Herald Sun: “Farmer plans own kingdom“:
In Fyffe v State of Victoria [1999] VSCA 196 the applicant, who was renting a property through the Ministry for Conservation, Forests and Lands, claimed to have seceded the property from the State of Victoria, and by virtue of his diplomatic status he and the land are protected by international law from any claimed sovereignty by the respondent. He argued that the principles enshrined in Magna Carta continue to apply in Victoria and he could not be deprived of his land save by the lawful judgment of a constitutional jury in a Chapter III court, and that in the circumstances he had been denied due process. The applicant alleged there has been a fraud committed against him by the mortgagees of the land who conspired to bring about the sale of the land, and by the State of Victoria.
The applicant then sought an order from the High Court restraining the State of Victoria from taking any action on the judgment, in Fyffe v The State of Victoria [2000] HCATrans 201. In quite a lengthy hearing, he claimed it was a violation of a fundamental right of natural law the way his conviction on a separate matter was conducted. He also argued that the purported sale and transfer of the land was “done without due process of law and was unconstitutional and null and void”, drawing attention to Magna Carta, Coke’s Institutes, Confirmatio Cartarum of 25 Edward I, the Australian Courts Act, the Constitutions Act 1850, the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 and a reference in Blackburn v Attorney-General from Lord Denning, among other citations. Further, he claimed the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 was invalid as there is no evidence it has received assent, and contended that the State did not, or may not have, lawfully paid for land it acquired because it did not pay in gold or silver, the manner prescribed by section 115 of the Constitution. He also raised the US case Ali First National Bank v Montgomery in support of a book entry credit argument, and alleged that officers of the Crown that are Freemasons swear an oath of allegiance to a foreign power. The court dismissed his arguments and the application for special leave was refused.
The High Court’s Reasons for Judgment were published in Fyffe v Victoria [2000] HCA 31.
The appellant filed a further application seeking a stay of the primary order in Fyffe v State of Victoria [2000] VSC 228, citing various constitutional provisions, which was again dismissed.
A few years later he applied once again for special leave to appeal to the High Court, in Fyffe v State of Victoria [2002] HCATrans 350 alleging that a Masonic conspiracy was afoot, and as a consequence a senior justice of the Court of Appeal in Victoria intimidated and threatened his solicitor that if he represented me at the hearing the appeal would be dismissed and he would wear the costs of the appeal.
“May I approach the Bench with a question? I wish to know who I am appearing before. .. I would like to use the 20 minutes allocated to me without any undue interference from the Bench. .. Concerning Masonic disclosures from the sitting members of the Bench, I will work on the assumption that members of this Bench may have made or may have secret Masonic oaths. This assumption must exist until any sitting member states otherwise.”
What followed was a range of submissions that included:
“City of London and Corporation Law: research has shown that the prime moving force behind these changes originates from the City of London. The city of London I am referring to is the independent State within the city limits of London itself. This comprises one square mile in the central business district of London and which includes the Bank of England and the national publishing houses. The city of London has worldwide connections with Freemasonry and international financial cartels. The international agenda of the financial institutions does practice fractional reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking has been described as a banking fraud.”
The court was not impressed.
“There is no evidence. What you are about to say is irrelevant to any issue before this Court raised by your application. It is unsupported by evidence. It is an allegation without any evidentiary support, and it is scandalous and it will not be recorded in transcript. If it is said in this Court I prohibit its further publication as a statement in this Court. .. Other issues raised by you are either irrelevant to that question or entirely without merit. Special leave is refused with costs. Consider yourself very lucky that you have not been dealt with for scandalising the Court and the legal system.”
You must log in to post a comment.