Mike Holt runs the CIR NOW website, (citizens initiated referendum now) and several other blogs and accounts, such as The Bloody Aussie Battler (which also has a YouTube channel), and Advance Australia. These websites are full of OPCA related content, pseudo legal myths, and constitutional misconceptions spread by various vexatious litigants and more.
Here are a few examples of the fallacies perpetuated by the CIR NOW website, that have been authoritatively rejected by the higher courts as having no arguable basis in law:
- “How & When did the Government Commit Treason?
- Criminals in Government
- The True Illuminati Story
- Where is the Governor General?
- Letter to your Council CEO
- An Official Declaration of Lawful Rebellion “People around the world are waking up to the massive fraud that has been perpetrated against us by those “in power”. We have been duped into accepting their “authority” because we were not aware of how the system really works.”
- Judicial Notice of Fraud and Violation
- Royal Styles and Titles
- Fake Corporate Courts “Fake corporate courts — How to Recognize Them If the magistrates or judges are sitting under the Australian government Great Seal shown on the right, which features the kangaroo and emu, then they are not authorized to sit in judgement over any Commonwealth citizen. They have sworn an Oath of allegiance…”
- Invisible Contracts
- Origins of the Strawman “You can always recognize the Strawman when dealing with banks, governments, and any other “officals” who think they own us: They always print your name in FULL CAPITAL LETTERS…”
- Questions for “Authorities”
- Dealing with “Officials”
- Liens – How to “Liens – How to Hold “Officials” Accountable What is a Commercial Lien? If someone has ‘wronged’ you, by their actions, you have a remedy, in Law. The Common Law is the Law-of-the-Land, and is the highest man-made Law…”
- Lawful Affidavit Lawful Affidavits are a Powerful Weapon. Whenever you decide to stand up to the unlawful activities of the Government, their agents in local Councils (they are not local government), and the corporate bodies such as toll companies that hand out fines and penalties for infringing their rules you can challenge the authority…”
- How to Win in Court “How you can win any court case brought against you for not paying a fine All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void. Our Bill of Rights The United Kingdom Bill of Rights …”
- Do Not Pay
- Win a Court Case with one Question
- Facts in Issue Facts in Issue for the Court. Have you been summoned to court for any offence where no person has been hurt by your actions? In that case, you have no case to answer. Under Common Law you can only be tried if you have caused harm to another person…”
- Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court “Who or What is the Crown? What is the City of London? What is the DOG LATIN (all-caps) UNITED KINGDOM LTD? Have you ever wondered why the SURNAME and other important text is written using the ALL UPPERCASE TEXT? Put simply, ‘you’ are using a ‘Legal’ name…”
- Lawful Rebellion – Our Duty
- Councils are not Government COUNCILS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE FINES/TAXES Related info from Wayne Glew to keep, learn and know. While this information specifically discusses the situation in Victoria, the general information is correct for all states…”
- Is the ATO Lawful? Is the ATO Lawful? The following facts support the claim of the ATO being illegal: All law in Australia must be passed by a Parliament in both houses (in states that have both houses) and then by law must be gazetted. The law that established the Australian Taxation Office has not…”
- Corporate Government ABN Numbers
- HIGH TREASON BY THE HIGH COURT? “HIGH TREASON – WE HAVE NO GOVERNMENT High Treason committed by the High court? We the People have been betrayed by the citizenship decision handed down by the High Court, and yet most people are so ignorant of our Constitution we are doing nothing about the serious Constitutional Crisis…”
- Is the Government Legal? “THIS IS WHY THE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE ACTING ILLEGALLY WE DO NOT HAVE A LEGAL GOVERNMENT Our Constitution is very clear about who we can vote into government: PART II THE SENATE Section 7. The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people…”
- Corporate Government? No “Corporate Government sounds like a Fairy Tale, doesn’t it? We keep hearing people say that we are governed by a Corporation. Others say that it is impossible for us to be governed by a private corporation registered in the USA. Actually the reality is even worse than we all thought…”
Another blog run by Mike Holt is the Common Law Earth website.
The associated Facebook page is Common Law Australia.
After his charges in 2020 relating to COVID-19 restrictions, Mike Holt attempted unsuccessfully to use the foisted unilateral contract process, complete with his fee schedule in default.
As explained in this article: “This chronology of events keeps a record of each step of the process, from the day I was served with a summons through each court appearance. Any work I have had to do to deal with the case has been timed and a fee charged according to the Schedule of Fees submitted to the Melbourne Magistrates Court on December 9, 2020.”
Notice his purported affidavit begins with the words “i; a man, Michael Thomas: Holt” to ensure he clarified that he was not a “dead corporate entity” as per the usual strawman OPCA motif.
After his correspondence was completely ignored for the frivolous gobbledygook it is, Mike Holt demanded “four thousand five hundred ounces of gold as compensation for the distress and psychological harm”:
Mike Holt speech at “a Stand in the Park” rally, Hyde Park, Sydney 15 May 2021:
In May 2022, Mike Holt filed an indictment in the Federal Court in Brisbane, accusing the Australian Electoral Commission of acting in contravention of Section 7 and 24 of the Constitution.
Of course, the Federal Court rejected the filing.
Subsequently, the Australian Government Solicitor, Matthew Blunn wrote to Mike Holt threatening charges for impersonating a Commonwealth Public Official. He has not complied with the removal of this content by the following day, so as stated, an injunction may be forthcoming in relation to this offence.
A warning was published by the pseudolaw pretender “International Common Law Courts of Justice” regarding Mike Holt and his strategies.
A conversation with Mike Holt.
The following is an exchange with Mike Holt (The Bloody Aussie Battler) and Dezi Freeman (Alpine Regional News) in comments on a video of the Dezi Freeman interview on the same channel Mike Holt published on June 11, 2019. It was in relation to the alleged “arrest of Magistrate Ian Watkins” during a civil hearing he was presiding over in the Wangaratta Magistrates Court on Friday the 31st of May 2019, and particularly, the letter that has been misattributed to the late Sir Harry Gibbs, an esteemed former Chief Justice of the High Court.
So no arrest. A common law arrest requires (1) a belief an offense had been committed, (2) informing the person they are under arrest, (3) why they are under arrest, (4) physical contact and (5) the person understanding why they are under arrest: (see eg. George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; Collins v Wilcock  1 WLR 1172) If an arrest fails one of these five elements of an arrest, then an arrest has not been made. (see eg. DPP v Hamilton  VSC 598; Slaveski v State of Victoria  VSC 411.)
Alpine Regional News
The crime committed is the removal of the oath of allegiance to the queen from the legal practices act 1996. The offender was then attorney general Rob Hulls who misled the complicit parliament of the day and every parliamentarian. The offending act is the Courts and Tribunals Further Amendment Act 5th Sept 2000. The crime is treason with the dual criminal offence of misprision of treason. Misprision of treason is the concealment of treason which you are commissioning by your attempt to conceal the same. Both treason and misprision of treason are principal offences carrying the same penalty of life imprisonment.
@Alpine Regional News “All previous attempts to raise this issue have equally been rejected as without any legal merit. See Shaw v Jim McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General & Anor  WASCA 231 upholding Shaw v Attorney General for the State of Western Australia & Anor  WASC 149; Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough  WASCA 260; Glew v The Governor of Western Australia (2009) 222 FLR 416;  WASC 14. In Glew v Shire of Greenough, Wheeler JA (with whom Pullin and Buss JJA agreed) observed, at  and , that 2003 State legislation bringing about the change in terminology did not effect any change to constitutional reality. It did not attempt to alter the relationship between the Crown and the various bodies contained within the Acts amended. Her Honour said: “There is no constitutional prohibition upon the alteration of the terminology which refers to the Crown or to her Majesty. Further, the changes of terminology contained within the Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 are consistent with constitutional reality”. – Balwyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Culleton  FCA1578 So no, there is no treason.
@Freeman Delusion why don’t you come out and tell us which one of the FOUR people behind this name that you are? And furthermore, please show us your qualifications to make these claims.
@The Bloody Aussie Battler The Freeman Delusion only has one author, and I’m not making “claims” I’m simply citing precedent that is binding on all the courts. It is the op making claims, and I’m citing how the higher courts respond to those claims.
Alpine Regional News
And still you hide your name because you are some kind of lawyer liar who is paid to troll to try and sow the seeds of doubt in awakening people. Your rubbish is so transparent.
@Alpine Regional News The name of the author of Freeman Delusion is prominently displayed on every page on the website, so I guess you haven’t researched much. I understand completely, since you can’t muster a competent response to binding precedent in law, ad hominem is all you can do. If your followers were “awake” they would have logical doubts themselves, instead of me having to point out these ridiculous inconsistencies with verified facts in law. But I realise your goal is to gather unquestioning gullible sheep that never apply a bit of critical thought to the assertions you present, so don’t let my facts bother you.
What do you say to this then, Rob Sudy? Looks like your reputation is not very savory. https://thebloodyaussiebattler.com/rob-sudy-author-the-freeman-delusion-exposed/ The thing is, while you rant about law references, Dezi has walked the walk and arrested the Magistrate. What have you done? Besides, the legal references you posted have no legitimacy because you are quoting THEIR law, and we are operating from Common Law.
Alpine Regional News
Well, the gutter rat “Rob Sudy” has been exposed. Time he crawled back in his hole.
Mr Sudy, In that case you talk about in 1979 was around the time the Political Parties created their own High Court of Australia under the Queen of Australia, Great Seal of Australia and Governor-General of Australia all under the Political Parties definition of Australia. Harry Gibbs comment was after he finished being a High Court Judge. That being the case, your claims are based on a fallacy.
Attributing that fraudulent piece of shit letter to Sir Harry Gibbs is an insult to his career, considering he had numerous times been cited in the Court as having a very clear understanding of the changes in constitutional relations with the UK. I prefer reading case law from the man himself than fake letters dishonoring his memory.
A statement by Gibbs J in Southern Centre of Theosophy Inc v South Australia:
“Finally, reliance was placed on the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth) by which the assent of the Parliament was given to the adoption by Her Majesty for use in relation to Australia and its territories, of the following style and titles: “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.” It is right to say that this alteration in Her Majesty’s style and titles was a formal recognition of the changes that had occured in the constitutional relations between the United Kingdom and Australia. For reasons already given those changes had no effect whatever on that part of the law of South Australia which confers a right of appeal to the Privy Council. The changes occurred as the result of an orderly development – not as the result of a revolution.” (at p261)
Extract from Petrie; Trustee of the property of Aitken (Bankrupt) v Aitken & Ors  FCCA 16:
“These or similar submissions, in relation to both State and Commonwealth Acts, using the same grounds or variants thereof have been made in a large number of cases and characterised over a period of almost 17 years as having no basis in law by Commonwealth courts: Joosse & Anor v Australian Securities and Investment Commission  HCA 77; (1998) 159 ALR 260; Helljay Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation  HCA 56; McKewin’s Hairdressing and Beauty Supplies Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation  HCA 27; (2000) 171 ALR 335; and State courts: Hedley v Spivey  WASC 325 ; Shaw v Jim McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General & Anor  WASCA 231; Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough  WASCA 260 (special leave refused: Glew v Shire of Greenough  HCATrans 520); Glew Technologies Pty Ltd v Department of Planning and Infrastructure  WASCA 289; Glew v City of Greater Geraldton  WASCA 94; Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd  WASCA 93; Krysiak v Hodgson  WASCA 114; Glew v The Governor of Western Australia  WASC 14; Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd  WASCA 87; O’Connell v The State of Western Australia  WASCA 96 ; Hedley v Spivey  WASCA 116; Bell v Cribb  WASCA 234; and also by courts in other jurisdictions: Meads v Meads  ABQB 571. Some of these cases dealt with submissions relating to the alleged constitution invalidity, particularly since the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth) of, inter alia, the ITAA, the TAA and various state courts. In each case the points sought to be agitated were found not to be arguable, as are the defendant’s submissions in this case. Accordingly, I reject the submission that the ITAA or the TAA are invalid on Constitutional grounds and that the writ is in some way invalid because it refers to the Queen of Australia.”
One can easily see in these comments, that I rely on VERIFIED FACTS, while you rely on rumours. That point speaks for itself.
Alpine Regional News
You really are delusional. Your rants indicate mental illness.
Delusional and unable to comprehend even the most basic reality Mr Sudy. Your claims about Sir Harry Gibb are not borne out by the reality of this letter he wrote. Your claims are ludicrous … while Steven Spiers has come to the wrong conclusions, just as you have, he is at least saved by having a far more comprehensive understanding of constitutional law. There is hope for him. But you? I fear not.
You cite all those unconstitutional laws passed after 1972 when the political parties Published their own constitution lacking the Preamble that establishes We, the People as the Commonwealth of Australia. Without that preamble their constitution and all laws passed since they published it all nicely copyrighted to their corporation, are null and void. Comprehend that and you might begin to see why your claims are baseless. The other problem you face is the obvious jealousy you suffer from. Anyone who starts up a website to attack those you disagree with shows a lack of morals and a base attitude unbefitting a real man.
@The Bloody Aussie Battler Mike Holt, I’m not going to waste my time responding to your ad hominems and irrelevant baiting, I deal in facts presented in case law, the stare decisis on the ratio decidendi.
On that note, you would logically be quite aware that you cannot substantiate the authenticity of your letter. Even the copy on Treaty Republic website comes with a disclaimer note stating this fact, whereas your website presents it as a verified fact. It could of been written by anyone, and you cannot establish otherwise.
If you think you can, I offer you this public challenge right now Mike Holt.
A study of the obiter and non-obiter decisions of Gibbs J. while Chief Justice of the High Court shows that his verified views are very inconsistent with the content of the letter.
To debunk it’s notion of sovereignty established in 1919, one only has to look no further than the fact that firstly, the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 was still binding on all Australian laws until excluded by the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, section 2 of which provided that colonial laws were invalid if they were repugnant with UK law. (This point is upheld by Gibbs J. himself in CHINA OCEAN SHIPPING CO. v. SOUTH AUSTRALIA (1979) 145 CLR 172, at 194: “To accept this argument would be to abandon both authority and principle… Those dicta were not supported by any other member of the Court; they are contrary to settled authority and, with all respect, cannot be accepted as correct. I need not further discuss the first of those propositions.”)
Secondly, Article 1 of the Covenant of the League of Nations sets out its terms of membership, which does not imply we were required to be a sovereign nation. It states: “Any fully self-governing State, Dominion, or Colony not named in the Annex may become a Member of the League if its admission is agreed to by two-thirds of the Assembly provided that it shall give effective guarantees of its sincere intention to observe its international obligations, and shall accept such regulations as may be prescribed by the League in regard to its military, naval, and air forces and armaments.”
A “dominion or colony” are clearly included as members, both of which are not a form of sovereign nation. Australia was at that time a “dominion” of the former British Empire, and the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 was still in effect.
On a final note, all the cases I cite, especially those from the High Court, are binding on all the courts in Australia. Whether you personally accept them or not is an irrelevant point, the decisions are still binding on every court. Therefore, your point about their applicability is quite moot.
I await the referenced response to the challenge outlined to you.
The Sir Harry Gibbs letter
Extract from Volume 1 of the Final Report of the Constitutional Commission 1988:
“The sovereign status of Australia resulted in the rejection of earlier colonial restrictions on the interpretation of the powers of the Commonwealth. The development of Australian nationhood did not require any change to the Australian Constitution. It involved, in part, the abolition of limitations on constitutional power that were imposed from outside the Constitution, such as the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 and restricting what otherwise would have been the proper interpretation of the Constitution, by virtue of Australia’s status as part of the Empire. When the Empire ended and national status emerged, the external restrictions ceased, and constitutional powers could be given their full scope.
Sir Garfield Barwick has described the result, in relation to the Framers’ purpose in drafting the Constitution as follows: “The Constitution was not devised for the immediate independence of a nation. It was conceived as the Constitution of an autonomous Dominion within the then British Empire. It s founders were not to know of the two world wars which would bring that Empire to an end. But they had national independence in mind. Quite apart from the possible disappearance of the Empire, they could confidently expect not only continuing autonomy but approaching independence. This came within 30 years. They devised a Constitution which would serve an independent nation. It has done so, and still does.”
Mike Holt, did you say:
@Freeman Delusion You’re a verbose bugger, aren’t you? The fact is, I have verified the authenticity of the letter, as you could too if you bothered to try. It’s not hard to do, but I’m not going to do the work for you.
You rabbit on about what Sir Harry said BEFORE the date of the letter I published….are you unable to comprehend that Sir Harry was a scholar and therefore was open to changing his opinion when confronted with new evidence? That is exactly what caused him to write the letter I presented. You, on the other hand, seem to be unbending and incapable of comprehending the reality of our political system.
Try to COMPREHEND THIS: All the laws you cite after 1973 are null and void. They are unlawful and have no meaning or effect.
This discussion has become boring, as I do not tolerate people incapable of comprehension. Don’t bother responding. I won’t answer any more.
@The Bloody Aussie Battler You have verified nothing, and I see your “burden of proof reversal” for what it is, along with your “ad hominem”, they are called “logical fallacies”.
If you can only rely on the contents of a provably unsubstantiated mystery letter, then you really have nothing. Whether it was allegedly after or during is also irrelevant, because the citations above form part of the common law, whereas your mystery letter does not.
You can try to tell a magistrate “All the laws you cite after 1973 are null and void. They are unlawful and have no meaning or effect.” Have you ever done so? I have, so have many others. It is recorded in case transcripts in the Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, and the High court, along with the judgment authorities the courts relied upon for their decision in rejecting the notion.
To ignore the responses given by the higher courts to your own statement, which are in fact binding in law as precedent on the particular ratio decidendi, is the definition of ignorance and denial. Run away then Mike Holt, it seems you have no legitimate response to precedent.