Who is Andrew Garrett, and how did he come to be associated with HRM King Uluki and The People's Lore of Terra Australis?
To answer this with proper context, it’s beneficial to recap a very short but important history of the land of Terra Australis.
Delegates of the British monarchy arrived here and went against King George VI’s wishes, (Queen Elizabeth II’s father) by declaring this land Terra Nullius, meaning land with no living man, womban or child. That was incorrect, as over 600 tribes were already living on, belonging to, and caring for this land long before European arrival.
*This is the most important point of all* The delegates of the British Monarchy who arrived here by boat went on to create the corporation of ‘The Crown’, masquerading as the British Monarchy on Terra Australis, but they were not the Monarchy. ‘The corporation of the Crown’ was owned by the Rothschild’s and co banking families, who have maintained that facade to this day, with most people believing that ‘Australia’ is run by the British Monarchy.
The Crown came onto the land unlawfully, rounded up her native inhabitants, murdered the majority and enslaved the rest, bringing dis-ease, destroying culture and stealing children along the way for their own sick desires.
This land was never ceded or surrendered. It is not a country it’s still a penal colony under British rule. Our ‘constitution’ that people refer to is an act of British parliament. And, the land of ‘Australia’ only exists on Norfolk, Christmas and Cocos Keeling islands, as stated in the acts interpretations act 1909 sect 2b.
***
The People’s Lore of Terra Australis (PLoTA) and subsequent People’s Court of Terra Australis (PCTA) were founded by a brilliant lady by the name of Shell Jones at the peak of the COVID lie, when people were unlawfully losing their livelihoods for refusing to be injected with an unknown substance. This group is entirely run by volunteers, does not charge money, ever, and puts integrity above all else.
All Australian government entities including the courts operate with an ABN, they are revenue raising businesses and as such SHOULD pay tax like everyone else. The law states that there is no monopoly in business, meaning anybody is free to open their own court or any other type of business. Nobody and no corporation has the right to a monopoly over any business, yet we were taught that only the ‘government’ has the right to run judiciary, police and other ‘enforcement’.
The people’s court (PCTA) was built lawfully, with an ABN, as an alternative to the crown courts. In order to have lawful standing it had to be built WITHIN the system, yet its objective was to help people to hold the criminals masquerading in this country as ‘law enforcement’ accountable OUTSIDE of the system, as living men/ womben, not chattel under admiralty law.
In 2024 Shell Jones came into contact with King Uluki and soon after, Andrew Morton Garrett. They were all on the same page, putting integrity and the interests of the people above all else, and they began working together, their expertise complimenting one another perfectly. Shortly after, the International Crown Criminal Court was established.
***
Andrew Morton Garrett is a South Australian businessman who discovered that every living man/ womban/ child with a birth certificate inherits an irrevocable living trust at birth, that is, the Cestui Que Vie trust, and that trust holds a security interest over the Charter of the Commonwealth of Nations.
During the course of his business ventures, Andrew was confronted with fraud and money laundering by entities associated with ‘The Crown.’ After being denied justice in the courts, and, recognizing the Crown’s pattern of default, he served eight Notices to Admit Facts, Indebtedness, and Liability to the Attorneys General of the Commonwealth, States, and Territories between 2016 and 2019. The Crown completely ignored these notices. Under law, unrebutted notices meant the Crown legally admitted all claims of fraud, theft, breach of trust, and indebtedness.
When the final notice in May 2019 went unanswered, Andrew exercised his right to call in his security interest. On June 1, 2019, he issued Notices of Crystallization, Seizure of Collateral, Retention of Collateral, and Appointment as Managing Controller over the Hereditary Office of the Head of the Windsor Family Office (The British Throne), represented by Queen Elizabeth II, seizing the Charter of the Commonwealth of Nations as collateral against the corporation of ‘The Crown’ masquerading as the British Monarchy.
Service of this notice was acknowledged by the Queen’s representative on June 6, 2019, granting him full control and authority over The Windsor Family assets, Commonwealth governance, and the Charter of the commonwealth of nations itself, and Andrew Morton Garrett’s official title became International Crown Attorney General.
On 14th August 2020, Andrew served a Notice of Appointment as Liquidator to the Federal Court of Australia. (Case #’s SAD 138/2020, SAD 140/2020, SAD 141/2020, SAD 142/2020)
On 3rd October 2020 Justice Charlesworth acknowledged Andrew’s appointment as Liquidator. This was hugely significant- The Federal Court of Australia acknowledged Andrew’s legal authority to liquidate The Crown and all Commonwealth entities.
The fraudulent corporation known as ‘The Crown’ operating through Rothschild & Co banking cartel as its financial licensee, continued to accumulate massive debt through property theft, fraudulent trading and other crimes. On 31st July 2022, Rothschilds & Co and the Crown Government (Global), jointly defaulted to the tune of USD $133 quinquagintillion. This was the final default that triggered liquidation of the entire banking cartel system worldwide.
This was a brilliant legal strategy because you can’t seize a fraudulent entity- it has no legitimacy. But by seizing the legitimate charter it was fraudulently operating under, it rendered the corporation of the Crown useless.
All of the reclaimed entities have continued to trade fraudulently while insolvent, knowing that the judiciary and ‘law enforcement’ on Terra Australis would continue to protect their masters. To this day- the Crown owns the ‘law enforcement’ and ‘law enforcement’ owns the guns.
While the corporations have not voluntarily surrendered control, the legal framework for their dissolution is complete and enforceable.
Every instance of denied justice was documented and implicated in subsequent proceedings, culminating in one massive case which meticulously documents 40 years of crimes on Terra Australis. As there has been no justice on this land, Andrew Garrett’s life work now sits in the international high courts of Hong Kong as ‘The Main Proceedings’, and with this comes international attention and inevitable justice.
***
King Uluki Waa-Warrung is the last living descendant and holder of the Batman treaty of 1835. This was a legitimate, internationally binding treaty between local tribes and John Batman, a colonial farmer and business man, on behalf of other European settlers in the Port Phillip bay area of Victoria. The city of Melbourne was originally known as Batman, after John Batman. The treaty was made on the land where Uluki is from, and that is why King Uluki, as the only lawful treaty holder, has authority on this land.
Although this was a private treaty between the people, the then governor of NSW Richard Bourke stepped in on behalf of the corporation of the Crown, and declared the treaty null and void. Not only was it not even his state, the NSW governor had no lawful jurisdiction, nor did any governor, over the people. But again, the Crown owned the ‘law enforcement’ and ‘law enforcement’ owned the guns.
In 2013 when Andrew Morton Garrett lawfully captured the Charter of the Commonwealth of Nations, the 1835 treaty was acknowledged as legitimate and binding, however the Corporation of the Crown continued their facade and refused to acknowledge it.
On the 6th of April 2025, King Uluki sat with the Crown Attorney General and discussed options of enforcement to hold the criminals accountable. It was decided that the only way forward was to create the International Crown Marshal Service, as marshals hold higher authority than police and sheriffs. Again, in order to have internationally recognized justice, they had to play WITHIN the system. Shortly after, King Uluki and Crown Attorney General Andrew Morton Garrett entered into a new lawful, internationally binding treaty.
In classic cabal style, the Victorian government announced a new treaty shortly after, to muddy the waters and mislead the people further. The Victorian Government has absolutely no jurisdiction, and their bogus treaty was signed by compromised people who sadly do not have the well-being of their own people and culture at heart.
Many people are in fear of being controlled by a new ruler, however this is not the case. Remember, it was the corporation of ‘The Crown’, not the British Monarchy, who ruled and created so much devastation in the world. And while it’s clear that many members of the British royal family were compromised by the banking cartel, King George VI, Queen Elizabeth II and others remained loyal to the cause. Think about how much negative press the Queen received in the tabloids and mainstream media in her life.
This new lawful treaty is not about one man ruling over the population, rather returning to the people what is rightfully theirs, removing the systems that enslave us, and working together as one people of Terra Australis, to create a better world for our future generations. As holder of an internationally binding treaty, His Majesty King Uluki Waa-Warrung Terra Australis is his correct title.
Not only did King Uluki hold the physical proof, but he, other elders and seers have had Divine guidance all their lives that Uluki would be the one to guide humanity through the turmoil and into our New Earth, with courage and ancient wisdom, restoring our Earth’s systems to a healthy balance where every living man, womban child is sovereign unto themselves.
Andrew's lawful legal journey
Summary:
This meeting reviewes Andrew Garrett’s multi-year effort to reinterpret constitutional and trust law, consolidate documentary evidence, and pursue international enforcement to recover alleged Crown-related assets for public redress. Garrett outlined his filings since 2022, referenced a cloud repository of roughly 45,000 files and 120 GB of exhibits, described a 1,270-page license and tax package, and noted a Hong Kong High Court insolvency matter currently adjourned sine die under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act.
Discussion covered Andrew’s view that birth certificate registration creates a personal property security right, remedies based on section 64 of the Judiciary Act and historic trust law, and examples of systemic failures in Australian legal and financial institutions. He describes ten trust funds that exist for the public, correspondence including document 8509 to the Governor‑General, a tax return declaring income as “infinity”, Form 206 usage, and licensing identifiers (e.g., AMG 9543A–E) used to appoint local operators and map tax jurisdictions, domestic deregistration limits, the need for coordinated international legal pressure, and unresolved questions about international recognition, central bank acceptance of value, and inclusion of specific redress claims.
13:49 Public records and interpretation challenge
Participants asked about document availability and Andrew confirmed the full archive is publicly accessible in the cloud by exhibit number, via the Public Interest Disclosure Drive.
14:51 Examples of legal-control concerns
Andrew cited high-profile jurists and past cases to illustrate systemic issues with legal reviews and the legal profession’s influence over governance and review processes. He referenced David Keyes versus ASIC transcripts and noted that similar patterns had persisted for decades.
Andrew acknowledged the legal profession’s control over reviews and argued that Governor-General assent has become largely ceremonial and rubber-stamping.
17:09 Constitutional checks, Governor-General, and law reform report
Andrew argued that Governor-General assent has become a rubber-stamp process and contrasted that practice with a monarch’s intended role in enforcing checks and balances. He referenced the 2015 Australian Law Reform Commission report on encroachment of Commonwealth laws and noted the omission of state laws from that review.
The Australian Law Reform Commission report on encroachment of Commonwealth laws was cited as evidence of systemic legal overreach.
20:09 Constitutional basis and Crown parity
Andrew Garrett opened by emphasizing the Constitution and section 64 of the Judiciary Act as critical safeguards and described discovering a method to use personal property security rights to reclaim powers he associates with the Windsor family. He contrasted this two‑way conception of Crown–citizen relations with how the ATO operates and cited GST refund problems as symptomatic of imbalance. He also voiced sympathy for the Commissioner of Taxation but attributed larger fraud to the legal profession.
Andrew asserted the Constitution and section 64 of the Judiciary Act protect equality between Crown and subject.
Andrew claims birth certificate registration can be used as a personal property security right to exercise powers formerly held by the Windsor family.
Andrew criticized the ATO for treating Crown–citizen relations as one-way and cited GST refund issues as an example.
Andrew identified lawyers as committing the “biggest fraud” and described multiple legal actions he has brought, including to the Judicial Committee and U.S. courts.
21:53 Legal actions and corruption claims
Andrew states he brought four proceedings to the Judicial Committee (formerly the Privy Council) and actions in U.S. federal court, reported analogous corruption in Colorado and Australia, and warned of increasing legislative encroachments on rights and assets. He characterised failures to regulate lawyers as enabling corruption.
22:54 Request for personal history and offer to present documents
Andrew was asked for a brief overview of how his discovery and campaign began and requested context for his videos and materials. He replied that he would point to documents and perform a screen share to show evidence.
He outlined a campaign of direct communications to high-level offices and international regulators, including a letter (document 8509) to the Governor‑General and outreach to Hong Kong authorities.
24:36 Correspondence recipients and FOI addresses
Andrew reviewed recipients of his communications, including acting officials in the Governor‑General’s office, Australian Government Solicitors, and specific FOI and anti‑money laundering addresses. He listed individual legal contacts and departmental addresses he had included in his outreach.
26:23 Personal conflicts with judiciary and bankruptcy claim
Andrew recounted a prior appearance before a Supreme Court justice honored by Flinders University and described being told he could not appear because he was bankrupt. He said FOI disclosure from the ATO indicated that the sequestration related to that bankruptcy was unlawful and had been paid, implicating multiple regulatory agencies in suppressing citizens’ claims.
Andrew described receiving FOI disclosure from the ATO that, he says, showed an unlawful sequestration in respect of an alleged bankruptcy.
28:33 International outreach and banking claims
Andrew enumerated international recipients including Hong Kong regulators and financial entities and critiqued institutions that present as banks without active registration. He said he seeks recognition of his value as an investment in Hong Kong so the Hong Kong Monetary Authority could function as his central bank instead of the Reserve Bank of Australia. He concluded with a broad critique of the Reserve Bank and its leadership.
Andrew proposed having the Hong Kong Monetary Authority accept his value so it could function as his central bank instead of the Reserve Bank of Australia.
31:29 Enforcement proceedings and opening remarks
Andrew began by asserting the authenticity and seriousness of his enforcement proceedings and expressed strong frustration with lawyers and the legal system. He emphasized that the proceedings are substantial, adjourned sine die, and that he did not fabricate the underlying documents.
Andrew has initiated enforcement proceedings under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act that are adjourned sine die in the Hong Kong High Court.
Andrew intends to personally manage the Hong Kong proceedings because he does not trust lawyers to follow instructions.
32:28 Sources of authority and Michael Kirby correspondence
Andrew described the provenance of his claimed powers and related correspondence with Michael Kirby, including the April approach to Kirby’s chambers and Kirby’s refusal to engage because the matter may reach Australian courts. Andrew disputed Kirby’s position and pointed to voluminous exhibits that he says demonstrate the legal basis for his assertions.
Michael Kirby declined to engage with Andrew’s claim because the matter might come before Australian courts.
Andrew submitted vast documentary bundles and an index, claiming tens of thousands of pages of evidence supporting his asserted powers.
38:25 Trust funds, government challenges, and court filings
Andrew outlined ten trust funds and large-scale financial schemes he says were established for public benefit and that government trustees have breached their duties. He reviewed communications from the Australian Government Solicitor and described challenges to his status, while asserting he was appointed liquidator and managing controller with filings acknowledged by the Federal Court in 2020.
Andrew asserts he established ten state and territory trust funds and related schemes that have very large (he describes them as escalating) values which government trustees have failed to apply for public benefit.
Andrew claims appointment as liquidator and managing controller of Crown interests and says those appointments were lodged and acknowledged in Australian courts in 2020.
45:05 Document indexing, AI corpus, and audience Q&A setup
Andrew pointed attendees to searchable indices and large exhibit bundles and encouraged participants to read the public interest disclosure drive and related documents.
49:43 Deregistration and International Pressure
Jake asked whether the Crown Attorney‑General could simply deregister corporations to stop their operations, and Andrew responded that domestic deregistration would not be effective unless those entities comply and unless there is international pressure.
Domestic deregistration of corporate entities alone was judged unlikely to stop the conduct without international support and pressure.
50:57 International Courts and Political Oversight
Andrew argued that only international support and pressure can constrain allegedly corrupt agencies, described efforts to push matters into international courts, and referenced outreach to BRICS attorney‑generals as part of that strategy.
52:18 Agency Deference and Separation of Powers
The discussion reviewed U.S. case law overturning agency deference doctrines and connected those developments to the need for tribunals to refer legal questions to courts, citing changes to Australian administrative review laws as problematic for separation of powers.
54:22 Legal Profession and Systemic Enablers
Andrew and Jake blamed the legal profession for failing to regulate itself, argued that privatization of land registries enabled electronic manipulation, and said lawyers exploit procedural processes to maximize fees and obscure misconduct.
The group emphasised pursuing international legal avenues, including filings in foreign courts and outreach to BRICS attorney‑generals, as a strategy to exert pressure.
The legal profession and privatisation of land registries were identified as structural enablers of alleged corruption and asset appropriation.
58:04 Personal Background and Impact
Andrew recounted his personal and family background, described how prolonged legal battles and media attacks harmed his family, and reflected on whether his sons would engage given the emotional toll of the proceedings.
1:00:07 Public Use and Enforcement Debate
Mike agreed the system’s structure can be legitimate but criticised how it has been used as a form of coercion or “slavery,” and Andrew emphasised that the primary deficiency is enforcement rather than foundational law.
1:03:26 Miscarriages of Justice and Withheld Evidence
Andrew reviewed cases (Derek Bromley, Henry Keogh) alleging convictions based on unreliable forensic evidence and claimed that exculpatory material was withheld by officials, leading to decades of incarceration without full judicial remedies or compensation.
Several high‑profile wrongful‑imprisonment cases were presented as evidence of systemic failures to protect defendants and disclose exculpatory evidence.
1:08:16 Critique of the System and Tax Filing Issues
Participants began by acknowledging systemic failures in registration and reporting, noting that corporate registration in the U.S. and historical court findings led to gaps in financial instrument disclosures and tax liability handling. Mike and Andrew expressed a desire for a fair, ethical system and discussed broader consequences for public trust.
Participants characterised the current registration and reporting system as broken and cited historical legal findings to explain gaps in filings and tax liabilities.
1:10:08 Political and Institutional Accountability
The group discussed misconduct in legal and political institutions, describing recurring appointments and perceived corruption at the Reserve Bank and parliament that undermined reforms. Participants characterised entrenched actors as preventing meaningful change.
1:10:38 Lesley’s Introduction and Inquiry on Birth Registration
Lesley introduced herself, explained her shorter history of engagement, and framed her concern around the birth certificate as a foundational document that created legal title and obligations she contests. She asked whether claiming the name tied to the birth certificate could provide legal recourse.
1:12:09 Historical Trust Law and Money as Contract
Andrew traced the legal roots to the Sestakivi Trust Act and described how trust rules and contract theory underlie money and claims to assets, arguing that assets and value are a function of contract rather than physical currency limits. He connected historical practice to modern claims for compensation and trust settlement.
Andrew framed the birth certificate as a contractual instrument used to identify future taxpayers and pointed to historical trust law as the legal basis for remedies.
Form 206 (proof of life) was identified as a procedural path to seek settlement of trust funds.
1:18:09 Sovereign Citizen Arguments and Name Ownership Debate
Speakers examined sovereign-citizen themes and debated whether individuals need to “claim” their legal names when those names are used daily without Crown objection, with Andrew emphasising equitable rights through everyday usage. Lesley pushed for collapse of the presumption that she is the registered name and sought equitable recovery for damages tied to the foundational document.
1:18:55 Redress Fund, Asset Seizure, and Central Bank Issues
Andrew described issuing notices to seize trustee assets tied to the Crown, donating those assets to public funds, and building the National Redress Fund managed by People’s Lore of Terra Australis as the payer of beneficiaries. He argued the central bank must bring value into the system to enable payments and criticized appointments that undermined reform.
Andrew asserted he has seized trustee assets tied to the Crown and donated their value to public redress initiatives.
The National Redress Fund was presented as the operational vehicle for paying beneficiaries, contingent on central bank cooperation to bring value into the system.
1:26:01 Operational Steps, Proclamation, and International Recognition Efforts
The team reviewed the proclamation’s distribution and Andrew reported broad outreach without national responses while pursuing international recognition in Hong Kong under the Succession of States Treaty framework.
A proclamation and outreach have been circulated widely but have not prompted formal national responses; Andrew is seeking international recognition through Hong Kong under succession treaty mechanisms.
1:29:26 Definition of Value and Licensing Rationale
Andrew outlined his definition of money as anything of value and linked that definition to his approach of licensing intellectual property across jurisdictions. He stated that this divisionalisation is organized by tax jurisdiction.
Andrew confirms the definition of money as “anything of value.”
Andrew has issued territorial licenses for his intellectual property and maps them to tax jurisdictions.
Andrew recently granted a license covering Switzerland.
1:30:32 Licensing Identifiers and Pricing
Andrew referred to specific document numbers and license identifiers (AMG 9543A–E) and said the licenses include set pricing that was established at just over one euro. He acknowledged the volume of documentation and offered the group the option to review the records.
The licensing identifiers include AMG 9543A–E and carry a set pricing established previously.
The core documentation is extensive (about 1,270 pages) and includes a tax return for year ending June 2022 filed in court.
1:31:59 Practical Meaning of Grants
Andrew was asked what “granted licences” means in context, prompting him to explain that the licenses provide access to funds and authorize local operators to use balance-sheet value for projects with human-interest or commercial aims. Andrew suggested the tax return and notice of assessment best tell that story.
Andrew described the licenses as enabling access to funds and appointing local operators to use balance-sheet value for projects.
1:33:32 Tax Filing and Evidence Delivery
Andrew said the tax return and notice of assessment for the year ending June 2022 were filed in court and included a public interest disclosure delivered on a USB attached to the filing. He reported operating overheads of 28.38 million and stated income as “infinity” in that submission.
The submitted tax return listed operating overheads of 28.38 million and declared income as “infinity”.