Mark McMurtrie

hqdefault (1).jpg

The Original Sovereign Tribal Federation 1 was created by Mark McMurtrie 2

Click to access ostf-declaration-of-sovereignty-and-nationhood-original-sovereign-tribal-federation.pdf

unnamed
Mark McMurtrie, Kevin Boota, Karno Walker and other activists serve the “Declaration of Self-determination and Nationhood of the Autonomous Autochthonous Original Tribal Peoples of Terra Australis” onto the floor of the Federal Parliament in 2013

A burgeoning faction of Freemen are targeting Indigenous audiences in Australia 3 A taste of the subculture can be gleaned online, in groups such as the Tribal Sovereign Parliament of Gondwana Land, the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation (OSTF) and the Original Sovereign Confederation.

The last of these repeats the now-familiar admiralty law myth on its Facebook page and urges members to carry an “Affidavit of Truth” outlining “their desired relationship with the colony known as Australia”. Another Facebook page – Vote ‘NO’ to Constitutional Change – claims that constitutional recognition of Aboriginal Australians is a trick to “surrender sovereignty”. Everything, it alleges, is a TROJAN Horse. The Recognise campaign’s “R” logo really stands for the Crown, as in “R v Defendant”. Welcome to Country ceremonies aren’t merely figurative but form “the only legal footing the Government have [sic] for so called Jurisdiction”. Native Title secretly means “Slave’s Title”, while a “traditional owner” is someone who has given up their property, at least in tenuous Latin cherrypicked from Black’s Law Dictionary.

The most quoted and influential Aboriginal Freeman guru is OSTF founder and travelling speaker Mark McMurtrie. McMurtrie’s beginnings weren’t in law or land-rights activism but panel beating. In 2002, he sued the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission for $33 million in damages after losing out on a business grant worth $35,000. His four-year suit was unsuccessful. In 2007, he sued a former friend over MONEY and property, losing again.

The following year, however, McMurtrie was shown on YouTube giving three-hour “common law” seminars. He parroted Freemen beliefs that names in capitals on birth certificates and power bills belonged to a fictional “corporate person” and not the “flesh-and-blood” natural person. Some of McMurtrie’s language was still broadly populist – “We the Australian people…” instead of “We the original sovereigns…” – and many of his early Freeman admirers were non-Indigenous.

Among them was “Peter-Andrew: Nolan©” a men’s rights activist who encourages men to fight rape charges with sovereign citizen tactics and bans women from reproducing his name without written permission in red ink. On his website Crimes Against Fathers, Nolan ranks McMurtrie among the “Great Australian Heros [sic]”.After founding the OSTF, McMurtrie remained close to non-Aboriginal Freemen.

In 2011 he joined forces with David Wynn Miller, an American guru claiming to teach “semantic” techniques for winning court cases, mostly involving quirky punctuation. The two unsuccessfully defended a client, Dr Masood Falamaki, in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. At one-point Miller argued that a court document counted as a “maritime vessel”, explaining, “All paper is a vessel in a sea of space and therefore it has to fly a vessel”. McMurtrie backed Miller, telling The Sydney Morning Herald: “As a sovereign tribal man of this continent, I view his ramblings as relevant to my people.”

His OSTF is currently partnered with a sovereign citizen outfit called the Truthology Foundation, which holds yearly “freedom summits”. These feature talks by Truthology’s creator Mark Darwin on “how you can operate privately outside the rules of such organisations like the ATO” and workshops by a “Mr X” on “successful techniques for negating and or waiving council fines, traffic infringements and tolls”.

McMurtrie’s tone in videos is earnest and sulky, never dazzling or glib. He’s believable enough as an activist, a grassroots tragic, and the OSTF doesn’t immediately appear distinct from the rest of the land rights movement. In early 2012, OSTF members joined the Canberra Tent Embassy for the well-publicised protests that cost Julia Gillard her shoe. On Sunrise, McMurtrie even appeared as a supposed embassy spokesman.

ostf01

Later, surviving embassy founder Michael Anderson became suspicious of the OSTF’s non-Indigenous “legal advisers”. Over email, he distanced himself from McMurtrie, saying he “attempted to use the 40th celebration of the Embassy as a means to legitimise him and the OSTF”. Anderson had other concerns, too: “McMurtrie has been going around the country giving Aboriginal people his ‘Rebuttal’ to charges, but when the court rejects them McMurtrie is not around to advise how next to act.”

In 2013 a Yidindji man named Daniel Anning, convicted of car theft, appealed to the Supreme Court of Queensland. He submitted a document titled “Notice of Rebuttal of Claim of Title to Land and Claim of Right”. It declared that the State of Queensland was a “private Corporation… registered in Washington DC” with no authority over “Private Natural People” and that Anning would not consent to a hearing “in any court other than a Yidindji Tribal Council of Elders Court or Common Law court de jure with a jury of 12 peers”. The document contained cryptic names that seemed to be cut and pasted from another case. Anning’s appeal was dismissed.

That same month, another Queensland court considered another “Notice of Rebuttal,” this time by a Nerissa Anderson, who gave her name as “Nerissa of the Ngadjon-Jii Tribe.” It was again dismissed. The following year Lee Anne Lacey attempted the same wthout success, and the same ideas were also attempted by Michael John Eckford shortly after.

Another Yidindji made news. Murrumu Walubara Yidindji – formerly NITV journalist Jeremy Geia – returned his passport, Medicare card and driver’s licence to the government. The licence had the “incorrect name”, he told The Guardian’s Paul Daley. Now he planned to “jump off the citizen ship, leave Australia”. He gave little clue what this meant, aside from a few Latin phrases.

His series of SoundCloud “message stick” recordings tell a fuller story. Murrumu’s last two recordings before “leaving Australia” (August 13 and 20) accept the influence of Mark McMurtrie (under his tribal alias, “Gunham Badi Jakamarra”) and decry the Recognise campaign as a plot by the “New World Order”. The state “to this day” doesn’t actually recognise Indigenous people as Australian citizens, Murrumu claims. As such, “Origines” are not subject to Commonwealth laws and (supposedly) cannot be tried by Australian judiciaries. Another message stick, from July 30, makes Murrumu’s Freeman beliefs plain: 4

“You see, what the Crown has actually done is created an offer of contract, that all stems from the birth certificate. […] Just look at the wording and the connection. Does Admiralty Law start when a woman’s water breaks? […] What about the birth canal? Is a contract created when a woman has her contractions? […] Who’s waiting at the end of the birth canal? Is it a doc(k), or a doctor? Don’t ships berth at the dock? There’s too many coincidences.”

There’s a problem beyond these word GAMES: the centuries-long erosion of trust and respect between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia. When part of a culture senses the court system is rigged against it, when a society has managed to make the terms “protection” and “child welfare” sound grim, then the OSTF mentality is partly understandable. Alienation begets anti-politics. Alienated people want explanations for the absurdism they feel around certain institutions; answers to why some professional fraternities give them the chills. Fantasies about tyrannical admiralty lawyers provide just that. They’re the opiate of the excluded. “Our tribes are sovereign” he tells cheering indigenous people at rallies:

“The legislation is entirely immaterial to us. We don’t give two shits what the crown thinks. We are not particularly concerned about their legislation other than the fact that they continue to use their blue coated bully boys to railroad us and to commit ethnic cleansing on behalf of this thing called crown corporation.”

Armed with his own treaties, he is telling dispossessed people what they want to hear:

“Not one piece of legislation of the crown has any authority over any person. If a court is going to exercise any of the powers attaching a right of ownership over me, forcing me to accept any right of punishment over me, then I will be addressing the matter from a point of view of slavery. They do not own me, they have no right to tell me anything.”

Mark McMurtrie had a string of cases of failed litigation, in McMurtrie v Commonwealth of Australia & 6 Ors [2000] NSWSC 781McMurtrie v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2000] NSWSC 1056McMurtire v The Commonwealth & Ors [2002] NSWSC 187McMurtrie v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2002] NSWSC 704McMurtrie v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2002] NSWSC 1147McMurtrie v Commonwealth of Australia [2006] NSWCA 148McMurtrie & Anor v Calver & Anor [2007] NSWSC 996 and McMurtrie v Calver (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 375, which don’t seem to hold any OPCA contentions. He was subsequently mentioned in Kelly v Mosman Municipal Council [2010] NSWCA 370 and Wollongong City Council v Dr Masood Falamaki [2010] NSWLEC 66 as an agent for one of the parties in the cases, in the latter with David Wynn Miller.


Mark McMurtrie is a perfect example of someone using misconceptions regarding aboriginal history to incite division among Australians. His theories circulated the internet with a premise that through some sort of “word magic” the term “ab-original” with a prefix “ab” means “not original”, and the term “in-di-genous” means “of no race”. Most dictionaries hold a different meaning, and tell the story how these words formed from the original Latin into French and English.

bfdserth

Origins of the term “ABORIGINAL”

“FROM THE BEGINNING” Aboriginal is a mid 19th century term, a back-formation from the 16th-century plural “Aborigines” meaning “Original inhabitants” (in classical times referring to those of Italy and Greece), from the Latin phrase “Ab Origine” meaning “From the beginning”. The term “Aborigine” actually has it’s beginnings in the folk etymology of the pre-Roman era, where it was first used as a tribal description of the “original inhabitants” of certain parts of Europe.

The “ABORIGINES” were in fact, the earliest inhabitants of central Italy, (and according to Roman legends, supposedly sons of the trees)

“They lived as nomads, without laws or fixed habitations, and their food was wild fruit. Their name is generally taken to mean ‘the original population’. When Aeneas arrived in Latium at the head of the Trojans the Aborigines were ruled by Latinus. Once they were united with the Trojans they formed the Latin race, so called in honor of Latinus.” ~ DICTIONARY OF CLASSICAL MYTHOLOGY 5

The ABORIGINES or “original inhabitants” description of those people is likewise identical to the ABORIGINES or “original inhabitants” of this landmass, and since it was millenia prior to the colonisation of this landmass by the British, how can such a term be conspiritorial, with some secret hidden meaning that implies the opposite…??

It’s extremely doubtful that the scribes interpreting the word “ABORIGINE” from Old Latin into Old Greek over 2000 years had any intention of any opposite, different interpretation.

 “AB” prefix… 6 1. a formal element occurring in loanwords from Latin, where it meant “away from”.

By my understanding, this combination of words meant to mean “From the beginning” beginning in “origine” with the prefix “ab” would be more like “Away from the beginning” in that sense, but still pertaining to the implied meaning.

AB… From Old English æf, from Latin ab-, from Ancient Greek πό (apó, “from”), from Sanskritअप (ápa, “away”).[1] See Proto-Indo-European *apo-.

The “ab” prefix can signify “FROM” or “OF” (as in aboriginal, absorb abinitio, abantiquo etc) OR… “AWAY”, a separating, or departure from (as in abduct, abstract, abscond, abnormal, abaxial, abdicate, abolition, etc)

But in the sense of the word “AB-ORIGINE” even if the meaning was hypothetically taken from the second definition, if would still be an “AWAY FROM” (a separating or a departure from) the postfix “ORIGINE”, as in the first definition “FROM” the…
“earliest beginning, lineage, origin, to rise, become visible, appear, a commencement, beginning, source, descent, race, lineage, ancestry, birth” (directly from Latin “originem” (nominative “origo”) from stem of “oriri”)

So without the “AB” or “FROM THE” as the prefix to “ORIGINE” or “EARLIEST BEGINNING” the word wouldn’t even hold any connotations descriptive of a people. It would effectively be saying… “My people are “Beginning”, instead of it’s proper use and meaning, by intentionally placing the prefix, “From the” to result in “From the beginning”…

“aborigine (noun.) 1858, mistaken singular of aborigines (1540s; the correct singular is aboriginal), from Latin Aborigines “the first ancestors of the Romans; the first inhabitants” (especially of Latium), possibly a tribal name, or from ab origine, literally “from the beginning.” Extended 1789 to natives of other countries which Europeans have colonized.” 7

“aboriginal (adj.) 1660s, “first, earliest,” especially in reference to inhabitants of lands colonized by Europeans, from aborigines (see aborigine) + -al (1); specific Australian sense is from 1820.” 8 “From Latin aborīginēs, original inhabitants : ab-, from; see ab-1 + orīgine, ablative of orīgō, beginning; see origin.]

Origins of the term “INDIGENOUS

9 A mid 17th century term from Latin indigena ‘a native’ (see indigene) + -ous. 10 A late 16th century term from French indigène, from Latin “indigena”, from indi- (strengthened form of in- ‘into’) + an element related to “gignere” ‘beget’.

Indigenous (adj.) 1640s, from Late Latin indigenus “born in a country, native,” from Latin indigena “sprung from the land,” as a noun, “a native,” literally “in-born,” or “born in (a place),” from Old Latin indu “in, within” (earlier endo) + *gene-, root of gignere (perf. genui) “beget,” from PIE *gen- “produce” (see genus). A person or thing that is indigenous or native; native; autochthon. 11

autochthon (n.) 1640s, “one sprung from the soil he inhabits” (plural autochthones), from Greek autokhthon “aborigines, natives,” literally “sprung from the land itself,” used of the Athenians and others who claimed descent from the Pelasgians, from auto- “self” (see auto-) + khthon “land, earth, soil” (see chthonic). The Latin name genius, which came from “gignere” meaning “to be the father of, beget.” 12

The term “Indigenous” therefore also has conotations of ancient originality, through the  generational hereditary aspect of the native peoples. Aboriginal or “From the beginning” applies more to the land, whereas “Indigenous” applies more to the race of people “begotten”. The Old Latin “Indu” meaning “in, within” (earlier “endo”) as a prefix to the term “Genous” implies that the later is “within”, not “without” as the recent theory suggests with the “of no race” assumption.

159985888_480475273085207_584456068626631699_n

Comments from Mark McMurtrie, who created this myth…

“Obviously Freeman Delusion is a governmental/Crown hack with little to no comprehension of legal meanings of words…. The FACT is words have multiple meanings – usually Dependant upon the forum/context in which they are used. For example, the word ‘Fixture’, when used by a cricketer means a game/match, when used by a plumber means a tap or other item, when used by a real estate agent means something attached to the ground….and when used in a legal context by a judge means a hearing or other ‘fixture’ before the court. The prefix ‘ab’ in a legal context mean out of, from by or not, as in the term AB-initio – meaning out of or from the beginning, or the term AB antiquo – meaning from ancient times etc…etc….(Blacks law dictionary 2nd – 6th Ed). This is why you have builders dictionaries, or Engineers dictionaries, or COMMON ENGLISH (street talk) dictionaries – however, if you wish to be in step in court or a legal forum, use a meaning which fits the context and don’t listen to nongs. There are always going to be those paid by the Crown/government/s who will try to disuade you from the truth.”

Freeman Delusion:

Hi Mark, you can call me Rob. Firstly, I find it quite interesting that you first go in attempting a personal attack with further spooky and paranoid conspirital insinuations, while completely forgetting to rebut the premise of this post with any factual evidence.

Secondly, if you had studied or even looked at the definitions in the links I provided, you would of noticed this whole post is nearly a direct quote from the dictionaries themselves combined, and virtually none of my own interpretations.

This leaves the self-evident fact that your argument is not with me, or this post, but with all the peer-reviewed interpretations of centuries of scholars of Old Latin around the globe, written by panels of learned, highly qualified and often distinguished Etymologists, which with all due respect sir, are better suited to, and more experienced in, interpreting the Old Latin, than someone unspecialised in this language, such as yourself.

Thirdly, and as you would know Mark, the definition of words, terms and phrases, when used in a legal sense, as in any NSW state magistrates court upwards, are clearly expressed in the glossary of the particular act, and in the publication Hansard. No court in Australia has any obligation to follow some dictionary from a foreign country, (especially not an outdated version) for the definition of any term. The definitions in the legislature are clear and unambiguous, and combined with precedent, leave little further room for interpretation by a court.

You wrote… <The prefix ‘ab’ in a legal context mean out of, from by or *not*, as in the term AB-initio – meaning out of or from the beginning, or the term AB antiquo – meaning from ancient times etc…etc….(Blacks law dictionary 2nd – 6th Ed).>

How exactly does the above comment support the notion that the “ab” prefix when combined with “origine” insinuates a “not” instead of an “away” or “from” as described in all the Old Latin dictionaries..?? The examples you gave of “AB initio” and “AB antiquo” likewise have the same “from” meaning as “AB origine” and don’t carry any “not” or “out of” meaning, even in the Blacks Law definition…

So Mark… do you actually have any evidence, any noted definitions, from any scholars of Old Latin, who are qualified in such etymology, that can confirm that the “AB” prefix in front of “ORIGINE” denotes a “NOT” meaning..?? (as you claim in your videos) Or are we just supposed to blindly and ignorantly disregard the evidence of thousands of years of the same meaning, and simply “take your word for it”..?

Mark McMurtrie

That’s nice……

Freeman Delusion

Do you have evidence Mark..??

Mark McMurtrie

Your response being predicated upon the fraudulent assertion that the UK was somehow lawfully entitled to supplant the Law of the Tribes with the statutes of the UK parliament. It has supposedly always been the law of the Christian ‘god’ that one cannot steal, covert their neighbors property, murder, bare false testimony, etc……ALL acts irrefutably undertaken as part of the UK parliaments’ ethnic cleansing and genocidal processes used on this continent against the Tribes up to and including to this day. Further, it has been, at least 1701, the DUTY of the monarch of that parliament to ‘protect the faith as created by law’. ALL of the acts mentioned above are also thereby prohibited under the monarchs oath – as they breach the basic tenet of the UK and its’ legally adopted faith. Apart from that, the claim made by the Crown in respect of Sovereignty here is flawed on the basis that such a claim is repugnant to Tribal law….which still remains first in time and best vat law.

Freeman Delusion:

I agree completely Mark, but that is irrelevant to the point of order here. The assumption that the parliament is subordinate to the monarch is also false. Sovereignty today is more associated with legitimate rule, rather than actual power.

The monarch in all constitutional systems today operate only on the advice of the ministers of the parliament in question. As in the UK, the parliament has no obligation to take royal opinions into account. Secondly, the monarch Queen of Australia has not held the title of Defender of the Faith since the 1952 conferences of the commonwealth ministers, and the subsequent 1973 amendments to the royal titles act. When The Queen visits Australia, she speaks and acts as Queen of Australia, and not as Queen of the Unite d Kingdom. As a constitutional monarch, The Queen acts entirely on the advice of Australian Government Ministers who are responsible to Parliament. At her Coronation on 2 June 1953, The Queen swore an oath to govern the peoples of Australia and her other realms “according to their respective laws and customs.” The Queen’s Royal style and title in Australia is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. The Queen is represented in Australia at the federal level by a Governor-General. He or she is appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia and is completely independent of the British Government. At the state level The Queen is represented by the Governors of each state who are appointed on the advice of each state Premier.

Now, back to the point in question… “ABORIGINE” (from the beginning) or “ORIGINE” (the beginning)..??

Mark McMurtrie:

But it isn’t the Queen of Australia and never has been – she isn’t even the Queen of the UK as the Coronation Ceremony was flawed. Not to mention, given she has NEVER been the LAWFUL ‘queen’ here on what remain Tribal Owned lands….she is entirely irrelevant – other than to her thugs in blue shirts and pedophiles on her benches who collude to enslave Tribal peoples without our consent nor will.

Freeman Delusion:

Those conspiratorial allegations are not within the legal provisions of any nation Mark, quite to the contrary, the current monarchy is the basis for all legal systems in the former colonies. No court, from a little state magistrates court to the International courts would even entertain such a concept as the current monarchy being invalid or fraudulent.

Your struggle for aboriginal sovereignty is not against the British, their Monarchy, or anything to do with the Commonwealth of independent nations. It is against the people who migrated HERE, who periodically consent to the continuation of the Australian constitutional system, and have more electoral power and numbers than the aboriginal minority. My primary concern would be if hypothetically we were all under some ancient aboriginal spiritual legal system that did not involve the right of the people to amend or alter the laws it contained to suit their own collective opinions as a democratic system does, then such a system would indeed be defined as a religious dictatorship, not unlike a Islamic state under Sharia law.

But besides that Mark, you seem to be avoiding the question of the validity of your “not original” and “of no race” claims in Old Latin etymology, the basis of this post, and all its reputable references. Can you share at least one piece of supportive evidence, from even one scholar of the ancient language, or did you just make it up to further confuse your own people..??

Mark McMurtrie:

I have given my references.

Freeman Delusion:

There is no link or reference in this thread except the ones I have provided, I have yet to see ANY supportive references Mark, which is why I requested it.

Mark McMurtrie:

Just because the Crowns subjects – who decided to amend THEIR CONstitution in as much as it spoke about Tribal peoples…does NOT give leverage to any claim by the Crown to have usurped the Sovereignty of the Tribes….

Freeman Delusion:

I might agree, but the current legal system doesn’t. We could hypotheticise any number of scenarios that “should be”, but point in question, it is not the reality of the only recognised and therefore legitimate form of law in this country.

Mark McMurtrie:

WHOSE current ‘legal’ (as opposed to LAW) system ? the Crown corporations ? since when has the thief EVER had standing ? other than under white fella statutes…

Freeman Delusion:

While that may be your position Mark, there IS NO OTHER legitimate democratic rule on this landmass. The religious rites of an aboriginal minority are not a sufficient form of structure to govern the whole Australian nation, or provide for the democraticly-established right to grant or refuse electoral consent to the law-making body.

Incidentally, there are literally hundreds of people observing this interaction between us right now, dozens have shared this etymological information and are participating in various conversations about the validity of your Old Latin interpretation. Many people like myself, who also hold a deep respect for all your work on establishing the sovereignty of the aboriginal people, are waiting for your proof of claim, or rather, the etymological evidence to establish it.

Please respond.”

Mark McMurtrie:

This is the first time I have seen this page…..Jan 14, 2019. I wonder if the hack who created this web site would give me a fair space for a detailed right of reply to his diatribe and misquoted words ? Balls in your court numb nuts.

Freeman Delusion:

Welcome back Mark, after 6 years. Everything here has been copied verbatim from our last conversation on the Facebook page Freeman Delusion. Yes you are quite welcome to comment, as you already have. You took off after attempting to divert the subject last time, regarding your interpretations of Latin etymology, and I have yet to see any evidence supporting your position. Note that everything here is supported by reputable references, not my opinions, and I expect the same from you. I’m not really interested in your opinions but evidence to establish your etymological position.

I see that the OSTF has become just another unfruitful pursuit, after much popularity earlier, even as far as your losses at the Lismore Court regarding your driving. There has been no unity developed, and your concepts have even been rejected by Michael Anderson among many other prominent figures for giving people false hope. Most others I mention your name make quite clear that you don’t speak for them.

I don’t know how you are meant to respond to your provable failure, but if you feel the need, go for it… numb nuts… 

Mark McMurtrie:

lol…OSTF is doing very well – we merely stepped back form the eyes of drongos such as yourself who try to jamb their ignorant opinions down others throats….We have even managed to get a matter before the High Court and now that we have expired that avenue, we are on our way to the ICJ. If you TRY you might even be able to find reference to the matter….it related to charges of genocide against a magistrate and two cops in the NT….but I KNOW they are TRYING to keep it all quiet…much like you they use their friends in the media etc…to hide the truth.

As for Anderson, as has been exposed, he is nothing but a Crown shill….EG: his involvement in the NBAN debacle that is now the ire of all and sundry given the state of the rivers after he and his mates facilitated the divergence of rivers etc.

I am sure the “others” you speak to are equal sellout to Anderson.

The etymology I use is correct. I use the legal meanings of words as the issues we are dealing with are legal issues.

I wouldn’t expect a troll such as yourself to comprehend that simplicity though…You just like to use irrelevant meanings because you are also….well, irrelevant.

As usual, ANYTHING to decry the truth eh shill ?

Freeman Delusion:

Hahaha. So as I already knew, you have no references to support your position regarding Latin etymology, so all you can do is show you don’t have a legitimate response by using ad hominems instead of just competently addressing the argument. It speaks for itself. Slurs like “troll” and “shill” and “drongo” and certainly don’t provide any evidence to the contrary, its the cowards way out.

I have no ignorant opinions, only fully referenced citations and completely relevant facts. Unlike yourself, I have no opinions on matters of law, I simply cite the relevant authorities from the stare decisis on the ratio decidendi.

“Expired that venue” is such a nice way of describing the binding judgments of the highest court in Australia, it shows further evidence of your denial of reality in these matters.

Secondly, you might be able to fool other gullible people like yourself using assertions of the International Court of Justice, but I know very well that only States are eligible to appear before the Court in contentious cases. The Court has no jurisdiction to deal with applications from individuals, non-governmental organizations, corporations or any other private entity. It cannot provide them with legal advice or help them in their dealings with national authorities. However, a State may take up the case of one of its nationals and invoke against another State the wrongs which its national claims to have suffered at the hands of the latter; the dispute then becomes one between States. The International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to try individuals accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity. As it is not a criminal court, it does not have a prosecutor able to initiate proceedings. The Court can only hear a dispute when requested to do so by one or more States. It cannot deal with a dispute on its own initiative, neither is it permitted, under its Statute, to investigate and rule on acts of sovereign States as it chooses. Lastly, the Court is not a supreme court to which national courts can turn; it does not act as a court of last resort for individuals. Nor is it an appeal court for any international tribunal.

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/frequently-asked-questions

I guess you have now been further exposed as someone who has no problem with blatantly lying about things to support your narratives. I’ll be adding this conversation to your page as more substantiation of what is already established on it.

Mark McMurtrie:

LOL…there is no point wasting my time casting pearls before swine…you are nothing but a Crown employed shill…as for the ICJ, you obviously don’t know as much as you pretend…you need to look at what matters can be raised by supportive nations…as stated previously, you are nothing but a Crown owned dick without the ability to stand on the truth.

 You can quote all the crown backed/owned info sites you like.,….it doesn’t change the fact you are nothing but an ignorant agitator regurgitating crap for scum.

off you go now…lmao. please do add your diatribe to anything you wish – you have been outed as the shill you are….it’s not as if anyone places any trust or credit in anything you say…lol

Further, as you ARE aware, my use of the Latin terms is accurate. and people are finding that out for themselves…lmao….I have referred many people to your dribble and they, like me, find you not only humorous, but pitiful.

Freeman Delusion:

Hmmm… Firstly, you say “my use of the Latin terms is accurate” but can’t provide any evidence to support yourself, merely your own opinions. “I investigated my claims, and found them to be accurate.” is the best you can do. This self-gratifying bullshit doesn’t cut it in a world of peer review lol, but your arrogance really does speak for itself.

Secondly, when challenged on the accuracy of the claims, you immediately go on a ad hominem rant in desperation to avoid addressing the point, (which is purely academic in nature anyway) because it’s too difficult for you to simply give a referenced response. Surely if the claim had any validity, it wouldn’t be very difficult for you to give a referenced response, but it seems you cannot do so. This also speaks for itself.

Thirdly, I’d compare it to my attempts to speak fluent Bundjalung, and when the Walker’s or Skinner’s correct my mistakes, I just go into blatant denial and say “my use of the Bundjalung terms is accurate” and start calling them shills or other names, without giving any evidence to support myself. I’d look just as foolish as you do right now. Latin is MY bloodlines language, not yours, and my responses are referenced from the best etymologists of the Latin language there is, so you can drop your piss weak attempts at insults, because they are meaningless without evidence to the contrary. In fact, they prove my initial assertions. 

Mark McMurtrie:

and, finally – you quote “decisions” from courts that are biased in favor of their masters opinions. As everyone with at least three braincells knows, the crown Corp has NEVER taken any form of legal ownership over OUR Tribal Estates. That is proven by the fact that Straylyins can’t accept the truth of their history, and like any other person who is denying the impact of some trauma in their life/background, the trauma will continue to impact upon them until they do. It is sad that Straylyins can’t accept the facts of their history…. Arthur Phillip breached his Secret Orders and Commission to negotiate with the owners of this continent and purchase all lands that he wished to occupy. His breaching of his Orders meant he wasn’t working for the Crowns’ UK Parliament. The minute he stuck his toe in the sand at “Sydney Cove” he became immediately and ipso-facto subject to our Tribal law. That law is that our Estates can not be transferred to others – EG: the Crowns’ UK Parliament. His subsequent ‘claim’ was therefore contrary to the law of the land and not a legal/lawful action. Not only that, their own High Court laughed their ONLY claim to this land out of court – denying the assertion by the Crown of Terra Nullius. FACT.

You cannot gain a legal benefit from a criminal act. End of story…. It truly is time that “Australians” had the balls to accept their TRUE history, and acknowledged the place of the Tribes on this continent as the true and only Sovereigns – as the UK Parliaments’ claim is patently untenable.

Further, given there is no recognizance (contract) between the Tribes and the Australian governments, we maintain our Sovereign status – hence why the Crown spent some $1.4B on “Constitutional Recognition” on order to TRY to create such a contract between “them” and “us”.

There is MUCH more to this and the Crown knows. We served documents on the crown in the last week of May 2010 – 6 weeks later Gillard came out under legal advice and admitted this truth and demanded that the Commonwealth needs to create a “recognition” (contract) between “them” and “us”. They then tried to enter a Bill into their parliament to create the illusion of “Constitutional recognition” between “them” and “us”.

We served documents into their parliament on 13th Feb 2013 proving this to them and informing the Crown that we, the Tribes, do not wish to enter such an agreement until WE are given the opportunity to write such an agreement as the owners of th elands…Hence why the process stopped – because the Crown realizes they have been exposed for the FACT they own nothing and we are still the owners.

Facts that Australians can’t seem to deal with – either due to ego or ignorance of the facts of their history. the same facts that deny your ignorant rants any legitimacy. the fact that self serving “judges” in rooms called “courts” make “findings” is immaterial to fact. Surely you are aware of that obvious “fact”…lmao

Freeman Delusion:

Interesting that. Just like last time, which is printed in the article above, you try to turn a discussion about etymology into a sovereignty rant, while completely ignoring the point of order… which is etymology. It’s also interesting, and internally inconsistent, that you would ignore the effect of precedent on the decisions of the courts. You cite no case law to support yourself, because all the case law has already dealt with the very assertions you make, so your words are really quite pointless.

You talk as if you act as representative for the tribes, when this is clearly not the case. Most of the Lands Councils reject your notions, and object to you speaking for them.

So to put it more factually, it would be “WE, a small minority group, a mere group of activists that don’t represent the majority of Aboriginal people, served documents into their parliament on 13th Feb 2013, and it had absolutely no effect.”

Just look at what Adani are doing with the consent of the traditional landowners. Just look at the closure of various remote communities, and a dozen other prime examples that are actual “facts”, and not your opinion or moralistic fallacies. Nothing has been changed, especially not the minds of the majority of Aboriginal people, who know that we can’t erase the past, the white fellas aren’t packing up and going back overseas, ever, so it’s better to take a more sensible approach. Some like yourself unfortunately have no sense. 

Mark McMurtrie:

lol…just filling up your page with the crap it deserves…you don’;t rely expect me to cast my pearl before swine do you…lmaol…

There is no point attempting to place fact or truth here as you will merely bulldoze it with your misquotes and rubbish…Your page is laughable as is your assertion that the Crown has ever had any lawful claim to Sovereignty over this continent….you rely upon a claim that even your own High Court has dismissed – Terra Nullius- THAT is the extent of your credibility.

So DO tell…given Arthur Phillip had NO lawful authority to make the claim he did – and given that even the Crowns own judicial officers have laughed that out of their own system, exactly WHAT is the basis at law (not Crown Corporate Statute) to support your own self-serving rotational claims and circular nonsense of “the Crown claims it so it MUST be true”….

Please do enlighten us as to how breaching instruments that the UK was bound to (EG: treaty of Westphalia etc) managed to instill credit into a criminal act of trespass and unlawful occupation ???

You see…you have been too busy doing nothing but regurgitating your Criminal Crowns’ rubbish like “we came here with a flag so we own it” to even see that that isn’t where the argument lies.

It is not out of step that you would rely on criminal acts to justify the unlawful…and it doesn’t matter what you claim, WE have never acquiesced to those criminal claims – which is why you and yours continue to rely on genocidal programs like the NY “Intervention” to ATTEMPT to hide your crimes.

Infantile at best…and THAT is why you, as swine, will not see my pearl….

Off ya go now…oink…

Freeman Delusion:

Firstly, I don’t “claim” anything, I don’t give my opinions like you do, but the binding judgments of the higher courts on any particular ratio decidendi. Secondly, another huge misconception you have is that I’m even slightly interested in your political ramblings Mark McMurtrie. This website deals with various pseudo legal assertions and how the courts are obliged to respond due to precedent. You should try a gardening website, and they may give you more attention in achieving your political desires, I deal in law, not politics. So to address you assertions:

(1) Yes I’m quite aware the High Court overturned the doctrine of terra nullius, and neither do I rely on it for anything. It is generally agreed that upon arrival in Australia, the Crown acquired what is referred to as “radical title”. If Australia were truly terra nullius, (uninhabited) this radical title would become absolute beneficial title of the Crown. However, since Australia was inhabited (and not terra nullius), radical title did not imply full beneficial ownership. In Mabo v Queensland (No.2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 the High Court concluded that the Crown’s radical title only conferred sovereignty, and sovereignty did not extinguish native title by default. Therefore, while the sovereignty remained with the Crown, the beneficial ownership or title remained with the original inhabitants. Nevertheless, native title only confers what is directed by the Crown, being the sovereign entity representative of the people as a collective. Kenna, J. stated:

“There is no indication in Mabo (No.1) that the High Court is prepared to recognize Aboriginal sovereignty, the High Court is unable to inquire into the actual acquisition of sovereignty.”

Similarly, in Walker v NSW (1994) 126 ALR 321:

“The Court confirmed received doctrine on sovereignty, putting the matter beyond the reach of review in domestic Australian courts.”

(2) In Denis Walker’s case it was argued that Aboriginal customary law survived the assertion of sovereignty by the British, and continued until extinguished by clear and unambiguous legislation. It was claimed that general laws failed to extinguish Indigenous laws in that way. Chief Justice Mason, and Judges Ashley, Neave and Redlich, unanimously rejected the notion that a system of law could operate alongside the Australian legal system.

(3) It was also held in the same case that the High Court’s single source of authority, and the extent of the parameters of its jurisdiction are derived solely from the Crown itself, therefore it had no authority or jurisdiction to hear challenges to the legitimacy of the Crown’s jurisdiction.

And THAT (as I’m sure you are aware anyway) is the extent that the courts can proceed with your assertions of sovereignty. I don’t have to agree or disagree, and neither do you, but that is unfortunately the end of any legal argument you have.

So all that you ultimately have, is a POLITICAL argument, which requires a majority at the ballot supporting the proposition, and considering those that identify as Aboriginal or Islander descent make up less than 3% of the population, you therefore have zero chance of achieving anything with your rants except frustrating yourself.

The facts are, we are here and we aren’t going anywhere. You can cry over it all you like, but it won’t change anything. 

https://freemandelusion.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/aboriginal-sovereignty-or-native-title/

.