LEGAL OPINION, AUSTRALIAN SECESSION

A NATION IN OUR MIDST

Mudgee Guardian

LAWFUL SECESSION FROM THE BRITISH COLONY OF AUSTRALIA WAS SUCCESSFUL IN SEPTEMBER 2003

http://www.mudgeeguardian.com.au/news/local/news/general/a-nation-in-our-midst/1741254.aspx?

IT’S OFFICIAL: The Principality of Snake Hill has received official mail from the Queen.

BY DARREN SNYDER
03 Feb, 2010 10:47 AM

Somewhere within the Mudgee region lies another nation with its own flag, coat of arms, parliament, passports, casino and shopping centre.

The Principality of Snake Hill was founded in September 2003 after some then Australian residents decided to secede from the nation on the basis of an ill-fated land and income suit which was going to take away their every last dollar.

Approximately 900 metres above sea level and 1.6 square kilometres in size, the Principality has almost 200 citizens who are formally engaged from around Australia and the world, including a consulate in a suburb of Sydney.

According to Crown Princess Paula, daughter of Head of State Prince Paul and his wife Princess Helena, the nation achieves quite a bit for its size.

“We have acted as a negotiator between two major countries for an oil treaty,” she said.
“We have also been offered nuclear arms by two nations but of course we were never going to accept them.”

The Princess also said the micronation had conducted trade in the past and was looking to expand in the future.

“The Principality is also looking to start exporting wine and honey,” she said.
Operating for just over six years, Snake Hill has had dealings with the United Nations and World Trade Organisation with the Princess also suggesting they are applying for recognition in the sporting world.

“We have a soccer team and have submitted applications to organisations such as the IOC (International Olympic Committee),” she said.

The Principality has certainly not sold themselves short in their Cabinet, with their United States Ambassador and Trade Commissioner being Lee E. Wanta – a man credited with helping bring down the old Soviet Union in 1990.

Whilst the Principality’s constitution is based on the ten commandments, the greater actions are to be dealt with by International Law.

There are also International Laws which outline the criteria to declare a nation’s statehood under the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.

The Convention states there must be a permanent population, a defined territory, government and capacity to enter into relations with other states.

“We have pretty much read every International Law textbook ever published,” Princess Paula said.

The Princess also added the choices her family had at the end of the property and income suit.

“The suit case ended with us having two choices, becoming destitute and appealing to the same system we were dudded by or seceding from Australia and keeping what we had,” she said.

The Princess said the principality did not paying Mid-Western Regional Council rates and said when she had contacted the Council there had been confusion because it was the first time they had dealt with a seceded principality.

At time of printing, the Council had not returned the Mudgee Guardian’s calls.

For further information, check the Principality of Snake Hill website: snakehillprincipality.webs.com

DIY Sovereignty and the Popular Right in Australia

Judy Lattas

Macquarie Universityj

lattas@scmp.mq.edu.auAbstract

The concern of this paper is with the form that ‘right wing’ anti-government protest has taken in Australia in recent years. One tactic that is proving popular amongst those who have suffered setbacks in their hold on property, or in their small business ventures, is to declare their secession from Australia, and to establish an alternative jurisdiction and alternative citizenship. The author describes some of these projects, and links the serious political pursuit of this secessionist move to a movement in the USA called Sovereign Citizenship,which is itself linked to recent acts of anti-government sabotage called ‘paper terrorism’.

I want to take up the conference theme of ‘Mobile Boundaries/Rigid Worlds’ in relation to the recent popularity in Australia of creating new countries - on a small scale, of course - in ‘do ityourself’ (DIY) projects involving a declaration of sovereignty and autonomy. Sometimes it is an experiment in citizenship or just for fun, but it is often done in protest. What I have in mind are those people, for example, who have declared their legal secession from Australia and formed their own principalities, like His Royal Highness Prince Leonard of the Hutt River Province Principality in Western Australia. While the story of Prince Leonard is legendary, others who are more contemporary are not well known.

Commentators call these people micronationalists, which is a term that was coined in the 1990s to describe the activity that was pioneered by Prince Leonard of Hutt. His move to secede was in the early 1970s, but the widespread use of computer technology saw a sudden increase in interest in the idea in the decades after this. Micronations are literally ‘small nations’, withmicronationalism being the activity of participants in the field of developing small nations. Some of these micronations are more like hobbies or works of art than political projects, and some arecommercial scams. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between the serious and the tongue-in-cheek, as people enjoy the fantastic nature of the project and all the titles and regalia that go along with it, such as the designing of stamps and flags and the writing of constitutions.

Sometimes it is also hard to distinguish between serious political enterprises and opportunistic schemes. This is not just because the people behind them are so good at disguising their interests and being taken for real. Rather, it is because so many of the projects occupy a space that is ambiguous, or which allows them to mean different things to the different people who get involved in them. There has been very little attention paid to this crossover and complexity of meanings by cultural theorists. The academic study of micronationalism, as far as it goes,

1 is not concerned with the virtual ‘cybernations’, ‘new country projects’ or ‘seditionist and sovereignty movements’

2 that feature in this activity.

I know of no significant study in the scholarly press on the micronationalism that is the contemporary phenomenon of ordinary people (however quirky),in long-established democracies, getting the idea to create their own countries. The commentary on this activity is not in short supply, but analysis is restricted to the reflections of participants,newspaper reporters or contributors to Internet knowledge banks, such as the ‘people’sencyclopaedia’ Wikipedia (itself a popular, Internet-enabled, DIY project).

There are dedicated newsgroups, online directories and the host body offerings of ‘supranational’ organisations, such as the League of Secessionist States and the Commonwealth of Micronations, which give a wealth of material to draw upon.

I can comment on only a couple of the projects here. My point will be that the DIY nature of the phenomenon of micronationalism, and its peculiar concentration on the signs of sovereignty and citizenship (flags, appointments, declarations), allow us to see shifts that we might not otherwise see in our ‘fixed worlds’, as these are popularly reproduced in everyday life.

As de Certeau (1984) pointed out, the people’s resistance to a culture that they find oppressive is a practice of ‘making do’ with the resources made available to them, mixing and matching the ideas and products of that culture in their response to its conditions of existence. I am interested in what we can see in Australia, particularly in the outbreaks of political inventiveness that have been among its protests and pastimes in recent years. One of the shifts that I see concerns the anti-government feeling that has emerged in Australia, and the direction in which it has moved since it coalesced in the 1990s around popular support for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. The decline of One Nation in recent years has come, in part, from the Howard administration’s appropriation of its ground in Coalition policy on asylum seekers, Aboriginal reconciliation, welfare reform and so on. Since the 2004 federal election, Family First has takenup some of the field that was formerly occupied by One Nation. It has run with that party’sexpectations of intervening in a collusive domain of political brokering, in its ability to challengethe economic rationalism of both major parties on a ‘family values’ concern of Christian fundamentalism. There has been no clear regrouping, however, of those One Nation supporters and friends who mobilised primarily on a platform of declaring the elites (the elites of government, the judiciary, the banks, the media and so on) corrupt and anti-democratic.

An appeal to family values in the name of religion does not call to the disaffiliated in the way that a maverick, ‘ordinary’ individual, roundly scorned by the elites, was able to, in her campaign as a‘battler’. This groundswell of anti-government feeling has not disappeared following the decline of Pauline Hanson. But it has changed its appearance, and even its character, in distinct ways. What we see now is less investment in a party, a leader and an ideology of oneness, and more of a building of networks that are decentralised, highly individualistic and eminently practical. A sizeable collection of bush lawyers are springing up, motivated by personal grievances (trouble with the courts, the banks or local councils), and launching actions that are as ingenious as they are localised. More likely to be dismissed as nuisances than feared as a popular uprising, their insurgency consists of small (yet elaborate) coups played out on paper, at the computer, in court and, occasionally, in a daily newspaper. Above all, it is played out over the Internet. It is here that the social and political networking, the information channelling and the sense of community is maintained, and sometimes mobilised in support of particular campaigns. The practice of inventing micronations is one tactic among others in this turn against the elites and their bureaucracy. What the phenomenon allows us to see in particular is the key place of sovereignty as an idea in the regathering and reworking of that anti-government feeling. It is not occurring in isolation in Australia. It is emerging, I believe, on the back of an anti-government movement in the USA known as the Sovereign Citizenship movement. I will describe this movement towards the end of my paper.

One thing that commentators seem to agree upon, in the micronationalist world, is that Australia has been over-represented in this endeavour in the last few decades. This is both before the advent of the Internet and after it, when the experimental art world became interested in ‘cybernations’, for example. Paris based Australian artist Liz Stirling created Lizbekistan in 1996,an exemplary imaginary nation that had four dual language newspapers, passports and its own currency, the nipple. Before Stirling extinguished it all with a summary click of the mouse on 9 September 1999 (9/9/99), there were several thousand citizens, many of them taking part in the‘Lizbek diaspora’ which formed for some time afterwards.

There is not much speculation as to why Australia has led the way in all of this, why it has given rise to a disproportionate number of self-declared independent sovereign states, and also why it is escalating now. One historical precedent that captured the imagination of Australians was the dramatic popular vote in the 1930s for Western Australia to secede from the rest of Australia (Fickling,2002).

3 This was when a large majority of WA citizens voted to separate from the Federation and go it alone in 1933. The plan was for Western Australians to keep their gold-rush wealth to themselves, instead of having to carry the eastern states, which were languishing in the depression of the time. WA would revert to its former status as a British colony, and then claim autonomy and the spoils of its mineral wealth that way. But as it turned out, Britain rejected the move on a Constitutional ruling. World War II nationalism put an end to the call for secession, along with an economic boom that lifted Australia out of depression soon after, but it remained a provocative idea for many Australians. 1933 was also the year of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which is accepted internationally as the basis for the legal definition of statehood. It features here to the extent that aspiring micronations or ‘micro-states’seek to fulfill the requirements that it sets out in order to qualify for sovereignty, even if they are not recognised by other, established states. One Australian pioneer in micro-state formation has ventured an opinion about why Australians have been so quick to launch into home-made sovereignty. This is His Imperial Majesty George II of the Empire of Atlantium. Atlantium’s base is George’s Kings Cross apartment, known as the Imperium Proper and official Capital of the Empire. In 1981, as a fifteen-year old schoolboy in Sydney, George and a couple of friends declared their independence from Australia, as well as the founding of Atlantium, in protest at what they refer to mysteriously, on their website, as “a perceived rise in unwelcome political influences” (Empire of Atlantium). They adopted Latin as an official language alongside English, and invented a new calendar for the Empire. Atlantium is presented as a not for profit exercise in global community, with five-hundred registered citizens in sixty countries,and is now in a period of renewal called the Refundatio, according to the Emperor who was interviewed for the Sydney Morning Herald in 2004. It describes itself as a legitimate, functioning, primarily non-territorial microstate and proto-world state that possesses immanent, parallel global sovereignty. The purpose of Atlantium is to promote via its existence the fact that sovereignty in the modern world does not need to... have any form of territorial basis, and that every individual has the right to choose his or her citizenship irrespective of where they were born, or where they live. (Empire ofAtlantium, FAQ).

The extent of its functioning is open to question, of course; the claims of micronations are a theatre of exaggeration. What is significant, in this project, is the ideal of de-territorialised citizenship. It is one end of a spectrum of micronational responses to globalisation, with the cluster of activity at the other end of the spectrum being the activity (and the specific form of anti-government feeling) with which I am concerned. Atlantium aims to be socially inclusive and to value diversity, and has renounced war ever since an episode of formal hostilities broke out against the Province of Bumbunga in South Australia, which was a principality near Snowtown,founded in 1976 by British eccentric and monarchist Alex Brackstone. This makes Atlantium a ‘left wing’ project, in the sense described by one insider analyst.

Tom Cutterham (2003) argues that the emerging trend of micronations now to be non-territorial and internationalist means they are attempting to break down borders, which have been built in the era of the nation-state, in order to secure privileges for the class of white, male, heterosexual Europeans. Nevertheless, it articulates a discourse of sovereign citizenship for individuals that has something in common with the projects in which I am primarily interested. These are characteristically ‘right wing’ in that they are fiercely nationalist (which is curious, at first glance,given their readiness to secede), and in their claim to territory - often their own rural acreages, but sometimes newly acquired land - in which to invest the key notion of a true nation. For projects originating in Australia, this would be a true Australia, capable of maintaining its integrity (its assets, its borders and its core people) against the totalising momentum of globalisation. They tend to be more socially conservative and seek to shore up or salvage the old privileges of white, male, heterosexual Europeans. Their idea of social inclusion comes from feeling that they are not included anymore, in the way they used to be - that they have lost their place. The idea, then, is not to try to include everyone on a slate wiped clean of the old nation-state power structures, but to reinstate their old place of privilege in an ideal form of citizenship. A secessionist micronation from Victoria called Ponderosa, for example, has a constitution, presented by Virgilio Rigoli and his son ‘Little’ Joe in 1994, which situates their new citizenship on a corrective basis of preference with regard to race, class, sexuality and religion. A newspaper report in 2002 described their constitutional complaint in these words:

Among the gripes addressed in the 34-page text are the granting of land rights toAborigines, the formation of national parks and the abandonment of the law of the OldTestament. They say their principality is needed as a state where ‘Christians, white Anglo-Saxons and capitalists are not discriminated against’. (Fickling, 2002b)

Either way, ‘left’ or ‘right’, the presumption in all these new worlds is that it is the individual who has sovereignty in the new world being created, not the state or even the people as a polity socially contracted to the state. In the ‘left wing’, de-territorialised global community, the individual is sovereign because the state has renounced key features of its former role, including the responsibility of protecting its citizens through the military or the police. Here is where are nunciation of war, as in the Atlantium constitution, is a telling move.

4 Typically, these constitutions have a list of rights, but no army, judiciary or police force (even in fantasy) to ensure that an individual’s civil rights will not be infringed upon (as required in the liberal social contract). In the ‘right wing’ model of an independent sovereign state, sovereignty ultimately being conferred upon the individual, not the state, is articulated with the specific inclusion of a right to bear arms. Here the maintenance of one’s civil rights against infringement by others is proposed as a matter of personal responsibility, not state responsibility.

5 This is in keeping with the rhetoric of the pro-gun groups who have been vocal in their support of the various moves in Australia and elsewhere to secede in protest from the parent state, which they perceive as over-regulating, and unfairly holding a monopoly on, the use of deadly force.

6To return to the question of Australian micronationalism, His Imperial Majesty George II of Atlantium is quoted in the interview as saying

:“You’ll find there’s a greater concentration of micro states in Australia than anywhereelse - there have been dozens - and if you look at it per capita, Australia is wildly inexcess of every other part of the world,” he said. “It comes from our convict heritage anddisrespect for authority. American groups like the Davidian Branch tend to be moreviolently whacko, whereas Australians are just quaintly eccentric.” (Norrie, 2004)

The reference to our convict history can equally be made to argue for a cowed and apathetic Australian character with respect to authority, as I have found in other contexts in my research(Lattas, 2003). Here it functions to evoke a picture of Australians as thumbing our noses up at our bureaucratic masters. Instead of hitting our heads against a brick wall, we cheerfully embrace our existential condition of exile and transportation, and set up camp elsewhere, starting a new adventure on our own terms.

An earlier article from The Guardian cites David Siminton, self-proclaimed governor of Sherwood in the Principality of Camside, as saying that Australia in 2002 had spawned twenty-two micronations.

7 Siminton himself and his sidekick David Icke are ‘violently whacko’ as opposed to ‘quaintly eccentric’, as one can see from the web pages of Camside (formerly the Principality of Caledonia). Besides the profile of David Icke, outlining his belief in the world being run by shape changing reptiles from outer space (elaborated on the site in the ‘DarkAgenda’), these proclaim the right to bear arms as essential (in bold on the FAQ page). They also feature a declaration of war against Australia (there is no renunciation of war in this principality), and a notice to John Howard to surrender his office.

Camside itself has been listed as a fake nation and major scam on the warning website Quotloos, where it is consistently referred to as sCamside. It is clearly a scam in that it makes money from selling fraudulent ‘Business Registration Certificates’ and citizenship papers.

Nevertheless, I find that it is linked to a network of critical discourses and conspiracy the ories onthe banking system that have been adopted and circulated by conservative groups in the US and Australia, especially militant pro-gun groups.

Specifically, Camside is party to the NESARA conspiracy put forward by the cult of the Dove of Oneness, the pseudonym of a Shelton, Washington woman named Shaini Goodwin, and with a ‘debt forgiveness’ agenda that resembles the old communist ideal (Robinson, 2004). NESARA stands for National Economic Stabilisationand Recovery Act, a law that was supposedly passed by the US Congress in 2001, but covered up because it called for everyone’s bank debts to be nullified, that is, their home mortgages, car loans and credit card owings. The act was passed, apparently, because government reluctantly conceded that banks have been operating on an unjust system of credit creation since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The conspiracy theorists go so far as to say that 9/11 happened because Alan Greenspan was due that day, at 10am, to announce the establishment of a new Treasury Bank, the abolition of the IRS and other measures in accordance with the true NESARA law. NESARA, and Camside with it, are like contemporary cargo cults, one could say; notworthy of a lot of attention except for how they fit in with the growing popular critique of the international banking system. NESARA has little penetration in Australia, but the focus on the banks in anti-government discourse, especially among the pro-gun groups that target the New World Order and globalisation (along with domestic issues of gun control), figures increasingly on the Australian horizon.

The micronational principalities in Australia that I am interested in are the ones that have emerged in response to disputes between ordinary Australians, as they like to identify themselves, and authorities in local government, taxation, banking and so on. There is a list of many of their names and Internet addresses (if they have websites) in an appendix to this paper.

Prince Leonard of Hutt began his principality after a dispute over wheat quotas; others began theirs through a refusal to pay tax, or to stop mortgage foreclosures or orders for demolition or eviction over building code violations. Some of the more recent secessions are associated with a man named Donald Cameron. According to the investigative journalist Chris Griffiths, Cameron is a conman who has spent more than twenty years in prison. He has practised as a doctor under a false name, without qualification, opening a surgery in Cronulla, and even performing cancer surgery in 1979. Whilst in jail, he called himself Pastor Don Cameron and founded the Church of Love and Peace, later calling himself Archbishop. The Church of Love and Peace continues today in a number of the micronations listed in the appendix, figuring on the letterhead of official state documents (Berghofer, 2005).

Today Cameron assumes the title of QC and Chief Justice, and at last report waspractising as a lawyer in the Remedial Justice Association Inc that he established in Toowong,Brisbane. Reportedly, he studied law in jail from 1980 to 1983, but never gained any credentials.

His unqualified pursuit of the law was supported by One Nation (Queensland) leader, Bill Feldman, who reported Cameron as saying that he used the initials QC to mean Queensland Criminal, not Queen’s Counsel (Griffith, 1998).

He is best known for having guided rebel farmers George and Stephanie Muirhead through the legal process of seceding from Australia in 1993. Notoriously, he did this whilst serving out the last of a seven-year prison sentence at the St. Vincent De Paul Society prison halfway house. Cameron was declared a vexatious litigant in 1996 after lodging thirteen actions against Westpac. In 2000 Cameron declared the Independent Sovereign State of Australia (ISSA). Under that banner he launched more legal challenges, one against the election of the Queensland state government in 2001, on the grounds that there is no such person as the Queen of Australia, and then another against the election of the federal government in the same year (Meade, 2004). He has also given legal advice to Christopher Smith in his court cases and associated secession (creating Sundowner, a province of the ISSA), and is closely associated with the pro-gun activist Trevor Acworth (chairman of the ISSA’s ‘Citizens Cabinet’) of the Principality of Acworth, and Lyall Sempf of the Principality of Range View in south-east Queensland. Cameron keeps a very low profile now in the press and on the Internet, but he still manages the principalities under the Independent Sovereign State of Australia without either his name or the name of the Independent Sovereign State of Australia ever being mentioned.

The first case that I will describe is the Principality of Marlborough, which was the Muirheads’ secessionist state. I am interested in how it was taken up and reported in the militant pro-gun magazine Lock, Stock and Barrel. The second is the Bora of Dalungbara Aboriginal People of South-East Queensland and Frazer Island. This is a very recent and intriguing case,given its mix of radical nationalist, pro-gun people and its apparent ‘left wing’ Aboriginal landrights agenda.

Waco was very much in the minds of the far ‘right’ in Australia at the time that the Muirheads decided to dig in at their farm and resist its falling into receivership. The Waco cataclysm on 19 April 1993 had become (and still is) the defining moment of the Sovereign Citizenship movement in the USA.

8 The Muirhead saga was happening at the same time, in 1993,having begun with a Notice of Demand lodged by the bank on their farm on 30 March that year. It continued through April, May and June with court appearances, their secession and forcible eviction from the Rockhampton property, culminating in the jailing of George Muirhead.

9The Muirheads were concerned not to repeat the Waco tragedy and were careful to have no guns involved. One Colt .45 semi-automatic pistol was found on the property, but it was reported to have been planted there by a journalist who fled the scene soon after its discovery.

10Under the pseudonym ‘Pat Riot’ (patriot), Ron Owen described the scene in terms of the Eureka Stockade, and of civil disobedience being a form - in his words - of affirmative action.

To quote:[A] group of farmers, sick and tired of the arrogance of the banks... had enough courageto take affirmative action. I told my friends it could be a rerun of the Eureka Stockade andI was going to be part of it. When I rang the Muirheads they told me my support waswelcome, but the rule was absolutely no firearms. (Owen, 1993a, p. 20)

Owen stayed at the farm throughout the whole stand-off with the police. ‘Pat Riot’ reports that they were alarmed by a Blackhawk helicopter checking them out,and discussed what they would do if they came under fire from it. We had all seen the recent newspaper article, where the army admitted that it had issued guidelines for shooting down Australian citizens, so you can imagine the wave of fear that came over us... There was much talk of armed rebellion, but this was soon squashed. It was decided that if the state used the Army against Australian citizens, a lot of things would start to jump up into the air on a regular basis. Things like judges, banks,politicians, power stations and port facilities, to name a few. (Owen, 1993a, p. 20)

The popular suspicion of Australia’s governing elites is in evidence here, with the conviction that the government would commission the military to fire on its own people, that media operatives would plant a firearm, and that the logical targets of a popular resistance might include ‘judges, banks, politicians’. More than ten years after the showdown at the Principality of Marlborough,such secessions are springing up all over the place, with a similar expectation of a looming battle against an enemy government, in which deadly force might be used by both sides. Here is what ‘Pat Riot’ says about the flags that were flown at the site (seen in the photo ‘Welcome to Marlborough Country’, included here): A Flag For All Reasons.

People have asked me of the significance of the flags flown at the entrance to the property; in particular the United Nations and the Aboriginal flags. The UN flag was subtle. Apparently there is a section of a UN covenant (which has been signed by Australia) that paves the way for parts of the country to secede, presumably for an Aboriginal state. The Muirheads applied to the UN for recognition on this basis immediately after the secession, but not surprisingly were turned down. The Aboriginal flag was even more subtle, partly to tie in with the UN flag, but mostly for the irony of it all. Thousands of Australians are working their bums off trying unsuccessfully to keep their land while being hounded by the banks. Other Australians, under this flag, are not persecuted by the banks, do not work and have land given to them. (Owen, 1993a, 20)

I will move on to the other site, briefly, where the Aboriginal flag is flown apparently without this pointed irony: the Bora of Dalungbara Aboriginal People. This group, led by ‘Elder Jim Jones’, has not seceded from Australia, but rather reclaims its original sovereignty from the fact of Aboriginal ownership of the land (Reaffirmation of Nationhood of the Dalungbara Aboriginal People). It is an example of the emerging group of ‘tribal sovereignty’ projects that are listed as micronations in the ultra-conservative, online directory ‘Microfreedom’ (which showcases their bids for separate homelands as part of an apartheid-inspired racial purity agenda). The Bora of Dalungbara manages a system of ‘indige passes’ for tourists administeredby Lyall Sempf, who has seceded from Australia in his own right, in the Principality of Range View (Anon, 2004).

Lyall Sempf, part of an anti-government network dedicated to freeing the lives of individuals (and, in his case, wild horses) from destructive state management, is an officially inducted ‘white member’ of the tribe, verified in a document posted on the website.

A second white, anti-government activist formally accepted as an aboriginal - “being of a 4th generation born in Australia” - is the group’s legal representative, Leonard William Clampett, in another scanned document on the website (Bora of Dalungbara Aboriginal People Legal Advocacy). Clampett has written several tracts questioning the legitimacy of the banking system (Clampett, 1989/2003; 1990; 1993). He has also launched a court challenge to the GST, set up an anti-GST political party (Reclaim Australia Party) and advises people on how to decline to pay speeding fines or their income tax (Johnson,1999). The association of this group with radical nationalists in Australia and internationally is confirmed, finally, by the Bora of Dalungbara’s listing in the extremist New Nation News, in company with the neo-eugenic group Prometheismand a host of white power movement sites.

11 What these micronational projects have in common is their inspiration and legitimation in a growing body of paralegal knowledge and political rhetoric that has emerged in opposition to the authority of the state. Many of the key documents being read by ‘seditionist and sovereignty’projects are, in particular ways, commonly consulted around the world, such as the Magna Carta and the 1688 Bill of Rights, or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966.

There are plenty of local treatises on the illegitimacy of Australian governmental and financial institutions, however, that circulate amongst these groups and are routinely posted on their websites.

12 I cannot detail all of these websites or documents, but will end with a brief framing of this material in an account of the Sovereign Citizenship movement. The DIY political, legal and financial expertise of sovereign citizenship informs the recent ‘right wing’ micronationalism in Australia, whilst it spreads rapidly in the USA and around the world. A characteristic of this movement is that it counteracts the authority of the state by ‘responding in kind’ to the elaborate schemes upon which its authority is based, in its everyday bureaucratic operation. The Sovereign Citizenship movement began in the US with the Posse Comitatus group in the 1970s. This was an armed group of radical Christian Identity believers who developed an anti-government ideology and practice of refusal or civil disobedience that is the mark of the Sovereign Citizenship movement. It also draws on the precedents and schemes of the Detax movement, the Patriot movement, and the common-law court movement (Sullivan, 1999; Lethbridge, 2000).

The Sovereign Citizenship movement includes militia groups, African-American Moorish groups (with Islamic or New Age philosophies), secessionists and anarchist entrepreneurs such as the Libertarian Capitalists (e.g. Anti-State.com, Cuthhyra and LewRockwell.com). The Anti-Defamation League (2005), for example, gives the broad title of the ‘Sovereign Citizenship Movement’ to any group with a ‘right-wing anarchist ideology’ that is anti-government to the point of refusing all of its administrative routines. Whilst many of these are fringe groups, the discourse of the sovereign individual and sovereign citizen has a lot of penetration in the US mainstream. In a nation with a popular hatred of taxation, the ideas havefound fertile ground. A line can be drawn from the early militia groups of thirty-odd years ago, for example, to present day forms of civil disobedience that arise from a refusal to pay taxes or otherwise comply with the administrative routines of government. These forms of civil disobedience include the extreme form of protest now referred to as ‘paper terrorism’ (ADL, 2003). In 2002, the US State of Wisconsin convicted a man of ‘paper terrorism’ for the first time under the attorney general’s new Domestic Security Unit, which was formed as part of that state’s anti-terrorist efforts in the wake of 11 September (Cole, 2002). Steven Magritz’s act of terror was to harass government officials by bombarding them with falsely legal or paralegal documents. Magritz had refused to pay taxes on his sixty-two acre property, and the local county had moved to foreclose on it. In response he had filed hundreds of counter-claims and bogus liens (property bonds) on local officials that turned the tables on them and clogged up the system. Magritz was not acting on his own inspiration here, of course. The strategy of a document blitz rests on complicated legal and political arguments that are taught in expert seminars and online books through a host of websites, and is gaining in popularity and adherents (Sullivan, 1999; Maller and Lynch-German,2002).

The points of constitutional law are complex and obscure, but the language of individual sovereignty is familiar libertarian discourse in the USA, and widely disseminated.

There is evidence that such sharing of expert knowledge and favoured tactics is active in Australia, as well as in the US. The legal advisers of micronations originating in Australia are often self-taught bush lawyers, drawing on a pool of knowledge that has been accumulated via the Internet postings of contributors to the ‘sovereignty community’ (which includes the micronationalists). Whilst the ‘paper terrorist’ approach is only incipient in Australia (presaged in Cameron’s ‘vexatious litigation’, or in the extravagant warrants published by Camside), the characteristic parrying of authority that is practised by anti-government groups is clearly emerging as the new form of articulation here. The DIY, ‘mix and match’ approach to new nation creation - illustrated in the discontinuous flag-waving, and in the mix of ‘left’ and ‘right’ agendas of my last two examples - sees the signs of this sovereignty made mobile and strategic, rather than fixed and essentialising. The Australian pursuit of micronationalism - at least in its pro-gun and radical nationalist components - can be understood as an attempt to claim that sovereignty, for the individual, in a peculiarly original grasp of the mobility of state boundaries.

Australian micronations(Note: not an exhaustive list)

❖ The Hutt River Province Principality started on a WA farm in 1970, by Prince Leonard (born Leonard George Casley) after a dispute over wheat quotas. URL:http://home.vicnet.net.au/~huttrivr/ [Not available 29 March 2005].

❖ Province of Bumbunga 1976 started a rural property near Snowtown, SA, by Alex Brackstone, an eccentric monarchist British migrant. See Bartlett (1985).

❖ Independent State of Rainbow Creek started in Cowwarr, north-eastern Gippsland area of Victoria on 23 July 1979 , by Governor Tom Barnes, after a dispute over flood damage to farm properties. A declaration of war on the state of Victoria was served on 16 January 1979. Available from: http://www.imperial-collection.net/rainbowcreek01.html. [Accessed 29March 2005] See Hinchliffe, Peter, n.d.

❖ The Empire of Atlantium, started in Sydney, NSW, in 1981, by His Imperial Majesty George II (George Cruikshank, fifteen-years old) and friends Geoffrey and Claire Duggan, after “a perceived rise in unwelcome political influences.” Available from: http://www.atlantium.org[Accessed 29 March 2005].

❖ Lizbekistan, cybernation started in Paris in 1996 by Australian artist Liz Stirling, URL:http://www.lizbekistan.com/index2.htm; www.lizbekdiaspora.com; www.lizvegas.com [Notavailable 29 March 2005].

❖ Principality of Marlborough started on a farm in Rockhampton, Queensland, in 1993, by George and Stephanie Muirhead after a mortgage foreclosure dispute with theCommonwealth Bank. Legal advice from Don Cameron.

❖ The Principality of Runnymede, n.d., started by Prince Anthony Thomas Rigg.❖

The Principality of The Highlanders, n.d., started by Prince Wilfred Vernon Taylor.

❖ The Principality of The Hebrides, n.d., started by Prince Denis Wilfred Collins.

❖ The Principality of Brougham, n.d., started by Prince Ralph Brian Smithers.

❖ The Principality of Ausfreeborough, n.d., started by His Eminence the Prince Joseph RichardBryant.

❖ The Principality of Caledonia proclaimed on 26 May 1993 by Prince Palatine Edward JamesRenton. It was shut down in August 2001 and replaced in December 2001 by the Principality of Camside by H.R.H. Prince Peter Rettke, who appointed Dr David Siminton Governor of Sherwood, in association with David Icke.

❖ The Principality of Ponderosa - a twenty-four hectare (fifty-nine acre) property surrounded by a moat in northern Victoria, started by Virgilio and his son ‘Little’ Joe Rigoli in 1994, in trouble on tax evasion and benefits fraud charges (Fickling, 2002b).

❖ Independent Sovereign State of Australia (ISSA) started in south-east Queensland by Chief Justice and Archbishop Don Cameron in 2000. ISSA claimed 1,500 members Australia-wide in 2004 (Meade, 2004, p. 5).

❖ Sovereign Principality of Acworth, started on their Country Retreat and B & B property in Ipwich, Queensland, in November 2001, by Trevor and Diane Acworth. Part of or linked tothe Independent Sovereign State of Australia (ISSA), started by Don Cameron. Availablefrom: http://www.principalityofacworth.com/company.html [Accessed 29 March 2005].

❖ Province of Sundowner started in Millmerran near Toowoomba, Queensland, in 2003 by Christopher Lawrence Smith after a dispute with the local council over a building code violation. Part of the Independent Sovereign State of Australia (ISSA), started by Don Cameron (Berghofer, 2003).❖

Principality of United Oceania. Started on a sixty-six hectare farm at Medowie, near Salamander Bay in northern New South Wales, on 1 May 2003 by Serene Highness Prince Peter The First (Peter Gillies), after a dispute with Port Stephens Council over propertydevelopment (Anon, 2003). It ended in March 2005 (Anon, 2005).

❖ The Principality of Snake Hill, started near Mudgee, north-west of Sydney, on 2 September 2003 by Head of State Prince Paul. “It was necessary to secede from Australia because two of our (investment) properties and income were stolen through a wrongful suit and the Australian and New South Wales governments did nothing to help us... We were almost one year ahead with an interest-only mortgage, when we were sued for being behind. We filed copies of receipts and loan statements with our Defence, but we still lost the Court case.” Available from: http://members.lycos.co.uk/snakehill/ [Accessed 29 March 2005].

❖ The Principality of Range View, started near Gatton, Queensland. Secession declared on 19July 2004 by Lyall Sempf (‘white’ member of the Tribe officially inducted into the Dalungbara Aboriginal Tribe on 1 July 2004). Available from:http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality01.htm [Accessed 29 March 2005].

❖ Principalities of Argyll, Cochrane and Woodlands, started near Gatton, Queensland, on 1 September 2004 by Cecil Herbert Sempf and Sidney Esme Adel Sempf. Declared in a public notice in the Star newspaper, 1/9/2004. Information available from: http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality01.htm [Accessed 29 March 2005].

❖ Sovereign Principality of Lockyer and Capricornia, started at Lockyer Waters near Ipwich,Queensland, in (or by) February 2004 by Gary and Kathryn Friend (Friend, 2004).

❖ Bora of Dalungbara Aboriginal People, started in south-east Queensland and the Frazer Island/Wide Bay area by Lyall Sempf of Gatton (‘white’ member of the Tribe officially inducted into the Dalungbara Aboriginal Tribe on 1 July 2004) and John Dalungdalee Jones of Spring Hill (Elder John Jones: “In July 1997, Justice Shepherdson J. made a Representative Order that I represent the Dalungbara, Batchala and Ngulungbara Aboriginal Peoples of Fraser Island and Wide Bay area. I represent about 2,000 indigenous people.”) Their Nationhood was reaffirmed (it was never surrendered so no need to secede), “similar to the Torres Strait Islanders who have also recently declared independence from the purported Commonwealth of Australia” on 29 August 2004. Available from:http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/WelcomeFraser01.htm [Accessed 29 March 2005]. References Anon (2003)

Prince finds if all else fails, secede.

Australian Daily Telegraph, 24 July 2003, p.20. Anon (2004) Gatton council tells rates dodger, a man’s home is not his castle. The Chronicle, Monday 30 August 2004. [online]. Available from:http://www.thechronicle.com.au/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3587838&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection= [Accessed 28 March 2005].Anon (2005) Breakaway bushland sold off by a council administrator. Newcastle Herald,Saturday 5 March 2005.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 12
12Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network (2005) SovereignCitizenship Movement [online]. Available from:http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/SCM.asp?xpicked=4&item=20 [Accessed 28 March 2005].Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network (2003) Anti-Government Extremist Convicted on ‘Paper Terrorism’ Charges. 12 June 2003. [online].Available from: http://www.adl.org/learn/news/Paper_Terrorism.asp[Accessed 28 March 2005].Anti-State.com [online]. Available from: http://www.anti-state.com/ [Accessed 28 March 2005].Bartlett, Ralph G. (1985) Province of Bumbunga. Study of a self-proclaimed independent statewithin Australia. Report of the XI International Congress of Vexillology, Madrid 1985. pp. 68-77.Berghofer, Greg (2003) Article on Christopher Lawrence Smith. The Toowoomba Chronicle, 23December 2003, p. 1.Berghofer, Greg (2005). Medical issue stops appearance in court. The Toowoomba Chronicle, 16March 2005, p. 7.Bora of Dalungbara Aboriginal People [online]. Available from:http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/WelcomeFraser01.htm [Accessed 28 March 2005]. AUSTEO secret document re Prince Leonard of Hutt. Available from:http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality01.htm [Accessed 28 March 2005]. Induction of Lyall Lindsay Sempf© into the Dalungbara Aboriginal Tribe. Availablefrom: http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/WelcomeFraser80.htm [Accessed 28 March2005]. Legal Advocacy. Available from:http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/WelcomeFraser44.htm [Accessed 28 March2005]. Reaffirmation of Nationhood of the Dalungbara Aboriginal People. Available from:http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/WelcomeFraser92.htm [Accessed 28 March2005].Bora of Dalungbara Aboriginal People listing in New Nation News. [online]. Available from:http://www.newnation.org/NNN-usa-web-links.html [Accessed 28 March 2005].Clampett, Len (1989/2003) Out of the red & into the black: an economic paper. How the systemworks, and how it should work (1989). Printed by Home Made Books 2003. [online]. Availablefrom: http://www.reclaimaustralia.net/balus/Out%20of%20the%20Red%20cover%20A4.pdf[Accessed 28 March 2005].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 13
13Clampett, Len (1990) Hand over our loot 2! ISBN 0 7316 9601 8 (out of print).Clampett, Len (1993) Who said we have to pay interest? (out of print).Cole, Jeff (2002) Jury finds man guilty of ‘paper terrorism’. JS Online, 5 November 2002.[online]. Available from: http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/nov02/93415.asp [Accessed 28March 2005].Cuthhyra [online]. Available from: http://www.cuthhyra.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ [Accessed 28March 2005].Cutterham, Tom (2003) Micronationalism as a left wing phenomenon (winner of the Kay Francesinaugural literature contest, September 2003, hosted by the Sovereign Principality of Lavalon).[online]. Available from: http://www.geocities.com/principality_lavalon/essay_comp.htm[Accessed 21 March 2005].de Certeau, Michel (1984/1988) The practice of everyday life. Trans. Steven Rendall. Berkeley,University of California Press.Empire of Atlantium [online]. Available from: http://www.atlantium.org/ [Accessed 21 March2005]. Empire of Atlantium constitution. Available from:http://www.atlantium.org/constitution.html [Accessed 21 March 2005]. Empire of Atlantium frequently asked questions. Available from:http://www.atlantium.org/faq.html [Accessed 21 March 2005]. Empire of Atlantium history. Available from: http://www.atlantium.org/history.html[Accessed 21 March 2005].Fickling, David. (2002a) The princes of Ponderosa. The Guardian Weekly, Thursday 28November 2002, p. 22.Fickling, David. (2002b) Passport to Pimlico - Aussie style. The Guardian, Wednesday 20November 2002. [online]. Available from:http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,12070,843445,00.html [Accessed 21 March 2005].Friend, Kathryn (2004) Media release: TO ALL HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHORGANIZATIONS. Omega News, 3 February 2004. [online]. Available from:http://omega.twoday.net/stories/152836/ [Accessed 29 March 2005].Griffith, Chris (1998) Shyster finds one true believer. The Sunday Mail, 1 November 1998.[online]. Available from: http://users.tpg.com.au/adslflfl/consumer/cam4.htm [Accessed 28thMarch 2005].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 14
14Hinchliffe, Peter, n.d. Tom Barnes, Magnetic Island. Huddersfield Daily Examiner. [online].Available from:http://ichuddersfield.icnetwork.co.uk/expats/australia/page.cfm?objectid=11244353&method=full&siteid=50060 [Accessed 29 March 2005].Johnson, Lindsay (1999) Summary Inverell Forum 1999. [online]. Available from:http://users.northnet.com.au/~rnb/Forum_1999.htm [Accessed 28 March 2005].Lattas, Judy (2003) Gunning for Australia (draft). [online]. Available from:http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/theories-right/theory5.html [Accessed 21 March 2005].Lethbridge, David (2000) Sovereign Citizens: Eldon Warman and the Detax Movement. TheBethune Institute for Anti-Fascist Studies, June 2000. [online]. Available from:http://bethuneinstitute.org/documents/eldonwarman.html [Accessed 28 March 2005].LewRockwell.com [online]. Available from: http://www.lewrockwell.com/ [Accessed 28thMarch 2005].Maller, Peter and Lauria Lynch-German (2002) ‘Paper terrorism’ gaining adherents. JS Online, 3 September 2002. [online]. Available from:http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/sep02/71288.asp [Accessed 28 March 2005].Meade, Kevin (2004) Warning on right-wing sect. The Australian, Friday 2 January 2004, p. 5 Micronational newsgroups: see for example alt.politics.micronations Available from:Alt.politics.micronations [Accessed 21 March 2005]. See also Talk Micronations(Micronations.Net) Available from: http://p074.ezboard.com/bmicronationalnewsnetwork48264[Accessed 21 March 2005].Micronational online directories: see the list of directories and indexes from the resource page ofmicronations.net. Available from: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ijacobson/mnn/mnet_000005.html[Accessed 21 March 2005].New Nation News [online]. Available from: http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Editors-Desk.html[Accessed 21 March 2005].Norrie, Justin (2004) The boy from Hurstville who now rules a big flat. Sydney Morning Herald,7 May 2004. [online]. Available from:http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/06/1083635283807.html?from=moreStories [Accessed21 March 2005].Owen, Ron (alias Riot, Pat) (1993a) Welcome to Marlborough Country. Lock, Stock and Barrel,11(Aug-Sept, 1993), 19-20.Owen, Ron (alias Riot, Pat) (1993b) Freedom rally. Lock, Stock and Barrel, 12.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 15
15Principality of Camside [online]. Available from:http://www.principalityofcamside.cc/main.htmDark Agenda, featuring David Icke [online]. Available from:http://www.principalityofcamside.cc/DarkAgenda/DAMain.htm [Accessed 28 March2005].Quatloos [online]. Available from: http://www.quatloos.com/fake-nations.htm#camside[Accessed 28 March 2005].Robinson, Sean (2004) An annoyed dove gives her proof of NESARA’s existence. The NewsTribune, Monday 19 July 2004.Sullivan, Francis X. (1999) [online]. ‘The usurping octopus of jurisdictional authority’: the legal theories of the Sovereign Citizen Movement. Wisconsin Law Review, 1999. [online].Available from http://www.geocities.com/b_rookard/dual_nationality.html [Accessed 28 March2005].Supramicronational groups, League of Secessionist States (LOSS) [online]. Available from:http://www.geocities.com/loss_micro/ [Accessed 21 March 2005]. Commonwealth of Micronations [online]. Available from: http://microcom.fateback.com/[Accessed 21 March 2005].THE MICROFREEDOM INDEX [online]. Available from:http://www.angelfire.com/nv/micronations/ [Accessed 21 March 2005].Wikipedia [online]. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page[Accessed 21 March 2005].1 In the university, the word has been picked up in reference to the study of nations ornationalism using a ‘micro’ as opposed to a ‘macro’ focus. Studies have generally considered theeconomic and political realities of actual small nations that must operate with limited resourcesand a high degree of dependency on regional conglomerates or traditional ties. Sometimes theterm is used to refer to the nationalist aspirations of ethnic or provincial groups that have brokenaway from a larger power. Here the concern is either with the destabilising effect of identitymovements on regions with a high degree of ethnic tension and history of internal conflict, orwith the de-territorialising effects of globalising capital. 2 These are some of the names of micronation subgroups. The latter two are the preferred termsfor the serious political projects of THE MICROFREEDOM INDEX, the US-based index thatserves to showcase the more libertarian and, in some cases, extreme nationalist micronationalistprojects.3 “Micro-nations have been claimed all over the world, but Australia seems particularly afflicted.There is a tradition to such claims: in the 1930s Western Australia considered seceding from therest of the country.” (Fickling, 2002a, p. 22)4 Article XIX of the Atlantium constitution reads: “Aspiring to an international peace based onjustice, order, mutual respect and positive engagement, the Empire of Atlantium renounces its Sovereign Right to the use of all forms of external aggression, threat or force, including the maintenance of permanent State military institutions.” (Empire of Atlantium Constitution).

5 The Independent Sovereign State of Australia (ISSA), however, appoints local sheriffs to oversee law and order at the same time as it advocates the private ownership of guns for self-defence (information received from Chris Smith - himself an appointed sheriff in the Sundowner Province of ISSA - during an interview conducted by me on 27 January 2004, at the public library in Toowoomba, Queensland)

.6 I note that the editor of New Nation News, the host website for a fringe of new nation projects concerned with racial purity, cites the right to bear arms as the first of his ideological principles.

7 I have no way of knowing whether his list corresponds with mine.

8 The tragedy in Waco, Texas, led up to the deaths of seventy-nine men, women and children at Mount Carmel on 19 April 1993.

9 This is the sequence of events. The receiver arrived 5 April, there were court appearances on 8 and 23 April, upon which Muirhead was convicted, jailed and released from jail on 17 June 1993.

10 See reports of the Freedom Rally, Lock, Stock and Barrel.

12, p. 19; Lock, Stock and Barrel,11, showing the ‘Trojan horse’, the flags flying at the Muirhead ranch and details of the protestors’ perception of media ‘misrepresentation’ at the rally.11 Sempf’s primary public campaign is to safeguard the existence of brumbies in Australia.

12 Examples include the British High Court judgment of 25 June 2004, purporting to find that there is no ‘Queen of Australia’, and the AUSTEO secret document from the Department of Territories acknowledging that Prince Leonard of Hutt was indeed exempt from tax. See the scanned document on the Bora of Dalungbara Aboriginal People website,http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality01.htm

ILLEGALLY HELD MONEY: INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

CASE OF ILLEGALLY HELD MONEY

(Principality of Snake Hill v United States of America)

SECTION A. - APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS

I. The Spokesperson for the Principality of Snake Hill to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice

Snake Hill, 30th July 2009

Sir,

I have the honour to send you herewith a submission from the Principality of Snake Hill which is an Application instituting proceedings before the International Court of Justice and relating to a dispute with the Government of the United States of America concerning the payment of compensation and restitution to a Snake Hill citizen for acts by American authorities.

I will be acting as Agent for this case.

II. APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF SNAKE HILL

To the President and Members of the International Court of Justice, I, the undersigned, duly authorised by the Principality of Snake Hill selecting as address for service our postal address: PO Box 488, Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153, Australia, with copies sent by email : snakehillprincipality@yahoo.com as our postal service is unreliable.

Having regard to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court and to the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice by the United States of America, and by the Principality of Snake Hill on 26th January, 2005.

Having regard to Article 40, paragraph 1,
Have the honour to address to you the following Application:

The United States of America has repeatedly disregarded domestic and international law by not ensuring that one of our prominent and distinguished citizens, Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta, can freely access his own money . His money was wrongfully taken from him, and despite Court orders that the money is his, he has not received access to those funds.

There have been numerous promises of repayment of those stolen funds, but the matter remains unresolved.

The Government of the United States of America has neglected its duty of care towards Ambassador Wanta by not enforcing laws, especially banking laws, thereby preventing him from using his own money as he sees fit.
The Government of the United States of America failed to adequately protect Ambassador Wanta from attacks upon his personal health and safety, which is a contravention of the Geneva Convention and the Vienna Convention, as an Ambassador of a foreign country must be assured of his personal safety while in the host country.

The Government of the United States of America has abused Ambassador Wanta`s human rights through the denial of access to his own monetary funds.

Ambassador Wanta had promised to use a portion of his cash money to help the people of the United States by providing employment and much needed infrastructure, so the retention of his money hinders the development of that country, plus prevents him paying his repatriation personal civil income taxes on time, as that would also help the American people and the American economy.

Ambassador Wanta had promised to use a portion of his money to help other countries with humanitarian aid through the United Nations, so the retention of his money hinders the development of those countries and delays much needed humanitarian assistance to so many people.

Ambassador Wanta had also promised to use a portion of his money to help develop Snake Hill, so the retention of his money hinders the development of our country and delays much needed humanitarian assistance to our people.

Ambassador Wanta and his legal representatives have met with and corresponded with many United States of America Government Officials to discuss his payment of their restitution of his stolen monetary funds. They have on numerous occasions brought the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power to the Government`s attention. Despite a few promises, he has received nothing at all. Consequently a legal dispute exists between the Snake Hill and United States Government.

Having vainly resorted to diplomatic negotiations in respect of this issue, Snake Hill has decided to bring its dispute with the Government of the United States of America to the International Court of Justice.

Accordingly, and subject to the subsequent presentation to the Court of a Memorial, Counter Memorial and, in general, of any evidence or argument,
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT :

To take note that for the purpose of all notifications and communications relating to the present case, the Agent of the Principality of Snake Hill selects my address for service PO Box 488, Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153, Australia and copies sent to snakehillprincipality@yahoo.com as our postal service is unreliable;

To notify the present Application, in accordance with Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, to the Government of the United States of America;

The Applicant requests the Court to adjudge and declare:

Whether the Government of the United States of America appears or not, and after such time limits as the Court may fix in the absence of an agreement between the Parties:

(1) by refusing to fully compensate Ambassador Wanta, the United States of America has committed violations of obligations under international law in that it has hindered the much needed employment opportunities in the United States of America which they should be entitled to enjoy under international law;

(2) by refusing to fully compensate Ambassador Wanta, the United States of America has committed violations of obligations under international law in that it has hindered the much needed humanitarian aid in many countries through United Nations humanitarian programs, which those needy people should be entitled to enjoy under international law;

(3) by refusing to fully compensate Ambassador Wanta, the United States of America has committed violations of obligations under international law in that it has hindered the development of our territory, and much needed humanitarian assistance to our people, which the Principality of Snake Hill should be entitled to enjoy under international law;

(4) by refusing to fully compensate Ambassador Wanta, the United States of America has committed violations of obligations under international law in that it has prevented Ambassador Wanta from the enjoyment of his own money which he should be entitled to enjoy under international law;

Accordingly, the Principality of Snake Hill prays the Court to adjudge and declare that:

(5) the Government of the United States of America `s international responsibility is engaged;

(6) the Government of the United States of America must by means of its own choosing take any and all steps to ensure that all of Ambassador Wanta`s money is fully returned to him immediately;

(7) the Government of the United States of America must by means of its own choosing take any and all steps to ensure that all the decisions of its courts, departments, agencies and other authorities infringing domestic and international law are reversed immediately;

(8) that the Government of the United States of America ensures and enforces the protection of Snake Hill nationals and diplomats when in the United States of America,

(9) that the Government of the United States of America make financial reparation to each of us for the mental, psychological and emotional torture inflicted on Ambassador Wanta by their authorities.

Snake Hill, Thursday, 30 July 2009
The Agent for the Principality of Snake Hill

Princess Paula

INSURGENTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

SECESSION DOCUMENTS SIGNED

INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENCE

SECESSION AND A PLACE CALLED SNAKE HILL

News With Views
Tue, Oct 19, 2010
by Marilyn M. Barnewall

A lot of people in America talk about secession, but few who talk the talk understand the complexities of walking the walk. It’s always good to find another who has led the way.

Secession and sovereignty are very serious steps. What needs to be done – and how – is clearly defined for those who want to do more than just bluster about it. No nation can live comfortably in isolation. Yet, without proper plans, citizens will be forced to live uncomfortably if their state declares Sovereignty. Isolation predicts failure – and chaos.

To those who think all it takes to secede is a decision and a signed piece of paper, you are wrong and you do yourself and your nation no good by over-simplifying the complex.

Before writing me emails about my using the words “live comfortably,” let me quickly say it is not used to connote sitting around, listening to cha-cha music while eating bon-bons. For purposes of this article, I define “comfortably” as a society that provides access to modern medical treatment, healthy food, interstate/international commerce, currency/financial organization, residential availability, and the Rule of Law – a stable society.

Anyone who supports the right to declare sovereignty and secede needs to understand if such a step is taken without proper preparation, failure is likely. One of the first questions to be answered is: What benefits does your state currently receive from the federal government? How will you replace those programs? Surely, you don’t expect a nation from which you secede to continue giving you access to its currency, its banking system, its medical technology, or the hundreds of other things available to Member States.

Has your state planned to take control of banking, currency, and credit? All are needed to achieve sovereignty. There are hundreds of things you will need: car license plates, driving licenses, mail delivery, medical care for the elderly, passports, highways and streets, schools, and the list goes on. Sovereignty is possible but requires preparation.

Perhaps secession hopefuls can learn from a small, faraway place, the Principality of Snake Hill. It is an independent Principality – yet is located on the Continent of Australia, about 45 miles from Sydney. It successfully seceded from the Commonwealth of Australia. A lighthouse showing the way in the dark is always good. In this case, the beam of light comes from the Mudgee Guardian, an Australian newspaper.

Reporter Darren Snyder wrote an interesting piece about Snake Hill last February 3rd. Snyder’s column, titled “A nation in our midst,” says: “Somewhere within the Mudgee region lies another nation with its own flag, coat of arms, parliament, passports, casino and shopping centre.“
Mudgee is neighbor to Snake Hill.

“The Principality of Snake Hill was founded in September 2003 after some then Australian residents decided to secede from the nation on the basis of an ill-fated land and income suit which was going to take away their every last dollar.

“According to Crown Princess Paula, daughter of Head of State Prince Paul and his wife Princess Helena, the nation achieves quite a bit for its size,” Snyder says.
In the article, Princess Paula describes how Snake Hill served as negotiator between two major countries for an oil treaty, explains how Snake Hill conducts trade and is looking to expand, is investigating the exportation of wine, has had dealings with the United Nations and World Trade Organization, and the Principality’s submission of applications to the International Olympic Committee for its soccer team. Her descriptions are purposeful. The Princess is letting people know that Snake Hill is doing the things a nation must do if it wants to be considered Sovereign.

“The Principality has certainly not sold themselves short in their Cabinet, with their United States Ambassador and Trade Commissioner being Lee E. Wanta – a man credited with helping bring down the old Soviet Union in 1990.” So says the Mudgee Guardian.

According to the article (which can be found here http://www.mudgeeguardian.com.au/news/local/news/general/a-nation-in-our-midst/1741254.aspx, the Principality of Snake Hill is “Approximately 900 metres above sea level and 1.6 square kilometers in size, the principality has almost 200 citizens who are formally engaged from around Australia and the world, including a consulate in a suburb of Sydney.”

Snake Hill declared itself Sovereign and became a Principality, notified the proper authorities of its Sovereignty, and complied with all international laws of sovereignty.

Following is an explanation of why Snake Hill felt compelled to secede. This information was sent to every politician and legislator throughout the Commonwealth of Australia, from Victoria to Tasmania, after sovereignty was declared. What happened to Prince Paul’s family in 2003 is happening to Americans in 2010.

“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

“Our family was sued without reason when we were AHEAD with our mortgage and our lender stated we were behind, but also admitted that we were ahead. They even filed an Affidavit admitting we were AHEAD.

“The NSW Supreme Court ignored all of the evidence in that case, and gave two of our properties to the fraudsters.

“As they had gotten two of our properties so easily, they then threatened to steal all of our properties.

“We had already seen that we had NO rights whatsoever under Australian or New South Wales law, and had not received any protection from the NSW Supreme Court, or any government department or agency, and had met so many other victims of property theft through/by Australian Courts so we turned to International Law.

“We sent our declaration of independence to the Governor-General on the 2nd September 2003, who replied on 4th September 2003. We sent copies of those letters, copies of documents from our fraudulent court case with an accompanying letter to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth ll. Her reply was dated 28th November 2003.

“As a matter of courtesy, we also sent copies of our declaration of independence to the Australian Prime Minister, NSW Governor and NSW Premier on 2nd September 2003.

“NO attempt was made to refute our unilateral secession, as of right.

“Our declaration of independence stated that our nation consists of three parts, which were the three remaining properties they threatened to steal. They were known as 11 Melaleuca Close, Castle Hill, 149 – 153 Aaron`s Pass Road, Mudgee and 372 Wiseman`s Ferry Road, Gunderman.
“This was mentioned in Court soon after our secession.

“We notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the formation of our new independent sovereign nation. His reply was dated 17th August 2004.

“Since then our country has had substantial cordial ministerial correspondence with Australian and foreign government ministers, as well as with Royals and Non-Governmental Organisations, as per the Estrada Doctrine.

“Our nation has territory, population, government and has established communication and trade with other nations, as per the Montevideo Convention.

“Many of our prominent citizens are also property theft victims who were defrauded of property by judgments made against the evidence and against the law in Australian Courts. Our combined thefts amount to tens of millions of dollars, if not more. These illegal acts by Australian authorities forced us to form our National Liberation Movement and to secede.

“We were never compensated for the theft of our properties, or the theft of our rental income, or for the other costs incurred by the illegal litigation. None of our fellow Snake Hillians have been compensated for their thefts either, which is clearly against international law and is especially contrary to the report to the United Nations prepared by Professor van Boven.
“Australian Courts should not entertain any claims against any of us, or against our territory as per the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 and International Law.

“(Please note, further attacks are NOT the same as compensation or restitution.)

“Our nation is well known in diplomatic, legal, academic and governmental circles, internationally.

“Like any other independent sovereign nation, we have our own Constitution, legal system, laws, central bank, currency, vehicle registration plates, drivers licences, passports, diplomats, sporting teams, anthem, flag, coat of arms, postage stamps, post office, etc., etc.

“Members of the General Assembly of the United Nations are aware of all of these facts.
“We are currently enjoying our seventh year of independence.

“Our status has been advertised through signs on each portion of our territory, with our main website which was established 7th September 2003, as well as through several newspaper advertisements, magazine articles, books, radio, and television programs. We feature in a documentary which is currently being made for the world market, and the preliminary filming has been finalised.

“In case you doubt or are unaware of the facts of the illegal litigation that led to our secession, you can find the relevant documents on one of our websites which is linked to our main site.

“Please see attached list of correspondence verified by Justice of the Peace.

“Yours sincerely,

“The Principality of Snake Hill
“(Country Codes: QS, QSH and 923)
“www.snakehillprincipality.info”
Question:

How much do American supporters of state sovereignty know about the Estrada Doctrine, the Montevideo Convention, or the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 and International Law? Have they read the Report to the United Nations prepared by Professor van Boven?

All worthwhile things require preparation. It’s hard to get to a destination without a map. This is not a good time to get lost.

The Convention states there must be a permanent population, a defined territory, government and capacity to enter into relations with other states.

“We have pretty much read every International Law textbook ever published,” Princess Paula said.

The Princess also added the choices her family had at the end of the property and income suit.

“The suit case ended with us having two choices, becoming destitute and appealing to the same system we were dudded by or seceding from Australia and keeping what we had,” she said.

The Princess said the principality did not pay Mid-Western Regional Council rates and said when she had contacted the Council there had been confusion because it was the first time they had dealt with a seceded principality.

For further information, check the Principality of Snake Hill website: snakehillprincipality.webs.com

POINTS OF DIPLOMATIC INFORMATION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN : -

As an investitured diplomat, as well as the appointed Trade Commissioner for and on behalf of said Sovereign Nation, I have an equitable interest in the sovereign territory.

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)

The States Parties to the present Convention,

Recalling that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognized the status of diplomatic agents,

Having in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations,

Believing that an international convention intercourse, privileges and immunities would contribute to the development fo friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems,

Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States,

Affirming that the rules of customary international law should continue to govern questions regulated by the provisions of the present Convention,

Have agreed as follows : ( please peruse said Vienna Convention )

Official Protocol Notifications

His Excellency, Ki-Moon BAN
Secretary General
The United Nations
United Nations Headquarters
New York, NY, USA 10017
22 October 2007

US Department of State
The Honorable, Dr Condoleezza Rice
Diplomatic Appointments
22 October 2007

The Honorable, Dr Condoleeza Rice
United States Secretary of State
Ambassador John Negroponte
DoD Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates,
Chrm/Admiral Mike Mullen,
US Attorney General, Michael Mukasey,
DCI General Mike Hayden,
US Federal Judge Lewis F Oberdorfer, et al
January 05, 2008

Office of the President
The Honorable, George W Bush, Jr
Office of the Vice President
The Honorable, Dick Cheney
Former Secretary James A Baker III
White House Counsel, Fred Fielding
20 December 2007

Office of the President-Elect
The Honorable, Barack Obama
08 November 2008

US Department of State
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton
12 and 13 April 2010

US Department of State
Ambassador Capricia Penavic Marshall
US Chief of Protocol
Deputy Chief of Protocol Dennis Cheng
Deputy Chief of Protocol Lee Satterfield
Updated Form DS - 2003
04-07-2010

US Department of State
Office of the Inspector General
23 April 2010

Office of the US Ambassador
Embassy of the United States
23 April 2010

and, so much more to internationally recognize The Principality of Snake Hill, since 2003. Thank you ....

The Principality of Snake Hill
Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta
Postal Box No. 488
Baulkman Hills, NSW 2153
Tele : 202 379 2904 _ ext 001
Telefax : 61 2 9894 6023
Country Codes [3] : QS QSH and 923

Explanation: Why Secession, What Abuse

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

  Our family was sued without reason when we were AHEAD with our mortgage and our lender stated we were behind, but also admitted that we were ahead. They even filed an Affidavit admitting we were AHEAD.

  The NSW Supreme Court ignored all of the evidence in that case, and gave two of our properties to the fraudsters.

  As they had gotten two of our properties so easily, they then threatened to steal all of our properties.

  We had already seen that we had NO rights whatsoever under Australian or New South Wales law, and had not received any protection from the NSW Supreme Court, or any government department or agency, and had met so many other victims of property theft through/by Australian Courts so we turned to International Law.

  We sent our declaration of independence to the Governor-General on the 2nd September 2003, who replied on 4th September 2003. We sent copies of those letters, copies of documents from our fraudulent court case with an accompanying letter to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth ll. Her reply was dated 28th November 2003.  As a matter of courtesy, we also sent copies of our declaration of independence to the Australian Prime Minister, NSW Governor and NSW Premier on 2nd September 2003.

   NO attempt was made to refute our unilateral secession, as of right.

  Our declaration of independence stated that our nation consists of three parts, which were the three remaining properties they threatened to steal. They were known as 11 Melaleuca Close, Castle Hill, 149 - 153 Aaron`s Pass Road, Mudgee and 372 Wiseman`s Ferry Road, Gunderman.

  This was mentioned in Court soon after our secession.

  We notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the formation of our new independent sovereign nation. His reply was dated 17th August 2004.

  Since then our country has had substantial cordial ministerial correspondence with Australian and foreign government ministers, as well as with Royals and Non-Governmental Organisations, as per the Estrada Doctrine.

  Our nation has territory, population, government and has established communication and trade with other nations, as per the Montevideo Convention.

  Many of our prominent citizens are also property theft victims who were defrauded of property by judgements made against the evidence and against the law in Australian Courts. Our combined thefts amount to tens of millions of dollars, if not more. These illegal acts by Australian authorities forced us to form our National Liberation Movement and to secede.

  We were never compensated for the theft of our properties, or the theft of our rental income, or for the other costs incurred by the illegal litigation. None of our fellow Snake Hillians have been compensated for their thefts either, which is clearly against international law and is especially contrary to the report to the United Nations prepared by Professor van Boven.

  Australian Courts should not entertain any claims against any of us, or against our territory as per the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 and International Law.
  (Please note, further attacks are NOT the same as compensation or restitution.)

  Our nation is well known in diplomatic, legal, academic and governmental circles, internationally.

  Like any other independent sovereign nation, we have our own Constitution, legal system, laws, central bank, currency, vehicle registration plates, drivers licences, passports, diplomats, sporting teams, anthem, flag, coat of arms, postage stamps, post office, etc., etc.

  Members of the General Assembly of the United Nations are aware of all of these facts.

  We are currently enjoying our seventh year of independence.

  Our status has been advertised through signs on each portion of our territory, with our main website which was established 7th September 2003, as well as through several newspaper advertisements, magazine articles, books, radio and television programs. We feature in a documentary which is currently being made for the world market, and the preliminary filming has been finalised.

  In case you doubt or are unaware of the facts of the illegal litigation that led to our secession, you can find the relevant documents on one of our websites which is linked to our main site.

  Please see attached list of correspondence verified by Justice of the Peace.

  Yours sincerely

  The Principality of Snake Hill
  (Country Codes: QS, QSH and 923)
  http://www.snakehillprincipality.info/

International Law Obligations Re Human Rights Abuses

Excerpt from: International Law Obligations to Provide Reparations for Human Rights Abuses

The right to reparations for wrongful acts has long been recognised as a fundamental principle of law essential to the functioning of legal systems. In 1961, Justice Guha Roy of India wrote:

That a wrong done to an individual must be redressed by the offender himself or by someone else against whom the sanction of the community may be directed is one of those timeless axioms of justice without which social life is unthinkable. 

The obligation to provide reparations for human right abuses, especially gross violations of human rights, has more recently been recognised under international treaty and customary law, decisions of international bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, national law and practices and municipal courts and tribunals.[5]

In 1989 the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities commissioned Professor Theo van Boven to undertake a study concerning the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.[6] A final report, including proposed basic principles and guidelines, was submitted in 1993.[7]A revised set of basic principles and guidelines was submitted in 1996.[8]

The van Boven Report examined relevant existing international human rights norms and decisions of international courts and other human rights organs. It concluded that every state "has a duty to make reparation in case of a breach of the obligation under international law to respect and to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms".[9]  Van Boven states:

In accordance with international law, States have the duty to adopt special measures, where necessary, to permit expeditious and fully effective reparations. Reparation shall render justice by removing or redressing the consequences of the wrongful acts and by preventing and deterring violations. Reparations shall be proportionate to the gravity of the violations and the resulting damage and shall include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.[10]

Van Boven synthesised the content of reparations to include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation and, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.[11] Restitution refers to measures such as restoration of liberty, family life, citizenship, return to one's place of residence and, return of property. These measures seek to re-establish the situation that existed prior to the violations of human rights and humanitarian law. [12]Compensation refers to monetary compensation for any economically assessable damage resulting from violations of human rights and humanitarian law.[13]Rehabilitation includes medical and psychological care as well as legal and social services.[14]Satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition includes, inter alia, an apology (including public acknowledgment of the facts and acceptance of responsibility) and, measures to prevent recurrence of the violations. [15]

States have a duty not only to respect international human rights but also to ensure them, which may include enforcing compliance by private persons and preventing violations. Successive governments are bound by the responsibility incurred by previous governments for wrongful acts committed and not redressed.[16]

A number of significant international human rights treaties create a general duty to make appropriate reparations for violations of human rights. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[17]International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination[18] Convention on the Rights of the Child[19]and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment[20]

Further, international instruments also support those specific measures of reparation suggested by van Boven: restitution;[21] compensation;[22]rehabilitation;[23] satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.[24]

Finally, a basic rule of international customary law is international responsibility. It recognises that the breach of any international obligation by a state or organ of a state constitutes an international tort and that the commission of any international tort involves a corresponding duty to make reparations.[25]

It is suggested that the duty on States to make reparations for violations of human rights has attained the status of customary law through continuous and consistent affirmation in the decisions of international judicial bodies, national human rights courts and through national and regional law and practice.

International legal bodies such as the Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Commission and Inter-American Court of Human Rights have consistently prescribed the necessary measures to be taken by States to redress violations of human rights as:

·        Investigation of the facts; Bringing to justice those responsible; and Ensuring reparation to the victims.[26]

van Boven, T., (Special Rapporteur of the United Nations), Study concerning the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms: Final Report, UN Doc. E/CN. 4/Sub.2/1993/8, 2 July 1993, 7 (hereafter the "van Boven Report").

"ICCPR" Article 2(3)(a): "Each State Party... undertakes to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy...", G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966) U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976.

Authors:  Antonio Buti BPE (Hons), Dip Ed, MIR, LLB (Hons) (ANU)  Senior Lecturer, Murdoch University School of Law

Melissa Parke B Bus (Curtin) LLB (UNSW) LLM (Murdoch)

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v6n4/buti64_text.html