Affidavit Michael Thomas Holt

On December 1, 2020 Michael Holt was served with a Charge-Sheet and Summons at my door. The package contained a letter from the CDPP, a copy of the charge sheet and summons, and a letter purporting to be a statement of facts from the AFP citing Case Officer: Federal Agent Adam Nicholl.

I immediately wrote an Affidavit, accusing 9 people of TREASON, including a Supreme Court Judge, the Chief Federal Prosecutor, the Federal Attorney General and others… see below.

The following traces the attempts by the illegitimate Victorian Government, the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) and the AFP to railroad me into an unlawful court in an effort so shut me up.

Chronology of Events

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.

  1. December 1, 2020: Served with a Charge-Sheet and Summons at my door. The package contained a letter from the CDPP, a copy of the charge sheet and summons accusing me of nine “crimes”, and a letter purporting to be a statement of facts from the AFP citing Case Officer: Federal Agent Adam Nicholl
  2. December 1 to 9, 2020: Researched and wrote 9 affidavits addressed to:
    Elizabeth Hollingworth, Anthony Brand, Graham Ashton, Shane Patton, Christian Porter, Haydn Stjernqvist, Grace Krütsch, Adam Nicholl, Richard Matters. Time = 48 hours
  3. December 9, 2020: Delivered 9 affidavits to the PO, sent by registered mail. Time = 1 hour
  4. December 18, 2020: All affidavits confirmed delivered to 9 respondents by AusPost tracking app.
  5. December 21, 2020: Appeared in a Webex court appearance at 9.15am. The hearing was conducted by Magistrate Simon Zebrowski, Case number [L12927096], who confirmed that the court was sitting under Clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901. However, after saying, “Yeah” went on to state that he would ‘talk about that later’. Following that I asked the court if my Affidavit was in the court record. When the magistrate confirmed it was, I told him I would be waiting for a rebuttal. On video 3:50 Victor stated that a copy of the Brief of charges must be delivered to me by email no later than 28 December 2020. This was reconfirmed at 08:40 on the video. Time = 1 hour
  6. December 28, 2020: Brief was not delivered., as ordered to the CDPP by the court. That is a crime against the court.
  7. January 5, 2021: I was notified that the Brief available for pick up from Post Office. I went to pick it up. Time = 1 hour
  8. January 5, 2021:: Started writing an Affidavit of Default and finished Jan 14: Time = 64 hours
  9. January 14, 2021:: Delivered the Affidavit of Default by email and registered mail. Time = 1 hour
  10. February 1, 2021 received an unsigned letter dated 14 January 2021 from the Attorney General’s Office, Christian Porter, informing me that he had received my affidavit, “relating to a purported crime”, that also stated: “The matters you raise do not fall within the Attorney General’s responsibilities so your correspondence has been referred to the Australian Federal Police for their information and response as appropriate.” (if it’s not the Attorney General’s job to act on crimes reported to him, what is his job?)
    Note the ABN number at the bottom of the letter – Proof that the AG’s office is a private corporation and not a Commonwealth of Australia constitutional government department.
  11. February 25, 2021: Affidavit Notice of Default Judgement sent by email and registered mail to all respondents. All respondents confirmed receipt. Time to respond given = 7 days. Preparation time for writing Affidavit Notice of Default Judgement: Time = 36 hours
  12. February 28, 2021: I appeared in their Melbourne Magistrates Court before Magistrate Simon Zebrowski who confirmed my affidavit was entered into the court. He refused to acknowledge that he was sitting under Clause 5 of the Constitution. He was clearly unaware of the contents of my affidavit.
  13. March 4, 2021: I was summoned to their Melbourne Magistrates Court and asked to plead. Instead, I told the Magistrate and all those present in their court that they are all sitting in treason, and that they have no authority over me. However, the Magistrate Donna Bakos dismissed my request for her and the respondents to rebut my affidavit. Instead, she proceeded to ignore the affidavit, dismissing it by saying, “I’ve heard this before.” She then proceeded to set a trial date for April 9, 2021. Another crime by a magistrate.
  14. March 5, 2021: Michael received an unsigned letter from the court Registrar’s Office, reference number CR-21-00458, County Court of Victoria, 250 William Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 advising me that a case has been scheduled in the County Court under case number CR-21-00458.
  15. March 17, 2021: Started writing a letter to HM Queen Elizabeth II advising her of the treason, treachery and sabotage being committed by the political party corporate governments currently occupying our Parliaments. Sent by registered mail. I have never received a response. Typical if this “do-nothing” Queen.
  16. March 17, 2021: Research and prepare affidavits to serve against Magistrates Simon Zebrowski, Donna Bakos, and federal prosecutor Aneta Peretko. These affidavits were delivered with an updated invoice according to the Schedule of Fees submitted with my affidavit delivered to 9 respondents on December 9, 2020. Time = 16 hours.
  17. March 3, 2021: I sent a request to Aneta Peretko and the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court asking for their Oaths. This was what I wrote: “Please provide me with an originating proper copy or extract of the Oath of Office taken by the two Magistrates, Simon Zebrowski and Donna Bakos who I have already faced, as well as the Oath of Office of the presiding judge who will sit on April 9.”
  18. April 1, 2021: The Magistrate’s Court sent this response: “In regards to your request, it is advisable to direct your inquiry to the Magistrates Court for information about sitting Magistrates. Please be advised that this registry does not keep a document of that nature but you are welcome to raise that in court before the presiding Judge. Alternatively, you can speak to the Legal Services Board at admin@lsbc.vic.gov.au or contact 96798001 in regards to your inquiry.”
  19. April 4, 2021: Sent an affidavit naming AFP Agent Nicholl, accusing him of purporting to act as a Commonwealth Officer, and accusing Victorian Magistrates Donna Bakos and Simon Zebrowski of abrogating my affidavits. I also received an email from Chief Federal Prosecutor, Aneta Peretko, (see email for download below) admitting that she is an employee of a private corporation called The Australian Government.
  20. April 9, 2021: Appeared in Victoria County Court before Registrar Alexandra Wilson, who abrogated my affidavits and refused to dismiss the charges against me after she refused my request that the court be moved to Queensland, as mandated in Section 80 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901. The reason given was that the Melbourne County Court has no jurisdiction over me in Queensland. When I asked why I was even appearing before a Victorian court Wilson ignored my question and continued to tell Chief Federal Prosecutor Aneta Peretko to prepare her case against me by May 26.
  21. August 2, 2021: Appeared before Judge Sarah Dawes in the Victoria County Court where it was determined that the six State Attorney Generals must appear before the court in early November 2021 to deliberate on the charges I have laid in my affidavits accepted into the record. At the same time Judge Dawes set a date for another appearance later in the month for the trial to start. However, this is to be confirmed pending the response of the six AG’s. During my appearance I asked that the trial be transferred to Queensland, as required by Section 80 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which states:
    The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.
    However, Judge Dawes stated they could not do that, as they have no jurisdiction in Queensland. I asked the Judge why I was appearing in a Victorian court at all then. I also asked if the Court she was trying to drag me into would be convened under Clause 5 and Chapter 3 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901. She stated, “That’s a matter for you, Mr Holt. You are the person charged with an offence from Victoria, and the trial proceeds in Victoria. Whether you attend court or not is a matter for you, but you are at risk, having signed an undertaking of bail (for zero surety) if you do not attend court you are at risk of a warrant being issued for your arrest. Now it may be that pre-trial issues could be dealt with via Webex perhaps, but I would imagine that the trial itself before a jury, you would have to appear in person.” She went on to answer my question about the court convening under Clause 5 and Chapter 3 by stating, “No. The Victorian County Court runs under the Victorian County Court Act, which is a legitimate way for these matters to proceed as all charges proceed to trial in Victoria.” She took a drink of water at this point, showing that she was clearly sweating that I know more about the the Constitution than she does. Then she continued, “If you wish to contest that matter then you need to do that in advance which would be done from the 30th of November 2021.” Then she took another sip of water. I responded, “The problem I see is that under Section 106 of the Constitution, no one in Victoria had the right to remove the Constitution of Victoria in 1975 and replace it and still comply with Section 106.” (The look on the lawyer’s faces when I stated this was one of total confusion. These fools don’t even know what laws they are breaking!). I continued, “Therefore, the State of Victoria does not comply with the Commonwealth Constitution and it does not exist. The states are affected by Section 106, 107, 108 and 109 of our Constitution and draw their authority from our constitution referentially. Now, if you look at HCA 48 of 1996, paragraph 17 (the lawyer’s faces looked even more confused at this point) which I included in that email (I sent to the County Court) this morning, there is no constitutional reason for this court to even exist.” The judge replied, “That’s your submission. In my view this court does have jurisdiction.” (No you ignoramous. I stated the Law, not an opinion). Let’s see how she can prove that in a Common Law Court before a jury of the people, which is where they will all end up if they continue this farce. She continued on to state that it was clear that I had brought up several jurisdictional questions about the court and they will have to be addressed before any trial can proceed. She then extended the bail to 30th November 2021. As the full details of the bail contract were never explained to me, the contract is null and void. But these fools continue to try and drag me, a member of the Commonwealth of Australia protected by our Constitution, into their unlawful jurisdiction. One of the lawyers representing the Chief Commissioner of police asked the judge to stop me applying for an adjournment under Section 78B of the Judiciary Act, reproduced below. Judge Dawes refused to make a decision about this, saying she would leave it to the trial judge. So, at my next appearance the court must summon the six State Attorney Generals to consider the constitutional issues I have raised. Their problem is, they are trying to operate outside the Constitution. This is the Judiciary Act Section 78B
  22. November 9, 2021: I appeared by Zoom call in the Melbourne County Court where much waffling was heard about how, due to the Covid “crisis”, they cannot get me to court before a jury in Melbourne. I reminded the court that they have no jurisdiction and no right or authority to try me in a Victorian court as the supreme law of our land, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 – S.80. The County Court has also asked me to submit my defence to the charge (reduced from 9 charges to 1… that’s how confident they aren’t in their attack on me) they are trying to lay against me. I reminded the court that I have filed a Judiciary Act 78B challenge that must be heard by all Federal and State Attorney Generals. Even if they all rule against my 78B the court still cannot get me into a Victorian court. If they want the trial to continue they MUST file an extradition order in a Queensland Court, and my 78B challenge will stop that as well. These people, however, seem to think they are above our Constitutional law. Each time I point out to them that they must obey Section 80 they continue to try and get me to appear in Victoria. They are treading on very thin ice, and if they continue I will be filing charges against them in a Common Law Court. Meanwhile, my fees to each party involved in trying to drag me unlawfully into a Victorian Court are mounting to well over $1 million.
  23. November 30, 2021: Appeared by Zoom call before Judge Gerard Mullaly in the County Court. Before my appearance, I filed a Form 78B, which is a Constitutional challenge to the court questioning its jurisdiction. All State and Federal Attorney Generals were required to respond to the challenge. They all declined to answer the challenge. Instead, they sent letters stating that they did not want to get involved. In other words, they are all well aware that they are sitting in TREASON and too afraid to have this challenge heard in a court, knowing full well that they could face the death penalty for TREASON if they are convicted. Judge Mallaly also stated, “…has the Director considered that the proper venue being Victoria, the proper venue being Queensland, is that a matter that’s been considered and you have an answer to the accused’s proposition or has it not been considered? The prosecution and the judge debated my request that the trial must be moved to Queensland, as that is required by Section 80 of the Constitution, which states, “80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.” In 1996, a full High Court in the case of Kable v the DPP of State of New South Wales (1996) H C A 24, a four judge majority stated, as Gaudron J. states at 14: “Once the notion that the Constitution permits of different grades or qualities of justice is rejected, the consideration that State courts have a role and existence transcending their status as State courts directs the conclusion that Ch III requires that the Parliaments of the States not legislate to confer powers on State courts or authorise the State Courts to make Rules, which are repugnant to or incompatible with their exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.” This is very clear. It cannot be misinterpreted. If a crime (or a purported crime) was committed in one state, it cannot be tried in another state. But the prosecution tried to weasel out of this by trying to interpret it by saying that the purported crime affected the court in Melbourne. However, Section 80 does not mention the effect of a crime. The prosecutor needs to go back to law school to learn how to interpret the law! As discussion continued, Judge Mullaly stated, “It’s not a priority case in any way, shape or form.  He’s (Mike Holt) not in custody, it doesn’t have vulnerable witnesses, it’s just a case, and it’s befuddling why it’s in this court to begin with but it’s here.” He then stated that the court has far more important cases to deal with. His verdict was, “…the prosecution have got to prove beyond reasonable doubt your guilt, you are presumed innocent, the jury will determine the outcome.  That will all happen in September, September 2022. So, this case has been relegated to the back burner until September 2022. I am still on bail, even though I have never been arrested or even indicted of a crime. Bail can only be set if someone has been arrested, so the CDPP and the rest of the bozos involved in trying to prosecute me are all committing crime after crime against me. The prosecution, if the case ever goes before a jury, must prove mens rea, which means they must prove that I deliberately published the article knowing that there was a suppression order in place. As the suppression order was only posted on the door outside the courtroom where the trial I wrote about was taking place, there is no way I could have seen it, as I never went anywhere near the court room. I have a police report from the policeman who was assigned to follow me when I arrived in Melbourne, that he only ever observed me outside the side entrance to the Supreme Court. He went on to state that he never saw me again when he left me to walk into the front of the building to go to the courtroom where the suppression notice was posted. Nor was I ever served with a suppression order until August 2021, three years after the court case I wrote about took place.

Public Notice of Affidavit by Michael Thomas Holt

Sent by Registered Post 14 December 2020 to 9 Respondents complicit in TREASON. According to law, an affidavit so submitted to the court must be rebutted before the accusations made against me before the case claimed against me can be heard in a court.

Cover Letter that accompanied my Affidavit accusing 9 respondents of sitting in TREASON

Affidavit – with Photos of some of those involved


The Affidavit admitted into Melbourne Magistrates Court on December 21, 2020

———————————————————————–

The Next Step if there was No Rebuttal by the respondents after the 28 day deadline set in the first affidavit!

After 28 days, not one of the respondents had tried to rebut the affidavit. My next step was to send them a new affidavit of default, as shown below. I have only posted the affidavit of default. However, when I mailed it by Registered Post to the 9 respondents I attached the original affidavit, including all the Annexures, as well, which made the whole file 65 pages long. This is what you must do each time you send another affidavit to the court on the same case. Pile affidavit on top of affidavit on top of affidavit, so that when they read it, they have all the facts in their hand. Then they have to rebut every point with specificity before the court can proceed with the accusations against you.

The Affidavit of Default points out that none of the respondents have rebutted my original affidavit within the 28 day time limit I set. Fact [8] points out that as they have not rebutted my facts this notice finalizes the matter. From now on, any attempt to take the case against me any further only deepens the number of crimes they are committing, and they can and will be held accountable in a court of competent jurisdiction — that is, a common law court before a jury.

However, for me to stand in honour I gave them another 28 days to rebut, and if they still did not do so I must give them a third and final deadline to respond within 28 days.

Here is the Affidavit of Default sent by email, 14 January 2021.

The full Affidavit of Default document included the entire first affidavit already submitted to the court appended to this affidavit. This sample has been shortened for ease of viewing.

——————————————————————

10 March 2021: As there was no response or attempt to rebut my affidavit submitted to the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court on December 21, 2020, nor any response to my affidavit Notice of Default sent on 14 January 2021 giving the respondents 28 days notice to respond and rebut my affidavit.

After the grace period of 28 days without a response I sent the following Affidavit Notice of Default Judgement on 25 February 2021, giving the respondents 7 days to respond and rebut.

By 10 March 2021, not one of the respondents has replied to or rebutted my affidavit stating that the government is a private corporation registered in the USA, as proved by this document provided by a Freedom of Information Request: https://cirnow.com.au/fileuploads/CofA-FOI-Registered-Corp.pdf

The following is the Affidavit Notice of Default Judgement on 25 February 2021 that remains unanswered and unrebutted, while the Federal Prosecution Service continues to try and entice me into their purported court. These people have tried to ignore the truth that they are all members of, and employed by, the private corporation registered in the USA, with no authority over me or any other member of the Commonwealth of Australia. However, one exception was a statement by the Chief Federal Prosecutor of the CDPP, who admitted she is an employee of a private corporation calling itself the Australian Government. More on this below.

Affidavit entered into the Victoria County Court Record April 4, 2021

See the Chronology of Events above for more information….

Mike’s 78B Notice:

Correspondence received:

Peretko admits being employee private corporation

Chief Federal Prosecutor Aneta Peretko admitted in an email to Michael Thomas that she is an “a regular, contractual employee, as one might be an employee in any private business, except that my employer is the Australian government.”

Size: 540KB

Permanent link to this article: https://commonlaw.earth/affidavit-michael-thomas-holt/