King Charles 111, must  seek his Royal Style and Title through the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, but we don’t have one

Letter to the Editor

At the death of Her Majesty the Queen, King Charles was her heir and her assign and subsequently to be the new King His Majesty Charles 111, holding two functions as the head of State and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and holding  the separation of powers between Church and State held to the Common Law of England.

Everything so far is just show.

King Charles is not the Australian Monarch

The  real test comes next and unless that test is held to the Common Law of England then, if not conducted properly   the position  of the new King Charles 111, will not be filled and the King will have only the power of an individual, the same as you and I and then other 8 billion people on this planet…..

The new King His Majesty Charles 111, must  seek his Royal Style and Title through the elected representatives of  the people, here in Australia in the Parliament House of the people,  which has lain  vacant since at least 1988.

Also there is no Governor General sworn and appointed by Her Majesty the Queen as held to Governor-General Establishment Act 1902.

This leaves not only every person living in Australia but every one of the rest of  the 2.2 billion people in the Kings dominions and living on the land of the King having no protection from the political parties who have seized power over and above the people and the Crown ?

I refer to the words of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia  in  1985 Sr. Harry Gibbs in  short –  The Commonwealth is without law and it is the politicians who are treating us as pawns and they are responsible for their actions….

Is it not time for we the pawns to stand up … as the elected  Members of the political parties are no are that only of an International Trading Corporation Registered on the New York Stock Exchange and trading in AUS$ worldwide, they must be held accountable to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Are these private  people above the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) and the Constitution of the United States of America ?….

If the new King His Majesty Charles 111 accepts a private Royal Style and Title from the elected representatives of the political parties of the Australian  Government, that would leave him King Charles in a very difficult situation, he would be subservient to the policies and philosophies of the political parties and could not delegate any separation of powers between  church and state to any politically appointed and paid Judges and Magistrates of the political parties, to uphold only the private Civil Law of the Australian  Government’s  all being private International Trading Corporations who are all held to American Civil Law of the Constitution of the United States only,  as are you.

In other words  the King has accepted their private money and run … the Monarchy is dead and the sun has totally set on the once great British Empire and we the people of Australia must stand alone…. As always follow the money regardless what type of money it is…

As private persons we are still protected under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) and ten Constitutions of the former 6 colonies of the Australian Commonwealth and here in Queensland the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld).

John Andersen

NSW

About Editor, cairnsnews

One of the few patriots left who understands the system and how it has been totally subverted under every citizen's nose. If we can help to turn it around we will, otherwise our children will have nothing. Our investigations show there is no 'government' of the people for the people of Australia. The removal of the Crown from Australian Parliaments, followed by the incorporation of Parliaments aided by the Australia Act 1987 has left us with corporate government with policies not laws, that apply only to members of political parties and the public service. There is no law, other than the Common Law. This fact will be borne out in the near future as numerous legal challenges in place now, come to a head soon.

Posted on October 3, 2022, in Common Law, Commonwealth Constitution of Australia, Commonwealth of Australia, General, Queen Elizabeth, United Kingdom and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 41 Comments.

  1. The so called “royal family of UK’ refused to even look at petitions sent to “her majesty” from the people of Australia. The Governor general turnedhisback while the Australian people gathered in Canberra at a peaceful rally were blasted with micro wave. The queen of England’s pedaphile son escaped to Australia and lived on champagne in an expensive quarters paid by the Australian tax payers. Why are we the people of Australia still holding “royal commissions, still keeping in style governors of state and country and still holding public holidays to celebrate the birth of these blood suckers? Once and for all get rid of these power hungry vampires.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. They bypassed the Preamble and Clauses 1 through to 8 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

    Like

  3. Sue Maynes. Jurisdiction and Jurisprudence are the fundamentals of law. And of course a group can have all the laws it wants (whether valid or not) but if their enforcement is prevented or disabled they might as well not be there at all.

    This reminds me of my favourite joke. How many Vic Pol does are required to take of the car jacker? Answer: Two. One to arrest the poor old White guy who hit him with his cane and the Chief of Police to reassure the Zimbabwean Community how much we value their cultural enrichment.

    Which reminds me of the Rhodesia Solution. Why? Because in the Communist Chinese Colony of Zimbabwe, slavery is legal and cannibalism is OK.
    Yes Minister.

    Like

  4. No-one said common law was gone, or not recognized by the UCC, or not alive and well, or any other misinterpretations of what I wrote.

    And as for common law being Natural Law – come on – seriously??

    Common law is the customary law inherited from the English via colonisation and it was created via man-made decisions in courts, which were then legislated.

    Natural law however is the law of the living man – breathe, eat, procreate, etc. Natural law is basically the birth law. Common law did not birth you Michael!

    Why is everyone ignoring the information on the law of Equity, its history and its power?

    Q: What is Equity?
    A: the quality of being fair and impartial

    I am NOT talking about the kind of equity you deal with in housing/mortgages and etc. That is small equity. I am talking about Equity, that is all about whether you have been treated equally, fairly in a legal situation. Someone promised you something, then did not give it to you – Equity steps in to that situation and corrects the injustice.

    Here’s a good little article on the difference between equality and Equity – https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/ Equity exists to protect your rights, your liberties, your property – whether it is a promise or something much more substantial.

    Ever watched Judge Judy? She operates an equity court dealing in small issues. Watch how she operates – first works out the Trust elements in the case – who is the Grantor, who is the Trustee and who is the Beneficiary. Then once she works out who is the Trustee, they hold the responsibility for the trust and/or a breach of trust and the remedy comes next.

    I heard a good audio that stated the courts we all deal with constantly operate in a form of Constructive Equity because the first thing they do is get us to accept the role of Trustee, then the whole situation falls on us. Say its a traffic fine, we protest it, go to court, are ‘assumed’ to be the Trustee because we don’t prove anything different, that then means we have breached the trust by not paying and are so ordered by the court to do OR get gaoled for not doing it.

    We kick and scream lawless TO their system, yet never gave them the correct info to prove otherwise. We go in and say we are the representative of the title, the agent, the whatever/whoever/etc ALL of which are titles referencing the Trustee. Then spit the dummy when we lose.

    And to add to our confusion, we do all that in the public, wherein Equity relies on you dealing with the private side of the court.

    All the responses to me on this thread have been old info I have not only heard countless times – but once believed and taught on my site. And I am the first to tell you I was wrong. I can’t believe, that despite all these years, most people are no further ahead with resolving our situation in this country. We are still talking the same talk, walking the same walk, and falling into the same traps. How stupid do we want to remain?

    Like

  5. No, it is impossible to be a lawless society – because if one set of laws goes, another takes its place. I think what you are saying is that the law you prefer is not apparent in any cases you are aware of. However, what you learn when you study law is that the circumstances of a case in dispute define the jurisdiction of the case/decision. Simply put, if you don’t understand how to put a case together for the jurisdiction you want, then you get what someone else chooses. There is a brilliant site called Jurisdictionary – https://getjurisdictionary.com/ . The author, a law professor, has put together all the info necessary for a person to understand the system, to assist in guiding a lawyer/solicitor in the case the person wants to be heard and how to understand what is going on in the process.
    So unless you and I learn how to run OUR case, then someone else does for us and therein lies your perception of a lawless society.

    Like

  6. Common Law is also recognized and must be recognized under the UCC. Refer to 1-308 & 1-103. Common Law is alive and well and very relevant in Australia. Our courts when used by us the people to defend ourselves from the corporate courts and BAR loyalist Judiciary are fully aware its our rights but choose to ignore or brush them off or keep them secret from us. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This applies to our Rights as well, if you don’t practice your rights, you have none. So regardless of history record etc. Common Law is very much relevant and strong if you know or learn what they are. It is an international law practiced in UK, USA, Canada, unfortunately it has been brainwashed in to us and NZ for the last 6 decades +. Since Covid it has woken a sleeping giant and is exploding uncontrollably by the Prison warders we call Corrupt Government and their criminal judiciary.

    Like

  7. suemaynes, Basically here in Australia we are a lawless society? Now my question:
    How long are we already lawless?

    Like

  8. As for Common Law – its easily mis interpreted when you read too much misinformation. CL is Natural Law, It is the Unalienable rights of every living wo/man. It is also the same god given rights I use in our UCC Commercial Courts and win. It is simple really… your life from birth is a lifetime of contracts with a fraudulent government enforcing non royal assented Statutes, Acts, Rules, Mandates, tax’s etc by UN WEF Muppets who have no Royal Grant Authority (Commonwealth Public Official). Another reason I win court cases with little trouble. The “Consent to contract” is an Admiralty law of the sea scam played on land by an evil UN Socialist Cartel who has passed themselves off as our government but instead sit in Treason / Tyranny while pushing the Jab Juice Death & Injury Program. At this time of our lives, the time and energy you spend should be used to remove the criminality from government, judiciary and law enforcement so our beloved Commonwealth Constitution of Australia is reinstated along with Common Law by default. Everything else is mute and irrelevant until our Constitution is reinstated to its correct jurisdiction.

    Like

  9. The coronation of Elizabeth II took place on 2 June 1953 at Westminster Abbey in London. She acceded to the throne at the age of 25 upon the death of her father, George VI, on 6 February 1952. Problem is… she never signed the Coronation Contract to serve as the Head of the Commonwealth. Which means her son Charles isnt King either. Infact there is evidence & family tree records that an Australian and his family is the rightful Royalty. So as for every one’s opinion regarding who is right, these facts means that Queen Elizabeth is one of the UN WEF which Charles and father were one of the founders along with Claus Shwarb and friends.

    Like

  10. “So in this era of conflict of laws and judicial collapse. I say collapse of laws because if the justice system can not stop a genocide, then it is ipso facto useless. If we had a justice system what would be the jurisprudence of Australia?”

    What a strange question.

    Like

  11. So in this era of conflict of laws and judicial collapse. I say collapse of laws because if the justice system can not stop a genocide, then it is ipso facto useless. If we had a justice system what would be the jurisprudence of Australia?

    Like

  12. I find it immensely strange, that the freeman / patriot / constitutional / etc movement will follow things that come from other countries if it suits them, but will never look at events and political results that come from those same countries that may or will be relevant.

    I hope you all understand that the Constitution is also a contract wherein the constitutors (you and I) have guaranteed to pay any debt belonging to the Commonwealth. We are share-holders – yes, and debtors where necessary. From that perspective consider that prior to Federation, England paid our debt claims, after Federation, you and I did. Then consider that Birth registration was implemented between WWI and WWII.

    That fact alone should make you understand why the Constitution is alive and well – it holds you and I as collatoral for any debt claim against the Cth. So if it is gone – then so is the claim against you. And IF it has gone, then the assets of the Cth should have been distributed to you and I, as the ‘owners’ of that wealth.

    So let me introduce you to a couple of thoughts that might help.

    1. England was basically insolvent at the end of WWI. In fact, it only just finished paying off its war debt from both wars – to America – in very recent years.
    2. Australia was also facing insolvency after WWI because we had such a small population, we were not well-developed and in around 1924, the Governor of the Bank of England came out here and advised us to at least keep paying the interest on our loans. As well the Federal Govt had Sinking Fund legislation all focused on paying off our war debt. Look it up – National Debt Sinking Fund.
    3. The League of Nations was formed after WWI, under the ideology of preventing any further world wars. Because of the situation with England’s ability to protect its empire, the fracture of the empire had begun and the fact that Australia was a signatory shows that although, despite everyone thinking we became independent at that date, we did not because Hughes signed it UNDER the English signature. Go and look it up – very plain to see and understand.
    4.In 1931, England gave the Statute of Westminster Act (UK) to all its dominions and colonies. That act – read it, its only 6 pages – gave the right to every dom/col to enact any laws it saw fit to enact, which would have normally been contrary and so repugnant to english law. At the same time – in the same act – England said verbatim, do not touch the people’s act, the Constitution, it’s out of bounds.
    Question: Why would England indicate this restriction unless the govt of Aust and etc were now permitted to make up their own rules and regulations because it now appears that the govt here only had to answer to our Constitution from that date on. Not to England’s parliament.

    And never forget, if our constitution is alive and well, then so is our access to the Magna Carta, Habeus Corpus, etc. They go hand in hand. One gave us full access to the other, and England informed Australia, in both the Statute of Wesminster and the Australia Act, that this ability, rule and demand, stood strong. If we no longer have a constitution, as quite a lot of people who don’t know how to analyse and think, OR have a personal agenda, believe – we would have no access to those rights any more. So every freeman’s demand to create their own common law courts, claim a Magna Carta rebellion and etc – would just be fodder for cartoons.

    5. In 1939 we were back in war again. England still had its debt we still had our debt. The government here continued to pledge us and involve us in wars – all of which cost.
    Current list from just prior to Federation to now.
    – Second Boer War (1899-1902)
    – Boxer Rebellion (1900-1901)
    – First World War (1914-1918)
    – Russian Civil War, part of World War One and The Revolutions of 1917-23 (1918-1920)
    – Second World War (1939-1945)
    – Korean War, part of The Cold War (1950-1953)
    – Malayan Emergency, part of British Decolonisation and The Cold War (1950-1960)
    – Indonesian Confrontation (1963-1966)
    – Vietnam War , part of the Indochina Wars and the Cold War (1962-1973)
    – First Gulf War (1990-1991)
    – Iraq War, part of the Global War on Terrorism (2003-2009)
    – Afghanistan War, part of the Global War on Terrorism (2001-still going)
    – Military Invention against ISIL, part of the Global War on Terrorism (2014-still going)

    Question: In an insolvent situation, the insolvent is placed under administration and all domestic laws are suspended pending repayment of the debts.
    1. Could it be then, that the Australian Government formed by Gough Whitlam in 1973 – was an insolvent administration?
    2. Could it be then, that this is why they refer to themselves as a ‘foreign government of political sub-divisions?
    3. Could it be then, that this is why we have to contract to the Australian Government in all sorts of legal/contractual areas of our life?
    4. Could this be then, why we no longer hold land under fee simple, but under Torrens Title, which is a govt registration certificate, not a deed?
    5. Could it be then, that the registration in the USA is for the purpose of borrowing for an insolvency with the people as the collatoral for that borrowing?
    6. Could it be, there is nothing illegal going on but certainly immoral in that none of this was explained to you and I – we had to work it out for ourselves – thereby costing us time and money via our aggressive responses?

    And as a country, possibly under an insolvency administration, we definitely operate in promissory notes – because all our gold is held as collatoral to the bankers for the loan repayment – and we own nothing because everything is contracted through promises to pay – promissory notes??

    Sue Maynes

    Like

  13. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA IS A CORPORATION.

    http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/uk_australia_canada_government/news.php?q=1208891171

    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CIK (0000805157) SIC: 8880 – American Depositary Receipts State location: DC | Fiscal Year End: 0630. Business Address. 1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW C/O AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY WASHINGTON DC 20036. NOTE; This is not the Constitutional Commonwealth of Australia, which is of one Electorate.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. THE UNITED STATES BECAME A FOREIGN CORPORATION IN 1871

    https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/when-the-united-states-became-a-corporation

    A MESSAGE FOR ANYONE WHO IS CRAZY ENOUGH TO CLAIM U.S. CITIZEN STATUS. “Then, by passing the Act of 1871, Congress formed a corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, shoved the organic version of the Constitution aside by changing the word ‘for’ to ‘of’ in the title.

    Like

  15. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA IS A CORPORATION.

    http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/uk_australia_canada_government/news.php?q=1208891171

    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CIK (0000805157) SIC: 8880 – American Depositary Receipts State location: DC | Fiscal Year End: 0630. Business Address. 1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW C/O AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY WASHINGTON DC 20036. NOTE; This is not the Constitutional Commonwealth of Australia, which is of one Electorate.

    THE UNITED STATES BECAME A FOREIGN CORPORATION IN 1871

    https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/when-the-united-states-became-a-corporation

    A MESSAGE FOR ANYONE WHO IS CRAZY ENOUGH TO CLAIM U.S. CITIZEN STATUS. “Then, by passing the Act of 1871, Congress formed a corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, shoved the organic version of the Constitution aside by changing the word ‘for’ to ‘of’ in the title.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Well articulated Ron with one point that Aborigines if they are people are included in the Preamble.. Editor

    Liked by 1 person

  17. This land called Australia is a combi nation of corporations –

    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA IS A CORPORATION.

    What follows is the complete explanation of the contempt by all Political Parties of the;
    Australian Constitution Chapter One, Part IV. — Both Houses of the Parliament.
    Section 44 and Section 46;

    http://www.peoplesmandate.iinet.net.au/Government_as_Foreign_corporation.html

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Looks like King Charles the tampon wannabe has big plans for Industrial Strength Climate Nuttery. And (wouldn’t you know it) a new world religion. And the removal of Westminster jurisprudence in the UK along with its foundations in Magna Carta by the new Communist jurisprudence of Terra Carta. He and Acting Pope No II (Francis I) will be working together on this. Both are big devotees of the United [Communist] Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals, the Synagogue and their Chabad management.

    Here the Remnant unpacks the latest from Kazakhstan

    Like

  19. PS Mike – those who are studying equity are not one voice – we just focus on learning not misleading – with teachers in 3 countries, students in 5 countries and law books on equity dating from the 1700’s. And those law books are still used in the Aust courts, so no guesswork – not a drop of it – is needed.

    Quote 1: “Equity was created to modify the rigidity of the common law as Edwards says “…equity intervenes to modify the operation of the rules of the common law. Equity according to Edwards was created not just as a set of ethical rules as part the common law; it is anchored on flexibility and good conscience.”

    Quote 2:
    “Step by step, all the decisions were synthesized in one code of laws, which is the common law. However, time showed that the common law system is not perfect and it contains certain defects. these disadvantages afterwards became the main reason why such a body as equity was formed.
    Because of the fact that the common law system was very conservative and narrow, if there was a wording mistake in a writ, it was considered completely defective. A special committee, headed by the Chancellor was set up and the Courts of Chancer were founded to deal with the law of equity. It was not a competitor of common law, but a supplementary set of laws, which grew into a strong legal system which covered the disadvantages of common law. It was created to defend the rights of the victim in cases where the common law was incompetent and provided protection to the wrongdoer at the expense of the victim.
    Moreover in the common law system the judges followed rules very strictly, and could not change procedural regulations. In equity rules became more flexible and were constantly developing in order to ensure fairness in cases.
    Common law saw only one civil remedy as a resolution -payment of damages. That did not necessary stop any illegal actions. Equity introduced such remedies as specific performance, rescission, injunction and rectification. ” https://successessays.com/common-law-and-equity-the-reasons-behind-the-creation-of-equity/

    Quote 3: “Equity is a term denoting a system of justice, that is administered in particular court, whose nature and extent can only be understood and explained after studying both the history and principles upon which that court acts. It was developed and administered in England by the high court of chancery in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Equity defines a set of legal principles, in all the jurisdictions that follow the English common law tradition, that supplements strict rules of law where their application would operate harshly, and this is done to achieve “natural justice” (Anon. Historical Outlines of Equity).

    Quote 4: “Creation of the equity as a system of law was to serve as a means through which a legal system could strike the balance between the rule-making process and the need to achieve fair results in individual and separate circumstances (Megha K., 2008).”

    I could go on – there are countless articles on the value of Equity. Time to get back to learning something useful folks.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. You know as well as I do Mike that I have been one of the leaders of the information being researched and made public for too many years to remember – otherwise why would you have interviewed me twice.

    You need to read what I wrote again. I never said admiralty was not Roman, I said it is now part of our customary law. Do we or do we not have merchants in this country??? Is mercantile activities not the basis for admiralty law???

    What you do correctly state is that “you have to understand that we are BORN with certain inalienable rights”.

    Those rights are protected by the Courts of Chancery in an equity/trust case. I note you mention nothing about the law of equity.

    If they were protected by common law, why then did Equity become the superior law in England from the 1200’s, from America since they assumed English law in matters of Equity and in Australia since we were colonised and the Supreme Court Act of each State was enacted?

    An excellent thing about having an open mind to learn from the myriad of quiet researchers out there, is that you learn new and amazing things and get a lot of questions finally answered.

    Like

  21. Perfect. Thanks very much for this.

    Like

  22. On 29 September 2022 I wrote to the Canberra Times as follows:

    Steve Evans, ‘Keneally hopes to see republic’, CT. 24/9/22, p. 8, quotes Thomas Keneally, the first chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, saying he wants a referendum on a constitutional Voice for Aboriginal people; and if a referendum on a republic follows, he thinks it should include a direct election in a popular vote.

    Currently it isn’t possible to give Aboriginals a constitutional Voice as Australia lacks a constitution. Australian governments falsely claim legitimacy by alleging their authority derives from the British monarchy and a defunct colonial constitution that, when applicable, was merely part of an imperial British statute that could be amended at any time by Westminster parliaments.

    Australians need to develop a real Constitution that is duly considered, debated and approved in a proper Constitutional Convention process by all Australians. That Constitution should include proper provisions in relation to all Australians including Aboriginals.

    Keneally says Australia has a head of state who lives 17,000 kilometres off-shore and says there’s something slightly wrong with Australians directly electing a president.

    I disagree. Australia does not have a foreign head of state. If it did every Australian swearing or affirming allegiance to that head of state would be committing treason. Moreover, the implication that there is anything wrong with Australians electing a head of state implicitly supports the current illegal situation in which the leader of a party controlling the House of Representatives has de facto head of state powers.

    Australian governments pretend to owe allegiance to the British monarch, paying lip service to that monarch as our head of state while the party ruling the House of Representatives covertly exercises all executive authority as ScoMos’ recent activities evidenced. That deception is foisted upon the Australian electorate by giving lip service to a non-existent allegiance to the British monarchy.

    The real situation is evidenced by the fact that Australia’s parliaments and judiciaries including the High Court tacitly accept that our constitution isn’t relevant in that the appointment of Governors-General is entirely a matter for elected Australian governments.

    That is why our federal judiciary and parliament accepted as legal ScoMo’s secretly appointing himself to control multiple Commonwealth departments of state (effectively accruing personal dictatorial powers) without informing the parliament or the Australian electorate or ministers whose responsibilities he was usurping.

    Governor-General Hurley’s pretended ignorance of what Scomo did was part of that charade.

    Holding a referendum adopting the wording of a defunct colonial constitution and labelling it a republic with a president appointed by prime ministers is not intended to change anything and won’t.

    Currently cabals of insider elites decide our fate behind closed doors. The removal of the elected Whitlam government in 1975 illustrates the way in which insider elites control Australia’s governance. Recently released correspondence evidenced that QEII had no say in what Kerr and our covert political controllers did on that occasion.

    It is time that Australians claimed their heritage and demanded that federal and state governments be properly constituted pursuant to a lawful Constitution agreed to by all Australians.

    To cease being a ‘Banana Republic’ Australians need to create a proper Constitutional Convention process NOW!

    *****************
    Addendum:
    Australia has had no valid Constitution since signing the Treaty of Versailles or, at the latest, when Australia was accepted as a member of the League of Nations and/or the United Nations.

    Colonial laws and governments ceased to have valid authority once Australia became a sovereign nation. All governments and laws imposed since Australia became a sovereign nation are ultra vires. Thereafter politicians and other elitists pretended we had a Constitution and ruled Australia under their unwritten “rules” paying lip service to conformance with British law.

    Current Australian governments, instrumentalities, judiciaries and laws are unlawful. We are ruled by unaccountable individuals masquerading as legitimate ministers, officials, judges and Police et al. Those individuals are servants or agents of private corporations. The Commonwealth of Australia is a corporation registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
    Fact checkers say it is not a US corporation BUT that doesn’t debunk the fact that it IS a corporation.

    Insiders ‘in the know’ generally live unfettered by sham Australian laws while the general population is oppressed by them. Elitists walk free while defrauding and screwing Australians. This situation is typified by the way pedofiles are protected and by endless political debates and rhetoric about ‘Royal Commissions’ (although Australia has no monarch), ‘Corruption Commissions’ and ‘Integrity Commissions’ etc and the need to preserve politicians’ privacy and to avoid political parties in government attacking opposition party members.

    It is one big club and ‘YOU ain’t in it’ as George Carlin used to say. Never mind the general population’s need for integrity, good governance and transparency.

    Average Australians can be imprisoned and their lives ruined for allegedly defrauding ‘the Commonwealth’ (a private corporation remitting profits overseas), or for failing to pay unlawful income taxes to the Taxation Department (another privately owned corporation) while government ministers, officials and judiciaries create those impositions and walk free.

    The Governor- General (a colonial title) allegedly represents QEII, a foreign Head of State. That is treason.

    Australia’s “systems” of federal and state governance are ultra vires and a sham as ScoMo’s secret ministerial appointments and the secret dismissal of the Whitlam government evidence: THE MONKEY OR THE ORGAN GRINDER? http://abundanthope.net/pages/Ron_71/THE_MONKEY_OR_THE_ORGAN_GRINDER_2941.shtml

    At least since Whitlam’s prime ministership Australia’s federal politicians have sought to conceal the fact that, as a sovereign nation, our alleged allegiance to QEII as our Head of State was window dressing.

    Australians need to develop a real Constitution that is duly considered, debated and approved in a proper Constitutional Convention process by all Australians. That Constitution needs to include proper provisions in relation to the appointment of a head of state and the constitutional situation of all Australians including Aboriginals.

    Occasional comments by High Court judges have intimated that we have no valid constitution and our governance is covertly controlled by a lawless cabal of elitist insiders. Riccardo Bosi (AustraliaOne) alludes to this from time to time.

    Like

  23. Mike Holt… Wow, thank you for all this information which will be shared.

    Like

  24. To Sue Maynes: The fact that you can make this ridiculous statement is just a testament to your ignorance of what Common Law is really about.
    “We have all been led to think common law is something incredibly wonderful. Yet what is it? It is customary law. The laws of the customs of a land/society. That includes – and look this up for yourself – civil law, admiralty/merchantile law/ contract law, administrative law etc, etc, etc. It ALLLLLL comes under common law because it is all law created throuugh the customs of the people. So why on earth do you think common law can protect you against the other customary laws?”

    Seriously? Do you not understand that Admiralty law is rooted in Roman Law, and it has NOTHING to do with common law or our Magna Carta. Please think about this, because while you post this sort of uninformed comment you are leading people down the wrong path. This is why we stress Education as the most important element of the Common Law movement, and why we have already established more than 60 assemblies in Australia and New Zealand. And now countries all over the world are starting to follow our lead. So tell me, Sue, if you are one voice, and there are so many opposing voices, who do you think might have the correct knowledge?

    Like

  25. Who said we are bound to the US Constitution? Every member of the Commonwealth of Australia, that’s you and me, is bound by Clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901. We do have the right to bear arms, but you have to understand that we are BORN with certain inalienable rights, but most Aussies don’t know what they are and therefore they have been fooled into giving them away. You can see the result of that ignorance now…. so it’s time for people wo start learning what your rights are. This is a good place to start.
    https://commonlaw.earth/your-inalienable-rights/

    Like

  26. If you want to know how the Judiciary behaves and why, the video on this page is an eye-opener
    https://commonlaw.earth/records/

    Like

  27. This article has the most important ones, but the list is very long when you check it out on the US sige:
    https://cirnow.com.au/corporate-government-abn-numbers/

    Like

  28. You are welcome to your opinion Sue, but that doesn’t mean I accept it. Sorry, but the crown is no longer relevant to Australia, despite the laws. The political parties have ignored our constitution and the Federation. We no longer have a legal government.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Marianne Pleming

    Talk about confusion

    Like

  30. Mike Holt – you of all people should know that stating “The British Crown is irrelevant in today’s political situation,” is absolutely not correct OR even factual.

    Consider this. The Court of Chancellery were established in the 1200’s and are still active and operating in Australia’s judicial system. The laws of Equity used in those courts were created specifically because the common law courts were lacking in equitable justice. So IF the Courts of Chancery still exist in today’s Australian courts – and they do; and IF they still operate specifically within the Laws of Equity – and they do: and IF they can over-ride legislative and common law decisions – and they do – then justice, fairness, non-bias and etc are alive and well, but not particularly in the common law courts that Equity was created to IMPROVE.

    The problem for the people is that they don’t know this and therefore don’t know how to access it. And by pulling people BACK to common law the people are being led away from the ONLY source of law that provides you and I with clear justice.

    I used to scream common law to the roof tops and I am now the first to state that I was wrong. You stated common law protects our inalienable rights and freedoms. That. Is. Not. True. It is so wrong it is incredible that anyone believes it. Common law protects the system through statutory legislation. What does statutory legislation create? Contractual obligations. What do you get taken to court for these days? Breaches of contractual obligations.

    We have all been led to think common law is something incredibly wonderful. Yet what is it? It is customary law. The laws of the customs of a land/society. That includes – and look this up for yourself – civil law, admiralty/merchantile law/ contract law, administrative law etc, etc, etc. It ALLLLLL comes under common law because it is all law created throuugh the customs of the people. So why on earth do you think common law can protect you against the other customary laws?

    Go higher people – go to an equity court – it is the ONLY form of law that can stand up against common law. It is in essence, the only law that recognizes you and I as living and listens to us.

    Both John Anderson and yourself Mike, are wrong, wrong, wrong, and again wrong.

    Sue Maynes

    Like

  31. Please inform us of the NY Stock Exchange code for the “Australian” entity as registered and traded as such. I would like to explore this further. Thanks very much

    Like

  32. So if we are bound to The American Constitution then we Have the RIGHT to Bear Arms ?

    Liked by 2 people

  33. I have been trying to educate the masses, our rightful Commonwealth Australia Constitution 1901 is not dead and buried, for about 5 years, in fact, it is being used in Courts around the country.
    Truly, I helped a person take charge of the Court, using our Constitution 1901 in Hervey Bay.
    The judge ran off to his quarters, abanding his office.
    After 30 minutes, he came back, and agreed to our rightful Constitution 1901 being used.
    We never knowingly voted for a Corporate Federal Court, it was given to us without even a
    Referendum. This is TREASON according to our rightful Constitution 1901.
    Our only saviour is our Armed Forces, but they under a Corporate G.G. elected by a Corporate
    Prime Minister,.

    Like

  34. In a post somewhere else I posted about a book by Mario Reading written in 2005. He had transcribed the writings of Nostradamus who predicted death of QEII IN 2022 .. He also said…

    Prince Charles will be crowned to become ‘King of the Islands”, the implication being here that he is no longer king of the other regions in the world over which his mother reigned – Canada, Australia, NZ etc – which will have, in the interim, have become republics.. (pity they didn’t tell us or even ask us..)

    The book also says that Charles will abdicate due to resentment by the people about his treatment of Diana and and one who had not thought to be king, would be king.

    Remember this book was written in 2005.

    Like

  35. To me our constitution is sounding like an AVO against an abusive partner. Just a piece of paper that they walk right through.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Thank you to John Anderson, and all posters.This has certainly given us something to think about.
    It sounds like a real mess to me!
    Am I just plain dumb?

    Like

  37. That is incorrect information. Charles III is the legitimate heir to the throne of the United Kingdom, but the Style and Title ‘Queen of Australia / King of Australia’ was begun in 1953.

    People do not seem to understand that the British Empire was “fractured” in and around 1931, resulting in the formation of the Commonwealth of Nations. In simple terms, the Empire collapsed, those colonies & dominions were given political “independence” and united as the Commonwealth of Nations.

    So Charles title as King of Australia is to do with that. No Empire – so no one single sovereign, but a Commonwealth of Nations with Charles as ‘accepted’ Head of State of each of those. In fact, constitutionalist Anne Twomey, in her book The Chameleon Queen, stated that Elizabeth was also technically Queen of Victoria, Queen of Queensland and etc. So I imagine will Charles.

    However, Australia has one extra element. Our Constitution, agreed to 9 July 1900 and gazetted and proclaimed 1 January 1901, states at Covering Clause 2. “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.”

    And in the Preamble, our Commonwealth is defined as indissoluble.

    So in simple words – no matter what anyone, including govt does or attempts to do – our Commonwealth cannot be gotten rid of and we have to have a sovereign OF the United Kingdom.

    Therefore with reference High Court comments on this situation – Charles will be known as our constitutional monarch AND King of Australia (via the Commonwealth of Nations involvement). The King of Australia however, has no constitutional authority, it is simply a title. Nothing at all to be scared of UNLESS everyone forgets the real king is definitely still alive, well and holding the constitutional protections.

    Sue Maynes

    Like

  38. This problem needs to get sorted out asap for OUR protection!!!
    There are some sheeple who think Queen Elizabeth and now King Charles actually ‘rule’ us… but as you can read above, he has NO power to control/contain our Govt if (when) they become traitors to the people.
    Remember that Albo did NOT swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors! This fact was ignored by all the media. Yet Lydia Thorpe was advised if she did not swear allegiance, then she could not sit in Parliament, so she grudgingly obeyed. One rule for ALP, another rule for everyone else? (PS NOT a fan of Lydia Thorpe!!!)
    One can only wonder to WHOM have our politicians sworn allegiance?
    With WW3 heating up, are we about to find out very soon?

    Like

  39. Mr Anderson is 100% correct. But many of us already knew this. The British Crown is irrelevant in today’s political situation. The political parties have usurped the Crown and created their own fake Queen of Australia in an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes. But that wool has been ripped aside by so many now that the number of people waking up is reaching a point where the rebellion will spill over and these corrupt politicians, judiciary, police and bureaucrats will be swept into the dustbin of history. Dick Yardley’s book exposes exactly what the politicians have done to destroy our country: https://advance-australia.com.au/
    The question then is, what do we replace their fake government with?
    There are two parts to the answer:
    1. Common Law is spreading as we educate people about their inalienable rights and freedoms by establishing the framework for a new political structure…. https://commonlaw.earth/
    2. Of all the groups currently aiming for political reform, only common law has a plan… https://advance-australia.com.au/ — the Advance Australia 5-Point Plan lays out a simple set of steps we can all unite in to make it possible for all Aussies to have direct say in how we govern ourselves.
    There is no place for royals, political parties, or corruption in our vision for the future. There is a saying that the definition of madness is to repeat the same thing in the hope it will change. We need to change our thinking, and we all need to take responsibility for changing the future for new generations. Will you be part of the solution, or will you remain asleep and part of the problem? It’s up to each one of us to decide what we want the future to be.

    Liked by 1 person

  1. Pingback: 2022/10/04th – One Day at a Time – Are YOU ready ? – debtstop

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: