The Entire Australian Parliament & Legal System Is Void!
Valid Law and Government Does Not Exist In Australia!!!
All Australian laws assented to on behalf of a British Monarch, by any non-legally appointed Governor-General of Australia since 1919, cannot hold any valid or legal executive authority, as all of the Governor-Generals appointments have been issued incorrectly.
The “Old Colonial” defunct British Constitutional law, used and applied as the basis of all law in Australia, has held no valid authority in law since 1919.
The Australian people will have to finish off what Prime Minister William Morris-Hughes set out to achieve in 1919. A “new” ALL-Australian Constitution will have to be created and voted in by the people for the people.
Australians at long last, will have the opportunity to have their say, on how they wish to be governed and taxed. British lawyers are already saying, “that a legal picnic is about to unfold.”
Those who have deliberately concealed the truth from the Australian people, will now be called upon to answer for their actions.
“Australian Government Now Officially Illegal”.
The Australia of today has sadly lost the liberty of yesteryears. The government has not been the government of the people, consequently, the employed have become the disemployed, our industries have been moved offshore, our farmers have been forced off their land, the peoples utilities have been handed over to private investment, our wealth has been exported, the foreign debt hangs like a millstone around the neck of each Australian present and future, our very means of livelihood has been legislated away!
To learn that to become a Member of the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia is to commit an act of treason against the sovereign people of Australia will no doubt result in a reaction of incredulity.
To learn that to become a Member of the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia is to commit an act of treason against the sovereign people of Australia will no doubt result in a reaction of incredulity.
In fact it would be reasonable to anticipate that the reader of such a statement would be inclined to immediately reject this without further examination.
Similarly, the bold assertion that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is invalid at first appears ludicrous. As the fundamental law of the Australian Nation, if it were invalid, then all Australian Governments – Commonwealth, State and Territorial – have no legal basis for their continued existence, no valid authority to pass and enforce legislation, and no authority to enter contracts or bind the Australian people by Treaty.
The consequences could be catastrophic, both within Australia and internationally. Yet, the consequences should not influence a disinterested analysis of the basis of that situation.
The fundamental facts which give rise to the accuracy of the above statements are indeed simple and were succinctly stated a few years ago by the late Professor G. Clements (an eminent UK QC and emeritus Professor in law at Cambridge). He summed up the situation thus;
“The continued usage of the Australian Constitution Act (UK) by the Australian Governments and the judiciary is a confidence trick of monstrous proportions played upon the Australian people with the intent of maintaining power. It remains an Act of the United Kingdom. After joining the League of Nations in 1919 Australia became a sovereign nation. It had no further legal power to use, alter or otherwise tamper with another nation’s legislation. Authority over the Australian Constitution Act lies not with the Australian government nor with the Australian people, it rests solely with the UK. Only they have the authority to repeal this legislation”.
In other words, every Member and Senator in Australian Parliament has committed an Act of treason by swearing and subscribing to an oath to serve the government of a power foreign to Australia.
To underline this, the Constitution (embraced by Australian parliamentarians) at section 42, dictates that they must all swear and subscribe an oath of allegiance to the current Monarch in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (Confirmed by letter from the Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives dated 10th June 1999 and signed by Robyn Webber, Director, Chamber Research Office). But because the Monarch is appointed under the provisions of UK legislation and is therefore subordinate to the UK legislature (i.e. ‘the Queen in Parliament’) in point of legal fact, Parliamentarians, Senators and others have actually sworn an oath of allegiance to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Quite clearly this constitutes an act of treason against the sovereign people of Australia. The Oath appears as the schedule to the Act and being outside ‘The Constitution’ is beyond the reach of Section 128, and thus, may not be altered by any authority outside the UK Parliament.
Further, The ‘Queen of Australia’ is purely titular. If indeed such an Office exists at all it does so without legal authority!
By using UK law to claim power, parliamentarians and others become agents of a foreign power.
By relying on this current Act of domestic law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom the Australian Parliament is definable as an extension of the Parliament of the UK. The Governor-General, State and Territory Governors, individual parliamentarians, Senators and all others involved in government, including members of the judiciary, are definable as agents of the UK. That is, agents of a power foreign to the Nation State, the Commonwealth of Australia. This scenario manifests right down to the policeman on the beat!
The much-vaunted Statute of Westminster Act 1931 (UK) was a thinly veiled attempt to patch up a broken legal system for the Dominions. Since it was design to operate beyond the shores of the UK, it failed the requirement under Article XVIII of the Covenant of the League of Nations as it was not registered with the Secretariat, and therefore never became a valid international instrument. It had no operational effect beyond thew shores where it was created, the United Kingdom.
From October 1st, 1919 the British Monarch became irrelevant to Australia.
From October 1st 1919 Australia became a republic.
From October 1st, 1919 it has been necessary to create a political and judicial system capable of bridging the legal void created when sovereignty changed from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the people of Australia.
That necessity still exists today!
This change in Australia’s status from a “colony” to being “accepted fully into the community of nations of the whole world” is required and confirmed, in the Balfour Declaration 1929.
It must be noted that; Attempts to “patch up the Constitutional mess” continued and continue to this day, with the concealment of the truth from the Australian people!
Adopting the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) in 1942, and making it commence retroactively from the 3rd September 1939, was an attempt to rule out any illegality of involvement in WWII by not having formally declared war on Germany 3 years earlier. The Statute was adopted at the time the newly appointed Prime Minister was declaring war on Japan, and the Australian Parliament needed to be sure of it’s power to do so.
The concealment continues with 2 more documents. The first being “The Letters Patent Relating to her Office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia” which was gazetted on the 24th August 1984 after being signed 3 days earlier at Balmoral in the United Kingdom. Under UK law, the writs of the sovereign die with the sovereign. But when Queen Victoria died on the 21st January, 1900, no new Letters Patent were issued until August 1984! This was 4 (not 5) monarchs later. These Letters Patent also had a clause to cover any ‘invalid’ Commission or appointment or any action taken by someone so commissioned or appointed without authority. This is the effect of clause VII.
The next document(s) created to continue the concealment was the passage of the Australia Acts (see web address for Australia Acts (Cth) & (UK)) through both the UK and the Australian Parliaments, in 1985, to commence in 1986.
Contrary to international law, both of these Acts attempted to infringe sovereignty of another nation, were not registered as required under the Charter of the United Nations to have extra-territorial effect, and consequently, can not be relied on in any international forum.
Notwithstanding the international status of the Australia Act 1986 (Cth), the preamble and several clauses clearly indicate that British colonial law was continuing in the sovereign independent Australia, and that from the commencement of this Act, all such colonial law, as well as the UK government, will have no effect. If this was not the case, than there would not be any need to have an Australia Act, let alone 2 of them.
There are several major structural problems associated with the Australia Act (Cth), and since it is continually referred to in judicial decisions, it is worthwhile noting these problems.
(1) First, it does not remove all existing British law used in Australia. It only refers to new British law. Any Australian lawyer can testify that the Commonwealth and State Statute books are pregnant with British law, the most obvious being the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
(2) Second, the termination of British law in Australia that is supposed to occur with this Act, when challenged, will be determined in a court which is dependent for it’s existence on the very same British law!
(3) Thirdly, Australia continues to have a monarch who derives her power from the British Parliament, and she remains the Executive Head of Government of the six Australian States. So to exercise her power in those States, her power must be seen as an extension of power of the UK Parliament.
(4) Lastly, at the very time that the Australia Acts came into law in Australia to prevent the UK Government from interfering in Australian matters (see also Sue v Hill HCA 30 of 1999), the Letters Patent relating to the Governors of South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia was signed off by none other than Sir Anthony Derek Maxwell Oulton, KCB, QC, MA, Ph.D., Permanent Secretary, Lord Chancellors Office, UK Parliament!
While all of this is relevant and pertinent, it is as well to be aware that on, 19th December 1997 the Office of Legal Council of the General Secretariat of the United Nations volunteered and thus confirmed that Australia has been a sovereign State from the 24th October 1945 at the latest. This was confirmed by letter dated 19th December 1997, from the Acting Director and Deputy to the Under-Secretary-General, Office of the Legal Counsel, under the hand of Paul C. Szasz.
On the 5th November 1999, the UK Government through their High Commission in Canberra, volunteered and thus confirmed that the UK British Nationality Act 1948 legislated that Australia was not a protectorate of the United Kingdom, so both the UN and the UK have confirmed that for at least 53 years Australia has been an independent sovereign nation State. This was confirmed by letter dated 5th November 1999, from the Chief Passport Examiner, British High Commission, Canberra, under the hand of Mrs Carole Turner.
As a consequence, under both international and UK law the UK Parliament’s ‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’ has been ultra vires in relation to Australia for at least 53 years. So, for purposes of definition and resolution there is no fundamental need to look any further back into history.
Recent confirmations establish invalidity of the political and judicial system currently being applied in Australia!
Clearly the Commonwealth Government of Australia is invalid!
As a consequence, no law made in the Australian Parliament has valid application in Australia, or anywhere else.
The only law that can be validly applied in Australia is international law, and possibly the common law of Australia.
The simple fact of the matter is, there is a fundamental and urgent need to place before the Australian citizenry a new, if interim, Constitution under which they are prepared to be governed with a view to allowing the appropriate mechanisms to be established which would enable a democratically decided Constitution to be agreed to and implemented.
However, there maybe serious consequences for the international community as a result of invalid Australian Governments entering into both international treaties and contracts.
Regarding contracts, by way of a simple example, multi-national insurance companies having entered into insurance contracts which operate within the territory of Australia or under Australian law may hold contracts which are void ab initio owing to a fundamental breach of the insured’s duty of disclosure. The documents which unequivocally demonstrate the issues outlined above are inherently public documents which have been easily accessible for years.
A broader issue, likewise, arises with regard to the quantum of any damages claim that could foreseeably be made against the UK before the European Court of Justice, because given that the High Court of Australia has ruled that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Imp) is not ultra vires in Australia, and that all subordinate legislation is still subject to the limitations imposed by that domestic law of the UK, is Australia still therefore, a colony of the UK?
If so, will citizens in Australia be granted their full rights as European Citizens resident in a colony of a Member State, including the right to freely enter each Member State and trade therein without restriction or penalty (other than those prescribed by the law of the EEC for members of the European Community)?
Will damages be appropriate for the period that residents of Australia were denied such access to these European markets?
Has the UK denied the citizens resident in Australia, who by referendum on 6th November 1999, rejected the continued use of the domestic British Law, the right to self determination in contravention of International Law, the treaty establishing the European Community, the Charter of the United Nations and other treaties?
Has the UK, by subterfuge, attempted to conceal from the European Community, the real nature and depth of it’s continued involvement in the governments of Australia? If so, at what cost?
Alternatively, do the Member States of the European Union, having recognised the sovereign independence of the Australian people owe a duty, of the Covenant of the League of Nations and under Articles 2 and 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, to prevent continued illegal dominance of Australian citizens by the UK?
Are such States liable for damages if they remain inactive in this regard?
Given that the High Court of Australia has declared that even though citizens resident in Australia are governed under domestic British Legislation, they are denied the fundamental Human Rights conferred on British citizens by the same UK Parliament through both common law and through the accession of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (See the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK).
Are judicial officers within Australia – all of whom are appointed under UK legislation and commissioned by Governors and Governors-General appointed by the UK Parliament – in breach of the said Covenant?
If so, to what extent will liability be found to rest with the UK Parliament, given that despite official declarations as to Australia’s independence, that Parliament has maintained a colonial regime in Australia through force majeure?
Moreover, the status of many people who have been granted Australian Citizenship under the provisions of the National Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) has – in a limited number of cases – already been questioned, for apart from the established arguments as to the invalidity of the ‘Australian’ Constitution, which inturn renders the National Citizenship Act 1948 invalid, there exists no power within the Constitution to create other than British citizens!
YES! THE SITUATION IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS!
And yes, by definition, Australia currently exists in a state of legal anarchy!
And yes, there is reason to believe that the international community is very concerned.
After all, what is the worth of an international treaty which has been signed by an authority which does not validly represent the sovereignty of the State?
Over a number of years senior political identities of all persuasions within Australia including Prime Ministers, Attorneys-General and other senior Cabinet Minister together with minor party leaders have been fully briefed.
The documents of history have been presented to Australian Courts at all levels. Currently there are matters before other courts outside of Australia.
Having exhausted all possible avenues for domestic remedy and recognizing that, in fact, the situation is so serious that there exists a very real potential for a total breakdown in ‘law and order’, an appeal for assistance has been advanced to the entire international community.
The mechanism by which this was achieved has been by way of a 480 page submission individually presented to all 185 Member States of the United Nations as well as to, Kofi Annan the General Secretariat, the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Committee and the Security Council.
The document includes a request for the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal to prosecute individuals who can be shown to have inhibited the inalienable right of Australian citizens to self-determination by knowingly subjecting Australian citizens to British colonial law within the sovereign territory of the Commonwealth of Australia.
It is clear that along the way the situation will be, by necessity, brought before the International Court of Justice.
Advice from three continents is that there exists no counter argument, and that therefore the outcome is a forgone conclusion.
All nations have received the submission. No nation has returned or rejected it. Many nations have confirmed and/or are actively giving their support to the Sovereign People of Australia.
It is to be hoped that Australia’s unique constitutional conundrum and associated problems flowing therefrom can be expeditiously and peacefully rectified, however it is incumbent upon lawyers, academics, politicians and the general public to be fully aware of the situation and its implications so as to be able to offer informed advice when this is sought.
What can the Australian people do to overcome this situation?
To introduce a fresh Constitution is the only reasonable answer, in accordance with international law.
How do we do that?
The first thing not to do is to ask for government permission, as it will be refused. There is no need to ask permission from any authority, the authority only exists in the authority of the people that is backed by international law and the human right to do so!
The universal problem we face in Australia is how to introduce a fresh constitution.
Similarly, the bold assertion that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is invalid at first appears ludicrous. As the fundamental law of the Australian Nation, if it were invalid, then all Australian Governments – Commonwealth, State and Territorial – have no legal basis for their continued existence, no valid authority to pass and enforce legislation, and no authority to enter contracts or bind the Australian people by Treaty.
The consequences could be catastrophic, both within Australia and internationally. Yet, the consequences should not influence a disinterested analysis of the basis of that situation.
The fundamental facts which give rise to the accuracy of the above statements are indeed simple and were succinctly stated a few years ago by the late Professor G. Clements (an eminent UK QC and emeritus Professor in law at Cambridge). He summed up the situation thus;
“The continued usage of the Australian Constitution Act (UK) by the Australian Governments and the judiciary is a confidence trick of monstrous proportions played upon the Australian people with the intent of maintaining power. It remains an Act of the United Kingdom. After joining the League of Nations in 1919 Australia became a sovereign nation. It had no further legal power to use, alter or otherwise tamper with another nation’s legislation. Authority over the Australian Constitution Act lies not with the Australian government nor with the Australian people, it rests solely with the UK. Only they have the authority to repeal this legislation”.
In other words, every Member and Senator in Australian Parliament has committed an Act of treason by swearing and subscribing to an oath to serve the government of a power foreign to Australia.
To underline this, the Constitution (embraced by Australian parliamentarians) at section 42, dictates that they must all swear and subscribe an oath of allegiance to the current Monarch in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (Confirmed by letter from the Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives dated 10th June 1999 and signed by Robyn Webber, Director, Chamber Research Office). But because the Monarch is appointed under the provisions of UK legislation and is therefore subordinate to the UK legislature (i.e. ‘the Queen in Parliament’) in point of legal fact, Parliamentarians, Senators and others have actually sworn an oath of allegiance to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Quite clearly this constitutes an act of treason against the sovereign people of Australia. The Oath appears as the schedule to the Act and being outside ‘The Constitution’ is beyond the reach of Section 128, and thus, may not be altered by any authority outside the UK Parliament.
Further, The ‘Queen of Australia’ is purely titular. If indeed such an Office exists at all it does so without legal authority!
By using UK law to claim power, parliamentarians and others become agents of a foreign power.
By relying on this current Act of domestic law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom the Australian Parliament is definable as an extension of the Parliament of the UK. The Governor-General, State and Territory Governors, individual parliamentarians, Senators and all others involved in government, including members of the judiciary, are definable as agents of the UK. That is, agents of a power foreign to the Nation State, the Commonwealth of Australia. This scenario manifests right down to the policeman on the beat!
The much-vaunted Statute of Westminster Act 1931 (UK) was a thinly veiled attempt to patch up a broken legal system for the Dominions. Since it was design to operate beyond the shores of the UK, it failed the requirement under Article XVIII of the Covenant of the League of Nations as it was not registered with the Secretariat, and therefore never became a valid international instrument. It had no operational effect beyond thew shores where it was created, the United Kingdom.
From October 1st, 1919 the British Monarch became irrelevant to Australia.
From October 1st 1919 Australia became a republic.
From October 1st, 1919 it has been necessary to create a political and judicial system capable of bridging the legal void created when sovereignty changed from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the people of Australia.
That necessity still exists today!
This change in Australia’s status from a “colony” to being “accepted fully into the community of nations of the whole world” is required and confirmed, in the Balfour Declaration 1929.
It must be noted that; Attempts to “patch up the Constitutional mess” continued and continue to this day, with the concealment of the truth from the Australian people!
Adopting the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) in 1942, and making it commence retroactively from the 3rd September 1939, was an attempt to rule out any illegality of involvement in WWII by not having formally declared war on Germany 3 years earlier. The Statute was adopted at the time the newly appointed Prime Minister was declaring war on Japan, and the Australian Parliament needed to be sure of it’s power to do so.
The concealment continues with 2 more documents. The first being “The Letters Patent Relating to her Office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia” which was gazetted on the 24th August 1984 after being signed 3 days earlier at Balmoral in the United Kingdom. Under UK law, the writs of the sovereign die with the sovereign. But when Queen Victoria died on the 21st January, 1900, no new Letters Patent were issued until August 1984! This was 4 (not 5) monarchs later. These Letters Patent also had a clause to cover any ‘invalid’ Commission or appointment or any action taken by someone so commissioned or appointed without authority. This is the effect of clause VII.
The next document(s) created to continue the concealment was the passage of the Australia Acts (see web address for Australia Acts (Cth) & (UK)) through both the UK and the Australian Parliaments, in 1985, to commence in 1986.
Contrary to international law, both of these Acts attempted to infringe sovereignty of another nation, were not registered as required under the Charter of the United Nations to have extra-territorial effect, and consequently, can not be relied on in any international forum.
Notwithstanding the international status of the Australia Act 1986 (Cth), the preamble and several clauses clearly indicate that British colonial law was continuing in the sovereign independent Australia, and that from the commencement of this Act, all such colonial law, as well as the UK government, will have no effect. If this was not the case, than there would not be any need to have an Australia Act, let alone 2 of them.
There are several major structural problems associated with the Australia Act (Cth), and since it is continually referred to in judicial decisions, it is worthwhile noting these problems.
(1) First, it does not remove all existing British law used in Australia. It only refers to new British law. Any Australian lawyer can testify that the Commonwealth and State Statute books are pregnant with British law, the most obvious being the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
(2) Second, the termination of British law in Australia that is supposed to occur with this Act, when challenged, will be determined in a court which is dependent for it’s existence on the very same British law!
(3) Thirdly, Australia continues to have a monarch who derives her power from the British Parliament, and she remains the Executive Head of Government of the six Australian States. So to exercise her power in those States, her power must be seen as an extension of power of the UK Parliament.
(4) Lastly, at the very time that the Australia Acts came into law in Australia to prevent the UK Government from interfering in Australian matters (see also Sue v Hill HCA 30 of 1999), the Letters Patent relating to the Governors of South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia was signed off by none other than Sir Anthony Derek Maxwell Oulton, KCB, QC, MA, Ph.D., Permanent Secretary, Lord Chancellors Office, UK Parliament!
While all of this is relevant and pertinent, it is as well to be aware that on, 19th December 1997 the Office of Legal Council of the General Secretariat of the United Nations volunteered and thus confirmed that Australia has been a sovereign State from the 24th October 1945 at the latest. This was confirmed by letter dated 19th December 1997, from the Acting Director and Deputy to the Under-Secretary-General, Office of the Legal Counsel, under the hand of Paul C. Szasz.
On the 5th November 1999, the UK Government through their High Commission in Canberra, volunteered and thus confirmed that the UK British Nationality Act 1948 legislated that Australia was not a protectorate of the United Kingdom, so both the UN and the UK have confirmed that for at least 53 years Australia has been an independent sovereign nation State. This was confirmed by letter dated 5th November 1999, from the Chief Passport Examiner, British High Commission, Canberra, under the hand of Mrs Carole Turner.
As a consequence, under both international and UK law the UK Parliament’s ‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’ has been ultra vires in relation to Australia for at least 53 years. So, for purposes of definition and resolution there is no fundamental need to look any further back into history.
Recent confirmations establish invalidity of the political and judicial system currently being applied in Australia!
Clearly the Commonwealth Government of Australia is invalid!
As a consequence, no law made in the Australian Parliament has valid application in Australia, or anywhere else.
The only law that can be validly applied in Australia is international law, and possibly the common law of Australia.
The simple fact of the matter is, there is a fundamental and urgent need to place before the Australian citizenry a new, if interim, Constitution under which they are prepared to be governed with a view to allowing the appropriate mechanisms to be established which would enable a democratically decided Constitution to be agreed to and implemented.
However, there maybe serious consequences for the international community as a result of invalid Australian Governments entering into both international treaties and contracts.
Regarding contracts, by way of a simple example, multi-national insurance companies having entered into insurance contracts which operate within the territory of Australia or under Australian law may hold contracts which are void ab initio owing to a fundamental breach of the insured’s duty of disclosure. The documents which unequivocally demonstrate the issues outlined above are inherently public documents which have been easily accessible for years.
A broader issue, likewise, arises with regard to the quantum of any damages claim that could foreseeably be made against the UK before the European Court of Justice, because given that the High Court of Australia has ruled that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Imp) is not ultra vires in Australia, and that all subordinate legislation is still subject to the limitations imposed by that domestic law of the UK, is Australia still therefore, a colony of the UK?
If so, will citizens in Australia be granted their full rights as European Citizens resident in a colony of a Member State, including the right to freely enter each Member State and trade therein without restriction or penalty (other than those prescribed by the law of the EEC for members of the European Community)?
Will damages be appropriate for the period that residents of Australia were denied such access to these European markets?
Has the UK denied the citizens resident in Australia, who by referendum on 6th November 1999, rejected the continued use of the domestic British Law, the right to self determination in contravention of International Law, the treaty establishing the European Community, the Charter of the United Nations and other treaties?
Has the UK, by subterfuge, attempted to conceal from the European Community, the real nature and depth of it’s continued involvement in the governments of Australia? If so, at what cost?
Alternatively, do the Member States of the European Union, having recognised the sovereign independence of the Australian people owe a duty, of the Covenant of the League of Nations and under Articles 2 and 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, to prevent continued illegal dominance of Australian citizens by the UK?
Are such States liable for damages if they remain inactive in this regard?
Given that the High Court of Australia has declared that even though citizens resident in Australia are governed under domestic British Legislation, they are denied the fundamental Human Rights conferred on British citizens by the same UK Parliament through both common law and through the accession of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (See the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK).
Are judicial officers within Australia – all of whom are appointed under UK legislation and commissioned by Governors and Governors-General appointed by the UK Parliament – in breach of the said Covenant?
If so, to what extent will liability be found to rest with the UK Parliament, given that despite official declarations as to Australia’s independence, that Parliament has maintained a colonial regime in Australia through force majeure?
Moreover, the status of many people who have been granted Australian Citizenship under the provisions of the National Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) has – in a limited number of cases – already been questioned, for apart from the established arguments as to the invalidity of the ‘Australian’ Constitution, which inturn renders the National Citizenship Act 1948 invalid, there exists no power within the Constitution to create other than British citizens!
YES! THE SITUATION IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS!
And yes, by definition, Australia currently exists in a state of legal anarchy!
And yes, there is reason to believe that the international community is very concerned.
After all, what is the worth of an international treaty which has been signed by an authority which does not validly represent the sovereignty of the State?
Over a number of years senior political identities of all persuasions within Australia including Prime Ministers, Attorneys-General and other senior Cabinet Minister together with minor party leaders have been fully briefed.
The documents of history have been presented to Australian Courts at all levels. Currently there are matters before other courts outside of Australia.
Having exhausted all possible avenues for domestic remedy and recognizing that, in fact, the situation is so serious that there exists a very real potential for a total breakdown in ‘law and order’, an appeal for assistance has been advanced to the entire international community.
The mechanism by which this was achieved has been by way of a 480 page submission individually presented to all 185 Member States of the United Nations as well as to, Kofi Annan the General Secretariat, the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Committee and the Security Council.
The document includes a request for the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal to prosecute individuals who can be shown to have inhibited the inalienable right of Australian citizens to self-determination by knowingly subjecting Australian citizens to British colonial law within the sovereign territory of the Commonwealth of Australia.
It is clear that along the way the situation will be, by necessity, brought before the International Court of Justice.
Advice from three continents is that there exists no counter argument, and that therefore the outcome is a forgone conclusion.
All nations have received the submission. No nation has returned or rejected it. Many nations have confirmed and/or are actively giving their support to the Sovereign People of Australia.
It is to be hoped that Australia’s unique constitutional conundrum and associated problems flowing therefrom can be expeditiously and peacefully rectified, however it is incumbent upon lawyers, academics, politicians and the general public to be fully aware of the situation and its implications so as to be able to offer informed advice when this is sought.
What can the Australian people do to overcome this situation?
To introduce a fresh Constitution is the only reasonable answer, in accordance with international law.
How do we do that?
The first thing not to do is to ask for government permission, as it will be refused. There is no need to ask permission from any authority, the authority only exists in the authority of the people that is backed by international law and the human right to do so!
The universal problem we face in Australia is how to introduce a fresh constitution.
In consideration of the fact that virtually ALL of the Constitutional entities in ALL of the Western/Christian countries were bankrupted or went into receivership at the same time in 1929, it is also therefore possible that the STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER itself is nothing more than a corporate mirror-image, rather than an actual IMPERIAL act of British Parliament.
For Example:
The term “AUSTRALIA” when used by the courts does not refer to the land mass country known as Australia but to the CORPORATION the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA established around 1929 unless specifically or impliedly stated otherwise.
The AUSTRALIA ACT 1986 is the CORPORATE CHARTER for the corporation known as AUSTRALIA and AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS are PERSONS of which the Creator has no respect for, who only have benefits and priveleges and no Constitutional rights – this unfortunately is the absolute majority of the population.
So there appears to have taken place the following since 1900:
1. The Original Constitutional Commonwealth of Australia with Queen Elizabeth the Second, living flesh and blood reigning Monarch.
2. The Corporation known as COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA with a SEC filing in Washington DC filed in 1934. [A SOVEREIGN NATION WHICH DOES NOT MEAN A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY – it means a corporation or nation state with Sovereign power – eg, established by the creditor to whom the debts of the original Commonwealth of Australia were owed to – the IMF/UN/CROWN/International banksters].
3. The Corporation known as AUSTRALIA established and incorporated in 1973 as a result of a secondary level of debt reconstruction and reorganization bringing with it subsidiary corporations such as PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA and QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA and finally THE AUSTRALIA ACT 1986 [ the main Corporate charter].
Underlying the above numbers 2 and 3 is still in existence the original Constitutional Commonwealth of Australia and it’s Constitution, with the original living flesh and blood Queen Elizabeth the Second as reigning Monarch to this very day which still protects those who choose not to be AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS, [members of the CORPORATION/SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE] those who recognize there is no money of substance in circulation anymore, and those who wish to access their exemption/prepaid account to discharge/setoff their debts in recognition of the fact that the funny money in circulation today cannot lawfully do so.
The actual protections of the law lie in the recognition of either and/or both:
1. That the living flesh and blood Queen Elizabeth the second is still our reigning Monarch for those who are NOT AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS with full Constitutional guarantees for those who wish to stand upon and claim such.
2. The you are not an AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN PERSON fictional legal entity with only benefits and priveleges who must obey the corporate charter [AUSTRALIA ACT 1986] of the corporation known as AUSTRALIA.
Put another way the situation in Australia the land mass is as follows:
Private Venue and Jurisdiction:
The original Constitutional Commonwealth of Australia is still in full force and effect with Queen Elizabeth the Second still reigning over it, guaranteeing all rights to those who do not wish to be AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN PERSONS and make a cliam upon/use their exemption/prepaid account status.
There is however no Constitutional money of substance to run the public offices in such a manner as originally intended but the protections of the law contained within the original Constitution nevetheless still exist.
Public Venue and Jurisdiction:
The IMF established and incorporated a corporation known as COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA [with a SEC Filing in Washington DC in 1934] at the bankruptcy/receivership of the original Constitutional Commonwealth of Austraia. AUSTRALIA was established and incorporated in 1973 as a secondary level consequence and reorganization of the 1929 bankruptcy whereby, AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS being PERSONS who are members of the CORPORATION OF AUSTRALIA with their CORPORATE CHARTER being the AUSTRALIA ACT 1986 who have only benefits and priveleges granted to them by the PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA of which the living flesh and blood Queen Elizabeth the Second is now a foreign entity offering no Constitutional protections to such PERSONS.
The trickery has been in the use of words which resembled closely our original institutions, which such original institutions were replaced with corporations created, established and incorporated by the International Monetary Fund and it’s many subsidiaries such as the CROWN, the UN, with the Vatican City ultimately controlling all of the above!
For Example:
The term “AUSTRALIA” when used by the courts does not refer to the land mass country known as Australia but to the CORPORATION the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA established around 1929 unless specifically or impliedly stated otherwise.
The AUSTRALIA ACT 1986 is the CORPORATE CHARTER for the corporation known as AUSTRALIA and AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS are PERSONS of which the Creator has no respect for, who only have benefits and priveleges and no Constitutional rights – this unfortunately is the absolute majority of the population.
So there appears to have taken place the following since 1900:
1. The Original Constitutional Commonwealth of Australia with Queen Elizabeth the Second, living flesh and blood reigning Monarch.
2. The Corporation known as COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA with a SEC filing in Washington DC filed in 1934. [A SOVEREIGN NATION WHICH DOES NOT MEAN A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY – it means a corporation or nation state with Sovereign power – eg, established by the creditor to whom the debts of the original Commonwealth of Australia were owed to – the IMF/UN/CROWN/International banksters].
3. The Corporation known as AUSTRALIA established and incorporated in 1973 as a result of a secondary level of debt reconstruction and reorganization bringing with it subsidiary corporations such as PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA and QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA and finally THE AUSTRALIA ACT 1986 [ the main Corporate charter].
Underlying the above numbers 2 and 3 is still in existence the original Constitutional Commonwealth of Australia and it’s Constitution, with the original living flesh and blood Queen Elizabeth the Second as reigning Monarch to this very day which still protects those who choose not to be AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS, [members of the CORPORATION/SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE] those who recognize there is no money of substance in circulation anymore, and those who wish to access their exemption/prepaid account to discharge/setoff their debts in recognition of the fact that the funny money in circulation today cannot lawfully do so.
The actual protections of the law lie in the recognition of either and/or both:
1. That the living flesh and blood Queen Elizabeth the second is still our reigning Monarch for those who are NOT AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS with full Constitutional guarantees for those who wish to stand upon and claim such.
2. The you are not an AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN PERSON fictional legal entity with only benefits and priveleges who must obey the corporate charter [AUSTRALIA ACT 1986] of the corporation known as AUSTRALIA.
Put another way the situation in Australia the land mass is as follows:
Private Venue and Jurisdiction:
The original Constitutional Commonwealth of Australia is still in full force and effect with Queen Elizabeth the Second still reigning over it, guaranteeing all rights to those who do not wish to be AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN PERSONS and make a cliam upon/use their exemption/prepaid account status.
There is however no Constitutional money of substance to run the public offices in such a manner as originally intended but the protections of the law contained within the original Constitution nevetheless still exist.
Public Venue and Jurisdiction:
The IMF established and incorporated a corporation known as COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA [with a SEC Filing in Washington DC in 1934] at the bankruptcy/receivership of the original Constitutional Commonwealth of Austraia. AUSTRALIA was established and incorporated in 1973 as a secondary level consequence and reorganization of the 1929 bankruptcy whereby, AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS being PERSONS who are members of the CORPORATION OF AUSTRALIA with their CORPORATE CHARTER being the AUSTRALIA ACT 1986 who have only benefits and priveleges granted to them by the PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA of which the living flesh and blood Queen Elizabeth the Second is now a foreign entity offering no Constitutional protections to such PERSONS.
The trickery has been in the use of words which resembled closely our original institutions, which such original institutions were replaced with corporations created, established and incorporated by the International Monetary Fund and it’s many subsidiaries such as the CROWN, the UN, with the Vatican City ultimately controlling all of the above!
Frauds: Federal Judges must be appointed by the Governor-General and State Judges by the State Governors who must have been appointed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second. However, Privy Council and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in London confirm that the Queen does not and can not appoint the Governor-General nor the Governors because she is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and has no executive powers exercisable in the Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore, any appointments made by these false representatives of the Queen are also fraudulent and those “Judges” have no authority or jurisdiction, whatsoever.
Liars: Common Law demands that an essential element in the creation of a contract is “certainty of terms”. Variable interest rates render a contract void for uncertainty because “variable” means “uncertain” and “certain” means “not variable” (Oxford English Dictionary). However, Australian Judges say and maintain that variable interest rates are indeed certain. That is a lie with which they conceal the illegality of variable interest rate loan contracts.
Criminals: Australian Judges conceal 2 major counts of fraud committed by Banks. The first is the fraud of variable interest rate loan contracts (above) and the second is the fact that Banks create money for themselves “out of thin air” and inject it into the economy as loans, which they recoup with interest. These fraudulent practices by the Banks amount to hundreds of billions of dollars and have resulted in the illegal dispossession of homes and businesses as well as bankruptcy, family breakdown, suicide and hardship to many ordinary Australians. Australian Judges aid and abet in this atrocity.
Traitors: Australian Judges swear to well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second and to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. In the Queen’s Coronation Oath, she promised to execute Law and Justice with Mercy in all her Judgments. Apart from the Queen being the Head of State of a foreign power, Australian Judges betray that allegiance and betray the Australian People through their Corruption and the denial of Justice.
Fools: Listed in Australia’s Constitutional Enactments are Magna Carta 1297, Petition of Right 1627, Habeas Corpus 1640 and Bill of Rights 1688 which guarantee the Right to Trial by Jury – the denial of which is punishable by 5 years imprisonment (Imperial Acts Application Act 1969, section 43). Bill of Rights 1688 actually says that “counsellors, judges and ministers” who “subvert and extirpation the laws and liberties of the kingdom” are “evil”. All evil-doers are fools.
Australia stands at the crossroads, there is no way back, we are left with three choices, to the right a road to more of the same dictatorship, to the left a road to an unknown republican dictatorship, or straight ahead to build on the Constitutional foundation that we all have faith in.
The reality is this, Australians have not retained access to the rights of Englishmen via Magna Carta and The Bill of Rights and the other Great Charters of free men; the right to justice and mercy under Common Law is no longer a right in Australia, but a privilege very often denied as is the right to self defence. We are in a never-never land.
In political terms this means that the first government after independence (or indeed any later government) had to inform the Australian people that British power, including that of the Queen, no longer applied in Australia and that a vote at the election handled all of the power, including the royal power, to the politicians.
The politicians have carefully avoided informing the Australian public since they know the public would demand safeguards against abuse of political power to be built into the system. Today there are no safeguards. Without informed consent the politicians and the governments have no legal authority but they do still possess power since public servants will obey them and attempt to enforce laws no matter how unjust these may be.
Professor I.W. Cumpston, Emeritus Reader in Commonwealth History at London University has described this as the “greatest political confidence trick in history.”
I Ilias Bafas consider that the so called Australian Government is destructive and in breach of international law. I Ilias Bafas will endevour to pursue justice, for the Australian people and the international community and request your support.
