Document Storage

If you wish to read, download and pass on, the actual documents relating to the current research, please go to

http://www.4shared.com/folder/n8jvC7D1/_online.html

You will find -

• Theft of Australia - The Facts - April 2011
• Betrayal of Trust - by Political Parties Parliamentary Supremacy - September 2011
• Overview of the Last 100 Years in Australia - March 2011
• Royal Styles & Titles and other information by Dick Yardley

The first two packages contain information that was sent to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth asking her to intervene in the political situation in Australia.

To date she has refused to do so.

Notes from the Sydney Cooee Rally - 24 Feb 2010

What is happening in Australia? The People know that legislation is removing their rights, taking their assets and endangering their mental safety. The People know men and women who are fighting parts of the problem, such as Peter Spencer, but the question we must ask is how have government been able to do this without the permission of the People?

This is a simple overview of our findings -

1. Prior to the formation of the Federation, all colonies but SA were independent penal colonies, under the authority of the British Empire.
2. For purposes of trade, these colonies operated under the 1855 Federal Council of Australasia.
3. The planning for a Federation took 10 years of conventions and referendums.
4. The draft Constitution was formed and sent to England.
5. On 9 July 1900, Queen Victoria signed the amended Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900 and returned it to Australia.

6. This constitution required a final referendum of the People to approve it. Why?
7. Because it was a contract between the owner of the land, the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, and her loyal subjects under the Seal of the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. And any contract must have the full agreement of both parties.
8. The details of this contract were that she and her heirs would protect us, we would pay into her consolidated revenue our taxes, she would then pay the public servants wages, and the public servants would obey our Constitution in their administration of her lands on our behalf.
9. Who are we in this Act? We are the Commonwealth. The actual Constitution at part 9 is the rules applicable to government.
10. And it states at part 9, section 117 and section 128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900, that government can not remove our rights without our permission.

11. Unfortunately, for reasons of state, the heads of those independent colonies decided not to have another referendum, but instead agreed to this contract “for and on behalf” of the People. Creating the first loophole in Federation.
12. In 1973, Gough Edward Whitlam came into power and immediately created the Queen of Australia and the Great Seal of Australia.
13. From the time on all government legislation has been created under that Queen and sealed to the Seal. What does this mean?
14. The Queen of the People of the Commonwealth is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain and Ireland – not the Queen of Australia. The Queen of Australia is an entity completely unknown to our rights. She did not sell us her land, she does not quarantee our protection.
15. The Seal of the People of the Commonwealth is the Royal Seal of Great Britain with the lion and the unicorn. The Great Seal of Australia with the kangaroo and the emu, is a seal completely foreign to our laws under our Constitution and our rights.

16. A Queen and a Seal are not just pretty pictures on a page, they are profound legal elements telling anyone who understands them and must operate under them, what laws, what government, what power they must obey.
17. Anyone who has been taken to court under these draconian laws should know that the first thing a judge must do is look at the Seal on the charge. If it is the Royal Seal he must rule under common law. If it is the Great Seal he must rule under the legislation of the Aust government. If it is the state Seal he must rule under state legislation. And he can not look at any other legislation in his decision. He is bound to the Seal and your rights are completely ignored.
18. Our rights are found under the Royal Seal, at common law and equity, as found in the judicial system created in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900 and protected by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Ireland.
19. Our rights are not found in the courts of Australia which are bound to these government creations – hence – we lose.
20. In essence, what Gough Whitlam created in 1973, was a republic in all but name.

21. The progressive removal of our Queen and our Seal from all legislation in Australia now sees the sovereign power vested solely in the Prime Minister, who has never been given that right by the People.
22. Under that sovereignty we have been made their commercial chattel, we provide them with our money/our taxes, we must obey their laws on political grounds, we are taken into their courts by their employees and tried in their system under statutory law, where, under the Criminal Code 1995, a person is defined as being a ‘nothing” and an act of treason can only be committed against a Prime Minister..
23. This is not our government. This government is completely foreign to our 1900 (UK) Commmonwealth Constitution.
24. In this foreign government all dealings are now contractural under the corporate structure.
25. Our government was authorised by Queen Victoria to operate under common law and equity, and their permission stopped at making laws for Peace, Welfare and Good Government only.

26. What have they done with our Constitution? They have placed it inside a consolidated act referred to simply as The Constitution. Inside that act is the Australia Act 1986 (their constitution), the Westminster Act and our Constitution – all Sealed under the Great Seal of Australia.
27. In simple words, under their control. We have been enslaved.
28. The states have all returned to their independent colonial status, reworking those 1800’s constitutions back into modern terms.
29. COAG is now the trade agreement between all government entities including local councils. You do not get to vote who sits in COAG, yet all agreements over your land rights are under the power of COAG.
30. People of the Commonwealth, they have removed our civil and political rights – did you agree to that?

31. People of the Commonwealth, they have removed your private ownership rights to your wealth, your land, your goods and your chattels. Did you agree to that?
32. People of the Commonwealth, they have created a ‘republican style’ government and removed our Constitutional Monarchy. Did you agree to that?
33. Her Majesty did not give this foreign government permission to steal her land and she has recently re-affirmed her role as the protector of the People when she stated she was the Head of State in this country.
34. And you must understand, we are the People of the State of the Commonwealth, so she was telling this government that she is now stepping into the battle to protect us.
35. People of the Commonwealth, this foreign government has taken the assets of Her Majesty, kept in trust for her People, they have sold those assets and pocketed the money. Did you agree to that?

36. This foreign government rules with fear and statute law.
37. They are nothing but thieves – do not allow them to force us to live in fear. We are much, much greater than that.
38. If you do not know who you are and what you own, you will not know what is being stolen from you.
39. Stand united, know who you are, where your protection lies and speak out. Make your voices roar through the offices and halls of their corporate headquarters. Let them know the People of the Commonwealth have had enough!

My Will - Part 5

5) WHAT IS THE TRUE LEGAL ROLE OF THE QUEEN AND HER VICE REGAL REPRESENTATIVES?

Over the last few years, as referred to in previous Chapters, there has surfaced the clear lines of what used to be a more subtle underground campaign to mislead the Australian People in accepting the concept that a republic is far superior in every way for Australia; that the monarchy is an out-dated mediaeval idea, having no logical place in modern thinking, whatever that may mean, no real relationship with this nation, and no real power or authority in our Parliamentary system.

YET NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!

As stated in Chapter 4:
Whatever it is physically possible to do, and the people want, the Queen has the final legal power to see that they get it, no matter how politicians may protest.

The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the Queen is the unknowable extent of what Her people, at any time of their choosing, may directly request of Her.

Put even more simply: the only true Constitutional and legal reason for the existence, and the only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the institution of the Monarchy, and the offices of the Governor-General and State Governors:-
Is to give the people what the people ask for. Not what others think the people ought to have.

If the Australian people are too lazy and indifferent to ask for what they want, then they can blame only themselves if politicians and political parties impose their own ideologies on them.

It is legally unchallengable that the party system, with its direct and indirect powers of manipulating politicians and people, has quite illegally striven to drive a wedge between the people and the final source of all their Constitutional and legal powers, i.e., the institution of the Monarchy, as a prelude to transferring the unlimited power of that Monarchy into the hands of the controllers and manipulators of political parties, including the final party political control over the Armed Forces of the nation; a control which, at present, is legally vested in the Queen to ensure that, where directly expressed to Her, the WILL of the people shall at all times prevail.
In Chapter 3 it was stressed that Ministers of the Crown are not, and never legally can be, the "Government" of the State or Commonwealth that the Government was legally non-elective, and that an expansion of that statement would be given in this Chapter.

Both the written Constitution of the Commonwealth and the so called unwritten Constitutions of the six Australian States vest the "government" exclusively in the institution of the Monarchy, to be legally exercisable_in almost every case_by the Governor-General in the Commonwealth and the State Governors in the States.

Thus, constitutionally and legally, the Government CANNOT BE ELECTED for it remains permanently embodied in the institution of the Monarchy. It can "govern" only according to the direct or indirect expressed WILL of the people, for that is its legal role as the protector of the people.

The legal WILL of the people can only be expressed in two ways: indirectly through elected Parliamentarians by "MY WILL" letters or directly through the Queen's Vice Regal Representatives likewise. There is no other legal way that that WILL can be expressed. Electing a candidate to Parliament does NOT express it. All that an election does is to put a person into a House of Parliament whom the electors believe will faithfully carry-out the written WILL of the people as and when so expressed.

Over the years the party system has cleverly hidden the fact that the people have the legal freedom at all times to express their WILL direct to the Queen, no matter what politicians and others may try to claim.

The Queen is the permanent "government" with a perpetual "mandate" to govern according to the clearly expressed WILL of the people. It is obvious, then, that no political party can lawfully occupy the Constitutional seat reserved in perpetuity for the Monarchy, no matter what political scientists, text- book writers, academics, politicians, political parties and other theorists may claim.

This writer codified the powers of the Monarchy back in 1941 in the following sentence, and it still stands to be challenged before the High Court, if legal minds feel competent to do so:- "THE POWER, PEROGATIVES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE MONARCHY, THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL, AND STATE GOVERNORS, ARE THE BRAKES WHICH THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE CAN APPLY AT ANY HOUR (without having to wait for any general election) TO BRING MINISTERS AND POLITICIANS TO A COMPLETE AND SUDDEN STOP, SO AS TO RECEIVE FROM THEM, THE ELECTORS, EITHER FRESH INSTRUCTION, REPRIMAND, OR DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE. "

My Will - Part 1

The People of the Commonwealth Constitution Act UK 1900 have the right to govern the politicians who are in their employ.

Arthur Chresby - a former Member of Parliament who spent 53 years researching our Consitutional rights, presented them to the People in a profound little booklet.

I present this booklet, to both honour Mr Chresby and to allow his work to keep teaching the People, who they are & what they must do to protect themselves and their fellow Australian.

---------------------------------------------------

Your Will Be Done
A booklet by Arthur A Chresby

(Research Analyst in Constitutional Law, and formerly Federal Member for Griffith in the House of Representatives.)

INTRODUCTION
In the great controversy on the alleged need for constitutional reform and the replacement of the monarchy with an Australian republic, there seems to be an increasing airing of the views of those apparently bent on destroying the faith of the people in their established parliamentary institutions; that the real truths, safeguards and functions of our Commonwealth and State Constitutions are being lost to the knowledge of the nation.

This work is an attempt to put forward those truths, a sort of primer of Constitutional Law; to bring to public notice the true legal functions and duties of the institution of the monarchy, the offices of Governor General and State Governors, Ministers of the Crown, Federal and State Parliamentarians; to reveal the correct legal relationship between the electors and parliamentarians; to show what can be done under both Commonwealth and State Constitutions to bring Ministers and politicians to a full sudden stop "… for reprimand or dismissal, without having to wait for a general election…"

It may be contended that the people have been denied the above mentioned knowledge; that our schools, colleges and universities have failed to inform, as have the news media at large.
The history of parliament and politics in Australia shows that no political party, few, if any, politicians, and almost none of the constitutional and political text-book writers has published this information, for it is knowledge that, once grasped by the people, means the end of party political control over the voice and votes of politicians, and the elimination of party political dictatorship over the machinery of Parliament.

Those who would seriously attempt to dispute the contents of this book are advised that the law courts are open to them to do so. Any other form of denial would have no legal validity.

Because this is being written for the information of Mr., Mrs. and Miss Everyman, the writer has tried to keep the contents as simple as possible, to avoid legal jargon, and to give quotations only where it is deemed essential to clarify a legal point.

It is stressed that the sole purpose of this work is to show the Australian People what their true Constitutional powers are, and how they can lawfully use those powers to obtain the results they want their elected parliamentarians to produce, e.g.,
"I want my dollar to buy more tomorrow than it does today!"

Readers are invited to keep the following legally unarguable fact in mind:-
In the final analysis it is the Constitutions and Laws of the Commonwealth and the States, and the High Court interpretations of such, that determines what we can or cannot do in our daily lives. It is, therefore, to those Constitutions, Laws, and Court interpretations that we must continuously look for guidance and succour in our living, work and play, and not to the dissembling party politicians.

The writer hopes that the following pages will open up the way to such constitutional and legal guidance and succour.

This introduction cannot be completed without acknowledging the debt which this writer owes to Bart Marney of the blue ribbon provincial daily newspaper, "The Toowoomba Chronicle" (Queensland), without whose many objective criticisms and encouragement this book might never have been written.

(1) WHAT IS THE CORRECT RELATIONSHIP OF AN ELECTOR TO A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT?
Both by Constitutional and Statute law an elector has no legal right, whatever, to abuse, intimidate or demand anything of his Member of Parliament, State or Federal, or of his State Senators.

Any such abuse, intimidation or demand, would enable a Parliamentarian to take court action against an elector for attempting to use unlawful pressure to force the Member or Senator to act contrary to their judicially defined function and duty.

As an elector you have a right, and a legal duty, at election time to vote for the candidate of your choice. Indeed, so long as you obtain a ballot paper in a lawful manner and place it in the ballot box you cannot be compelled to vote for the candidates on that ballot paper and may, if you wish, cast your vote against all names on that paper by neatly crossing them out. As voting is legally secret there is, at present, no legal way of stopping you from doing so.

Although such an action is classed as "casting an informal rote," you have legally signified that none of the candidates on that ballot paper meet with your satisfaction and have, therefore, lawfully cast your vote against all of them. If a majority of the electors were to vote "informal" it would force a fresh election and bring forth fresh candidates, thus indicating that the electors were casting their votes with care.

Political parties, of course, would cry that the electors were wasting their votes; that electors were disenfranchising themselves. But this is only party propaganda, because no party got any value out of your informal vote, and that is all that concerns parties: they need your vote to grab for power.

Once the election is over that is the end of ballot paper voting until the next election. However, under both Federal and State Constitutions and Statute laws you have certain implied legal duties and obligations.

The whole system of Parliament, and the SOLE reason for its existence, is to make laws for the people, with the clear implication that those laws will reflect the WILL of the people on the subject matter of those laws.

By those legal implications you have a lawful duty and obligation to keep your Members and Senators fully informed about what your WILL is upon any issue or matter that comes before them in their Houses of Parliament, or that should come before them.

It is only when you fulfil that lawful duty and obligation that your ember and Senators can properly fulfil~their judicially defined function and duty in their houses of Parliament. If you do not fulfil your lawful duty and obligation, if you do not keep your Members and Senators fully informed of your will on any issue, then you cannot blame them for what they do. You have only your own laziness or indifference to blame.

How do you correctly inform your Members and Senators of your WILL? It is so simple that only laziness and indifference ON YOUR PART stops it from working. Yes, it is so very simple, and here is an example:- Suppose, for instance, you believe that income tax should be halved and sales tax completely eliminated. You write, in this case AN INDIVIDUAL letter to your Federal Member, and each one of your State Senators, such as this:-

Dear Sir,

I know that it is my duty to keep you informed of MY WILL on anything that comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament

IT IS MY WILL that you take immediate action to have income tax halved and sales tax removed completely.

Yours faithfully,

(signed)

(Insert your full name, address and date, as legal evidence that you are a constituent.)

Should your Member or Senators try to side-step (and some of them are extremely adept at doing this) or tell you what their party is or is not doing, you simply write back and say:-

Dear Sir,

I repeat that, in accordance with my lawful obligation to keep you informed of MY WILL, I again inform you that it is MY WILL that you take immediate action to have income tax halved and sales tax removed completely.

Yours faithfully.

Don't enter into written argument with a politician, for many politicians are past masters in the art of avoiding that which they don't want to face up to, and become experts in manipulating words to their benefit.

Although the majority of politicians would never publicly admit it, what worries them most - irrespective of majority or party - is the percentage trend in electorate thinking that is shown by the number of simple straight letters clearly expressing THE WILL of the elector signing the letter.

To illustrate the above point further Opinion polls claim to reveal THE TREND of public thinking BY ASKING SIMPLE QUESTIONS of a given number of people selected at random, and, more often than not, the trend shown is reasonably accurate. BUT NOTE THAT THE TREND IS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE OPINIONS of people, and people can change their opinions as often as they change their clothes.

The principle of percentage trends in electorate thinking as shown by the above simple straight "MY WILL" letter is an entirely different thing, and certainly leads to greater accuracy, for politicians know from experience that if one of their electors sits down to write such a simple "IT IS MY WILL" letter, then that elector is not expressing a mere opinion, but knows what he wants and says so in a no-nonsence way. It is doubly impressed upon the politician's mind if, after trying to side track the elector, he still gets back a straight "IT IS MY WILL!"

Experience of the various techniques used in opinion polls, and the evaluation of same, reveals that one such "IT IS MY WILL" letter indicates the mathematical probability that a MINIMUM of four(4) other electors are of the same conviction but have not written.

Even the least intelligent politician, where his Seat is concerned, can multiply four (4) by the number of such "MY WILL" letters he receives, and if he gets two or three thousand such letters he will know that he is going to come up with a mathematical stomach-twisting figure showing that he is not in tune with his electorate.

Self-preservation, even with a party-ridden politician, is always of the highest motivating priority to that politician, and, as the long experience of the former Queensland Parliamentarian, Senator Ian Wood, has proved, time and again, a political party thinks many times when trying to remove a determined straight Parliamentarian who has electorate thinking behind him. (Senator Wood fulfilled his judicially defined function and duty and refused, consistently, to bend to party pressures.)

On a subject like the drastic reduction of income tax, and removal of sales tax, it is obviously something on which most people will have strong convictions, not mere opinions. Thus, it requires only a few ordinary people to get together in their various electorates and, after writing their own "MY WILL" letters get out amongst friends, relatives, acquaintances and others in their own electorate inviting them all to write such "MY WILL" letters to their Federal Member and State Senators. Such determined ordinary people also have relatives and friends in other electorates and can invite them to do likewise.

Thus, in no time, the work of, say 3, 4, 5 or 6 people can spread like wild- fire through the electorate, especially when most people are incensed over one thing. To get two or three thousand individually signed "MY WILL" letters is not a hard task for such ordinary determined people.

It must never be forgotten that ordinary people have the legal privilege, if they wish to exercise it, of quietly approaching relatives, friends, acquaintances and others inviting them to write such "MY WILL" letters to their Member and Senators. It requires no committees, no resolutions, no street marching, no formation of groups, bodies or associations with all sorts of names and titles. No constitutions, no minutes, no wasting of hours in fruitless arguing and discussions, no presidents, secretaries or treasurers.

All that is required is that an individual with a determination to act lawfully to right or alter something he doesn't like, and with the initiative to do so, is to write his "MY WILL" letter, show others and encourage them to do likewise. There are a multitude of issues upon which people have strong convictions and the simple "MY WILL" letter is their lawful simple way of telling their M.P.

Don't argue that it will not work, or that people are stupid. If you feel strongly enough about something, don't just moan and talk about it, write your "MY WILL" letters. IT IS YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to do so, not someone else, nor those never identified "THEY OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT." You have to be your own "they".

It is stressed again: it is your legal privilege, and your lawful duty, to encourage others, peacefully and quietly, in the manner outlined in this Chapter. A Parliamentarian, armed with the written proof of the "WILL" of his electors, upon any issue, can completely ignore party pressures and set about faithfully fulfilling his judicially defined legal function and legal duty. He is freed to be a Parliamentarian and not, as at present in most cases, a mere party yes-man. THE "MY WILL" LETTER IS A LEGAL DEMONSTRATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.

When your Members of Parliament, State and Federal, do something that pleases you WRITE AND TELL THEM SO, as Members get plenty of abusive letters and extremely few courteous ones. If a Member or Senator knows that he is the centre of watchfulness from his area at all times he is left with no alternative than to carry out his judicially defined function and duty, no matter the protests and pressures of his party.

Thus, Politicians, secure in the knowledge of written electorate support, possessed of the written "MY WILL" is freed from control of the party manipulators, for the party has lost control over his voice and vote on all issues on which the electorate has expressed its WILL. Wise politicians would do well to continuously seek the written "WILL" of all their electors on every issue and proposed legislation. After all they do have offices and a secretary in their electorate, whilst Federal Members also have Research Officers, so they have no excuse for not organising to seek the electors "WILL" before casting their votes in their House of Parliament.

To sum up this Chapter:

It is your legal duty and obligation, and yours alone, to keep your Members and Senators fully informed, at all times, of your "WILL." That is your true lawful relationship with your Members and your Senators.

Commonwealth Public Letters of Support to the High Court

February 4 2010 amendment - THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HAS SUPPORTED THIS MATTER WITH LETTERS AND DONATIONS.

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY MORE LETTERS.

Although this matter is focused on QLD, this state is the key to the growing problems in all other states of Australia. All governments are following the "lead" of Queensland.

And the assets being sold in QLD are not assets of the QLDers, but of the People of the Commonwealth. Therefore we the People of the state of the Commonwealth ALSO had to give permission to both take and sell the assets.

So, we are also asking the people of the Commonwealth to sign the following letter and return it to us as soon as possible.

Fax to (07) 4096 2641

The cost of High Court cases are massive, please donate $165 (incl GST) per family OR $110 (incl GST) per individual.

Either as a postal order, a cheque or into the following account Envirowild Pty Ltd
NAB
BSB: 084 512
Account No: 79847 1759



Name ………………...…………………………………………………….

Residential Address ……..………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………

Postal Address ………………………...…………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………


I am a person as described in the Preamble and at Section 117, subject to Section 128
of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 proclaimed 1st January 1901,
which was the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).

I, along with all the other sovereign people inside the Constitution as in its Preamble, am an equal shareholder of all the assets of the Commonwealth of Australia, those assets being currently held under the Corporations Act 2001 (C’wth).

I, as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia, have never been presented with any referendum subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, to allow Queensland to become a Sovereign State.

I, as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia, have never been presented with any referendum subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, to allow my assets to pass from those held by the Commonwealth, to any corporation in Queensland.

I hereby support the Demand for Information from The Honourable Anna Bligh MP Premier of the State of Queensland as requested by Mr David John Walter on 1st December 2009.

If this matter is to be put before the High Court, I request that the High Court accept this as my application to join in the application for a writ to be put to The Honourable Anna Bligh MP Premier of the State of Queensland, as no referendum has been placed before me in these matters by my elected Members of the body politic thereby failing to respect and uphold the trust I placed in them by my vote.

I also request that the High Court allow further time for acceptance of any other sovereign person of the Commonwealth of Australia to join in this action after its initial lodgement.



……………………………………… ………………………………………
(Printed Full Name) (Signature)



Signed this ………………..……..….…….. day of ………….…..……….….…….. 20…..

QLD Public Letters of Support to the High Court

February 4 2010 - THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTED THIS MATTER WITH LETTERS AND DONATIONS.

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY MORE LETTERS.

The EnviroWild Team is asking for support with our lodgement in the High Court in January, asking the Justices to ask the Premier of QLD to answer the Demand Questions.

Following is the letter we are asking the People of QLD to sign and return to us.

Fax to (07) 4096 2641

The cost of High Court cases are massive, please donate $165 (incl GST) per family OR $110 (incl GST) per individual.

Either as a postal order, a cheque or into the following account Envirowild Pty Ltd
NAB
BSB: 084 512 Account No: 79847 1759




Name ………………...…………………………………………………….


Residential Address ……..………………………………………………………………..


………………………………………………………………………


Postal Address ………………………...…………………………………………….


………………………………………………………………………



I am a sovereign person and an entity inside the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) of 9th July 1900 and the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 proclaimed on the 1st January 1901.

I, along with all the other sovereign people inside the Constitution as in its Preamble, am an equal shareholder of all the assets of the Commonwealth of Australia, those assets being currently held under the Corporations Act 2001 (C’wth).

I hereby support the Demand for Information from The Honourable Anna Bligh MP Premier of the State of Queensland by Mr David John Walter on 1st December 2009.

If this information has not been supplied to Mr David John Walter by close of business on 31st December 2009, I wish to be named in the application for a prerogative writ of mandamus, that The Honourable Anna Bligh MP Premier of the State of Queensland, presents the information requested by Mr David John Walter on 1st December 2009, at a date of mention to the full High Court, subject to Chapter III of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act at Sections 75(5), 76(2) and 80.

On the day of mention to the full High Court, if the information is still not forthcoming, a further request will be made by Mr David John Walter for a further writ.

I have not been informed by any elected representative of the body politic of either Queensland or the Commonwealth of Australia, as to changes to Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867, subject to Section 53, to alter the position of that Constitution.

I have not been requested by the subjects of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act under Sections 117 to 128, to vote as to whether to allow Queensland, as a State of the Commonwealth of Australia subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, to become a Sovereign State, to vote as to whether Queensland may use the assets of the sovereign people under the Corporations Act 2001 (C’wth), and to vote as to whether Queensland’s legislature should not comply with section 109 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901.

If this matter is to be put before the High Court, I also request that the High Court accept this as my application to join in the application for a prerogative writ of mandamus to be put to The Honourable Anna Bligh MP Premier of the State of Queensland, as no referendum has been placed before me in these matters by my elected Members of the body politic thereby failing to respect and uphold the trust I placed in them by my vote.

I also request that the High Court allow further time for acceptance of any other sovereign person of the Commonwealth of Australia to join in this action after its initial lodgement.



……………………………………… ………………………………………
(Printed Full Name) (Signature)



Signed this ………………..……..….…….. day of ………….…..……….….…….. 20…..

Reply from Anna Bligh, Premier of QLD

The office of Anna Bligh replied to the Demand letter one day before the 21 days were up.

We were not provided with any referendum details whatsoever and the letter replied from the perspective of the Qld Constitution 2001 and not the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.

You will also note that the letter states that the Governor's role is mandated by the QLD Constitution 2001, when rightfully, the governor is an entity of the 1900 Constitution under the Royal Seal. The QLD Constitution 2001, is of course sealed under the Seal of QLD (as was this letter), indicating that the Governor now answers to the acts emanating from the government of that Seal.

This now moves to the High Court, who, next week, will be asked to ask the Qld Premier the same questions.


The reply from the office of Anna Bligh, Premier of QLD.....................







Transcript of the reply............

Office of the Premier
Executive Building
100 George St Brisbane
PO Box 15185 City East
Queensland 4002 Australia
Telephone +61 7 3334 4500
Facsimile +61 7 3221 3631
Email ThePremier@premiers.qld.gov.au
Website http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/

For reply please quote CALS/DS - TF/09/34138 - DOC/09/143649

17 DEC 2009

Mr David Walter
Envirowild Pty Ltd
PO Box 578
HERBERTON QLD 4887


Dear Mr Walter,

Thank you for your letter of 1 December 2009 concerning consitutional matters. I have been asked to reply to you on the Premier's behalf.

You have alleged that the Queensland Government has moved to remove the Crown from Queensland legislation and alter the Office of the Governor. I can assure you that the Queensland government has taken no such action.

The role of the Governor in Queensland is clearly mandated by Part 2 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001. The Governor is Her Majesty's representative in Queensland and holds office during Her Majesty's pleasure. The Governor gives Royal Assent to Bills passed by the Parliament, may summon and dissolve Parliament, appoints all ministers and may issue writs and grant pardons.

While Section 128 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia provides that a referendum is required to alter any part of the Commonwealth Constitution, Queensland's Constitution is different.

As Queensland's constitutional laws are ordinary Acts of our Parliament, they can be changed by passing other ordinary Acts of Parliament. The Constitution of Queensland Act 2001 is an Act of the Queensland Parliament which primarily brings together the constitutional provisions of other Acts of the Queensland Parliament into one Act which can be referred to as our Constitution.

Any provisions of Queensland's Constitution Acts which were entrenched (that is required a referendum to change) have not been changed, and remain in force.

The provisions which remain in their original Acts include:

• the establishment and legislative power of the Parliament of Queensland
• the duration of the Parliament, and
• matters relating to the office of the Governor.

Please be assured that the Queensland Government is committed to the ongoing governance of Queensland.

I trust this information has been of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely,

Jessica Collins

Policy Adviser

Demand Request for Anna Bligh, Premier of QLD

What is happening in QLD is the primer for the removal of all property rights in the other states of Australia.
By effectively removing themselves from the 1900 Constitution in 1923, yet maintaining the appearance of being part of the Commonwealth in order to continue to accept money from consolidated revenue, the QLD govt have become a "foreign government" in Australia.
As Mr Rudd and the Governor-General Quentin Bryce both come from this independent state, Australia is now a "colony" of QLD, the government of which has claimed the land of the Crown of the 1900 Constitution and placed it under the Crown know as the Executive Government of QLD.

On December 2 2009, David John Walter sent Anna Bligh the following letter...............................


The Honourable Anna Bligh MP
Premier of the State of Queensland
Parliament House
Brisbane Qld 4000


RE: DEMAND FOR INFORMATION FROM THE HONOURABLE ANNA BLIGH MP PREMIER OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND


1. I, David John Walter,

am a sovereign person under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
(reference Chapter 12 of 63 and 64 Victoria of 9th July 1900 AD) and under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 proclaimed on 1st January 1901,

am an equal shareholder, along with all the other sovereign persons under the above-mentioned Constitution of all the assets of the Commonwealth of Australia inter alia with the Corporations Act 2001 (C’wth),

am a citizen of the indissoluble Federal Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of Australia, under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,

am a loyal subject of Her Majesty The Queen, Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors,

and am a resident in the Commonwealth of Australia’s State of Queensland
at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

2. I hereby place before you a Demand for Information with regard to the following:-

Demand for Information
from
The Honourable Anna Bligh MP Premier of the State of Queensland
requested by
David J. Walter


2.1. Full results of the referendum to progressively remove the constitutional Crown from legislation in Queensland.

(Refer: Section 53 Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867)

2.2. Full results of the referendum to progressively alter the position of the office of the Crown’s representative in Queensland, the Governor of Queensland.

(Refer: Section 53 Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867)

2.3. Full results of the referendum to progressively pass to the corporate Queensland Government, the assets of the sovereign people of Commonwealth of Australia.

(Refer: Sections 117-128 of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901)

2.4. Full list and details of transfer of those assets.

2.5. Full results of the referendum to progressively remove entrenched sections of Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867.

(Refer: Section 53 Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867)

2.6. Full results of the referendum to remove Queensland from the Commonwealth.

(Refer: Section 53 Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867 and Sections 117-128 of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901)

3. The citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia have the right to a referendum under Section 128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, before any attempt to alter this Constitution may be made.

4. The citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia who are also residents in the Commonwealth of Australia’s State of Queensland have the right to a referendum under Section 53 ofQueensland’s Constitution Act 1867, extract from which states:- “A Bill that expressly or impliedly provides for the abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor or that expressly or impliedly in any way affects any of the following sections of this Act namely—sections 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B, 14; and this section 53 shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen unless it has first been approved by the electors in accordance with this section and a Bill so assented to consequent upon its presentation in contravention of this subsection shall be of no effect as an Act.”

5. The Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 and its Constitution of Queensland 2001 have removed entrenched sections of Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867 by removing the Separation of Powers, by placing members of the executive government, the premier and cabinet ministers, inside the current Parliament in Queensland, by altering the positions of judges of the Supreme and District Courts, the positions of Ministers of the Crown, and the position of Governor, the Crown’s representative, to positions of office holders inside that Parliament, and by changing Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) to Members of Parliament (MP), all contra to Section 53 of Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867 and Sections 117-128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901.

6. Also contra to Section 53 of Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867 and Sections 117-128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, with this demise of the Crown, Her Majesty’s Police Force as people once knew it and which protected the Crown and its people, has been changed to the Queensland Police Service which now protects only the Queensland Government owned corporations and has therefore become a security agency for these corporations but has no lawful Crown authority over us, the sovereign people.

7. Also contra to Section 53 of Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867 and Sections 117-128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, with this demise of the Crown, the ownership of property which includes freehold land as people once knew it has been changed, with the corporate Queensland Government taking an unregistered interest in property and land, by placing its corporate seal on people’s property and certificates of title, thereby taking joint ownership of that property and land, but without the owners’ consent.

8. Also contra to Section 53 of Queensland’s Constitution Act 1867 and Sections 117-128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, with this demise of the Crown, The Treasury, under its corporate seal, borrows money on the people’s and Crown’s assets and deals at will with that money with no accountability to the people.

9. I require this information to be forwarded to me within 21 working days from the date below.



…………………………………………..
(David J. Walter)1st December 2009

Doubts About the Validity of the Constitution of the Government 1901

The West Coast of Australia had been discovered by Dirk Hartog, a Dutch explorer.
The East Coast by Captain Cook.
Subsequently the east coast was colonised as penal colonies, and eventually those colonies broke away to form independent colonies.
SA was included but founded by private settlers.
SA went all the way through to the top of Australia and included what is now the Northern Territory.
Due to the Dutch claim over WA, private settlers moved there, but the English Crown had no claim of right on the land, so to go to the settler’s aid with military forces may have been seen as a act of aggression by the Dutch.

So, prior to Federation each state except WA operated as an Independent Colony under the dominion of Great Britain.

In 1855 the administration of several independent colonies created the Federal Council of Australasia.
This agreement was for trade purposes between the states.
During the late half of the 1800’s the people of all colonies, except WA, indicated that they would be in agreement to forming a Federation – joining the states together under one common government.
10 years of conventions and referendums followed, until a draft Constitution was finally created and sent to England for ratification by the Parliament and the Queen.

This draft had several changes made to it by the British Parliament.

In the meantime, the People of WA had asked to be included.
So, when Queen Victoria signed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) on 9 July 1900, she signed pending the approval of the People of the eastern states giving permission for WA to be included and for their final approval of the changes in the Constitution that was being returned to Australia.

Now, for anyone to understand the Constitution, which is a clear and extraordinary document, they must remember that the first 8 chapters are British law.
The Constitution stands at chapter 9.

They must also understand that this is an agreement of the PEOPLE, not government.
The Commonwealth is the People, so when we talk about the Commonwealth of Australia, we are referring to the People (united) of Australia.
In that draft constitution, the PEOPLE agreed to unite and agreed to have the assets of the Crown administered by Parliament and public servants.
The PEOPLE were to be subject to criminal law for crimes against other people.
The parliament’s only task was to administer and protect the assets of the Crown.
The Queen guaranteed to pay those public servants out of her pocket, the People funding her pocket through their taxes.
Quite simple.

So, when this document returned to Australia, the leaders of those independent colonies were in a pickle.

The Boer War was looming, which meant that Australia, as a troop & financial supporter of the British side, could be attacked by the Dutch using WA as a base.
The preparation for the Federation had taken 10 years, and it was likely that to approve the changes could take as long.

So, the framing fathers decided to approve the new Constitution FOR and ON BEHALF of the People.
They pledged an oath of honour to govern under it, that oath being held by the High Court.
And they did, for many years.
However, the fact remained that the Constitution brought into power by the Governor-General on 1 January 1901, was NOT APPROVED AT REFERENDUM by the People, but was essentially a constitution between the British Parliament and the Australian Independent Colony’s administration heads.

[To put this very simply, a bowling club gets set up.
The assets of that club belong to the members, it is run for the convenience of the members, and they appoint a body to administer the assets and the overall health of the club.
The body has a leader, who is no more or less than a person from the membership taking on a role for a period of time.
The staff of the club are paid from the funds held under the body’s administration.
That money coming from the members.
The staff are charged with obeying the instructions coming from the membership via the body. The head of the body can not sell an asset without prior approval of the membership.
Or make a new ruling, or appoint new staff.
He and the body must always answer to the membership.
Nor can he go to a members private home and remove an asset of the member, just because he is a member.
Nor can he start a new form of club without the permission of the members.
The structure of the Parliament of the 1900 Constitution is no different.]

In 1917, the People of QLD were asked in a referendum to allow the removal of the parliamentary upper house.
They refused, yet in 1923 the QLD parliament removed it.

The Constitution has what is called Manner and Form – that being the proper and lawful arrangement under which the government entities must operate.
To breach Manner and Form causes that government to step outside the Constitution.

This is what QLD did and from that time on, QLD began to operate outside the Constitutional structure.

In 1927, the British Parliament amended the Royal Styles and Titles Act, changing the Monarch’s title from a single Crowned head to a multiple crown.
Suddenly, it was possible for every dominion to either operate under King George of Great Britain, Ireland and his dominions OR under King George of Canada or of Fiji, or of NZ or whatever.
This fractured the Empire & as our ownership rights are held by the Empire Monarch, it put those in jeopardy.

However, the Australian govt did not bring this act into Australian law until Gough Whitlam took power in 1973.

At this time, by ratifying the Queen of Australia, he created a new government.
And that government had the Crown in the form of the Queen of Australia inside its acts, thereby claiming the Crown for themselves.
We became, in all but name, a Republic at that time.
The Australia Act of 1986, being the Constitution of the new Republican government.

Now, remember the original Constitution was to bring all the independent states into a united structure.
In effect, each state has returned to its independent status, but as republics completely separated from British law, which is why such ancient protections as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 etc are totally absent from current courts.

The new version of the Federal Council of Australasia 1855, is COAG.
Each state is now in a position to ignore the High Court, which is a court of the 1901 British/ Australian Constitution, and can not rule over the independent colonies, hence the decision in Fazzolari v Parramatta City Council for the land owner, and the NSW govt just makes a new piece of legislation giving the council back the right to remove private land.

These independent governments do not operate under laws, but under statutory legislation.
A law, once ratified, cannot be changed without a due process, legislation can be amended daily.

Where is the protection of the People?

Believe it or not, it is still in the Constitution. P
art of the way that this return to independent states has been created is because under the 1901 Govt Constitution, the states retained their ability to make their own laws as long as those laws did not breach the rights of a person in another state.

What they have overlooked is that the Commonwealth is another state.
And remember the people are the Commonwealth.
Therefore, while a person may physically reside in the state of NSW, they are first and foremost a person of the Commonwealth state.

So every law of NSW that removes the rights of a person under the state of the Commonwealth is repugnant (in breach).

S 117 of the Constitution, states that a subject of the Queen (not the Queen of Australia, but of the original constitution), residing in a state (see above) shall not be subject in any other state to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if her were a subject of the Queen resident in such other state.
WITHOUT!!!!!....... S 128 a referendum to gain his or her approval for that disability or discrimination to apply to him or her.

At all times the People must be asked for their approval – and they clearly are not any more.
All federal and state governments in Australia are, in effect and to the rights of the People, a foreign power.

Back to land – we own our land in a contract of trust & equity with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her Heirs and Assigns – the Crown of the Constitution.
In the contract for that sale, it states that we own the land completely removed from any government interference or claims UNLESS they pay us for it!!!
That being Just Terms compensation.
However, this is the trick.

That Compensation is only guaranteed by the Federal govt of the govt 1901 Constitution.
The states, now operating as independent republics, never made that same agreement.

We must also understand that when Gough Whitlam entered power he set up a Royal Commission into Land Tenures.
The document that came from that, which is mentioned on the internet, but cannot be found on it, came to the conclusion that it would be preferable for govt to buy back land from private owners, but as they could not afford it, the next step was to remove all rights of land use, so as to render the value of the land worthless.
This meant they could acquire it for a song. (I have a copy of that if anyone wants it.)

When the High Court ruled in the Tasmania Dams case in 1983, that government could remove any and elements of land ownership AS LONG as the owner kept his deeds, they were telling the truth from the perspective of the new government under the Australia Act & the Queen of Australia.
However, they neglected to tell the People that their land was not under that act, but under the protection of the Crown as defined in the Commonwealth of Australia Act (UK) 1900.

We needs to stand our ground as a person of the Commonwealth of Australia Act (UK) 1900, under s 117 & s 128.

WE, the PEOPLE of the state known as the Commonwealth, NEVER GAVE OUR PERMISSION TO HAVE OUR OWNERSHIP RIGHTS REMOVED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

So where are the people to be found?
In the 1800's the people were governed by military rule, in penal colonies.
The moment the People agreed to the draft Constitution, they stepped INSIDE that structure.
Although that document was not agreed to at a referendum of the People, in order to approve its adoption as the ruling law over the Federation, it still exists.

So the ratification in 1901 of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900, by the heads of the independent colonies, does not change the fact that the people are still waiting for their opportunity at a referendum.

Therefore, (to my thoughts), the people are OUTSIDE of both the 1901 govt approved Constitution, and certainly OUTSIDE of this foreign government, all of which are in place without approval.

My thoughts are that the govt can ONLY gain our approval through means such as registration processes, which would explain why every element of trade involves being registered, having certification, licencing, etc.

Again, I would state, our protection is in the strength of s117 and s128.

We, the People, are subjects of the Queen of the 1900 Constitution, who approved the Constitution on the 9 July 1900 PENDING OUR APPROVAL (remember she owns the land on which govt govern and recognizes our right first and foremost) - and we are residents of our own state, that being the Commonwealth. With permission to refuse to allow the govts of the "independent colonies" to remove OUR RIGHTS WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION.

People of the Commonwealth

The People of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900

Justice M D Kirby stated in a 1997 oration:“Monarchical government tends to be strong and centralised – formerly in the person of the sovereign but now in whoever the Parliament elects to govern.”

In Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises P/L, Justice Lionel Murphy said:“The authority for the Australian Constitution then and now is its acceptance by the Australian people.”

Law schools well into the 60’s and later, taught that the historical origins of the Australian Constitution, and they alone, gave that document its legal authority.

Chief Justice Mason in the Aust Capital Television case observed:“The Australia Act 1986 (UK) marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament and recognised that ultimate sovereignty resided in the Aust people.”

Justice McHugh in McGinty v WA said:“The political and legal sovereignty of Aust now resides in the people of Australia.”

Justice Toohey in the Public Law Review 1993 stated:“Where the people of Australia, in adopting a Constitution, conferred power upon a Commonwealth Parliament, it is to be presumed that they did not intend that those grants of power extend to invasion of fundamental common law liberties.”

Justice Cooke in Fraser v State Service Commission said:“This is perhaps a reminder that it is arguable that some common law rights may go so deep that even Parliament cannot be accepted by the Court to have destroyed them.”

People, Person, Persons, Citizen, Individual
In the Commonwealth of Australia Act (UK) 1900, the word People is found 25 times; Person 24; Persons 6; Individual 0 times; Citizen in s44 only.

What do these words legally mean?
To determine that in Australian law we first go to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 , which is the "dictionary of meaning" for all words used in Australian legislation.
If the word is not found in there, then we take the meaning from a legal dictionary, in this case Blacks Law Dictionary #1 1891

People - (from Blacks): a state, as in the people of the state of the Commonwealth
Person - (from AIA 1901): includes a body corporate, office, commission, authority, committee, tribunal, board, institute, organization or other body however described.
(from Blacks): Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called "corporations" or "body politics."
Persons - (from AIA 1901): expressions used to denote persons generally (such as " person ", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no‑one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual;
Citizen - (In English law from Blacks): An inhabitant of a city. The representative of a city, in parliament. When it is designed to designate an inhabitant of the country, or one amenable to the laws of the nation, “subject” is there employed.
Individual - (from AIA 1901): means a natural person.
(from Blacks): 'natural' is that which cannot be separated.

Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. Ann Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualism.html

The legal meaning of People does not show in Aust legislation until the EPBC Act 1999 - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/s528 Definitions that "environment" includes: (a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities

The word citizen is only used in the 1900 Constitution at s44, and appears to indicate that only a subject can hold office under this Constitution, being that a subject is an entity owing allegiance to that Crown and governed by its laws (common law), while a citizen does not, but owes allegiance to a foreign power (government).
Of course, where a foreign individual makes the choice to become a naturalized citizen under the 1900 Constitutional structure, they are then subject to the Crown and able to stand for office.

This was the focus of Sue v Hill & Anor 1999 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1999/30.html

So, a Person / Persons / People / Citizen are artificial words for an Entity.
An Individual is a natural, flesh and blood, thinking, feeling man or woman.

Now, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is an act OVER the entities of persons. You will find no reference to an individual, because an act cannot govern over an individual. And the act only refers to person / persons.
Therefore because our entity status, both singular and plural (person/s) was contained in the 1900 const, govt could not rule over that entity without permission, so they created a new entity for the new jurisdiction of environment - that being people.
It is our thought that all new restrictions are not over the person/s of the 1900 constitution, or over the individual (living, breathing) but over the people under the environmental jurisdiction.
In effect, you are being "protected" from yourself.
However, again, there was no agreement of the people to be re-created as another entity.

State of the Commonwealth
A state is not a physical land mass, but a political entity.
So, we have the state of the commonwealth, being the people.
The state of the Federal Parliament, being the Parliamentary structure as defined in the 1900 Constitution.
The state's of NSW, Vic, etc, being the Parliamentary structure governing the assets of that state on behalf of the owner of the land, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and assigns.

Our Protection
As a subject of the Queen comes your ownership of land and your common law protection. Which defines what we know is our protection.)

Section 117 - as a subject of the Queen, and a resident of the state (of the Commonwealth), I shall not be subject in any other State (being NSW, VIC, etc) to any disability of discrimination which would not be equally applicable to me if I were a subject of the Queen in such other State.
WITHOUT
Section 128 - my agreement at referendum.

[Disability: The want of legal ability or capacity to exercise legal rights, either special or ordinary, or to do certain acts with proper legal effect, or to enjoy certain privileges or powers of free action. At the present day, disability is generally used to indicate an incapacity for the full enjoyment of ordinary legal rights.
Discrimination: to show a difference in treatment]

So, the States (NSW, etc) cannot make different laws in opposition or that remove my rights as a person of the Commonwealth (state) and a subject of the Crown, who holds my protection of ownership and personal rights.

Each State can make different parliamentary laws for the purpose of maintaining the assets of the Crown, but I am not an asset and that is their only Constitution 1900 area of jurisdiction.
So, as an individual I have the right to a religion of my choice, to thoughts, etc of my choice, because they are the only rights of pure and unconstricted ownership I can claim individually.

To participate in private ownership makes me a subject of the Crown and therefore subject to her protection under Common Law.

To my understanding, to be a member of the People of the Commonwealth, means I step into an entity role for the purpose of creating a stable community/society in which I can live peacefully as a subject of the Crown, and privately on my land or in my home as an individual.

However, we may interpret these words, our protection is in our agreement.

If we as an individual have not agreed, how then can we as an individual be enforced into a contract?

If we as a People have not agreed at Referendum, how then can the People be enforced into a contract?

COAG, Corporations and the New Government

COAG – Council of Australian Government
In May 1992, COAG was established to debate and co-ordinate government activities between the Federal, state and local governments.
It is the peak intergovernmental forum in Australia.
COAG is the "modern" restoration of the 1855 Federal Council of Australasia, wherein the independent colonies had a trade agreement.
Members are not voted in by the people.
They are the Prime Minister, the Premiers of each state and territory and the President of the Australian Local Government Association.
Some activities have included a review of Government Services.
Reform packages for early childhood
Nation building and jobs partnerships
Intergovernmental agreements on Federal Financial Relations
Bushfire inquiry
Economic Implications of an ageing Australia
National Water Initiative
Foot and Mouth Disease


Corporations & Government
Subsequently all states who have turned corporate in their own right, are outside the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and inside the Australia Act and can reprint all acts back to statutory legislation.
This allows the Australia Act to be the definitive constitution for a republic in all but name.
According to Law Alert, during the last week – 1 week only, the following 76 act & bills were brought in to be discussed, amended and passed
ACT: 8 including Rates & Land Taxes
Cth: 30 including Water Appropriation & Federal Magistrate Courts Amendments
NSW: 3 including Criminal Assets Recovery
QLD: 2 including Constitution Preamble Amendment
SA: 7 including Constitution Appointments
TAS: 5 including Police Offences Amendment
VIC: 13 including Local govt Act, Planning Legislation, water Amendment
WA: 8 including Mining, Environment, Crown Land & Planning Amendments
All together for 2009, the Federal and State Parliaments have passed or amended 2,313 new Bills, Acts and Regulations.
All are statutory laws of the new corporations protected by the Queen of Australia, sealed to the Great Seal of Australia and/the State Seals & inside the Australia Act 1986.

WA and QLD and the 1900 Constitution

Queensland
In 1917, the Queensland government put a referendum to the people, asking them to remove the Legislative Council (Senate).
The people refused and the government went ahead and removed it.
This fractured the manner and form of the Australian Constitution and with that Queensland stepped out of the Constitution.
In the time since then, culminating in the QLD Constitution 2001, successive QLD government have gradually prepared the laws and the public service until today finds QLD without common law in any court, with a dictatorial executive government that ignores the wishes of the people, and enforces its own legislation over the rights of the people.
To do this successive Parliaments gradually repealed, back in time, every law that has ever been in existence that mentions a British law, including the American Bill of Independence.
These changed acts would be presented to parliament and using s15da of the Acts Interpretation Act, after 2 years they jump up and became valid to the new parliament.
Then if there were no requests to examine these acts, after 7 years they would be reprinted. Hence the big differences in the dates legislation came into effect.
If necessary, the QLD parliament would create another act to fill a gap.
Over that progressive period, the QLD Parliament have reprinted all necessary acts, and amended others until they now operate effectively under both the QLD Constitution 1867 and the QLD Constitution 2001.
All acts are all sealed to the power of the crown of Mr Whitlam – the Queen of Australia, rather than the crown of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
Beattie, in the second reading of the QLD Constitution 2001, stated, “It is so simple, they’ll never work it out.”


Western Australia
When the Constitution was passed by the British Parliament, WA had yet to endorse their inclusion.
The WA Parliament convened to consider an Enabling Bill for a referendum. This was assented to on 13 June 1900.
On 31 July 1900, a WA referendum carried their people’s agreement for the Act.
Queen Victoria had signed the Constitutional Act on 9 July 1900.
A separate proclamation had to be issued after the WA referendum to set the date for Federation – 1 January 1901.
In 1933, 68% of WA voters voted to have WA leave the Commonwealth and return to the British Empire as an autonomous territory. However, the British Government refused to intervene and no action was taken.
In WA, during 1 week in November 2009, over 50 acts were reprinted.

An Overview of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
Consists of 8 Chapters and the Schedule.
I. The Parliament
consisting of the Queen, a Senate & a House of Representatives
Governor General appointed by the Queen as her representative
Before taking their seat, they must all swear and Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance.
II. The Executive Government
Executive power is vested in the Queen and can be exercised by the Governor General
The Governor General chooses the members of the Federal Executive Council, who advise him/her.
All references to the Governor General in Council refer to the Governor General acting on the advice of the Federal Executive Council.
III. The Judicature
Judicial power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Federal Supreme Court, called the High Court of AustraliaJustices are appointed by the Governor General in
Council.
IV. Finance and Trade
V. The States
VI. New States
VII. Miscellaneous
VIII. Alteration of the Constitution
The proposed law for the alteration must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament and not less than two or more than six months must be submitted to a referendum of the voters in each State and Territory .
If, the referendum is approved by a majority of the States and a majority of the voters, the Governor-General may approve the proposed law.
The Schedule
The Oath & Affirmation of the new parliamentarian.


Protection of Rights
There is no Bill of Rights in the Australian Constitution, because the majority of the people felt that the traditional rights and freedoms of British subjects were sufficiently guaranteed by the Separation of Powers and the 2 houses of Parliament.
And as the Act itself is British law, our access was therefore provided to the Magna Carta, Habeus Corpus, Bill of Rights 1649 and etc.

However the Constitution did include the following rights –
* Right to Trial by Jury in s80 for indictable offences against Commonwealth Law.
* Right to Just Compensation in s51 (xxxi) for assets taken by the Commonwealth.
* Right to Freedom of religion in s116, wherein the Commonwealth can not make laws to do with religion.
* Right to Freedom from Discrimination against residents of another state in s117.
The High Court have also established an implied Right to Freedom of Political Communication and a limited Right to Vote in s7 & s24.


Separation of Powers
Refers to the separation of the Executive (the Ministry), the Legislature (the Parliament) and the Judiciary (the Courts), with none of the three branches of government able to exercise total power.
Legislative power means the power to make laws and is concentrated in the Parliament. Executive power means the power to implement laws and is given to the government.
Judicial power gives the High Court power to decide whether laws are legal according to the Constitution.
The essence of the doctrine of separation of powers is thus based on the idea of checks and balances.


Prime Ministers, Premiers & Political Parties
The Constitution does not mention any of these entities in any manner.
The intent of the Constitution was that each person entering the House of Representatives & the Senate would be entirely independent, answerable only to the electors.


Referendums & Plebiscites
At all times, the only manner in which the Constitution could be altered were by binding polls called referendums.
To pass a referendum the final vote had to consist of a majority of states and a majority of the voters agreement.A Yes vote in a referendum would change that section of the Constitution. This would then be presented to the Governor - General for Royal Assent. This then becomes a binding and entrenched alteration to the Constitution.
A No vote was as lawful, in that it meant that there could be no change to the relevant section.
A Plebiscite is an optional voting structure to do with decisions that do not alter the Constitution.
Because the general feeling toward the Constitution is that it is fine the way it is, only 5 Federal referendums out of 21 have received a Yes vote.
* In 1916 & 1917, the people voted No to allow govt to conscript Australians for war.
* 1n 1944, the people voted No when govt wanted to extend its wartime powers into peace times.
* In 1951 the people voted No to banning communism – because it infringed on Freedom of Choice.
* In 1967, 89% of the People voted Yes to include Aboriginal people in the Constitution.
* In 1988, the Federal govt tried to introduce a Bill of Rights which, by stealth, gave govt greater powers. 70% of the people voted No, preferring less govt control.
* In 1999, over 50% of the people voted No against a Republic.
* The people have voted No to allowing govt to further extend their powers into trade, finance, corporations, industrial matters, disputes, aviation, marketing, democratic rights, pricing, incomes and more.
* Important referendums in which the people voted No twice, were in 1974 & 1988, where the People refused to allow Local Councils to be recognized in the Constitution.

Chapter III Court
Under the Constitutional Judicial structure, a constitutional court of law is known as a Chapter III Court.
The judicial power of the Commonwealth can only be exercised by a Chapter III court.
No other body, such as a panel, tribunal, commission, etc can render and enforce a judgment.
This has been upheld by the High Court in
* NSW v Commonwealth (1915) the Wheat Case
* Harry Brandy v Human Rights & Equal Opportunities Commission 1995
* Lane v Morrison 2009

Background to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900

History
Original settlement in Australia was under military law, for the purpose of penal colonies. Gradually private settlement grew until by the mid 1800’s, 5 states were colonized – SA, QLD, NSW, Vic & Tas, with private settlement existing in WA under Crown Colonies.
In 1885, the Federal Council of Australasia was formed, consisting of Vic, Tas, QLD & SA , and included the Crown Colonies of WA & Fiji.
This Council dealt mainly with matters of trade between the various colonies. Constitutional Conventions began in the late 1880’s and the final referendum was held in June 1899.
After some changes were made by the British Parliament, The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was passed on 5 July 1900 and given Royal Assent by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900. On 1 January 1901 the Proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia was held in Centennial Park, Sydney.
The new Act was an act of the British Parliament as well as ratification of the Constitution of Australia.

The Preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established; And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen; Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same…….

To Clarify
We must all remember that the words of the Preamble were carefully chosen after over 10 years of conventions, public discussion & referendums, so those words are vital to understand.
1. The People – not parliament or government or councils or public servants.
2. from NSW, VIC, SA, QLD & TAS – with the allowance of admitting other Australasian colonies (such as WA)
3. humbly – without pride
4. relying – depending and trusting
5. on the blessings – guardianship, protection and favour
6. of Almighty God – therefore the people included God in this agreement
7. agreed – came to a common consent and understanding
8. to unite – join together, make one, combine
9. under one – beneath a single
10. indissoluble – that which can not be dissolved, undone or destroyed
11. Federal – a league or compact between two or more states.
12. Commonwealth – where the states retain powers of self-government in respect to the states concerns, but form an integral part of a larger government or nation.
13. under the Crown – sovereign power in the monarchy, especially in relation to the punishment of crimes
14. of the United Kingdom & Ireland
15. and under the Constitution hereby established – the organic and fundamental law of a nation, establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing and limiting the functions of its different departments and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers.
16. enacted – established by law and decree
17. by the Queens’s Most Excellent Majesty – Queen Victoria
18. and with the advice – opinion, instructions
19. and consent – agreement
20. of the Lords Spiritual – the archbishops and bishops who have seats in the house of lords
21. and Temporal – those lay person who have seats in the house of lords
22. and Commons – the class of subjects of Great Britain who are not members of the royal family and nobility, and are represented in the house of commons.
23. in this great parliament assembled – all of them together
24. and by the authority of the same – by the legal power, right to command of the whole parliament.

Put together….
The people of the five independent colonies, depending on the protection and favour of Almighty God, consented to join together beneath a single indestructible agreement, wherein the independent colonies joined together to form a combined government, still allowing for state concerns, with the Queen as the sovereign authority for crimes and the foundation laws of the Constitution providing the structure of the government.
A very simple, easily understood agreement.

Why is God in the Constitution?
The Queen is the head of the Church of England.
She holds our constitutional power.
The Oath of office taken by all politicians, which is a pledge to the Queen.
Every year before the start of the legal year, all justices and barristers go to church to uphold that part of their oath.

Common Law and The Crown
The Queen’s authority particularly lay in the matter of the punishment of crime using common law.
The ancestry of common law lies in the Ten Commandments and is the ancient unwritten law of England.
It is the principles and rules of action, relating to the security of persons and property.
It is not, has never been and can not be Roman law, modern civil law, canon law, maritime law, kangaroo law or any other system.

The Governor-General
Because the Queen did not reside in Australia, she placed her representative in the form of the Governor-General here.
His role was to approve any change to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) in the form of a Referendum and/or a Law.
The difference between a Law and Legislation being that –
* a Bill is raised in the Lower House, debated and discussed. If passed, this bill goes to
* the Senate, which must cross-reference the bill with the Constitution to make sure the bill does not interfere with it in any way. Once approved the bill goes to the
* Governor-General for approval. He then stamps it with the Seal of the Crown.
* That Law cannot be amended or changed without the same process in place. Legislation however, is a matter of government decision-making and can change from day to day, as the government wishes.
In the event a person feels that the legislation has removed his Constitutional rights, he may take it to court.
The final arbiter being the High Court of Australia, who are charged with the protection of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.
Please note however, they are also the guardians of the State Constitutions.

Courts of Australia in 2009

How or why does this jurisdiction refuse to recognize common law & equity, or any authorities in jurisprudence?

Let’s look at Queensland. Under the current Parliamentary Supremacy of govt, this state was ‘birthed’ in 2001, when the Qld Constitution 2001 came into existence. And hence the new jurisprudence of public policy.

Due to that timeline the supreme “Authority” for jurisprudence is held by “Bone v Mothershaw” which was a decision off the back of the newly commenced Constitution. All jurisprudence in Queensland has a “Start Date” of (approx) June 2002 to this present day.

And remember, the outcome of Bone v Mothershaw was that a court could refuse to give a petitioner permission to take their appeal to the High Court, because the High Court would refuse it!

So, the first authority for jurisprudent decisions removed the High Court from this new structure of law.

No court in QLD can use any case prior to this date as a decision making tool. And because there is such a shortage of cases to use, the Courts are bound to the Statutory Instruments (legislation).

Because of this lack of any pre-existing jurisprudence in authorities, the Courts must use that very same Statutory Instrument not only for the Court’s jurisprudence but for its authority.

In other words, the current govt legislation gives the court its rules and tells the court its decisions. And so the courts must find for the govt in almost all relevant cases.

Under that structure of legislative “precedent”, the courts now operate under a balance of probabilities. For example – you may have a tree on your land, a particular bird may prefer to nest in that type of tree, however at a point in time, the bird has never done so. You cut down that tree, and are fined heavily under the relevant environmental laws.

In effect, the court must rule that the bird could have nested in that tree, may be planning to nest in that tree, may even have been in the process of nesting in that tree, and if it had you would have harmed the bird when felling the tree.

Therefore on the balance of probabilities, you are guilty. And you cannot prove yourself innocent because there is no legislation that gives you any way of doing so.

Now at this point, you are all probably jumping up and down and telling me “They can’t do that!” “We haven’t had a referendum about this!” “They can’t do that under this law, that law, the other law!” And a few more “They can’t do that!”

Well, they have. And the sooner we accept that and work out how to restore our Constitution to its supremacy, return ourselves to being common law men and women, turf out these fraudulent individuals and learn to protect our vital rights, the less likely this is to happen ever again.

Meanwhile, it has and what can we do about it?

State Governments of Australia in 2009

The Constitution refers to a State. That being “a State” of the Commonwealth of Australia (Chapter 5).

The reference to “the State” is to the State of the Commonwealth of Australia and its external territories.

To clarify the term “the State” and its effect within today’s laws. The best way to explain this is take the meaning of “the State” from the South Australian Acts Interpretation Act 1919 (SA) at s4A, where it says this about the State:

Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA)
Section 4A headed, Date of establishment of the State “For the purposes of the law of the State, the State will be taken to have been established on the twenty-eighth day of December, 1836.”

Therefore, in each government, The State is the entity created at its inception as a colony, prior to the Federation when that state became A State. The State being an independent entity, A State being a confederated entity.

In other words, the Constitutional states are still in existence, the govts of those states have simply returned to operating under their original colonial constitutions.

Have we returned to being prisoners under military rule then?

Now as a consequence of holding (keeping) Chapter 2 and the reading down (ignoring) of Chapters 1 and 3 specifically, the Executive Government of the Commonwealth and the Executive Governments of “the States” are exercising extraordinary powers through the process known as COAG which is based on a process of Statutory agreements alienated (separate) from the Constitution.

What is now created? –

1. An independent jurisdiction without limit, or restriction,
2. that was in existence before Federation (Colonies)
3. with the exception, that British Law no longer applies by virtue of the Australia Act.
4. Therefore; there is no applicable jurisprudence obtainable from within Chapters 1 or 3 of the Constitution.
5. The jurisprudence is now held solely within the Statutory Instrument (govt legislation) and again is alienated from the Constitution.

So, the Crown now resides in the “hands” of the Governor, who is under the advisement of the Federal Executive.

The Executive has assumed the role of Governor, therefore the Crown now resides in the hands of the Executive.

Therefore all state legislation made by the

executive=governor=crown is binding.

The Executive Government of Australia in 2009

The Australian Constitution is divided into “Jurisdictions” (i.e. parliament, executive, crown, judiciary)

Chapter 1 – The Parliament
Chapter II – the Executive
Chapter III – the Judicature

Govt have “read down” (ignored) Ch I & III.

They have found a loophole and “created” a new “constitution” out of Chapter II s61, s62 and s63. Hence the Australia Act 1986.

Thus – the Governor-General exercises the power of the Queen (61), under the advisement of the Federal Executive Council (62), therefore this provision of this constitution referring to him shall be construed as referring to him acting in advice (63).

In other words, the GG works in with the Executive to exercise the powers vested in him.

S63, therefore allows the Executive to assume the role of the Governor-General as Head of State.

This has created an entirely new jurisdiction INSIDE the Australian Constitution – the jurisdiction referred to by the High Court in several cases. Note: In most legislature “This Act binds the crown in each of its capacities”.

Remember, the Australian Constitution is STILL IN PLACE. This new structure operates like a cancer INSIDE the Aust Constitution.This new jurisdiction is known as the law of the body politic, or the law of public policy (e.g EPBC Act 1999, Local Govt Act 1995 & etc) .

It has allowed, over the previous 20 years, the dramatic amendments (parliamentary supremacy) to the Judiciary Act 1903 specifically during the Hawke/Keating years and more aggressively through the Howard years.

This jurisdiction (public policy) has the ability to create laws that remove, or weaken all and any provisions (Common law) normally found under the jurisdictions of Chapter 1 and 3 (remember they are being ignored).

The public policy jurisdiction (Statute law Miscellaneous Provisions) has its own Courts (Tribunals, or Committees), Rules of Court and employs a different type of public servant, that being a person, or authority in the service of the Government (assumed Crown) as differentiated from, in the service of the Crown.

In nearly all circumstances in the provisioning of statutory instruments made under this jurisdiction, the so called Government public servants attain the authority of “authorised officers” exercising similar powers to police officers (Crown employees) which include powers of search, power to obtain documents, power to demand answers to questions at a time and place of their choosing and the power to prosecute.

This jurisdiction operates WITHOUT restriction, or limitation. Nearly all the States, particularly Qld, make all law under this jurisdiction and there is absolutely no provision for cross-vesting between these two jurisdictions. Cross-vesting being the ability for a court to recognize both or either common law and/or civil law (ie. mercantile, admiralty).

In other words, this parliamentary supremacy has created a new form of law under public policy, new courts to administer that law and new public servants to police that form of law. The new courts do not have the ability to adjudicate under any form of common law, but at all times can only operate under civil law.

Let’s make this even simpler to understand.
Look at your body, it operates under the laws of nature, thriving with the proper food, liquid, exercise. Natural rights each of us are entitled to.
A cancer creeps in, finds a home in a portion of your body and proceeds to build its own structure. With the end aim of taking over & perhaps killing you.
There is nothing illegal about this cancer, it comes from your own body, feeds from your own body, but it is against the law of nature as it creates its own kingdom INSIDE your body, taking over your right to health.

Now we constantly hear reference to tax loopholes – usually found by the wealthy with the assistance of high-priced lawyers. Govt get wind of these loopholes and close them.
Government have simply found a loophole in the Constitution – except it is a loophole that is turning the people of Australia into slaves, with no personal liberties, no right of ownership and no ability to protect themselves legally.

Who closes it down when govt finds a loophole – this time in the very structure of the governance of our country?
We, the people do!

This is what govt have been working to create since possibly the inception of the Australian Constitution 1900. The Framers of the Constitution are quoted in the Commentaries on the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia by Sir Robert Garran (1867 - 1957) - It was the great ambition of the framers of the Australian Constitutions of 1855–6 to acclimatize, in the colonies which they were then helping to found, the system thus known as Responsible Government.

This brings us to a review of some of the objections which have been raised to the application of the Cabinet system of Executive Government to a federation. These objections have been formulated with great ability and sustained with force and earnestness by several Australian federalists of eminence, among whom may be mentioned the names of Sir Samuel Griffith, Sir Richard C. Baker, Sir John Cockburn, Mr. Justice Inglis Clark, and Mr. G. W. Hackett, who have taken the view that the Cabinet system of Executive is incompatible with a true Federation. (See “The Executive in a Federation,” by Sir Richard C. Baker, K.C.M.G., p.l.)

In support of this contention it is argued that, in a Federation, it is a fundamental rule that no new law shall be passed and no old law shall be altered without the consent of (1) a majority of the people speaking by their representatives in one House, and (2) a majority of the States speaking by their representatives in the other house; that the same principle of State approval as well as popular approval should apply to Executive action, as well as to legislative action; that the State should not be forced to support Executive policy and Executive acts merely because ministers enjoyed the confidence of the popular Chamber; that the State House would be justified in withdrawing its support from a ministry of whose policy and executive acts it disapproved; that the State House could, as effectually as the primary Chamber, enforce its want of confidence by refusing to provide the necessary supplies. The Senate of the French Republic, it is pointed out, has established a precedent showing how an Upper House can enforce its opinions and cause a change of ministry. On these grounds it is contended that the introduction of the Cabinet system of Responsible Government into a Federation, in which the relations of two branches of the legislature, having equal and co-ordinate authority, are quite different from those existing in a single autonomous State, is repugnant to the spirit and intention of a scheme of Federal Government. In the end it is predicted that either Responsible Government will kill the Federation and change it into a unified State, or the Federation will kill Responsible Government and substitute a new form of Executive more compatible with the Federal theory. In particular, strong objection is taken to the insertion in the Constitution of a cast-iron condition that Federal Ministers must be members of Parliament. Membership of Parliament, it is argued, is not of the essence of Responsible Government, but only an incident or an accidental feature, which has been introduced by modern practice and by statutory innovation.