The Court proceedings in the previous post, in the District and Supreme Courts of New South Wales Australia, (which have been given Federal Jurisdiction by S. 38 Judiciary Act 1903, and by Constitutional 1901 ORDER, pursuant to S. 77 (iii) Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 (CACA 1901), are proof beyond reasonable doubt that the judges, and court staff are not bound by "...This Act and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth ..." as is ORDERED by Clause 5 Preamble CACA 1901.

    Despite numerous applications to the Courts and their judges, Constitutional Laws made by "the Parliament" of the Commonwealth under the Constitution ..." [1901], were rejected by all judges, including Chief Justice Gleason of the High Court of Australia, see Vorhauer v The Queen HC (2003), other transcripts, on the High Court website.

    It is TREASON to refuse to obey the Constitution 1901 (S. 24 AA (1) (a) (i) 1914 Crimes Act), and this "...does not require judicial Order", as ORDERED by "Metwally HC (1984).

    The reason that all courts refused to obey the Constitution 1901, and apply Commonwealth Law only as Ordered by Clause 5 Preamble CACA 1901, for all laws of the Commonwealth. Section 80 CACA 1901, for criminal trials and S. 120 CACA 1901, for imprisonment of a convicted felon, was because no laws of the Commonwealth exists in Commonwealth Law  for state police (forbidden by S. 114 and S. 119 CACA 1901) local councils (ie Tamworth City Council), rejected since 1901 by the CACA 1901, and refused any monetary support (ie land tax (rates) by S. 114 CACA 1901, since 1901, and S. 128 CACA 1901 ORDER refusing the monetary support of S. 81 CACA 1901 Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1901 and S. 128 CACA 1901 ORDER refusing "establishment or continuance", since 1988.

    The judicial "power of the Commonwealth", cannot be claimed by state legislated courts, such as the Land and Environment Court, because "other federal courts as "the Parliament" creates", ORDERS in S. 77 (iii) CACA 1901, that new courts must have "federal jurisdiction".

    All courts with "federal jurisdiction" should apply "the judicial power of the Commonwealth", as ordered by S. 77 (iii) CACA 1901, because Clause 5 Preamble CACA 1901 orders "This Act " (S. 71 CACA 1901), "... and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the COURTS, JUDGES AND PEOPLE OF EVERY STATE, AND EVERY PART OF THE COMMONWEALTH, NOT WITHSTANDING ANYTHING IN THE LAWS OF ANY STATE ...".

    These court proceedings on the previous Post, proves beyond any doubt that Commonwealth Law was rejected by all concerned in TREASON to the Constitution's 1901 ORDERS, in each section of LAW quoted from the Constitution 1901, to be upheld. When this situation also includes the High Court of Australia in the person of Chief Justice Gleason, in Vorhauer v The Queen (2003) (other transcripts), then where do litigants, who ask for justice against Traitors, go? ;  the Governor-General will not  prorogue them, as is empowered and ORDERED by the Constitution 1901 to do, so is the International Criminal Court of Justice an option??.

   Would the UN Security Council be impressed that Australia supports and enforces a system of TRAITORS who bash, torture, and rob the elderly and invalids into destitution and permanent homelessness, as was done to our family by a series of local councils, (Walcha, Tamworth, and now Armidale).
 
    In prison a lady from China told me, no person in Asia, could be imprisoned for having chooks.

    It would expose with irrefutable evidence that Australia has been ruled by a system of TRAITORS since 1901, is my submission..

    Could the UN Security Council continue to support Australia as a member, when the High Court of Australia supports TRAITORS???.