She’s Not Right Mate 34


An article by R.G.McCulloch:

It is well past time we Australians sorted out who we are. Are we an independent sovereign nation, or are we a colony? Who is legally sovereign the Queen of the United Kingdom, or the Queen of Australia, or the Australian people? Are we then legally a member of the United Nations?

I have done a lot of constitutional and legal research and I will share some of this to see if we can answer the questions above.

Queen Elizabeth II Queen of the UK. Is not Queen of Australia

Queen Elizabeth II Queen of the UK. Is not Queen of Australia

The high court of Australia in Sue V Hill 1999 HCA 30 ruled, “At the very least, the Commonwealth of Australia was transformed into a sovereign, independent nation with the enactment of the Australia acts. The consequence of that transformation is that the United Kingdom is now a foreign power for the purposes of s44 (i) of the constitution”.

Six years after the Australia Acts in 2002 in the District Court of New South Wales the Judge said, ”Bear in mind that we are still a colony, effectively a colony of the United Kingdom, we still do not have a separate sovereign nation.

“When he was the Chief Justice of Australia Murray Gleeson wrote in a publication The Rule of Law and the Constitution (ABC Books 2000) at page 6…‘’the sovereignty of our nation lies with the people, both as a matter of legal principle and as a matter of practical reality.”

Our constitution is still to this day part of a United Kingdom statute, being clause 9 which has 128 sections. The first 8 clauses are covering clauses which we cannot change. Clause 8 is clear that we are a self governing COLONY.The Oath and Affirmation in the Schedule is also outside clause 9 and we cannot change these either.

I also have a reply from The UK foreign and Commonwealth Office London which states “The Queen, in her role as Head of State of the United Kingdom and such advised by British Ministers, has no executive power exercisable within the Commonwealth of Australia.”

They went on to say, “The monarch’s role as Queen of Australia is separate from her role in relation to the United Kingdom and in it’s fulfillment she is advised by Australian Ministers. Clearly they are two separate legal entities and nowhere does the constitution give the parliament the power to create a head of state. Clause 2 of the constitution which we cannot change is.”

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. This Queen, so say the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, can no longer give commissions to Governors or Governor’s General or anything else requiring executive power.

Halsbury' Laws

Halsbury’ Laws

Halsbury’s Laws of England Second Edition VolumeV1 page 432 says, ”The King may not rule his subjects as King of any foreign country, but only as King of England and the dominions belonging thereto as expressed in the royal title.”According to the High Court Sue V Hill we are a foreign power. The Australian politicians passed the Royal Styles& Titles Acts in 1953 & 1973 creating the titular Queen of Australia and after 8 years of asking for the documents to show how the executive power was transferred to this Queen I can assure you they cannot provide them.All members of Parliament have sworn an oath as per the Schedule which is to the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland (A foreign power says the High Court)1) section 44 is clear if you have allegiance to a foreign power you are incapable of sitting in the parliament2).

They are also sworn in by a Governor General whose commission is given by the titular Queen of Australia.

This Governor General also issues the writs for elections, swears in the members of parliament and gives royal assent to their legislation to make it law.

Clearly Australia is a legal basket case totally relying on the Queen of Australia for legality.

I also requested from the UN in Canberra the documents Australia presented in 1945 to the UN to prove we were a sovereign independent nation, as is required to join the UN. As expected Canberra could not supply the documents and advised me to contact the UN in New York.

The final reply from New York was “There was no formal recognition of Australia as a sovereign state by the United Nations. Given Australia signed the Charter which is an international treaty it was implicitly recognized that it was a sovereign state by the other founding members of the United Nations.”

So have we illegally signed international treaties, or if we were in fact a sovereign nation in 1945 clearly under the United Kingdom’s laws (refer Halsbury’s laws) Queen Elizabeth the second Queen of the United Kingdom could never have had executive power in The Commonwealth of Australia.

There is much more evidence, however. I believe, if in fact the Constitution is valid legal law (as the parliament claims when it suits them) then we are still a BRITISH COLONY. Either way, our legal system is invalid relying as it does on the Queen of Australia. This gives us a golden opportunity to put things right but this would require Australians to get off their backsides and get behind those who are aware and trying to do what has to be done.

Is Australia's Government Illegal?

Is Australia’s Government Illegal?

——————————————————–

.

.

——————————————————–


Leave a Reply

34 thoughts on “She’s Not Right Mate

  • Nicole Green

    Hello, i am a Australian Citizen who is strongly concerned about the Muslim Movement to take over our Country. It is very disturbing how the Australian Government seems to be advocating the Muslim Movement by enabling their demands.

    We are fighting a different type of war than that of our Grandfathers and Grandmothers. This is a silent war where Muslims are getting on School P & C’s and making changes at the bottom end of the scale. Some Australian State Schools are not flying the Australian flag, not singing the Australian National Anthem and only allowing Halal food on the tuck shop menu.

    In the suburbs of Sydney recently you could not buy a pie, sausage roll or soft drink for your child at the local children’s footy match. While this might seem small scale to some, it is the beginning of the erosion of the Australian way of life. If parents believe pie’s are not healthy enough we can always make them healthier by improving the quality of the ingredients.

    I do not want my grand daughters beautiful hair covered up. I do not want my grand daughters being treated like second class citizens.

    Being born in 1960 I am one of the ‘Baby Boomers’. It is my children and their children who are technology. savvy. They need to be educated on ways they can fight for this country in intelligent, information sharing ways through Social Media or what ever it takes. The Anti Discrimination Act has disabled people in negative ways as well as the positive. People are scared to voice their opinion. I do understand that discrimination in ways the Act was written for should not be tolerated. There must be a compromise surely.

    The rifle has been swapped for the Smart Phone. Come on Australia! Where is your grit? You do like Christmas don’t you? We live in the best country in the world. Please don’t just hand our home over.

    Nicole Green
    Queensland

    • mo

      good on you Nicole,dont let Australia end up like the UK my friend,although the Queen is still my sovereign i hate the way my country is being taking over by the muslim hordes,in fact the whole of europe is and the only way we will get it back is through civil war,Islam cannot co-exist with other faiths as these inferior people like to think of themselves as supremacists even though half of them can’t read or write.we only have to look at Sweden to see what Islam brings to society in general,this once beautiful country is now the rape capital of Europe because of muslim immigration,rape riots and murder of the indigenous people are a every day ocurrence,respect to you and Mr Mollison from Scotland

      • Jane

        What an ugly arrogant reply. Are you suggesting the original people are not actually people????? Just who the hell do you think you are!!! PIG!

        • restboss Post author

          If you bothered to think about it, I was talking about the fact that Aboriginal culture did not develop along the same lines as other cultures. While their culture was spiritually rich, they remained rooted in the stone age technologically.

          Oink! Oink!

    • restboss Post author

      Show me the lawful paperwork for Canada, the USA and dozens of other countries that have been occupied by superior civilizations in the past. And show me the legal paperwork that the Aborigines used to take this land when they occupied it 40,000 years ago and wiped out the “original” people.

      The fact is, we are here today. I don’t care whether the original settlers were here legally or not. Since our ancestors came here we have developed our country and made it ours. If the Aborigines want to live here they have to accept this fact too.

  • Originee

    To restboss,

    There has never been any law that permits anybody to cross the borders of another country without invitation from those who occupy that land as originees. There is no such thing as international law as there is not, and never has been, an international parliament to enact such laws, nor an international government to execute and maintain such laws. The only intelligent, lawful, legal, constitutional reason for war against another is self-defence. Ergo, when the British, and others before them, arrived on the shores of OUR homeland they committed unlawful acts of war and committed war crimes/murder against OUR ancestors. Our ancestors defence of their land/property can in no way be described as anything other than self-defence. Anybody who says/believes otherwise can only be described as claiming superiority where none can exist.

    OUR ancestors had the absolute right to defend their homeland against the aggressors, no matter what the beliefs of the aggressors at the time, but the aggressors used superior technology of the time which in no way made it lawful or just. There are only, and have only ever been, agreements between the re-presentatives of The Peoples of countries, called “treaties” which can be revoked at any time. This may just lead you to understand that all law is fictional. It is a product of the minds of men and has no substance apart from belief. It has no physical presence. You cannot show me the law, you cannot touch it, the same as you cannot touch “government”. These things have no existence apart from being notions implanted in the minds of men. Your law is no different from our tribal law in reality because it is all perception and acceptance of notions and perceptions, which are handed down over millennia. Our tribal law was in existence among the originees peoples long before your imported law came into existence and are therefore, importantly superior to your laws regardless of whatever you may believe otherwise, and even although you, and many of us, believe that many tribal laws are unjust and cruel. Want some facts? The are many more where these come from if you can handle the truth.

    You think you have problems with illegal boat-people now, how do you think our fore-fathers got on? There was no law that permitted the “king” of England to deport anybody from their homeland, i.e England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, to some place of his choosing, Ergo all that happened in the 16 & 1700’s was unlawful/illegal by any measure of lawfulness/legality/constitutionality and nothing alters these facts. As you claim that some facts have to be accepted, how about you accept the truth of it all? Our country was unlawfully invaded by boat-people who stayed to destroy we originees and all we stand for. Want proof of these facts, look to the record and see how we originees have been, and still are treated. That is not a claim that all people treat us with total indifference but your re-presentatives surely did and do.

    You write of nomadic hunter gatherers, well, did you know that before others before us became “educated” and “civilised” they came from hunter/gatherer stock as well? Simply because a people can claim to have “educated” others to their way, that does not mean they own them. Can you understand this?

    • restboss Post author

      Hi Originee:

      Long time no speak.

      I am an admirer of yours as you would know from the fact I quoted you in my book, “Drafting a New Constitution” (pages 435-436).

      Although I do not dispute what you say here below, I think you miss a couple of salient points.

      Firstly, there is growing evidence that in fact, those whom we now know as Australian Aborigines were NOT the original human inhabitants of this land but were themselves invaders of the land of others before them.

      Secondly, and more importantly, lands have been invaded and occupied since time began. Subsequent generations just have to get on with life. To do otherwise is to perpetuate hatred and envy that is totally unproductive.

      However, human civilisation is evolving and hopefully one day we will stop invading the land of other peoples and we can then live happily ever after in peace and harmony.

      In the meantime, I too am bitterly disappointed in the manner in which our government and society treat Aborigines. All efforts to date have only served to destroy the Aboriginal people. I am sure Aborigines would be much better off if they were simply treated by everyone as Australians.
      Regards
      Charles Mollison

    • janelle

      Hello there,
      may I have permission to repost your comments above. I have been trying to educate people that they have rights and they can stand up to the oppression of local council.

  • agro

    people who decide to move somewhere else to live are not invaders.
    thieves are thieves
    murderers are murderers
    deceivers are deceivers (still just thieves)
    etc.
    invaders are likely both
    descendents of invaders are people with no more questionable heritage than anybody else
    people need to be treated as men and women first before applying derogatory titles such as ‘Australian’
    before we all get put in uniforms

    • restboss Post author

      People who go country shopping and head here without a legal visa intending to evade our immigration laws are invaders, thieves and criminals. You can split hairs all you like but the truth is the truth. If you are referring to the colonization of Australia that displaced the Aborigines, then that is a different question and something that we will not waste time debating. The reality is, we are here today and RestoreAustralia is proposing a system of government that will include all Aussies.

  • Tony

    Does your Organisation have any Political clout ?.
    I’m a member of ONE NATION and think a new Party is needed.
    If it\’s everything it claims to be, I think RESTORE AUSTRALIA should form a Political party.
    People\’s opinions on a Website does\’nt count. We need an improved Parlimentary preseance.

    • restboss Post author

      I was a member of One Nation but quit. No political party is every going to solve our problems…they are PART OF THE PROBLEM. We need to change the whole political structure. You can’t fix the current one.

      We are working to build up a grassroots organization of committed citizens who want change. Read our vision to see what we advocate:
      RestoreAustralia Vision

  • Tony

    Assuming RESTORE AUSTRALIA is everything it claims to be, how does it propose getting its message across to the masses ?.
    Unless there’s some sort of Parlimentary preseance, I can’t see how RA could get ahead.
    I have nothing against Muslims, however they don’t belong here in Australia.
    My main concern is they could ingratiate themselves as Parliamentry representatives and try to overthrow the Government.
    Australians would then be political prisoners in their own country. Government coups are quite common overseas.
    Multiculturism has failed, there are now far too many Migrants here from all countries – taking our jobs, our housing and our money.
    Islamic extremists are turning our own people against us.
    We are too involved with the U.S. war machine, a country these extremists hate.
    The Martin Place tragedy wasn’t an act of Terrorism, but a simple Seige.

    • restboss Post author

      Tony, changing our political system cannot be achieved from within the 2-party system. The push must come from We the people. To achieve that we have published a Draft Constitution so that all Aussies can read it, consider it, and suggest amendments to it. Read this page first to see what our vision is, and then download the Draft to see what could be our future if we adopt some or all of it.
      The RA Vision

  • Graeme

    I am a fourth generation Australian and i am sick and tired of the Muslim INVASION in OUR country.
    Islam is a very dangerous religion, as it has shown many times.
    I get really angry when THEY want US to change OUR ways to suit them.
    I can see Restore Australia as an option to the two major parties for Australia to once again become AUSTRALIA.
    I do think that Abbott under extreme pressure has done quite a bit to keep Australia FREE from EXTREMISM.
    But Shorten is a real problem with the help of the greens.
    I will be voting for RA in any election they wish to stand.

    • restboss Post author

      As you can see from this page Australia faces a real problem…but RestoreAustralia is not a political party and we never will be. The problem is the political parties. Read this Graeme, to see what the basic problems are. RestoreAustralia offers a different solution….one that must start with the people, not a political party.
      The RestoreAustralia Vision

  • disappointed

    fuck, me….reading this thinking “this is great! this is how i can help change my country” then i get to the bottom and read the boycott halal and islam shit and realise your an antiquated fool. There are 382,000 people who identify as muslim in this country…..that is FUCK ALL! You want to restore Australia? give it back to the indigenous people who never even signed a treaty. You cunts make me fuckin sick with the bile you spew.

    • restboss Post author

      I nearly didn’t approve your comment because you are rude, crude and abusive…but I decided to let the whole world see the type of idiots we have in our nation. Islam appeasers are the worst type of traitors to our nation.

    • Wayne Linguey

      To Disappointed.
      The fact is the indigenous persons here lost the war, but are still bellyaching about it and expectimg compensation?
      They were so lucky that it was ‘white fella’s’ who got here first and not the asians.
      There would not have been any of them left alive.
      If you think that we’re racist, ask any black person who’s ever been to Japan what their treatment was like!

  • Steve

    ‘Democracy’ “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) ” a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people
    Parties are dictated to by their party executive, caucuses, factions and leaders, parties do not represent Australians or Australia, only whims of influence, each ‘party’ should technically be only allowed 1 candidate.
    Is why there is so much corruption and waste in our public services, parties beach the constitutional, political liberty and duty of our representatives to represent we the people.
    CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 28
    Interfering with political liberty
    Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence.
    Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s28.html

  • Paul Kirchner

    Corporate takeover of Australia.

    We are a sovereign country with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) being our Supreme Law.
    The Heir and Successors are We the people.
    We elect government to serve we the people and country.
    Our constitution needs a lot of work to correct and update of which will need to be done by referendums.

    If government is our rulers then we must be slaves or their subjects.
    Also if Turnbull is our ruler then we must be slaves or his subjects.
    Which can not be as our constitution does not pass on the Crown to a corporate employee.

    How is it he is even in office when there is no mention of parties or a prime minister within the constitution?

    There is no Royal Assent for many of our Acts as well there is no referendums.

    The Australian Government is a US corporation registered as COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA on the US Securities Exchange Commission CIK# 0000805157.
    It has shareholders, stakeholders, CEO, Directors etc.
    It can not serve the foreign corporate powers and at the same time serve we the people.

    Anyway look at my current unfinished research that points to the corporate takeover.
    (Some really huge evidence to hopefully put these corporate criminals behind bars to be released early 2017, everything is much deeper than all others know)

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Xx50aJ_Xi8UWJ6V2xYQ29PU28/view?usp=drivesdk

  • Vic Sturgeon

    Here are some extracts from A letter I put together with the help of another avid researcher.
    The Commonwealth means the Commonwealth of Australia;
    This is the Commonwealth of Australia as created by and for the Political Parties in 1973 now registered in Washington DC (District of Columbia), NOT the Commonwealth of Australia as established UNDER the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted.

    Australia Acts means—
    (a) The Australia Act 1986 of the Commonwealth; and

    (b) The Australia Act 1986 of the United Kingdom;

    Australian citizen means a person who is an Australian citizen under the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 of the Commonwealth;

    If you go back to 1948 there is NO such Act.

    22B—Declaration of validity of laws made before Australia Acts
    Each provision of an Act or statutory instrument enacted or made, or purporting to have been enacted or made, before the commencement of the Australia Acts is as valid as it would have been, and has the same effect as it would have had, if the Australia Acts had been in operation at the time of its enactment or making or purported enactment or making.

    Note: Oxford Dictionary: “purport v. Appear to be or do, especially falsely”
    In simple terms all laws (Policy) made after the Australia Act 1986 has NO Crown Authority therefore NOT BINDING on the people.

    Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 & Australia Act 1986 explains it very clear.

    An Act to bring “constitutional arrangements” affecting the Commonwealth and the States into “conformity” with the “status” of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation

    WHEREAS the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth and the Premiers of the States at conferences held in Canberra on 24 and 25 June 1982 and 21 June 1984 agreed on the taking of certain measures to bring “constitutional arrangements” affecting the Commonwealth and the States into “conformity” with the “status” of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation:

    “constitutional arrangements” means that the State Premiers joined the Political Parties Commonwealth of Australia as established by and for the Political Parties in 1973 and to abide to Australian Law = Political Party Policy. This is NOT the Laws
    that we are all BOUND TO as established UNDER the Founding and Primary Law Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted.

    Clause 5 (Operation of the Constitution and laws) “This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State ………. ”.

    “Conformity” means that the Commonwealth is already a private Company. We the people never voted for this.

    To have the “status” “sovereign, independent and federal nation” that means “Republican Dictatorship”. We the people “of the Commonwealth” humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, in conjunction with the authority of the Crown became a Constitutional Monarchy. Our Founding and Primary Law is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 Proclaimed and Gazetted enforces us as a Constitutional Monarchy.

    We the people “of the Commonwealth voted in 1999 to stay as a Constitutional Monarchy.

    Under the Political Parties Government and its so called Legislature we have NO RIGHTS as explained on their web site.
    South Australia Legislation
    http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/Web/Information/Understanding%20legislation/UnderstandingLegislation.aspx#acts

    Legislative power of the State

    Legislative power of the State the Parliament of South Australia is entitled to legislate on any matter for the peace, welfare and good government of the people of the State of South Australia. There is no principle of separation of powers in the State constitution nor is the State’s legislative power subject to a requirement to preserve fundamental human rights. However, there are certain limitations on the State’s legislative power, including the following:

    The subject matter must have a nexus with the State. The Parliament must comply with manner and form provisions relating to the constitution or the powers and procedures of the Parliament. The State cannot legislate in an area where the Commonwealth has exclusive legislative power (for example, section 90 of the Commonwealth Constitution (Exclusive power over customs, excise, and bounties). A State law that is inconsistent with a valid Commonwealth law will be invalid. The State law must conform to requirements of the Commonwealth Constitution, for example, section 92 (Trade within the Commonwealth to be free), section 114 (States may not raise forces. Taxation of property of Commonwealth or State) and section 117 (Rights of residents in States).
    State legislation must be consistent with the Australia Act 1986 of the Commonwealth.

    The Australia Act 1986 UK puts the people of the Commonwealth of Australia as established UNDER the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted to be still UNDER AND PROTECTED by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and its Laws.

    Interpretation. 16.-(1) In this Act
    ” the Commonwealth ” means the Commonwealth of Australia as established under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act ;

    In simple terms the Prime Minister and State Premiers can join the private Political Parties Private Statutory Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation now registered in Washington DC (District of Columbia)

    BUT you are still part of the Commonwealth of Australia as established UNDER the Founding and Primary Law Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act as Proclaimed and Gazetted. The Prime Minister and State Premiers can join what they want but can’t enforce their Laws (POLICY) over the people of the Commonwealth.

    As explained in their Acts Interpretation Act 1915 as at 2012 Acts after the Australia Act 1986 are only Purported Acts, appear to be or do, especially falsely. That is TREACHERY.

    Crimes Act 1960 No. 84 of 13th December 1960
    “Treachery.
    24AA.—(1.) A person shall not—
    (a) do any act or thing with intent—
    (i) to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage;

    (ii) to overthrow by force or violence the established government of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a proclaimed country; or” …………………………
    “24AA.—(3.) A person who contravenes a provision of this section shall be guilty of an indictable offence, called treachery. Penalty: Imprisonment for life.”
    By removing the property owner, to the STATE our paper title now has no legal force. This is TREASON as they are in the process of removing Her Most Excellent Majesty,
    (Elizabeth the Second
    by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms & Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth,
    Defender of the Faith):
    from contracts with the people of the Commonwealth with contracts held in Fee Simple together with all Crown Land and the Allodial title to all land.

    Crimes Act 1960 No. 84 of 13th December 1960,
    Section 24—Treason 24.-
    (c) levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war,
    against the Commonwealth;

    (d) assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist,
    an enemy-

    (i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or
    not the existence of a state of war has been
    declared; and

    (ii) specified by proclamation made for the
    purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy
    at war with the Commonwealth;

    (e) instigates a foreigner to make an armed invasion of the
    Commonwealth or any Territory not forming part
    of the Commonwealth; or

    (f) forms an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding
    paragraph of this sub-section and manifests that
    intention by an overt act,

    shall be guilty of an indictable offence, called treason, and
    liable to the punishment of death.

    In the High Court of Australia case
    Leask v Commonwealth [1996] HCA 29 (5 November 1996)
    DAWSON J. [Extract]
    As McHugh J said in Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner:
    “In determining whether a law is ‘with respect to’ a head of power
    in s 51 of the Constitution, two steps must be taken. First, the character of the
    law must be determined. That is done by reference to the rights, powers,
    liabilities, duties and privileges which it creates. Secondly, a judgment must
    be made as to whether the law as so characterized so operates that it can be
    said to be connected to a head of power conferred by s 51. In determining
    whether the connection exists, the practical, as well as the legal, operation of
    the law must be examined. If a connection exists between the law and a head
    of power, the law will be ‘with respect to’ that head of power unless the
    connection is, in the words of Dixon J, ‘so insubstantial, tenuous or distant’
    that it cannot sensibly be described as a law ‘with respect to’ the head of
    power.”

    In simple terms their High Court of Australia tells us that their (Political Parties) Australian Dollar has NO head of power so is NOT “of the Commonwealth”.
    That makes it criminal to be enforced to use it as it is Counterfeit to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted.

    Levees and rates enforced by extortion and payed in Australian Dollars is a Criminal action.

    Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted.
    Chapter I – The Parliament
    Part I – General
    3 Salary of Governor-General
    There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue fund
    of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-General, an annual
    Sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand
    Pounds.

    Australian Constitution or The Constitution however the Political Parties want to call their pretend constitution.

    Chapter I – The Parliament
    Part I – General
    3 Salary of Governor-General
    There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue fund
    of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-General, an annual
    Sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand
    Pounds.
    Pounds, Shillings and Pence is the Legal Tender for the Commonwealth of Australia as established under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazette.
    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/chief-justice-tom-bathurst-warns-of-threat-to-basic-legal-rights-20160204-gmlo5n.html

    CREATED
    By and for the Political Parties.
    NOT for the People of the Commonwealth as in the Preamble “WHEREAS the people”
    This Political Party Seal cannot give Royal Assent therefore it has no Crown Authority therefore NOT binding on the people of the Commonwealth
    Plus it is registered in the US. A foreign corporation seal.

    PLEASE explain that Mr Brock.

    This is the Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia as established UNDER Founding and Primary Law Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted.
    This Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia has a Royal Warrant and is for use as a Public Functionary Seal. NOT for enacting Bills into Acts by a Governor-General representing Her Most Excellent Majesty.

    Land alienated from the Crown by the Crown in fee simple may be assured in fee simple unless excepted, without license and without fine and the person taking the assurance shall hold the land of the Crown in the same manner as the land was held before the assurance took effect.

    Oxford Dictionary:-
    “fee simple” Law a permanent and absolute tenure of an estate in land
    with freedom to dispose of it at will

    In the High Court’s Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34;
    9 August 1923; (1923) 33 CLR 1;
    (Knox C.J., Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ.)

    Justice Isaacs stated:-

    “….. the highest estate known to the law is a fee simple …..”

    “….. In Challis’s Real Property, 3rd ed., p. 218, it is stated with perfect accuracy:—

    ‘A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum,
    and the most absolute in respect to the rights which it confers,
    of all estates known to the law.

    It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred,
    the lawful right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land,
    every act of ownership which can enter into the imagination,
    including the right to commit unlimited waste;
    and, for all practical purposes of ownership,
    it differs from the absolute dominion of a chattel,
    in nothing except the physical indestructibility of its subject.

    Besides these rights of ownership,
    a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute right,
    both of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will. ’ ”

    “….. Haldane also speaks of a case where ‘ the title of the Sovereign is a pure
    legal estate, to which beneficial rights may or may not be attached ’ …..”

    The above Shows no Government or Council can make any private land owner pay any kind of fees or charges on their fee simple land. Not even her majesty Queen Elizabeth 11 of the UK and Ireland has the right to set foot of land held in fee simple.
    To deface Her Most Excellent Majesty’s Contracts, therefore to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by sabotage is TREACHERY

  • Jo Savas

    Hey my friend, it was after I pressed send and the link CIR came up that I realised who it was! I couldn’t find a way to retract my comment. Love your work!