Why are Indigenous sovereign nations supporting UNDRIP? Group claims ‘transition’ begins on January 1

By TONY MOBILIFONITIS

WE NEED to ask some serious questions about movements going under the banners of The People’s Law of Terra Australis and the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation (OSTF). According to the former group, Australia will come under the lore of the elders and international law on January 1^st, 2024.

Cairns News has been approached by people advocating for these movements, but we are also aware of warnings coming from controversial Aboriginal activist and lawyer Josephine Cashman over the push for indigenous sovereignty and historical revisionists.

We call Cashman controversial because she is, with the indigenous sovereign movement, with the communist core of the long-running Aboriginal land rights movement and the wider Liberal-Labor-Green backers of The Voice, even though she once worked as an Aboriginal adviser with Tony Abbott.

Cashman ran a credible campaign against The Voice, exposing the links between the prominent Aboriginal activist elite, the UN and global corporate interests. She also exposed the Juukan “sacred site destruction” false flag involving Rio Tinto. So when Cashman sees reason to warn against this lesser known indigenous sovereign movement, we should listen.

Aside from the indigenous land control movement now being pushed by the Labor states, which stems from the more than 80 years of land rights agitation by the Communist Party of Australia, this latest manifestation of indigenous sovereignty has a very distinct “sovereign rights” flavour mixed with some mysticism.

Cairns News was sent a statement, a “Declaration of Sovereignty and Nationhood” by a supporter of the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation (OSTF), whose prominent mover and shaker is Mark McMurtrie, aka Gunham Badi, who Cashman has challenged over this broader issue of Aboriginal sovereignty and nationhood.

The statement on the OSTF website makes the link to the UN and the UNDRIP abundantly clear: “We, the Autochthonous (indigenous) and Original Tribal Peoples of the Great South Land, the noble Peoples of the Great Southern land known in this modern era as ‘Australia’, support and address the United Nations in that We solemnly proclaim the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership, truth and mutual respect.

“Therefore, in this same spirit and pursuit we adhered to this proclamation and so have adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a template to claim and declare our Sovereignty and Nationhood and all the rights and privileges afforded to nations, both within the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and according to our Sovereign Tribal status, to the world.”

A member of the group Fiona Reynolds said the Declaration was signed 20 years ago and she could not answer why the UN was included “except that we know now a great deal more now of the global tyranny situation than we knew in those days.” She suggested we take this up with Gunham, the author of the Declaration, and noted that he did go to the UN “around that time to throw down the gauntlet”.

Reynolds also referred us to a video in which McMurtrie addresses a meeting of UN representatives. He complains that while UNESCO is concerned about the Taliban’s destruction of the Afghanistan rock Buddhas it is “resoundingly silent on the destruction of many, many, many thousands of acres of rock formations and rock art on our lands”.

“We would like to know by the UN is so silent. Could it be the dollars form the mines on those lands. Could it be the influence of states like the US and other member states of the UN that are making money from our land and the ethnic cleansing and genocide of our people?” McMurtrie says.

He goes on to say that he and his supporters do not recognise the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples. The Congress went into voluntary liquidation in 2019, and according to McMurtrie it was an agency of the Crown, created and owned by the Crown with limited liability under corporate seal.

McMurtrie said he represented a federation of sovereign tribes that wanted the Crown to “decolonize” them. He said the UN should stop being a toothless tiger and stand up for all the indigenous people of the planet “because this planet belongs to us”. “It doesn’t belong to the Crown corporation or its Queen in England or its corporate government structure on our soil.” Cairns News did call McMurtrie but as yet has not received a return call.

In regard to The People’s Law of Terra Australis group, Cairns News has emailed a member of the group posing the question that if the Indigenous sovereign rule claim is taken to the international courts, doesn’t that put the matter in the court of the UN with its underlying UNDRIP program? As yet we have not received a reply.

In a recorded Zoom video, an Egyptian history author and leading voice in The People’s Law group Alex Retrov pushes a very similar narrative to that of Aboriginal imposter Bruce Pascoe, which can be read on the National Library of Australia website. We note that the library still refers to Pascoe as “of Bunurong, Tasmanian and Yuin heritage”, a claim recently debunked by genealogical researchers in Melbourne. That narrative concerns the English Crown’s historic claim on Australia based on the terra nullius concept.

As stated by the National Library: “The concept of terra nullius, or land belonging to no-one, remained the legal principle on which British colonisation rested until 1992, when the High Court brought down its finding in the Mabo vs Queensland (No. 2) case. It ruled that the lands of the continent were not terra nullius at the time of settlement, just as Pascoe’s evidence suggests.”

But Retrov goes much further, promising a takeover of indigenous and international law in a few days. “So how are we going to make this great transition? Because we’re planning that at midnight on New Year’s Eve this year, the new – or should I say the old law – replaces the corporate law. And it will be done passively because we will just refuse to use their banks. We will just refuse to abide by their legislations and if they try to impose their legislation they will be guilty of war crimes,” said Retrov.

“Is this going to be an easy transition? Well, we’re expecting some resistance but we’re working hard behind the scenes so that you guys can be free,” he added. He urged people to watch further videos and get copies of the documents involved. Retrov assured his audience the Blackfellas would not be taking their homes away, but protecting home owners from the corporate fraud of homeowners spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a piece of paper.

Retrov’s amazing predictions were preceded by a history lesson in which he said the British did not actually come to Australia to colonise the land, but rather came as the expedition of “a private trading company” merely hunting resources.

Retrov also said that because the land was seen as occupied and therefore not able to be claimed, Cook came up with a strategy to claim the continent by first claiming the unoccupied Norfolk Island. Cook did not visit Norfolk Island until his second voyage and we are not aware of any initial claim on that island except its use as a notorious colonial penal colony.

As recorded in Cook’s diary (held by the National Library), on 22 August 1770 at Possession Island north of Cape York, Cook claimed possession of the east coast of Australia in the name of King George III, giving the British Crown exclusive rights to negotiate future settlement sites via treaty with the Indigenous peoples.

Retrov went on to claim that “the trading company”, that is the colonial government, brought four Maori chiefs to Sydney to make a treaty with the Aborigines, but that didn’t work. “So what was the solution? The trading company tried to kill them all,” he said, citing Tasmania as the example.

That is another questionable claim. There were several private treaty attempts made by the colonists up until 1885, most notably John Batman in Melbourne, but these were overruled by the colonial government of NSW and later, Victoria.

The trading company we know about is the Tasmanian-based Van Diemens Land Trading Company. One might conclude that they had an interest in the war on Tasmanian Aboriginals which all but wiped them out, but the company was not formed until 1825, when it was given a Royal Charter. Its purpose was to ensure a cheap supply of wool to fuel the growing textile factories in Britain.

Tasmania was colonised in 1803, and the long war that ensued between the indigenous islanders and the new settlers also involved convicts, who were enlisted in the hunting and shooting of Aboriginals until only about 400 survived by 1835. We should note that historian Geoffrey Blainey blamed disease for most of their deaths, while warfare and private violence had also been devastating.

Retrov raises legitimate modern-day concerns about the corporate domination of Australian life by banks and government agencies with their fines and red tape, and suggests the only solution is to develop a separate indigenous nation. “What we whiteys, for want of a better word, need to do is support the true sovereigns of this planet, and the true sovereigns of this nation, the First Nation tribes, because they are the true sovereigns of this land and it is their law (lore?) that operates.”

Retrov explained that the only reason Australians are bound to legislation is that they are tricked into contract with such things as driver licences, bank accounts, and using the surname which contracts you with the corporation and makes you subservient or a slave. “Slavery was not abolished, it was just shifted from the physical realm into the fiction realm – paper, and you have been transferred into slavery through paperwork.”

There is no doubt we live in an over-regulated society and that this has much to do with the corporatisation of government, which is part of the globalisation operation. But the notion that the solution is the declaration of indigenous sovereignty, or self-determination, justified by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is questionable.

According to Retrov, in January 2023 a group of First Nations people went to “the international court” to raise various claims. Retrov doesn’t specify which international court e.g. the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice (ICJ), both of which are within UN jurisdiction.

He says the claims were unsuccessful because the International Court is stacked by corporate interests. So instead they went to the “International Court of New Zealand”, which actually doesn’t exist. Or did he mean they filed complaints from New Zealand? Cairns News is aware of a Covid vaccine injury class action being launched by German lawyer Reiner Feullmich against the New Zealand government with the Maori population as the complainant.

Further, Retrov claims that legal papers filed by Kabi Kabi people directly led to the resignation of the Queensland Premier Anastacia Palaszsuk. He claims the notices warned that if the Queensland Government did not abide by First Nations lore, then they would be held complicit in genocide. In addition they gave notice that they were not bound by fines, regulations, directives, legislation or similar.

Such far-reaching paperwork might well have been filed, but it’s not the first time Australian governments have been challenged on their legitimacy. Whether or not it would lead to a premier’s resignation is another matter.

Another similar meeting seen by Cairns News involved My Place Gympie and the Gympie People’s Council, which had gathered to hear the case of the Kabi Kabi people. An ambassador for the Nyangbul Nation named Helen said the Kabi Kabi move for self-determination was supported by the UNDRIP and they now had their own international embassy.

The fact that these separatist groups are aligning with the UNDRIP, puts them in the same orbit as the World Health Organisation and the World Economic Forum. It was the WHO that effectively drove the Covid pandemic and mass vaccination scam and is even implicated in a global scheme to sexualize children. So when push comes to shove, will Kabi Kabi and the multiple other First Nations groups be calling on the UN blue helmets to enforce their “self determination”?

There has certainly been no suggestion of that from any of the indigenous activist groups, but something very much like this scenario happened during the scamdemic, when reports emerged of ADF personnel force vaccinating indigenous people in the Northern Terroritory. According to Cashman, the accusations were false. However Cairns News was informed from reliable sources that Aboriginals were put on buses and taken to vaccination centres. Whether forced vaccination was involved we do not know.

Cashman attacks some of the outspoken voices of the indigenous self-determination and freedom movements such as Ricardo Bosi, McMurtrie and Sacha Stone, a frequent figure on alt media sites. She shows photographic evidence of Stone working at the UN, the organisation he apparently is fighting against. Has Stone turned against the UN? We don’t know. Among Cashman’s extensive postings on X is a discussion between Stone and McMurtrie, in which Stone suggests McMurtrie would make a good future PM.

Cashman goes on to raise a number of serious allegations against alleged “fifth columnists” including that some are holding blackmail material to be used against various politicians. She also suspects the use of the drug grown commercially in Queensland, duboisia or scopolamine aka devil’s breath, in extortion operations.

What is clear is that there is a clash of interests between people advocating sovereign rights and their links to the UN, which, with global big pharma and the billionaire eugenicist set pulling the strings, ushed in via the WHO the global pandemic biowarfare operation.

On the other hand, if there a genuine plan in place to free western nations from the grip of global corporatism, are those involved capable of administering such a transition without appealing for help from foreign forces or international courts?