of genocide against this country's Original/First People
  • The jailing of our First People is more than five times higher than black South Africans at the end of apartheid, it is eight times higher in Western Australia
  • The failure to introduce a Bill of Rights even though it was recommended by a government appointed panel
  • The public voice is being disregarded thus relegating me and others to bystander status

On 11 November 2010 an "Apparent Failure to Vote" letter was received requesting a valid reason as to why I had not voted or pay a penalty of $20. A letter of response was sent to the AEC referring to correspondence of 12 Aug 2010 and requesting proof that jurisdiction had been given by the Original people in way of a treaty signed by the Crown and the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation upon whose land the polling booths were situated.

On 9 August 2011 following a lengthy period of exchanged correspondence a CHARGE - SHEET and SUMMONS was received requesting an appearance at the Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court on 19 October 2011.

A statement of 'no jurisdiction' was made at that appearance giving brief reasons as to why, consequently the magistrate adjourned the hearing until 19 January 2012.

The following is a summary of my intended presentation to the court on that day:

  • Lt Cook breached his "Secret Orders" dated 30 July 1768 when declaring the "Doctrine of Terra Nullius" in Botany Bay in 1770
  • The High Court ruling on the "Mabo Decision" of 3 June 1992 rejected the "Doctrine of Terra Nullius".
  • On 16 March 1875 the British House of Lords confirmed and enhanced the "1872 Pacific Islanders Protection Act" by creating section 7 which with the Royal Assent of Queen Victoria officially recognized the sovereignty of Aboriginal Nations and Peoples.
  • failure to introduce a Bill of Rights
  • Ongoing genocide being committed on our First People as defined in Articles 2 and 3 of the United Nations Genocide Convention. Australia ratified this convention on 11 December 1948. By voting for candidates aspiring to be elected to parliament I will condoning and be complicit to Articles 2 and 3 of the Genocide Convention.

The court hearing will be at the Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court, Cnr Dimboola/Pearcedale Pde., Broadmeadows on 19 January 2012, 9:00am and I would appreciate any support on that day.

- - - - - -

Court contest notations (Draft)

Page 1
THE CROWN vs KAULFUSS

Court contest for 19 Jan 2012

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND ITS AGENTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY.

The reasons for this are -

Lieutenant Cook under ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION placed a flag into the ground at Botany Bay, N.S.W. in 1770 and used the DOCTRINE OF TERRA NULLIUS to proclaim this land as an extension to the British Empire with the consent of the reigning Monarch. This was clearly a breach of his "SECRET ORDERS" dated 30 July 1768 which can be found in the public domain libraries and throughout internet data bases.

http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-34.html
Secret Instructions to Lieutenant Cook 30 July 1768 (UK)

Lieutenant Cook's secret orders contained TWO CONDITIONS that would allow him to claim land for Britain.

  1. IF THE LAND WAS UNINHABITED - WHICH IT WASN'T
  2. IF THE NATIVE PEOPLES GAVE THEIR CONSENT - WHICH THEY HAD NOT.

Since then, the basic terms of peaceful coexistence between the First Peoples and those who came later have never been negotiated in Australia. This makes us the only Commonwealth nation not to have a treaty with our First Peoples.

In the High Court ruling otherwise known as the "MABO DECISION" OF JUNE 3rd 1992, The High Court REJECTED the doctrine of Terra Nullius that Cook had used in 1770 to claim this land in the name of his Monarch and for Britain.

On 16 March 1875 the British House of Lords confirmed and enhanced the 1872 Pacific Islanders Protection Act by creating Section 7, relating to all the Aboriginal Peoples of the Pacific, including Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. (We must remember the Northern Territory was part of South Australia at this time). In this Act the British House of Lords, with the Royal Assent of Queen Victoria, officially recognised the sovereignty of Aboriginal nations and Peoples. In doing this, the British parliament included in the legislation the recognition of the authority of our chiefs (Law/Lore men and Law/Lore women) by legislating that their powers and authorities could not be diminished in any way whatsoever.

In the final part of the 1875 Pacific Islanders Protection legislation, it was a requirement of the parliaments of each of the colonies identified that these Orders in Council were to be tabled in each House of Parliament. We now know that this was never adhered to by the colonial parliaments in Australia. We must also question the integrity of the Australian High Court decision in Mabo (No.2), because the High Court failed to expand on the true recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty. This confirms that even within the legal system the Aboriginal People cannot expect true justice as the courts are protecting their system at all costs, in order to maintain the status quo.

Page 2

Aboriginal sovereignty is no longer a dream. Sovereignty is not only a fact but a matter of law as written in the Pacific Islanders Act of 1875:

Until this current government or any other government legitimises their occupation and their jurisdiction by seeking out the formal written documents of consent off the sovereign first nations peoples of Australia - in this case the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation - in the form of a treaty then this court has no legal jurisdiction.

I also wish to present the following:-
Article 2 of the United Nation's Convention on genocide is defined as:

(a) Killing members of the group
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

I believe Australia has breached all of the above

Article 3 defines the crimes that can be punished under the convention:

(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

The convention, which Australia ratified on 11 Dec 1948, also states that all participating countries are advised to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and in peacetime.
This clearly has not happened as the following examples confirm -

  • The Northern Territory Intervention
  • Alarming increases in incarceration rates and deaths in custody for our First Nation's people
  • Removal of indigenous literacy programs1 within community education facilities
  • Sovereignty being continually ignored

1 http://www.thewire.org.au/storyDetail.aspx?ID=8484

Page 3

I also wish to remind this court of The Nuremberg Principles I to VII.
Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".

Furthermore I must state that while my conscience influenced my decision not to vote on 21 August 2010 my decision did not result in harm or damage to any persons or property - to the contrary I seek a more just and ethical society.
I see that by voting for candidates aspiring to be elected to Parliament I will be condoning be complicit to Articles 2 and 3 of the genocide convention and supporting ecocide.

Finally I fail to see why the AEC has forced me into this court considering the facts I submitted to them, whilst the documentation I sought from that Commission has not been produced until this current time.

If the court will allow me I wish to submit copies of my correspondence forwarded to the AEC detailing my position on the stance I took prior to and since the federal election of 21 August 2010.




Secret Instructions to Captain Cook - 30 June 1768

Enlarge

Enlarge

Enlarge

Links
Cooks Secret Instructions
http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/exhibition/objectsthroughtime/secret/