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.

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.

Removing Our Ownership Rights Through Deception

Why this deception?
In 1973, Gough Whitlam authorized a Commission into Land Tenures, headed by Sir John Kerr.

This document of over 900 pages stated that the private land owner should not be allowed to benefit financially from government activities such as re-zoning. To prevent this, the owner should have his ownership rights regulated away, so that any zoning benefit would be offset by the loss of land use rights. The suggestion was made to buy all land back into Crown hands, but the authors recognized the cost factor would be too immense.

This document did not, at any stage, recognize the rights inherent in a Grant of Fee Simple.
The overall decision of this document was to completely regulate all aspects of land use, resume land where possible and allow major and chosen developers to develop specific areas. The individual could build a house on that land, with the right to sell it, but would never be allowed to own the land.

Gough Whitlam is widely recognized as the ‘leader’ of the Fabian Society in Australia.

This Society favours gradual incremental change rather than revolutionary change, tactics of harassment and attrition rather than head-on battles. They plan to create socialist states in Australia by promoting Marxist and Darwinist doctrines. Fabians favour the nationalization of land. They have stated, "We must make land common property.”

The Fabian Coat of Arms was originally a WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING.

Hawke & Rudd both looked to Whitlam as a mentor

Quotes
Mr. Whitlam reiterated his contention to use section 96 of the Constitution as a means of "competing" with private enterprise. In effect this is the selective use of the government's power in the credit field to put free enterprise at a disadvantage to government "enterprise".

Mr. Hawke told his Fabian colleagues in Melbourne "For our reforms to endure, the whole mood and mind and attitudes of the nation must be permanently changed". This is an appeal for a programme of national social engineering.

He also said in that speech, "The Fabian Society acknowledges the principal tenet of Marxism, the abolition of private property, in this case to own land. They then align themselves with the non-violent arm of Marxism by accepting the non-violent road of patient gradualism to total government."

What Methods of Deception have brought about massive removal of land ownership rights?
· Council zoning
· Development applications
· Irrigators Water Buy-Backs
· Land Clearing Laws
· Native Animal Wildlife corridors
· State Parks
· Forest plantings
· Carbon emission taxes (proposed)
· Environmental laws
· Land care grants
· Native Vegetation laws
· Global Warming propaganda.
· And etc

While we may personally favour some of these measures, it is no longer a myth that they have all combined to remove our common law land ownership rights at a massive pace. 100’s of hours of personal research have led me to believe and state that all these regulations were not intended for the betterment of either the Australian Continent or the people who make it home.

Their one over-reaching aim was to take the land out of private ownership, lock it up, place the citizens in structured, regulated housing and create a form of communist control that is almost complete.

We are now seeing Whitlam’s plan in action. Farms being closed down for lack of water that they still pay for. People’s homes resumed and turned into park land, which is then leased to major corporations to be turned into resorts. Land resumed at basic costs, for public purposes, then sold to become housing estates.