You are here:   Forums
Register   |  Login

Welcome to the Crimes Against Fathers Forums

ForumForumDiscussionsDiscussionsGeneral Forums Parent ForumGeneral Forums Parent ForumNews on Freeing...News on Freeing...Email trail with Justin Dowd Email trail with Justin Dowd
Next Next
New Post
 11/16/2011 1:43 AM


just in case you want to be really clear on how Family Law Lawyers lie to people please read this email trail and then the speech by Robert McClelland. Knowledge is not free gents, you have to read to get it. No-one else is responsible for dishing up your education for you;


Appendix A – Email Trail With Respect to Common Law


This section contains a snippet of the email trail between Justin Dowd and Principal. It clearly shows Justin Dowd lying and trying to dissuade Principal from finding out about how common law works with respect to property rights in Australia. The reader is urged to take notice how Justin Dowd attempts the normal disparaging remarks like ‘nonsense’ etc and also tries to disparage by telling me how much this is all costing.


I don’t think Justin realised I knew I would quite easily get back all the fees he was charging me! I knew full well at this time that Watts McCray had committed contract fraud and that I would get back every cent I spent with them plus damages. Jacqueline and Justin just picked the wrong man to lie to.

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Dowd []
Sent: 20 March 2009 03:21
Cc: Diane Cobley
Subject: SPAM-
LOW: RE: background links to natural law and free man sites


The Court has jurisdiction ie the power to make orders affecting your property however you look at it.

The rest does not help.


From: Peter Nolan []
Sent: Friday, 20 March 2009 1:19 PM
To: Justin Dowd
Subject: background links to natural law and free man sites
I thought I would send you a tiny slice what I have been reading about… you can see below Statute law only applies if I consent……so I am wondering how this can be used for my benefit. Some comments.

From here:

A Statute is a rule created by a representative governing body of a society designed to create common goals, which carries the force of law by the consent of the governed.

A Statute only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it. If you do not give your consent, a Statute cannot affect you in any way whatsoever.

And the courts know this. You may not, but they certainly do.

And the last thing they will do is tell you. In point of fact they will hide this from you at every opportunity.

On the other hand, if you tell them, they will accept it because they know it is actually true.

This is why I am keen to discuss this with you. All over the web I read I must submit to statutes for them to become law over me, and I don’t submit to these statutes…….and there are many reports of people asking judges to please provide proof of claim and the judges just saying case dismissed, next. It seems that if a person is well armed with the facts of the matter they are well able to defend themselves…….Ignorance is strength, for the government.

I am wondering what the result of taking this approach might be in
Australia……the family law act is a statute.

I am not being facetious. I have learned that I am a slave and chattel if I consent to be under the governments control in a court… I am looking around at how to empower myself to free myself of the tyranny of the courts and government, and tyranny it is.
Thanks and Best Regards Peter



-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Dowd []
Sent: 24 March 2009 04:58
Subject: SPAM-
LOW: RE: Links to common law

Dear Peter,

I truly do not have time to answer random and irrational queries such as this. I assure you I will provide advice to you about anything relevant to your position. If you do not accept that that is the position, or you do not have confidence in my advice, then you should seek alternate advice and I will cease to act for you.

The Magna Carta is not part of the common law although some of its principles are embodied in it . (The Magna Carta of course was proclaimed in 1215, whereas common law dates from the times of Henry the Lawgiver (Henry II, in 1189).

Australia has no Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights or Charter of Liberties.

Where statute law is clear in its jurisdiction it prevails over common the Family Law Act prevails over such common law as exists in relation to marriage/divorce. My advice, for which you are paying $425 plus GST is that these are irrelevant considerations. The proceedings  are not illegal.

If you think the legal profession is corrupt, therefore including me, I invite you to run the case yourself.


PS total charge for reading, considering and answering your query will be 5 time units (ie $212.50 plus GST)

From: []
Tuesday, 24 March 2009 10:06 AM
To: Justin Dowd
Subject: Links to common law
Hi Justin,
from here:

"Now in pursuance of the Premisses the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled for the ratifying confirming and establishing the said Declaration and the Articles Clauses Matters and things therein contained by the Force of a Law made in due Forme by Authority of Parlyament doe pray that it may be declared and enacted That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome and soe shall be esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration And all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors according to the same in all times to come."

And the comment:
"Magna Carta 1215, article...[39] "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."

So any court of law that denies your right to a jury, is acting outside of its lawful duty to uphold the Common Law of this land and this should be maintained by all those swearing the Judicial Oath of Allegiance. Please note a jury is the most powerful element in any court of law for they have the power to null a case and even to go against the law if they feel the law is unjust, hence why juries are being denied in the courts; even more evidence of the power of the people!!"

So Justin,
Australia operate by the law of the land as evidenced by the Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta, Declaration of Rights, and Bill of Rights?"

These documents say I can not be stripped of my rights or possessions except by lawful judgement by equals of by the law of the land, meaning common law and not the fictitious and made up marine law that came later.

Justin, I am paying you and asking you direct questions which I, as a layman, am able to discern and establish the illegality of the proceedings which you wish me to consent to and accept.

If these proceedings really are illegal under common law, why are you saying that I should abide by them?

Justin, you are being engaged to advise me of
ALL my rights, not just those that suite you and the corrupt legal profession.

Why have you not advised me as to my lawful position with respect to common law? Why are you limiting advice to statutes?

What, exactly, is going on Justin?

I know the legal profession is corrupt one end to the other and that the Illuminati are in control and wish to destroy families and create strife in the community. That is not able to be challenged.

What challenges and what decisions have been made with respect to such laws in NSW and

What common law tennants are still in force?

Best Regards





-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Dowd []
02 April 2009 05:49
To: ''
Subject: SPAM-
LOW: RE: Peter nolans new understanding of the law


Dear Peter


It would be dangerous to assume that anything contained in your email represents good law. Beyond that, I make no comment.


Justin Dowd | Partner | Watts McCray Lawyers

Supported by Diane Cobley | Personal Assistant |

Parramatta Office | p 02 9635 4266 | f 02 9635 4588 | Level 4 Lachlan Tower 17-21 Macquarie Street Parramatta 2150 | DX 8224 Parramatta

Sydney Office | p 02 9283 5877| f 02 9283 5977 | Level 15 The Chambers 370 Pitt Street Sydney 2000 | DX 11517 Sydney Downtown


This e-mail message, and any attachment, may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Kindly notify the sender by reply email if you have received this e-mail in error.


From: Peter Nolan []
Thursday, 2 April 2009 12:12 PM
To: Justin Dowd; 'Piarais Neary'
Subject: Peter nolans new understanding of the law


Just to let you know…….


I have now cracked the details of how the legal system works around the world. UCC.. ;-)


Just in case you doubt me you can check the email below from a new colleague I am in touch with… you can see, Mr. Deitz was quite taken aback that someone called him and asked him exactly what the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ is.


In fact the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ is basically a ‘registered private company’ constituted as a ‘Sovereign Entity’ and listed on the US Securities and Exchange Commission. It is, in effect, a ‘Soveriegn Entity’ constituted as a legal fiction which is rather like a private company operating under UCC law.


As such, all courts and ‘policy officers’ (masquerading as police officers) in Australia must abide by Uniform Commercial Code under which the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ is registered and operates.


Please do not bother protesting this, or saying that it is something different.


The Attorney General of Australia has conceded this point.


He has, similarly, conceded that any person who registers a ‘company’ with the US SEC as a sovereign entity and creates contracts between the natural human being, the sovereign entity, and the legal corporate fiction created by their birth certificate and holds the human being harmless from any actions against the legal corporate fiction of the sovereign entity created as an intermediary agent cannot be touched by any court in Australia. Period.


It’s all quite cool when you think about it. Not one person in a million is going to figure out this scam from scratch. I do wonder how much you two really know about this.


Of course, what this means is this.


Any effort for the Australian or Irish Courts to arrest me will incur severe penalties from me issued as a US SEC registered sovereign entity. Indeed, by doing this, I will have exactly the same ‘rights’ as the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ or ‘Republic of Ireland’.


The Attorney General of Australia has already conceded these points.  As a sovereign entity constituted under UCC Law I am entitled to issue bills against any other such corporate entity for damages for infringements of rights, and those damages have no limitations… ;-)


Since each of you will no doubt actually understand what I am saying, you might want to contact the other side and let them know that they might as well quit now because there is no order that can be made against me for any future income and there is no order that can be made against me for incarceration.


By the way….something else you might like to know….when a baby is born and ‘registered’ via the birth certificate the baby is actually sold to the government as a ‘slave’. Quite literally.  In order to make the transaction legal under UCC law something of value must be ‘exchanged’ for the property rights to the baby. Therefore the government creates an account and puts into that account ‘money’.  The account is in favour of the corporate fiction invented by the birth certificate and that person can send along bills to be paid by the government from that account.


When the person dies the government quietly takes back the ‘money’ from the account. Essentially there is a book-keeping entry for each person who was registered as being born in a country. The money is not real, it is just a liability against the country of citizenship.


Another colleague as discovered how to use that account to pay bills…..meaning that I have discovered I have pretty much a limitless supply of money courtesy of the money my government paid for me to be it’s slave..LOL! I can’t wait to try that out..LOL!!!


So, please feel free to call the other side in your respective countries and let them know that further efforts in persecuting me are pointless.


In a few months I will be completely untouchable by your courts. I will also be a multi-millionaire….LOL!!


The value of knowledge… ;-)


The problem now is how to stop the Illuminati killing 80-90% of the worlds population…but that’s not something either of you seem to be interested in so I won’t bother you with the details.


One thing is for sure. I am certainly going to be a right pain in the arse for future family law cases in both your countries. I have committed myself to bailing out other guys who are getting abused as I was… ;-) In a few months I will be in a position to greatly assist men being abused via your UCC based legal systems.


Best Regards









Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

Level 13

131 Macquarie Street

Sydney, NSW 2000



Dear Friends,


Today I spoke at length with a very ruffled Adrian Deitz, who is listed as the contact person for the entity known as the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA on the US SEC.


He works for this company in Sydney:


Here is our conversation today:



I asked Adrian if the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA was a place, a country or a company. He commented that (cough)'s not a company as such, but a sovereign entity.


I said, "so you mean it's a created legal fiction?"


Adrian: "What do you mean by that?"


Thomas: "Well, you're the Lawyer, you should know about these things..."


Adrian "What's this in regard to?"


Thomas: "Well, I just discovered that what my parents took an oath for, back in 1975 when they came here from England, was an oath to a company and not a place or country, so I'd like to know why there isn't full disclosure of that, isn't that fraud?"


Adrian: "As I said it's not a company, it's a sovereign entity, registered under section B of the securities exchange."


Thomas: "So you're saying it's not a place.."


Adrian "Look, maybe you should refer to the Constitution as to what the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is and where it's powers come from and what it can do.."


Thomas: "Well it can't actually DO anything by itself can it? it's essentially a piece of paper, don't you mean it's agents...people who work for it?" It's obviously not a living being.


Adrian "Again, maybe you should talk to a Constitutional Scholar, maybe they would be best suited to answer your did you get my name?"


Thomas: "Well, you're the person listed as the contact on the US Securities Exchange Commission for the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA which is listed on their companies register.."


Adrian: "Yes, well, that's only for communications from the SEC.."


Thomas: "So where can I find full disclosure out there in legal land that gives the public full disclosure of the fact that the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is not a place, but a manmade created legal fiction?"


Adrian: "Read the Constitution..'


Thomas: "So will it say in there that it's not a country or place?"


Adrian: Look, I don't see the purpose of this phonecall, what company are you calling from?"


Thomas: "No company, just my house, where I live on the landmass known as Australia, which by the seem of things is very different from the entity known as COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA...and I bet 99 percent of people here don't know that..."


Adrian "What's your point?"


Thomas "The point is that there's two of them isn't there...the landmass known as Australia, and the entity.


Adrian: "Yes, that's correct"


Thomas "So why aren't we told these things?"


Adrian "Look, as I said, I suggest you contact someone in the Commonwealth about this..


Thomas: "Damn right I will. Thanks for your time Adrian.


Adrian hangs up..









-----Original Message-----
From: []
27 May 2009 04:36
To: Justin Dowd
Subject: RE: Re-Presenting the corporate fictional entity named PETER ANDREW NOLAN


Hi Justin,

"I really have no idea what you are talking about. I do not know what the "Uniform Commercial Code" reference and other pseudo-legal references mean."

The correct legal term for the Commonwealth of Australia is a "sovereign" registered in the
US SEC. It is a privately held company. 

COA, being an entity on the USSEC trades under the Uniform Commercial Code, the 'law of the sea' or 'Admiralty Law'.

You can even see that the government submits it's financial statement back to the owners of the
COA. How about that. 

The Australian Family Court, and the Australian Federal Magistrates Court are, indeed, also privately held companies trading for profit.

And since they are subsidiaries of the
COA they must also trade under UCC.

The only 'law' that operates in Australian courts, is, therefore Admiralty Law or UCC.

Now. Justin. Are you going to tell me you don't know what 'law' you practice?

That would very difficult to take seriously Justin.

Because courts are companies, just like McDonalds, they only gain jurisdiction over a 'person' (which is also a company not a human being) by consent.However this consent is usually 'gained' by deception. Since there is no statute of limitations on common law fraud those people responsible for this can be held to account.

I am in possession of documentation of registered letters to Kevin Rudd and Michael Jeffrey pointing this all out to them and pointing out the fraudulent and coercive nature of the entire legal system in Australia and the entire 'government process' as one great big unlawful control grid. Yes, I did say Kevin Rudd and Michael Jeffrey delivered by registed mail.

You might not also be aware that the Queen is not the head of state and that the 'Republic Referendum' in 1998 was a scam and that the Australian Federal Magistrates Court was forced to rule that the Austrailan Tax Office had no legal existence as late as 1999 and therefore all incomes taxes collected up until that time were collected fraudulently. I propose to claim all mine back.

Is this a big enough scam for you yet? Are you going to try and deny any of this because you can look up that ruling as well as I can.

Try this link: 

You can listen to description of the Hayne decision was issued on 12th December 1998.

Justice Hayne, of the Australian High Court said he had "a duty to protect the system"...which surprises the speaker who thought that a Justice on the High Court was actually there to "interpret the law and apply the law correctly".

With respect to the tax office. Listen out for this quote around minute 16. You will hear this:

"The fact is that nobody had ever created the taxation department. The constitutional basis on which our money was taken off us was never done. And in October in 1999, before the Federal Court, we actually PROVED it had never been done. .. Here we had the most influential and important department in the county that had no legal existence."

How about that? The ATO was a fraud and the government knew it.

You might not also be aware that the Queen has been served with affidavits and evidence of treason of the entire british parliament and she has failed to comply with her oath of office to bring the common law case to the people for hearing. In response, groups are being organised in the
UK to exercise their right of lawful rebellion against a government that has committed treason and a monarch who will not dismiss the government on petition of the people.

Are we getting serious enough yet to get your attention as to the fraud in the legal/political system?

Yes, you heard that correctly, the corruption goes all the way up to the Queen.

Now. Justin.

Are you really going to try and tell me, an intelligent man, that you went to law school for 7-8 years or whatever it was, have practiced long enough to become a partner, and did not learn the difference between common law and statutes, which must be clearly differentiated from common laws? 

You have a Blacks Law Dictionary, go look up "statute". That is what private companies called governments pass. You will find "statutes only gain force of law by consent of the governed". And consent can only be given knowingly, and guess what, I don't ever recall consenting so all my contracts with the government are null and void ab initio.

Are you really going to try and tell me that I, as a layman, could discover that the entire legal system is corrupt from one end to the other, all the way up to the Queen, after 3 months investigating it and you never found this out in your whole life?

I have not asked you how old you are, I assume you have a few years behind you, but how gullible do you think I am?

How credible do you think that sounds? 

However....Justin.....for the sake of 'arguement' let's say you don't know that the legal system is corrupted from one end to the other, and that you are an honest man. ok?

Now that you know this, or have someone who can prove that the Prime Minister is perfectly well aware of all this, what might you actually do about this?

After all, you are in the law society and statutes apply to you. In statutes, to be knowledgable of a crime, and as far as crimes go this is a biggie it's called GENOCIDE, and to not report it to the appropriate authorities is to become an accessory to the original crime. Oh, there is also the crime of defrauding the entire Australian population through the bogus
ATO....we can also start with that one too.

So, what are you going to do now Justin? Just sit back and say "I don't believe you" or something equally non-commital?

By the way, I am also in possession of documents from the UN to a citizen of the
COA that explicitly states that the UN does NOT agree that a man is entitled to a trial before a jury prior to incarceration and therefore there is no presumption of innocence.

We are talking the UN here. In the universal declaration of human rights they say.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. 
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. 
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. 

Despite the UN UDHR saying the things above. The UN and John Howard, agreed that a citizen of
COA could be incarcerated for 'Contempt of Court' which can be ordered by an individual employee of the private company trading as the Australian Federal Magistrates Court.  That is the very definition of 'arbitrary arrest' because it is merely one persons opinion and it is unlawful under common law.

Face it Justin.

The Prime Minister has blood on his hands and it works its way down from there. They all know the legal system is fraudulent. Why wouldn't you? And if you didn't, you now have an oath to observe to report this fraud to the relevant authorities, the Ausrtalian people, from whom the government draws it's power.

And yes.

I do mean that you are no longer to "re-present" the fictional corporate entity created by my 'berth certificate' known as 'PETER ANDREW NOLAN' to any other party. I am not copus non mentus nor a child. And you know exactly what I mean when I say that.

And what I am telling you is hardly "nonsense".

Or would you call the fact that the Prime Minister of Australia is knowingly allowing the entire legal system of the country to run in a corrupted state and hide it from the people "nonsense"?

They are organising to kill a lot of people with 'swine flu' Justin.

What do you think this is all about?

Best Regards

Peter-Andrew: Nolan

m: "Justin Dowd"
27 May 2009 02:10
To: ""

Subject: SPAM- LOW: RE: Re-Presenting the corporate fictional entity named PETER ANDREW NOLAN

Dear Peter


I really have no idea what you are talking about. I do not know (nor am I interested in ) what the "Uniform Commercial Code" reference and other pseudo-legal references mean. I do know that even if they exist, which I doubt, they have no relevance to your family law dispute. I do not propose, now or ever, to read about them from your references.


I am not indignant, but will not waste my time debating things that are frankly a nonsense.  If you don't want me to represent you in the Court proceedings, just say so.





From: Peter Nolan []
Tuesday, 26 May 2009 1:08 PM
To: Justin Dowd
Subject: Re-Presenting the corporate fictional entity named PETER ANDREW NOLAN

Hi Justin,

I do not recall receiving an email from you confirming that you stand under my instruction that you are no longer to "re-present" the corporate fictional entity called PETER ANDREW NOLAN in your bogus Uniform Commercial Code private for profit companies called Courts.


As you are well aware, a human being going into the legal system asking for "re-presentation" before a court is declaring they are copus-non-mentus or a child. I was amused to find that one out. I don't recall Jackie providing 'full disclosure' by asking "Do you comprehend that by engaging my firm you are declaring you are mentally incompetent or a chid".. ;-) So much for full disclosure.


You guys are amazing that you can sit there with a straight face and ask, like Jackie did, "Do you still have confidence in us to represent you" when you know what you are asking is "are you ok declaring yourself to be mentally incompetent or a child."


And Justin, don't bother getting all won't wash. ;-)


So, can you please respond in writing that you stand under my instruction that you are not authorised to re-present my corporate fictional entity PETER ANDREW NOLAN in the Uniform Commercial Code private companies called courts?


You know the courts I mean, they are the private companies run for profit with employees called Magistrates. Oh.can you say 'conflict of interest'?  I think I did point out to you that the 'Commonwealth of Australia' is merely a sovereign entity listed on the US Securities and Exchange Commission operating under UCC and therefore all subsidiary companies of the COA are also operating under UCC and are 'for profit' companies. I am kind of curious as to just how much of this you knew before we met.I wonder if you will tell me when we meet. If we meet.


Now. Going forward. You have said you are not interested in practicing law, as in real law, Common Law. And that's' fine. If it is ok by you it would be useful to engage you as an agent merely to sign documents that I might prepare. This means they can be printed there and signed by you rather than needing to be signed and notorised here. Do you have a Notary Public within your office? Are you interested in being an agent? If not, I have chosen to collaborate with someone who has goals that align with mine for the time being.


It is possible for me to assign to you Agent Status such that you can act as an agent and signatory for Peter-Andrew: Nolan.


The first thing I would like from you is the address to send registered mail for the magistrate who fraudulently deprived me of my common law right to my property by taking something of value, my house, and replacing it with something of no value, promissory notes. Won't she get a surprise when I form a dejour court and have her judged by 12 honest men. ;-) That is, if she refuses remedy. I am actually pretty sure your corrupted colleagues will go for remedy since to go to a dejour court might cause far too much publicity right now.


So, would you be so kind as to provide the Natural Human Being calling and the business address that I can send registered mail to for the magistrate please? If you don't I will just have to find it out myself so that I can serve her with documents.


Just to make it clear, I am reserving all rights, none waived ever.


If you want to see just how corrupt your colleagues are try this site.  This is a man who has it in writing that the UN now declares that a human being does not have a right to a trial by jury before being incarcerated. Can you say 'global police state'? The number of people who know about this is in the 1000s.more than enough to form dejour courts. Also, you might note that a letter was sent to John Howard on this travesty of Justice and he refused to respond. So you can clearly see the corruption goes all the way to the Queen. Who, by the way, is NOT our head of state and never was.


And if you want to know what is going to happen next..Can you say pandemic?


Can you say between 1 and 3 Billion people dead?


This is where we are headed.


They have announced how many Australians they want left. 7 million. That means they have every intention of killing 15 million Australians over an unknown period.


So..let's see how much of a pain in the neck I can be for the 'Australian Federal Magistrates Court' over the next few months until the magistrates start being killed by the very men they have been protecting. After all, the FC and AFMC has been enough of a pain in the neck for me with all it's deceit and dis-honesty.


I do recall I mentioned to you that the legal profession would be one of the first set of victims, because they are not going to need one in the New World Order. The Illuminati are going to kill most lawyers, magistrates and judges because they know too much. This is the standard approach to purges.


You know, it never ceases to amaze me how smart people get involved with really bad guys thinking that the bad guys will do the right thing. When I was little my Dad taught me "you can't do a good deal with a bad guy".


All the signs point to the likelihood we are entering into one of the most dangerous and turbulent times in all of human history. we come.


Best Regards


Peter-Andrew: Nolan



PS..Just to let you know I have not stopped is an interesting tidbit...I am sure you have Blacks Law Dictionary there...I bet it reads something like this..this is from 4th edition I believe.

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most  comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of  bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.


Gee, I don't recall you or Jackie fully disclosing that what I have been brainwashed to believe was my name in all caps meant I was submitting to bondage. Must have slipped you mind, right..? ;-)  The entire population brainwashed and bonded into's a pretty good scam when you think about it.








Appendix B – Attorney General on Common Law


Robert McClelland made a speech on 20th February 2009 at the Constitutional Law Conference. A full copy of this speech is available on request. It is also on my web site. The following pieces are pertinent for this Affidavit to clearly show that Respondent Justin Dowd was knowingly lying or derelict in his profession. He can choose which he wishes to claim. The prior Appendix just showed Justin Dowd trying the usual ‘you are talking nonsense’ approach along with ‘this is costing you a lot of money’ approach to attempt to discourage me from finding out about common law. Justin Dowd is a criminal scumbag. And here is the evidence for this:


2009 Constitutional Law Conference

New South Wales Parliament House,

Friday 20 February 2009, 8:15pm



As many of you will know, the Australian Government, through a committee of eminent Australians, is currently consulting the people of Australia on the recognition and protection of human rights. With limited exceptions, our Constitution does not recognise individual rights, freedoms or guarantees. In Kruger v Commonwealth (1997)[1] Dawson J said: “Those who framed the Australian Constitution accepted the view that individual rights were on the whole best left to the protection of the common law and the supremacy of Parliament. Thus, the Constitution deals, almost without exception, with the structure and relationship of government rather than with individual rights.”


Oops. There is the Attorney general saying in a public speech that individual rights, one being the right to hold property, is best left to the protection of the common law. Something that Justin Dowd has just spent a whole lot of time denying is applicable to my property. Justin Dowd is the most disgusting type of liar there is. One who presents himself as ‘a servant assisting and taking money for it’ but is really an ‘enemy in the camp’. All Family Law Lawyers are like this. They are criminal scumbags working for their criminal ‘Law Society’ by creating conflict among people to then ‘divide and conquer’. My contempt for men like Justin Dowd and women like Jacqueline Vincent knows no bounds.


But let us read a little more of what Robert McClelland has to say.


Nevertheless, in dealing with the structure and relationship of government, the Constitution does protect some fundamental individual rights. These rights are said to arise from “silent constitutional principles”[2] that are part of our public heritage. That constitutional heritage includes the English constitutional instruments - Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1688.[3]


Oops. There is the Attorney general saying in a public speech that the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights 1688 apply to the Australian Constitution by way of “silent constitutional principals”. Sure they are silent. Because they don’t want people to know that these rules of the constitution apply to all employees of the Commonwealth of Australia. That is. ALL court staff.


Tonight I would like to reflect on how the first of those English constitutional instruments has had a profound impact on the development of fundamental rights - namely, the right to due process and the rights of citizens not to be arbitrarily deprived of their property.


Oops. There is the Attorney general saying in a public speech that a ‘citizen’ can not be arbitrarily deprived of his property without due process. And what happened to my ‘citizen’? Hmmm. I was deprived of my property arbitrarily without due process. How much a bunch of criminal scumbags can these people be?


Magna Carta is generally regarded as the origin of that principle which underpins the Westminster system: the rule of law. Its significance to Australia is recognized by the fact that a copy of the Charter is displayed in our Federal Parliament.


Oops. There is the Attorney general saying in a public speech that the Magna Carta applies to Australia.  That it has ‘significance’ which can only mean it applies, otherwise it would have no significance.




Chapter 1 sets out that King John granted to all free men “all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and theirs, of us and our heirs for ever.”


No one has the power to over-rule the Magna Carta. No-one. Not even the Queen. All heirs must apply the rules of Magna Carta to THEIR actions. This includes all judges and magistrates.


Unquestionably the most significant clause of Magna Carta is contained in Chapter 39 which has been interpreted as saying: “No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any wise destroyed, nor shall we go upon him, nor send upon him, but by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.”


Oops. The courts may NOT take my property under ANY conditions. The only way my property can be removed from my possession is by the lawful judgement of my peers or the law of the land, common law, which I claimed. Therefore Justin’s statement, and let me repeat it, is a bare faced lie that flies in the face of the Magna Carta.


The Court has jurisdiction ie the power to make orders affecting your property however you look at it. “

And you would imagine that someone who spent 7 years at law school would have read the Magna Carta, wouldn’t you?


This evidence is all the evidence any intelligent man should need to realize that Justin Dowd and ALL LAWYERS are liars. No man should miss this.


Let us move on in this speech:


In the Australian context, in R v Mackellar; Ex parte Ratu, Murphy J specifically credited Magna Carta as a foundation of natural justice and due process, saying: “The doctrine of natural justice is not a modern development; it is traditional in most English speaking countries. It is an aspect of due process, traceable in English law at least back to Magna Carta.”[10] 


In Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000)[11] Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ said: “Fundamental to the common law system of adversarial trial is that it is conducted by an independent and impartial tribunal. Perhaps the deepest historical roots of this principle can be traced to Magna Carta.”


Interestingly, the principles of Magna Carta are echoed beyond the criminal jurisdiction. In Groves v the Commonwealth (1981)[16] the High Court determined that a member of Australia's armed services could not be prevented from pursuing an action for negligence against the Commonwealth in circumstances where he was not involved in armed conflict. This was - the Court said – because “[h]e may not have the benefit of [Chapter] 29 of Magna Carta, justice to him can be denied by the courts; unlike the rest of the community, he is excluded from what Sir Edward Coke described as the right of every subject, that he may ‘for injury done to him … by any other subject … take his remedy by the course of the law and have justice and right for the injury done to him…’”.[17]



Here we see the Attorney General cite decisions in Australia referring to common law. Something Justin Dowd claims to know nothing about. Hhhmmm…..




And what, exactly, did Robert McClelland say about ‘depravation of property’? Well? Let’s see.



Australian courts have also recognised the historical foundations of Australian constitutional bulwarks against the arbitrary deprivation of property.


In the Communist Party Dissolution Case (1951)[18] the High Court said that, as at the date of the Constitution, “the King had no power by the exercise of his prerogative to dissolve bodies corporate or unincorporate or forfeit their assets to the Crown or to deprive his subjects of their contractual or proprietary rights. Such action on his part would have been contrary to Magna Carta and the subsequent acts re-affirming Magna Carta referred to in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd ed., vol. 6, p. 450.”[19]


That is not to say, as was made clear in the Communist Party Dissolution Case, that a person or entity could be not deprived of their property by a valid law of the Commonwealth Parliament. However, as was explained in Clunies-Ross v Commonwealth (1984)[20]: “an executive power of acquisition of land for a public purpose is different in nature to a legislative power of a national Parliament to make laws with respect to the acquisition of land for a purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws: see Magna Carta, c. 29 (25 Edw. 1 c. 29).”


The exercise of legislative power under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution is of course conditional on just terms compensation. That precondition, I would argue, stems from the victory that the barons, clergy and people of England had over their Monarch on 15 June 1215.[21]



The key phrase? “conditional on just terms compensation.” You can not take a persons property without just terms of compensation. Period. Not even the Monarch can do this let alone a parliament.


There. For those men who bothered to read this? I am pretty sure that you can see just what a scumbag Justin Dowd is when the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Australia has made the position of the Magna Carta and the right to hold property under common law so clear.


Any man who thinks ANY lawyer is ‘honest’ is an idiot. These lawyers know this shit is going on and they are NOT blowing the whistle about it. Thanks for reading. Now? Tell ALL your mates.





Next Next
ForumForumDiscussionsDiscussionsGeneral Forums Parent ForumGeneral Forums Parent ForumNews on Freeing...News on Freeing...Email trail with Justin Dowd Email trail with Justin Dowd