The Queensland Constitution 2001 / The Brigalow Corporation /
The Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD & all other states of Australia.
GOVERNOR OF QUEENSLAND
1. Queensland Constitution 1867 was reframed with 114 Changes, 131 Additions and 116 Deletions.
2. January 1998, QLD National Party documented a move to place the QLD Governor in the Government as a Parliamentary Secretary under the QLD Constitution 1867 / Constitution (Parliamentary Secretaries) Act ©The State of QLD 1996.
3. This became official January 29 1999, the same day the QLD Constitution 1867 was reprinted.
4. Thus the Governor was no longer a sworn representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, but a Public Servant of the QLD Government.
5. He was still using the Public Seal of the State on behalf of the Premier and Parliament of QLD and maintained the appearance of the Governor to the Sovereign People of the State.
CROWN IN QUEENSLAND (& AUSTRALIA)
1. In 1973, Gough Whitlam brought in the Queen of Australia through the adoption of the Royal & Parliamentary Titles Act 1927
2. This removed Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Assigns as enshrined in the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act (UK) 1900 and replaced the Crown with the Queen of Australia.
3. On the 19 December 1973, the Whitlam Government also removed the Great Seal of Britain from use and replaced it with the Great Seal of Australia.
4. In 1986, Bob Hawke brought in the Australia Act.
5. This is the Constitution of the new Parliament of Australia.
6. This is not the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900 of the People.
7. This act removed the ability of the UK Parliament to make laws for Australia, making Britain a foreign country. This was defined by the High Court in the case Sue v Hill 1999.
THE BRIGALOW CORPORATION & PRIVATE LAND OWNERSHIP
1. During the early 1990’s all important and relevant Acts were changed and framed, but were adjourned without a definite date of reprinting.
2. On 3 December 2001, the Queensland Constitution 2001 came into being.
3. On this day, this ACT became the “Fundamental Law of QLD”.
4. 7 June 2002, all the framed Acts were reprinted and became law.
5. QLD then became, at the completion of these matters, without the assent of any of the laws by the Crown or Her Representative, an independent sovereign State and fractured the common law and the separation of powers in that state.
6. 15 July 2002, The Corporations (Q) Act 1990 (Q) Reprint No 3 created in QLD a Corporate Government.
The State of Queensland Australia is registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commissions under No. 0001244818.
7. The Queensland Treasury Corp is registered under No. 0000852555.
8. The old crowns lands act (Qld) was converted to the Land Act 1994 (Qld), and at section 4(1) the Land Administration Commission was renamed Brigalow Corporation.
9. The Land Act 1994 – Reprint No 10c, Part 7A, Section 506C states that the Corporation (Brigalow Corp) represents the Crown.
10. Culminating in the Beattie Govt introduction of the QLD Constitution 2001, QLD government administrations had reworked backward every piece of Federal and state legislation, removing any connection to and mention of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, British law and the Royal Seal of England.
11. These acts were then reworked forward, replacing the removed elements with the Queen of Australia (as created by the Whitlam Govt in 1973) and the Great Seal of both Australia and QLD.
12. This means that the legislation contained in those acts are now “governed” by the government of those Seals, not the government of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900.
13. The Australia Waste Lands Act 1855 was reprinted in 1996 under the Seal of QLD, and because the Queen of Australia was also now sealed with the Seal of QLD, this effectively created a QLD “ownership” of all Crown land in Australia.
14. And as the introduction of the Corporations (Q) Act 1900 (Q) Reprint No 3 had created a Corporate Govt, this effectively meant all Crown land “ownership” was now under the control of the Qld Corporation, known as the Brigalow Corp.
15. All Crown land, assets and infrastructure in Australia including schools, hospitals, roads, etc are subject to and responsible to the Ministers of the State of QLD as cited at Chapter III of the QLD Constitution 2001.
16. All Sovereign People are now persons under the Corporation, All persons are chattel ( a piece of property that is moveable).
17. Their land, bank accounts and all items of ownership are now assets under the Brigalow Corporation.
18. The Supreme Court, the District Courts and the Magistrate’s Courts are now inside the Parliament of the State of QLD, and as such must obey the QLD Constitution 2001.
19. The Australian Constitution, the Common Law & Equity, the High Court and the Federal Government no longer have any superior governance over the State of QLD.
20. The State of QLD and the Sovereign People of QLD have only Civil and Statute Law in this state.
21. As private ownership can not exist under Civil and Statute Law, all private equity and inheritance in the State is now the property of “the State”.
LEGAL STRUCTURE
1. Under the civil law system, which is now subject to the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules of the Supreme Court Act 1991(Qld), every person is guilty until they prove their innocence.
2. The Common Law has been repealed from the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Q), Reprint No. 2, reprinted as in force 2 March 2001 © State of Q 2001
3. This states that the Governor in Council may make rules of court under this act for the Supreme Court, District court, Magistrates Court, registries and other matters mentioned in Schedule 1
4. Schedule 1 has jurisdiction over the civil, criminal and appellate courts, Parties & Proceedings, Defence, Service of Documents, Pleadings, Disclosure, Preservation of Rights & Property, Ending Proceedings Early, Court Supervision, Evidence, Jurisdiction of Judicial Registrars, Trails & Other Hearings, Particular Proceedings, probate, Contempt of Court, Vexatious Proceedings, Trusts, Costs, Appeals etc, Money Orders Enforcement, Foreign Judgment Enforcements, Corporations, Miscellaneous.
5. Therefore the Governor in Council now makes all the Rules of the Court for these matters.
6. The Queensland Constitution 2001 Chapters 1 & 2 refer to the Legislative Assembly and the Governor. In Chapter 3, Part 1, sect 27 – “The Governor in Council is the Governor acting with the advice of Executive Council.”
7. Sect 30 – “The Constitution Act 1867 contains provisions about the office of Governor. At Chapter 3, Part 4, sect 48, those “appointed as members…by the Governor…..”
8. This Executive council is given separate law makings Powers of the State at Chapter 3, Part 5, Sect 51, where is states, the Executive Government of the State of QLD (the “State) = The State may exercise its powers……
9. In Chapter 3, Part 5, Sect 55 (1) – “A minister may delegate a power of the State to an appropriately qualified officer of the State.” (“officer of the state” means – a chief executive………………….)
10. Therefore the Premier of QLD must always be the leader of the Executive Body and is now the Executive Leader of the Parliament of QLD.
11. Simply put – the Premier is delegated the power through his role as Chief Executive. This power controls the Executive Government of QLD. The Governor acts on the advice of the Executive Government.
12. Therefore the Premier is now the “Crown” in Queensland.
QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
1. All government tiers, including Local Council are now inside the Parliament of the State of QLD.
2. The public officials are not public officials of “the Crown” but public officials of “the State” of QLD
THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH
1. The British colonies in Australia were all independent, under military law.
2. In 1885, the independent states had interstate agreements for trade, etc under the Federal Councils of Australasia Act 1855.
3. As free settlers began to grow, the People decided to unite under 1 form of government.
4. 10 years of conventions and referendums culminated in the Draft Constitution of the People which went to England for ratification.
5. On July 9 1900, Queen Victoria signed the amended draft Constitution and returned it to Australia.
6. At this point a final referendum was required to acquire the agreement of the people to this amended Constitution.
7. This was not done, the heads of each independent colony instead agreed FOR AND ON BEHALF of the People.
8. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was the result, brought into Australian law on 1 January 1901.
9. The first 8 clauses are British law.
10. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution starts at clause 9.
11. The Constitution lays out the rules and regulations under which Parliament may administer government to the People.
12. There are no entities known as a Prime Minister or a Premier to be found in the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK).
13. As the Preamble states, the People agreed to be united under one indissoluble Commonwealth.
14. Therefore the people are the Commonwealth.
15. The Commonwealth is defined in the Constitution as a State.
16. Therefore the People of the Commonwealth are their “own” state.
17. Section 117 states, verbatim, that the People governed by the Queen (of the Constitution), and members of a state (of the Commonwealth), cannot have their rights removed by another state (that perhaps being the state they physically live in), WITHOUT
18. Section 128 – A REFERENDUM
19. There has been no Referendum of the Sovereign People to approve any of these moves. This means they are Ultra vires, an act beyond the powers or authority of the government.
It appears that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900, ratified on 1 January 1901 is an act of the heads of the independent colonies of the Australian dominion, which means that the Constitution of the People is still a draft document.
As the people had formally agreed to this document, all state and federal government in Australia are in fact, a foreign entity to the rights of the people of the Commonwealth.
As our land ownership is a Deed in Trust and Equity with the Queen of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution (UK) 1900, a foreign government has no lawful right to step inside that Deed and remove rights inherent in it.
In order to do so, government have created registration processes that manipulate our agreement. They have also created a new jurisdiction known as the Environment, with which they have enslaved the People as a plural, thereby creating legislation which enforces the People as an individual.
However, they have not asked our permission to create the form of government under which they now legislate OVER the People.
Showing posts with label sovereign people. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sovereign people. Show all posts
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
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?
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?
Monday, December 14, 2009
Are Australians Already Enslaved?
Environment Protections & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The act states in s3, that
1) The objects of this Act are:
(a) to provide for the protection of the environment,
(d) to promote a co‑operative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, land‑holders and indigenous peoples; and
(e) to assist in the co‑operative implementation of Australia's international environemental responsibilities
The act then states in s528 Definitions that
"environment" includes:
(a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities
Now the meaning of the word “People” under Australian law is not defined.
The meaning of person is in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s 22
Meaning of certain words
(1) In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
(a) 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;
(aa) individual means a natural person ;
(Very important to note the use of the words contrary and includes. Contrary tell us that this meaning applies unless there is a “differing” or “inconsistent” meaning. Includes however is a word that gathers every definition under its meaning. There can be no inconsistency of meaning, because all the contrary intentions have been gathered under that word “includes”. At no time in this Act is the word “exclude” used in any reference to free will, sovereignty, private ownership rights, etc of any kind.)
The legal meaning of “people” as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary No 1
“A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation of its collective and political capacity. “
So, the only definition of ‘people’ we have is the legal interpretation, & the creators of this International Treaty, have been very careful not to place this over the individual, but over the collective of individuals.
Therefore, to prove you have these rules now enslaving you, you must first identify yourself with the collective.
One interpretation may be found in the Criminal Code Act 1995, where people is always defined as more than one person by implication. (More research will be necessary re this word.)
This means that when the Australian government makes rules about the environment, those rules include YOU (under the collective) in the jurisdiction.
This then allows the Australian Government to apply restrictions, orders, enforcements and the like over YOUR (under the collective) activities as defined in the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment Report.
Hence such imposed activities as Fluoride – being the imposition of a supposedly healthy activity OVER the people and the community, who of course come under the responsibility of govt via the EPBC Act 1999. They are making sure the “environment” is “healthy”.
YOU are NO longer a free will person, because the government have “stolen” your free will and replaced it with their rules.
If we go to the list of unsustainable activities that were listed on the UN The Global Biodiversity Assessment Report - they are ALL human activities.
These activities involve leisure, work, homes and food creation involving land use.
All activities, on land, are defined as unsustainable.
How then are people supposed to remain alive if every activity they perform, on land, is unsustainable.
And if any activity, on land, that sustains the People, is no longer permissible under the “global crisis” as promulgated by Gore – are the People going to be allowed to continue to have children, make personal choices as to the kind of life they wish to have, live and work where they choose, eat the kind of food they choose, etc?
Here is a list of the things that the The Global Biodiversity Assessment Report directed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) considers Unsustainable -
Ski Runs - Grazing of Livestock: cows, sheep, goats, horses - Disturbance of the Soil Surface - Large hoofed animals, compaction of soil, reducing filtration - Fencing of Pastures or Paddocks - Agriculture - Modern Farm Production Systems - Chemical Fertilizers - Herbicides - Building Materials - Industrial Activities - Human-Made caves of brick and mortar, concrete and steel - Paved and Tarred roads, highways, rails - Railroads - Floor and Wall Tiles - Aquaculture - Technology Improvements - Farmlands, Ranglands - Pastures, Ranglands - Pastures - Fish Ponds - Plantations - Modern Hunting - Harvesting of Timber - Logging Activities - Fossil Fuels - Used for driving various kinds of machines - Dams, Reseroirs, Straightening Rivers - Power Line Construction -Economic systems that fail to set a proper value on the environment - Inappropriate Social Structures - Weaknesses in Legal and Institutional Systems - Modern Attitudes toward nature - Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions - Private Property - Population Growth - Human Population Density - Consumerism - Fragmentation of Habitat - cemeteries, derelict lands, rubbish tips, etc - Sewers, Drain Systems, Pipelines - Land use that serves human needs - Fisheries - Golf Courses - Scuba Diving - Synthetic drugs - Fragmentation - Agricultural development, Forestry Urbanization (impervious surfaces)
The other issue to understand is that an International Treaty such as the EPBC Act 1999, is a “contractural” arrangement between two or more different parties.
If this act has effectively “enslaved” the people by removing their free will & their sovereignty, who are the other parties outside the Aust Federal Govt who now have certain as yet undetermined rights of foreign sovereignty in Australia and over the people?
The act states in s3, that
1) The objects of this Act are:
(a) to provide for the protection of the environment,
(d) to promote a co‑operative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, land‑holders and indigenous peoples; and
(e) to assist in the co‑operative implementation of Australia's international environemental responsibilities
The act then states in s528 Definitions that
"environment" includes:
(a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities
Now the meaning of the word “People” under Australian law is not defined.
The meaning of person is in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s 22
Meaning of certain words
(1) In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
(a) 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;
(aa) individual means a natural person ;
(Very important to note the use of the words contrary and includes. Contrary tell us that this meaning applies unless there is a “differing” or “inconsistent” meaning. Includes however is a word that gathers every definition under its meaning. There can be no inconsistency of meaning, because all the contrary intentions have been gathered under that word “includes”. At no time in this Act is the word “exclude” used in any reference to free will, sovereignty, private ownership rights, etc of any kind.)
The legal meaning of “people” as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary No 1
“A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation of its collective and political capacity. “
So, the only definition of ‘people’ we have is the legal interpretation, & the creators of this International Treaty, have been very careful not to place this over the individual, but over the collective of individuals.
Therefore, to prove you have these rules now enslaving you, you must first identify yourself with the collective.
One interpretation may be found in the Criminal Code Act 1995, where people is always defined as more than one person by implication. (More research will be necessary re this word.)
This means that when the Australian government makes rules about the environment, those rules include YOU (under the collective) in the jurisdiction.
This then allows the Australian Government to apply restrictions, orders, enforcements and the like over YOUR (under the collective) activities as defined in the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment Report.
Hence such imposed activities as Fluoride – being the imposition of a supposedly healthy activity OVER the people and the community, who of course come under the responsibility of govt via the EPBC Act 1999. They are making sure the “environment” is “healthy”.
YOU are NO longer a free will person, because the government have “stolen” your free will and replaced it with their rules.
If we go to the list of unsustainable activities that were listed on the UN The Global Biodiversity Assessment Report - they are ALL human activities.
These activities involve leisure, work, homes and food creation involving land use.
All activities, on land, are defined as unsustainable.
How then are people supposed to remain alive if every activity they perform, on land, is unsustainable.
And if any activity, on land, that sustains the People, is no longer permissible under the “global crisis” as promulgated by Gore – are the People going to be allowed to continue to have children, make personal choices as to the kind of life they wish to have, live and work where they choose, eat the kind of food they choose, etc?
Here is a list of the things that the The Global Biodiversity Assessment Report directed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) considers Unsustainable -
Ski Runs - Grazing of Livestock: cows, sheep, goats, horses - Disturbance of the Soil Surface - Large hoofed animals, compaction of soil, reducing filtration - Fencing of Pastures or Paddocks - Agriculture - Modern Farm Production Systems - Chemical Fertilizers - Herbicides - Building Materials - Industrial Activities - Human-Made caves of brick and mortar, concrete and steel - Paved and Tarred roads, highways, rails - Railroads - Floor and Wall Tiles - Aquaculture - Technology Improvements - Farmlands, Ranglands - Pastures, Ranglands - Pastures - Fish Ponds - Plantations - Modern Hunting - Harvesting of Timber - Logging Activities - Fossil Fuels - Used for driving various kinds of machines - Dams, Reseroirs, Straightening Rivers - Power Line Construction -Economic systems that fail to set a proper value on the environment - Inappropriate Social Structures - Weaknesses in Legal and Institutional Systems - Modern Attitudes toward nature - Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions - Private Property - Population Growth - Human Population Density - Consumerism - Fragmentation of Habitat - cemeteries, derelict lands, rubbish tips, etc - Sewers, Drain Systems, Pipelines - Land use that serves human needs - Fisheries - Golf Courses - Scuba Diving - Synthetic drugs - Fragmentation - Agricultural development, Forestry Urbanization (impervious surfaces)
The other issue to understand is that an International Treaty such as the EPBC Act 1999, is a “contractural” arrangement between two or more different parties.
If this act has effectively “enslaved” the people by removing their free will & their sovereignty, who are the other parties outside the Aust Federal Govt who now have certain as yet undetermined rights of foreign sovereignty in Australia and over the people?
Pt 7. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD
What is Behind This
It is quite clear that those who have been put in power by the sovereign people of the State have, since 1992 when the original Acts were being framed, had a full intention in time, to bring about their own personal agendas, regardless of the wishes of the sovereign people who have, in good and open faith and intention, by secret ballot at elections, voted these people into positions of power and of trust and who must swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty that they will uphold Her laws for the benefit of the people of the State of QLD. That power has turned from the power granted by the people to the Legislative Assembly to make laws for 'peace welfare and good government' on behalf of the sovereign people of QLD using funds from taxes paid by the citizens of QLD and all of Australia, into a totalitarian system of Government, whereby we the people are subject to the corporation Government of the State.
The ramifications caused by these actions carried out over a long period of time by the Members of the body politic dating back as far as 1992 are so vast and wide spread it will take a long time to remedy and repair the whole system of government in QLD. The Parliament can make any laws they wish but I do not believe that under a democratic system of Government they are elected to Parliament to make draconian laws which remove the rights of the sovereign people to their use of their land without fair and just compensation.
Under the Constitution of Queensland 2001, by the removal of common law in the State of QLD, the public officials of this State can acquire an interest in private registered land without compensation, for the benefit of the State Government corporation. This also includes the property owned now and in the future as the sovereign people are in fact " an individual and a corporation" and therefore subject to the corporation Government of the State of QLD.
It is very clear from the time line of events that this was a well-planned manoeuvre to remove QLD from the Federation of Australia and through that action from the protection of the Australian Constitution and Common Law & Equity.
The former Premier said in the Second Reading Speech for the constitution, 'we all look forward to the day when we are a republic'. The people of the Commonwealth of Australia at referendum in 1999 voted against a republic but wished to retain the present system of Government with a clear separation of powers under common law and for the Commonwealth of Australia to remain exactly the same with a combined Federation of States as was created in 1901.
Mr Beattie also stated –
"But this Act is much more it is the fundamental law of QLD that underpins our system of government.
The entities it provides for include this Parliament, the Supreme and District Courts of this State and the system of local government that we know in QLD. The office holders under this Act include the Governor of QLD, the Ministers of the Crown and the judges of the Supreme and District Courts. This law is of supreme importance."
Further in the speech, the Premier stated "Our entity as a Sovereign State, the democratic ideals on which our State is built, rest on our Constitution".
Pt 5. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD
Sovereign People
We are all subjects of Her Majesty under section 117 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
The Parliament of QLD does not recognize the rights of the sovereign people inside the State of QLD.
What now happens to people who have been prosecuted, fined, imprisoned etc. under the civil law of QLD, which does not exist elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Australia. The people of QLD are still, under section 117 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and protected by Her laws as there has been no referendum under section 128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act to allow the separation of QLD from the Commonwealth of Australia.
Those of you who hold a Deed of Grant in fee simple in QLD, now only hold a statutory title, and that title is upheld by the civil laws of the Supreme and District Courts of the corporate Government of QLD and the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts who are inside the Government. Your common law estate in fee simple is now held by the corporate Government of the Sovereign State of QLD.
Under the definitions in the Acts Interpretation 1954(Qld), section 36, the definition of 'property' and 'land', the State of QLD now owns all your property, which includes money, real and personal property from the past and any future property which includes your will.
I refer to the definition of 'land' under section 22 - Meaning of certain words (aa) 'individual' and (c) 'land' of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth) and the definition of 'property' in section 130.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) The Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) is ultra vires to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth), Chapter 7 - The proper administration of Government; the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth).
The Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Q) defines property both present and future, owned by
you as an 'individual and a corporation' as subject to a statutory instrument only and that statutory instrument is not only applicable to your land, but all property that you, as a person in QLD now own, as opposed to the previous common law indefeasible deed of grant in fee simple. All land, including private land held previously in the common law estate of inheritance in fee simple by private individuals, is now held by the corporation of the State of QLD known as the Brigalow Corporation.
The only tenure that any financial institutions hold in land in QLD today, even though they may believe they hold an estate in fee simple, is in fact held by the corporation of the State, the Brigalow Corporation and is now the full property of the State. The lending institutions now only hold a statutory title and an interest only in the land by virtue of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 under which the rules of the Supreme and District Courts are found under section 12 of that Act.
The owners of that property taken by the corporation can only hope that the corporation has not used your real property as an asset to borrow funds for the corporation for whatever purpose. If the independent State corporation fails or borrowing is too extensive, it will again be the sovereign people who will bear the financial consequences.
Your Deed of Grant in fee simple is now a statutory title only, and that title is upheld by the civil laws of the Supreme and District Courts of the corporate Government of QLD and the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts who are inside the Government
Your land is now held by the Government of QLD in the Brigalow Corporation with no compensation paid to you for that acquisition. For “Even though the King may not enter” (Plenty v. Dillon [1991] HCA 5; 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004 (7 March 1991) the QLD Government and the delegated authorities thereof can, without fine or legal interference.
To have QLD become an independent Sovereign State and to remove the common
law, set up statutory civil law and have Queensland not recognize the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act but only that Act from section 9 onwards, a full referendum
would have been required of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia to enact,
validly, that QLD, from 29th January 1999 was now independent of the Commonwealth of
Australia and a State in its own right.
That did not happen.
In the Second Reading Speech for the Constitution the Premier stated that the Constitution would be 'broadly accessible' to the people of QLD. Considering that this Act has effectively removed all common law property rights from the people of QLD it should, one would reasonably assume, have been put to a referendum of the people.
The sovereign people of the Commonwealth of Australia have never been required at a referendum by virtue of section 128 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia to vote to allow "the State" of QLD to fracture the Commonwealth and become an independent sovereign state.
We are all subjects of Her Majesty under section 117 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
The Parliament of QLD does not recognize the rights of the sovereign people inside the State of QLD.
What now happens to people who have been prosecuted, fined, imprisoned etc. under the civil law of QLD, which does not exist elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Australia. The people of QLD are still, under section 117 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and protected by Her laws as there has been no referendum under section 128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act to allow the separation of QLD from the Commonwealth of Australia.
Those of you who hold a Deed of Grant in fee simple in QLD, now only hold a statutory title, and that title is upheld by the civil laws of the Supreme and District Courts of the corporate Government of QLD and the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts who are inside the Government. Your common law estate in fee simple is now held by the corporate Government of the Sovereign State of QLD.
Under the definitions in the Acts Interpretation 1954(Qld), section 36, the definition of 'property' and 'land', the State of QLD now owns all your property, which includes money, real and personal property from the past and any future property which includes your will.
I refer to the definition of 'land' under section 22 - Meaning of certain words (aa) 'individual' and (c) 'land' of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth) and the definition of 'property' in section 130.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) The Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) is ultra vires to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth), Chapter 7 - The proper administration of Government; the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth).
The Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Q) defines property both present and future, owned by
you as an 'individual and a corporation' as subject to a statutory instrument only and that statutory instrument is not only applicable to your land, but all property that you, as a person in QLD now own, as opposed to the previous common law indefeasible deed of grant in fee simple. All land, including private land held previously in the common law estate of inheritance in fee simple by private individuals, is now held by the corporation of the State of QLD known as the Brigalow Corporation.
The only tenure that any financial institutions hold in land in QLD today, even though they may believe they hold an estate in fee simple, is in fact held by the corporation of the State, the Brigalow Corporation and is now the full property of the State. The lending institutions now only hold a statutory title and an interest only in the land by virtue of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 under which the rules of the Supreme and District Courts are found under section 12 of that Act.
The owners of that property taken by the corporation can only hope that the corporation has not used your real property as an asset to borrow funds for the corporation for whatever purpose. If the independent State corporation fails or borrowing is too extensive, it will again be the sovereign people who will bear the financial consequences.
Your Deed of Grant in fee simple is now a statutory title only, and that title is upheld by the civil laws of the Supreme and District Courts of the corporate Government of QLD and the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts who are inside the Government
Your land is now held by the Government of QLD in the Brigalow Corporation with no compensation paid to you for that acquisition. For “Even though the King may not enter” (Plenty v. Dillon [1991] HCA 5; 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004 (7 March 1991) the QLD Government and the delegated authorities thereof can, without fine or legal interference.
To have QLD become an independent Sovereign State and to remove the common
law, set up statutory civil law and have Queensland not recognize the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act but only that Act from section 9 onwards, a full referendum
would have been required of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia to enact,
validly, that QLD, from 29th January 1999 was now independent of the Commonwealth of
Australia and a State in its own right.
That did not happen.
In the Second Reading Speech for the Constitution the Premier stated that the Constitution would be 'broadly accessible' to the people of QLD. Considering that this Act has effectively removed all common law property rights from the people of QLD it should, one would reasonably assume, have been put to a referendum of the people.
The sovereign people of the Commonwealth of Australia have never been required at a referendum by virtue of section 128 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia to vote to allow "the State" of QLD to fracture the Commonwealth and become an independent sovereign state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
