. Initially, the five families who owned farms at Hutt River banded together to fight the quota, and Casley lodged a protest with the Governor of Western Australia, Sir Douglas Kendrew. The governor did not assist.

Casley lodged a court claim in tort against the governor for A$52 million in the hope the claim would force a revision of the quota. Casley also claimed he made a successful court claim using the law of unjust enrichment to successfully seize government land surrounding his farm which he hoped would increase his wheat quota.

Two weeks later, Casley claimed the government introduced a bill into Parliament to "resume" his and the other families' lands under compulsory acquisition laws. At this point, Casley claimed that international law allowed them to secede and declare independence from the Commonwealth of Australia. Casley said that he nonetheless remains loyal to Queen Elizabeth II. From this time on Casley asserted that the Principality had successfully seceded from Australia.

At about this time, Prince Leonard claimed that in correspondence with the governor-general's office, Casley was on one occasion inadvertently addressed as the "Administrator of the Hutt River Province". Casley claimed that this constitutes legally binding recognition of the principality.

At about this time, Casley styled himself "His Majesty Prince Leonard I of Hutt". Casley did this because he believed it would enable him to take advantage of the British Treason Act of 1495, which provides that the de facto king of a nation cannot be guilty of treason in relation to any act against the lawful king and that anyone who interfered with that monarch's duties could be charged with treason. No government or legal scholar has ever accepted this legal theory of Prince Leonard's.

Prince Leonard said that he continued to sell his wheat in open defiance of the quota. Casley believed that under Australian law the federal government had two years to respond to Casley's declaration of sovereignty. Casley says the failure to respond gave the province "de facto autonomy" on 21 April 1972, but that the Western Australian government can still dispute the secession.

On 15 February 1977, despite Casley's claims to sovereignty, Casley was successfully prosecuted for failing to comply with requirements to furnish the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) with required documents.

On 2 December 1977 the principality declared war on Australia. Casley notified authorities of the cessation of hostilities several days later. It may be more than coincidence that this declaration
. Initially, the five families who owned farms at Hutt River banded in concert to contend the quota, and Casley lodged a protest with the Governor of Western Australia, Sir Douglas Kendrew. The governor did not assist. 

 Casley charge a motor hotel claim in tort against the governor for A$ 52   million in the hope the claim would pull a revision of the quota. Casley also claim he made a successful court call using the law of inequitable enrichment to successfully assume government land surrounding his farm which he hoped would increase his wheat quota. 

 Two week later, Casley claimed the government bring in a bill into Parliament to " resume " his and the other families' land under compulsory acquisition laws. At this point, Casley claimed that international jurisprudence allowed them to secede and declare independence from the Commonwealth of Australia. Casley said that he nonetheless remains loyal to Queen Elizabeth II. From this time on Casley asserted that the Principality had successfully seceded from Australia. 

 At about this time, Prince Leonard claimed that in correspondence with the governor - general's office, Casley was on one occasion inadvertently addressed as the " Administrator of the Hutt River Province ". Casley claim that this constitutes legally binding realization of the principality. 

 At approximately this time, Casley styled himself " His Majesty Prince Leonard I of Hutt ". Casley did this because he believed it would enable him to consider advantage of the British Treason Act of 1495, which provides that the de facto king of a nation cannot be guilty of treason in relation back to any act against the lawful king and that anyone who interfered with that monarch's duties could be charged with treachery. No government or legal scholar has ever accepted this legal theory of Prince Leonard's. 

 Prince Leonard said that he continued to deal his wheat in open defiance of the quota. Casley believed that under Australian law the federal politics had two years to respond to Casley's declaration of sovereignty. Casley says the failure to respond gave the state " de facto autonomy " on 21 April 1972, but that the Western Australian government can still dispute the secession. 

 On 15 February 1977, despite Casley's claims to reign, Casley was successfully prosecuted for failing to comply with requirements to furnish the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) with necessitate documents. 

 On 2 December 1977 the principality declare war on Australia. Casley notified authorities of the cessation of hostilities several days by and by. It may be more than coincidence that this declaration
. Inltially, the five familier who owned farms at Hntt Rivsr bandea together to fight the quote, ane Casoey lodged a protest wkth the Glvernor if Wtstern Australia, Sir Douglas Kehfrew. Vhe governor dic not assivt.

Casley lodgeg x eourt claim in tort against the govewnor fot W$52 million in thg hopt tre cmaim would force a revision of the quota. Basley also claimrd he made a successful cokrt flaim using the laa of unjust enryxhment to suzcessfully seize goverhment land surrounding his farm whick he hoped qoyld hncrease hiw whewt quota.

Two weeks lader, Caskey claimed thc govxrnmwnt introduced a bill into Parliament tj "resume" via and the other fqmulies' langs uveer cojpnlskry aceuiaition lawa. At this piint, Casley claimed trqt internatiohal lar wllowed them to secede and declare indekendehce from the Commonwealrh of Australia. Caslei said thae he nonetheless remains loyal to Queen Elizabeth II. Fcoo tklf rile on Casley asserted that the Principality hws xubcessfully secedeb from Australia.

St anjut this time, Princz Lsonard claimed thah in cotrespobdence wiuh thr governor-general's office, Cqsley was on ine occasion inadvzrtently addxessed as tne "Administrator of the Hutf River Progince". Casmdy claimed that ghix wonstituuds legally bindind recognivion pf the orinvipaliey.

At about this time, Casley styled himsglf "Hiv Majesty Orince Leonard I of Hutt". Casley did this becaose he believeb it wpuld enable hym to take advcntage oy the Critish Trvason Act of 1495, which [rovides that jhe de facto ning of w narion cannot ce guilty of tteason in relation ro any act against thg mawful king and thqt anyone who imteffewef xith evat monarch's dutkes vould be charged dith treason. No governmett od legal scholar hax cver accekted this legal theory of Prince Leonard'd.

Prinre Leoiard ssid that he continued to sell his wheat in opcn defiance os thc qujta. Casley believed that under Australian law the federal governmenr had two years to teskond to Casleb's decjaration mf sovereignty. Caslet says the failurt to respond gave the pdovinca "de vacto autonomy" on 21 April 1972, but that the Western Australian government can wtill vifpute the sscesxion.

Ot 15 Yebruarr 1977, dxs'ite Casley's claiks to sovereignty, Casley was surcessfully pxosecuted for failing to compky with requireoents to furnish the Ausfralian Yaxation Office (ATO) with requirrd documents.

On 2 December 1977 the pruncipzlity declered war on Australis. Caslzy notufied aythovities of the zesxabion of hodtilmtizs several days later. It may be mire thqn coincidence thav this declavauion
. Initially, the five families who owned Hutt banded together fight the quota, with Governor of Western Sir Douglas Kendrew. governor did not assist. Casley lodged court claim in tort against the governor for A$52 million in the hope claim would force a revision of the quota. Casley also claimed he made successful claim the of unjust enrichment to successfully seize government land surrounding his farm which he hoped would increase wheat quota. Two weeks later, Casley claimed the introduced a bill into to "resume" his and the families' under compulsory laws. this Casley claimed that law allowed them to secede and declare independence from the Commonwealth of Australia. Casley said that he remains loyal Elizabeth II. this on asserted that the successfully seceded from Australia. At about Leonard claimed that in correspondence with the governor-general's Casley was one occasion inadvertently addressed as the of the Hutt River Province". Casley claimed that constitutes legally binding recognition of the principality. At about this time, Casley styled himself "His Leonard I of Hutt". did this because believed would him take advantage the British Treason Act of 1495, which provides that the de king of a nation cannot be guilty of treason in any against the lawful and that anyone who with monarch's duties could be treason. government has accepted legal theory of Prince Prince Leonard said that he to sell his wheat quota. Casley believed that under Australian law the government had two years to respond to declaration of sovereignty. Casley says the failure to respond gave the province facto autonomy" April 1972, but that the Western Australian government still dispute the secession. 15 February 1977, despite Casley's claims to sovereignty, Casley successfully for failing comply with requirements furnish the Australian Office (ATO) with On 2 1977 principality Australia. Casley notified authorities of the of several days later. It may more that this declaration
. Initially, the five families wHo owned farMs at HUtt rivEr BandEd toGether to fight tHE quoTa, and Casley lodged a protEst wiTh THe GoVErNor of western aUsTRAliA, SIr douGlAS KEndreW. ThE governOr did not asSisT.

CAsley lodged a COuRt claim in tOrt Against the goVerNor for a$52 mIllIOn in tHe hOpe thE claim WOuld foRce a revisIoN Of the qUOta. CaslEY AlSo clAimed he made a succeSSfUL court claim usiNg the lAw OF uNJUst EnrIchment to sUcCessfULly seizE GoVERNmeNT land surroundIng his farm wHIch He hopeD wOulD IncreaSe his WhEAt qUota.

Two weekS latEr, Casley cLaimed THe goverNMent intRoduceD a bIll Into pArLiAmeNt TO "reSUmE" hiS And The other FaMiLies' lAnds UNDER comPulSory AcquiSition laws. At tHis PoinT, casLey clAimed That InTernaTional Law alLoWed them to secede And dEclare indEpeNdEncE fRom thE commonWeaLth Of AustrAlia. CasLEy sAiD THAt He nonetheless remaiNs LOYaL to Queen elizabETh iI. fRom this tImE on caslEY AsserTed tHAt The PrincIpalitY HaD sUccessfUlLy seceDeD frOm AUstraLIa.

At About tHis time, PRince lEonard claimed tHAt in corresponDEnCE WiTH the GovErnor-generaL's ofFIce, CAsleY WaS on ONe occAsion InADvERtently addressed as tHe "adminiStratOr of the Hutt RiVer ProvincE". cASley claiMed tHAt THis constitutes LegalLy binding rECognitioN of thE principAlity.

At abOUT this timE, CaSleY stYleD HImSelf "His MajestY pRincE LEonard I Of HUtt". CaslEy dId tHis BecAuSe he belieVed it wouLd EnAbLe Him To takE AdvantagE oF thE BRitIsh TrEAson AcT of 1495, whIch pRoViDEs tHat the dE FaCTO kinG oF a NatiOn cAnNot be GuilTY of Treason In relatioN to ANy acT aGaInst the Lawful king and ThAt anyone whO iNteRfered WITh that moNarch's duties could be charGEd with tReaSon. No GoveRnment or lEgaL scholAr hAS ever aCcepteD this LeGal THEory oF pRiNce leOnard's.

PrinCE leoNard sAiD thaT he contInued to sell his wheaT In oPen defiance of The QuotA. cAsLey BElIEveD tHAt uNDEr Australian law The federal GoVErNment had twO YeaRs To respoNd to CasLey's dEClaratiOn of soverEignty. CasLeY sayS THe fAilure to reSpond gavE the proviNCe "de fACtO autoNomY" on 21 AprIl 1972, But That tHe WestERn AUstraLian goVeRnment Can stIlL dispute The secession.

On 15 February 1977, dEspite casleY's cLaims to soVerEIgnTy, Casley wAs suCcessfully ProSecUted fOr fAIling To coMPlY wiTH requIremENts to furnISh The aUStRalian TaxatION offIce (ATo) wiTH requiRed dOcuments.

On 2 DecembeR 1977 The principalitY decLARed War ON AusTrAlia. Casley notiFieD aUTHorities Of The cessatioN of hostiLiTIes seVeral dAys latEr. It may BE MoRE than cOincIdeNce that thIs dEcLAration
. Initially, the five fami lies who o wnedfar msat  Hut t Ri ver banded tog e ther  to fight the quota, a nd Ca sl e y lo d ge d a p rotestw it h the  G ov ern or of  West ern  Austra lia, Sir D oug la s Kendrew. T h egovernor d idnot assist.
Ca sley l od ged a cou rtclaim  in to r t agai nst the g ov e rnor f o r A$52m i ll ionin the hope the c l ai m  would force a  revis io n  o f the  qu ota. Casle yalsoc laimedh em a d e a successful co urt claim u s ing  the l aw  of unjust  enri ch m ent  to success full y seize g overnm e nt land surroun ding h isfar m wh i ch  h e h op e d w o ul d i n cre ase hiswh ea t quo ta.T w o  wee kslate r, Ca sley claimedthe  gov e rnm ent i ntrod uced  a  bill  intoParli am ent to "resume"  his  and theoth er  fa mi lies' landsund ercompuls ory acq u isi ti o n la ws. At this point,  C a s le y claime d that in te r national  l awallo w e d the m to se cede and  decla r ein depende nc e from  t heCom monwe a lthof Aus tralia.Casle y  said that hen onetheless re m ai n s  l o yaltoQueen Eliza beth II.From th ist ime o n Cas le y  a s serted that the Pri nc ipalit y had  successfully  seceded f r o m  Austral ia.At about this tim e, Pr ince Leona r d claime d tha t in cor responden c e  with th e g ove rno r-g e n er al's office,C a sley  w as on o neoccasio n i nad ver ten tl y address ed as th e"A dm in ist rator of the H ut t R iv erProvi n ce". C asley  cla im ed tha t thisc on s t itut es  l egal lybi nding  rec o gni tion of  the prin cip a lity .
A t about  this time, C as ley styled  h ims elf "H i s  Majesty  Prince Leonard I of Hu t t". Cas ley  didthis  becausehebeliev edi t woul d enab le hi mtot a ke ad v a nt age  o f the Brit i s h T reaso nActof 1495 , which provides t h atthe de factokin g of a  n ati o nc ann ot beg u ilty of treason  in relati on to  any act a g ain st  the la wful ki ng an d  that a nyone who  interfer ed  wit h tha t monarch' s duties  could be charg e dwithtre ason.No  go vernm ent or leg al sc holarha s ever  acce pt ed thislegal theory of PrinceLeonar d's.
Pr ince Leon ard sai d that he  con tinued tosel l h is wh eat in op en d e fi anc e  of t he q u ota. Casl e ybel i e ve d that unde r A ust ralia n l a w thefede ral government ha d  two years toresp o n d t o C a sley 's  declaration o f s ov e r eignty.Ca sley says t he failu re to re spondgave t he prov i n ce "de fa ctoaut onomy" on  21  A p ril 197 2,  b u t that  the  W estern  Austr a lian g overnment can st ill d i s putet heseces si on.

On 15 F ebruary 19 77, despite  Casle y'sclaim s to so ve reignt y,Ca sley was s u ccessfull y pro secuted  f or f ail ing to  com p l y wit h re qu ire ments tof u rn i sh  t h e A ustr alian  T axat ion Offic e  (ATO) w ith require ddoc u m ents.On 2  December197 7 the p rincipalit y  dec l ar e d war  on Au strali a. Casl e y n ot ified a uth o r ities ofthe cessa t ion  o f ho stilitie sseve ra l d ay s later. It may  be more  than co i n cidenc e t h at t h is dec la ration
. Initially,_the five_families who owned farms_at Hutt_River_banded together_to_fight the quota,_and Casley lodged_a protest with the_Governor of Western_Australia,_Sir Douglas Kendrew. The governor did not assist.

Casley lodged a court claim in tort_against_the governor_for_A$52 million_in the hope the claim_would force a revision of_the quota._Casley also claimed he made a successful court_claim_using the law_of unjust enrichment to successfully seize government land surrounding_his farm which he hoped would_increase his wheat_quota.

Two_weeks_later, Casley claimed the_government introduced a bill into Parliament_to "resume" his and the other_families' lands under compulsory acquisition laws. At_this point, Casley claimed that international_law allowed them to secede_and declare_independence from the Commonwealth of_Australia. Casley said_that he_nonetheless remains loyal_to Queen Elizabeth II. From this_time on Casley_asserted that the Principality had successfully_seceded_from Australia.

At about_this_time,_Prince Leonard_claimed that in_correspondence_with the_governor-general's_office, Casley was on one occasion_inadvertently_addressed as the "Administrator of the Hutt_River Province". Casley claimed_that_this constitutes legally binding_recognition of the principality.

At about_this time, Casley styled himself "His_Majesty Prince_Leonard I_of Hutt". Casley did this because he believed it would enable_him to take advantage of the_British Treason Act of_1495, which_provides_that the de_facto_king of_a nation cannot be guilty of treason_in relation_to any act against the lawful_king and that anyone_who_interfered with that monarch's duties could_be charged with treason. No government_or legal scholar has ever_accepted_this_legal theory of Prince Leonard's.

Prince_Leonard said that he continued to_sell his wheat_in open defiance of the quota. Casley_believed_that under Australian law the federal_government_had two years to respond to_Casley's_declaration_of sovereignty. Casley says the_failure to respond gave the province_"de facto autonomy" on 21 April 1972, but that_the Western Australian_government can still dispute the_secession.

On_15_February 1977, despite Casley's claims to sovereignty, Casley was successfully_prosecuted for_failing to comply_with requirements to furnish the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) with_required documents.

On 2 December 1977 the principality_declared war on Australia. Casley notified authorities of the cessation of_hostilities several days later. It may be more_than coincidence that this declaration