We are involved with a growing number of Australian people – numbering in the many hundreds of thousands, at least – who have for some time become aware, concerned and disgusted about the corrupt behaviour of both the Australian and British Governments.
It involves the British Parliament, a succession of British monarchs (including Elizabeth II), other members of the British royal family, British and Australian politicians and the Australian, British and European Courts. As should soon be evident, news stories rarely get any bigger, have as many consequences, or as many people working against the truth.
This is without doubt the greatest perpetrated fraud within our modern times, which has continued for decades and definitely will be one of, if not, the largest news & media story ever uncovered. The documented facts on our website will show how the corrupt past and present British and Australian politicians, the judicial systems of two countries, as well as the European Court of Human Rights, have deliberately lied, misled and manipulated the Australian people for their own personal financial gain, greed and political appointments.
We assure you that every claim and accusation within this Website can be easily substantiated and verified with the official evidence, court documents and even Australian and British Government legal records, which we have uploaded for you to do your own research.
For the past 80 years every Australian Politician, Judge, Magistrate, Defence Force Personnel, Federal & State Police Officer, Sheriff, Local Mayor, etc., in other words the people in Authority, have ALL either knowingly or not, committed an ‘Act of Treason’ against the Australian People, by swearing allegiance and subscribing to an oath to serve Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland and therefore the government of a Power foreign to Australia.
Since 1919 the Monarchs of the United Kingdoms (and there have been two: the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland and of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) have allegedly appointed a Governor-General, who has in turn sworn into office the Federal Government of Australia. This Federal Government then had the rights and privileges to administer the laws and run the Commonwealth of Australia.
However, for reasons outlined in the documentation provided, these Monarchs have had NO legal basis to do so! Elizabeth II has NEVER been crowned the “Queen of Australia” and has absolutely NO legal authority within Australia!
You may then start to understand how our Australian Constitution, the appointment of our Australian Governments, and the establishment of various government departments have been for decades – illegal and invalid.
The whole Judicial System in Australia is not only invalid, it is also corrupt!!! Most Judges (especially those in the High, Federal and State Supreme Courts) are aware of this invalidity and know that their own appointments are totally unlawful. However, these same Judges have continued to preside and rule against hundreds of people, even when the invalidity of their appointments and position was actually stated and challenged in legal documents filed in their own courts and who were aware of this when making their rulings! Innocent people have been ordered to pay fines, had property re-possessed, been forced into bankruptcy or imprisoned by corrupt Judges who are more interested in protecting their own livelihoods, positions, power, superannuation and the status quo.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is also an organization with NO lawful authority.
Click HERE for the relevant documentation.
Yet people once again had their lives ruined to the point of suicide for being unable to pay their supposed taxes.
In October 2005 an action against the British Government was submitted and accepted by the European Court of Human Rights for “Human Rights Abuse”. The matter related to a legal action by Mr. David Claude Fitzgibbon, Australian Barrister-at-Law, for Human Rights Abuse against himself as someone resident in Australia. The British Government had 90 days to lodge their Defence, which was NOT entered. This was perhaps the FIRST time in the history of the Court that a Defence had not been lodged!
In October 2006, the Court mysteriously ruled that there was NO evidence of Human Rights offences having occurred within Australia. How can you possibly lose a court case when the British Government does not even submit a Defence, especially when there was an abundance of overwhelming evidence to substantiate the action filed by Mr Fitzgibbon?? What deals were struck in order to have the case quashed??? (Mr. Fitzgibbon was told personally by Justice Lightman, that Australian Prime Minister, John W. Howard actually put pressure on him to decide as he did).
“The continued usage of the Australian Constitution Act ( UK ) by the Australian Governments and the judiciary is a confidence trick of monstrous proportions played upon the Australian people with the intent of maintaining power. It remains an Act of the United Kingdom. After joining the League of Nations in 1919 Australia became a sovereign nation. It had no further legal power to use, alter or otherwise tamper with another nation’s legislation. Authority over the Australian Constitution Act lies not with the Australian government nor with the Australian people, it rests solely with the UK. Only they have the authority to repeal this legislation …”
The late Professor G. Clements
Eminent UK QC and emeritus Professor in Law at Cambridge University
Most people would agree that Australia is recognised globally as an Independent & Sovereign Nation.
Well what does the word ‘Sovereignty’ mean?
According to ‘Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia’:
Sovereignty ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty ) is the exclusive right to have control over an area of governance, people, or oneself. In constitutional and international law, the concept also pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit, and in certain context to various organs possessing legal jurisdiction in their own chief, rather than by mandate or under supervision.
The United Nations Resolution adopted by The General Assembly 50/172 ( http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/50/ares50-172.htm ) Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes, states:
Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;
4. Reaffirms further that electoral assistance to Member States should be provided by the United Nations only at the request and with the consent of specific sovereign States, by virtue of resolutions adopted by the Security Council or the General Assembly in each case, in strict conformity with the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, or in special circumstances such as cases of decolonization, or in the context of regional or international peace processes;
7. Reaffirms that all countries have the obligation under the Charter to respect the right of others to self-determination and to determine freely their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development;
By all accounts it seems that Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and also termed “Queen of Australia” has no detrimental influence or significant consequence over the citizens of Australia.
Or does she??
Well…the first thing we have to do is to establish whether the position of “Queen of Australia” does exist? Now our first issue is that Elizabeth II has never been crowned the “Queen of Australia”. So what does that mean if we have a fictitious Monarch and what are the consequences?
A letter from the ‘Commonwealth of Australia Attorney’ General’s Department dated 7th May, 2001 states that Mr Henke wanted to see a copy of the document issued by the government of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) empowering the Queen of Australia to use the Royal Sign Manual.
In the 2nd paragraph of that letter is the response which clearly states that there is NO SUCH DOCUMENT!!
Then there is the response from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom in London, to Mr William Bolton that the Queen has NO EXECUTIVE POWER within the Commonwealth of Australia.
By letter dated 18th October 2004, this time to Mr Sempf and once again under the Freedom Of Information Act, similar material was sought and this time the same response was received from the Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet.
Yet if we go to the next few pages, clearly on Official Government documents both here and the UK, we can see that they contain the words QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA!
Now, whenever you sign a legal document, be it an Affidavit, a Loan Contract from a Bank or your Will, you must always sign on the bottom of the page… it means that you agree with what is written above your signature.
Why then does the Queen sign her name on any legal Australian documents at the top of the page? [Refer to the ‘Queen's Signature From Australia The Concealed Colony’ ].
Is it because she knows and understands the significant problems and ramifications with what is evident here in Australia and she does not want to be dragged through the European Court of Human Rights? She is fully aware and has known this for many years. Refer to some of the previous letters sent to her, such as: W Levick Letter to Queen Elizabeth 4th January 2005.pdf
So, if we have now established that there is NO Queen of Australia and that there is NO Royal Sign Manual, this then makes ALL the appointments of Governors-General of the Commonwealth of Australia NULL & VOID!!
So, we now have a Governor-General who has not been appointed legally, who unlawfully swears the Prime Minister and his Cabinet into Office, which now makes that Prime Minister’s appointment and his cabinet also NULL & VOID!!
So all the Government Departments whether Federal or State, the Local Councils, the Judicial System and the laws of the land, are now all totally NULL & VOID!!!
Are you seeing a pattern here?
Do you recognize that if the root is poisoned the fruit is poisoned?
Do you understand the difference between ‘Authority’ and ‘Power’?
An Article by Peter Gillies
Question: Has the Queen of the United Kingdom committed a crime?
Question: Should the Australian Government be allowed to vote in the United Nations General Assembly?
At the outset I say that I am not a lawyer. I am an ordinary bloke who happens to believe in a level playing field. I believe that those that make the laws should be the first to obey them. This is not the case in Australia.
Some time ago I had a dispute with my local council. A senior planner told me that the council knew they were breaking the law, but that they did not care. “We’ve always done it” he said. They claim that all their authority derives from the Local Government Act 1993. So I set about finding what authority they actually did have.
What a can of worms I opened. Talk about lies and deceit.
First of all I went to our ‘Australian’ Constitution, which is not really ours. It is an Act of the UK Parliament and has never been part of Australian legislation. My first thought on finding this was, “How can this be right in an independent country?”
However, this aside, I did ascertain that what powers have not been conferred by the Constitution cannot be taken. That is hard legal fact. The Constitution allows for Federal and State governments but does not allow for a third level of government. A Constitutional inquiry (1985) also found this so it was decided to take it to a referendum of the people, which is the only way we can alter the Constitution. This referendum was held in 1988.
The question was asked, “Do you want to recognize Local Government?” All States came back with a resounding “NO” vote. Despite this denial by the people, all State Governments later passed a Local Government Act.
Not good so far, I thought, for a supposed democracy. But I looked further. For a government to be legally valid in Australia, under both State and Federal Constitutions, the Government must consist of three parts. It must have a lower and upper house, and it must have a Governor (State) or Governor General (Federal) who has been appointed by the Queen of the United Kingdom under her Royal Sign Manual.
OK. So now it’s getting really weird. First Australia, this independent country,
has as its supreme law – the ‘Australian’ Constitution – a law of another nation. Then, for the governments of this independent nation to be legally valid they must have a representative appointed by the leader of another nation, appointed according to the laws of that other nation’s parliament.
Surely this could not be right?
So I checked with the United Nations. They told me that one of the essential ingredients of the Charter of the United Nations is that the laws of one independent nation cannot be enforced within the territories of another independent nation.
So… if the Queen has done what her own UK Act says, and has appointed a State Governor, or a Federal Governor General in Australia, then is she guilty of committing an offence against international law?
But had she really appointed these people?
I started with the Local Government Act of New South Wales. The Governor who gave this Act Royal Assent was Rear Admiral Peter Sinclair. I emailed the House of Lords and asked, “Where are records of appointments made under the Sign Manual kept? They promptly replied that they were all kept in Folio C_ _ in the UK Archives and provided a link to that web site. I return emailed and thanked them but asked, “What about records of appointments of persons overseas?” They replied, “Records of ALL appointments under the Sign Manual are kept in this folio in the UK Archives.”
The UK Archives web site quickly provided the subject folio, but it is not readily accessible to the general public. However, a list of accredited researchers was provided so I engaged one to locate and forward a copy of the documents of appointment of Peter Sinclair.
She eventually came back with the reply, “There is no record of any such appointment.”
“How odd!” says I. So I placed a Freedom of Information request to the NSW Premier for a copy of the documents. They definitely did NOT want to give them to me.
While I was waiting for them, I went to the Newcastle University Law Library and found the UK laws relating to appointments made under the Royal Sign Manual. There are four essential ingredients necessary for an appointment to be valid. These are: -
The person MUST be a British Subject;
The appointment MUST be signed by the Queen of the United Kingdom;
It MUST be countersigned by a senior member of the UK parliament; and, most importantly,
It MUST bear the Great Seal of the United Kingdom.
OK. So these rules are set in concrete within UK legislation.
First, I found that Peter Sinclair is an Australian Citizen. He is NOT a British Subject.
Second, when the documents arrived, they did have a signature I presume was that of the Queen of the United Kingdom. However it was at the top right hand corner of the front page, BEFORE any other writing on the document. There was NO signature where it said, “Signed at Our Court of St James on….”.
Third, there was NO signature of ANY member of the UK parliament.
Fourth, there was NO Great Seal of the United Kingdom.
We now have NO record of the appointment at the UK Archives, and NO compliance with the various UK Acts that dictate what the Queen must do with regard to appointments under the Sign Manual. But what about other Governors, and what about Governors General? A similar check on several other ‘appointees’ at various dates revealed a similar situation.
Obviously the Australian public has been deceived. But by whom? None of these persons had been appointed by the Queen of the United Kingdom under her Sign Manual. According to our State and Federal Constitutions, a law does not become a law until it receives ‘Royal Assent’ by someone who has been appointed under the Sign Manual. Obviously then, the Local Government Act (NSW) 1993 never received Royal Assent and so never became a law.
You beauty! I’ve got the bastards! But hang on. Why was a signature of the Queen there at all? Clearly she hadn’t made the appointments, or a record would be at the Archives, and the documents would have been signed at the ‘Court of St James’ bit.
So who did sign them?
A little more digging revealed that several decades ago, several Acts were passed both in the UK and in Australia. One of these Australian Acts – the Royal Styles and Title Act, 1973 – created some person called “The Queen of Australia”.
Who the hell is she? I didn’t vote for her. And in any case, the Constitution of Australia (and the Constitutions of the Australian States) only gives executive authority to the Queen of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So this ‘Queen of Australia’ has no permission to do anything anyway.
Multiple queries later I was reluctantly informed by both UK and Aussie governments, that the Queen of the UK and the Queen of Australia are one and the same person; that they are ‘indivisible’, but the Queen of Australia acts on advice from “her Australian ministers”.
Now I have two major problems with this, and this is where the bit about the Queen committing a crime comes in.
First, nowhere does this ‘Queen of Australia’ have permission to hold the Executive Authority necessary to make appointments and laws legally valid. She certainly was not given that permission by the Australian people, and she does NOT have that permission under the UK Act, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900.
Second, under certain UK legislation, she is only allowed to be known as the Queen of another country if the foreign policy of that country is controlled by the United Kingdom Parliament. Quite clearly Australian foreign policy is NOT controlled by the UK parliament so the Queen CANNOT be known as the Queen of Australia under requirements of her own laws.
Now I did find out that the Queen is immune from most laws, but I also found out that she is NOT immune from laws that relate to her. So has she committed an offence?
Has she allowed her law (The Constitution Act) to be enforced in another independent nation in contravention of international law?
Has she allowed herself to be known as ‘Queen of Australia’ in defiance of her own parliament’s Acts?
If the Australian Constitution requires that a valid Australian government consist of an Upper House, a Lower House, AND a Governor General appointed by the Queen of the United Kingdom under her Sign Manual, and the Governor General HAS NOT been appointed in that manner, then does Australia have a legally valid government?
If it does not have a legally valid government, then does it have a right to sit on the UN General Assembly and vote on issues before that assembly?
It goes back to a level playing field. If I have to obey the law, then so do they.
Just as an aside…
If no Australian laws have received Royal Assent as required by the Constitution, are any of these laws themselves legally valid?
Just as a besides the aside…
The Australian Constitution has NEVER been agreed to by the Australian people. What WAS agreed to prior to 1900 was sent to the UK for enactment, but the UK made over 60 alterations to the document and then legislated it. The altered document was never sent back to Australia to be voted on by the Australian people.
We demand that Iraq have its own Constitution freely adopted by the people of Iraq, but what about Australia?
HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW ABOUT AUSTRALIA? By Michael Baker
How much do you know about Australia’s constitutional/political system: Past & Present? Try this simple TRUE / FALSE TEST.
1. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 is United Kingdom legislation. TRUE / FALSE?
2. Under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 sovereignty rests with the Queen and not with the Australian people. TRUE / FALSE?
3. That Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is appointed to Her position as Queen by the U.K. Parliament. TRUE /FALSE?
4. That clause 8 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 describes the Commonwealth of Australia as a colony. TRUE / FALSE?
5. That under ‘Australia’s’ Constitution all Australian politicians, judges, lawyers and many others must swear allegiance to a Sovereignty that has not existed for more than 86 years. TRUE / FALSE?
6. That the ‘Australian’ Constitution – being a colonial Act of the U.K. Parliament – does not contain any elements of civil rights (such as; the right to private property, freedom of expression and freedom of movement, etc). TRUE / FALSE?
7. That under the ‘Australian’ Constitution the unelected Governor-General is commander in chief of the Australian military forces and that he holds this position because he is the Queen’s representative. TRUE/ FALSE?
8. That Australia is the only O.E.C.D. nation not to have a constitutionally enforceable Bill of Rights. TRUE / FALSE?
9. In the years 1973, 1983, 1985 and 1986 the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia consistently rejected Bills of Rights for the Australian people and consequently have denied Australian citizens even the fundamental human rights enshrined in the U.N.’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966; although the Australian government was a signatory to that Covenant. TRUE / FALSE?
10. That unenacted British law (common law) continues to be applied in Australian courts even though those to whom it is applied are denied all entitlements under British law (and this situation can apply to tourists to Australia). TRUE / FALSE?
If you answered 100% TRUE to each and every question, not only are you 100% correct, you are also not an Australian politician, judge, lawyer or academic. CONGRATULATIONS!!
(For an in depth analysis of Australian political philosophy and practice refer to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll).
Yes, that’s right – The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 is legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster, being enacted into law on the 9th of July, 1900, to come into effect on the 1st of January, 1901. Which of course, it did!
Under that Act – being an Act of the U.K. Parliament – sovereignty rests with their Queen. The Oath of Allegiance which still must be used by all of Australia’s politicians, judges, public servants and others, is contained in a Schedule to the Act and reads:
“I, A.B. do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!”
Largely unrecognized by most people, because its not something that grabs the attention, the Monarchs of the United Kingdom have been Statutory Monarchies since the Act of Settlement, 1701 (U.K.). That is, the Kings and Queens of the U.K. have been appointed for more than 300 years by an Act of the Westminster Parliament. The oath of allegiance quoted above makes this crystal clear: “…Her heirs and successors according to law,” and, what’s more, the law that decides Queen Elizabeth’s heirs and successors is not Australian law, its purely U.K. law and always was!
This hardly noticed fact has some interesting consequences. It means that the U.K. Parliament is the supreme authority in the U.K. – with or without a monarch, after all they appoint them! It means that currently a monarch of the U.K. cannot be a Roman Catholic and remain as the monarch.( see the Act of Settlement 1701). Essentially and literally, the U.K. Parliament is the supreme Authority within Australia’s political system and has been since Captain James Cook landed at Botany Bay on the east coast of the Australian continent in 1770. The chain of command runs like this: U.K. Parliament> the Monarch> the Australian Governor-General> the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (from which is selected a government).
As an extreme example, but one that proves the point: if the U.K. decided to become a republic where would that leave the so-called independent nation of Australia? The Australian political, judicial and public service systems cannot operate without a Monarch who is appointed by the U.K. Parliament!!
Also and unrecognised by the Australian public at large, ‘their’ constitution works simply because it is no longer adhered to. Take, for example, the powers of the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General. This individual can act under the ‘Australian’ Constitution like a dictator! The fact that since 1901 they have not done so is beside the point. The dismissal of the popularly elected Labor Party federal government in 1975 by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr demonstrated to all who cared to see that in the late twentieth century the non-elected Queen’s man was still a force to be reckoned with in the free democracy of backward looking Australia.
Moreover (and here the situation becomes truly laughable) the ‘Australian” Constitution – being trapped in a time-warp at the end of the 19th century – only recognises the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which is a political entity that has not existed since the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922!
So, what are the practical, down-to-earth consequences of all this?
First, that the Australian people have been denied their freedom, independence and sovereignty since at least 1945, when Australia became a member of United Nations. That the Australian people have been denied an effective say as to how they run their country and hence their own lives! Second, that the obligations contained in all of the international treaties to which Australia – through its governments – is a signatory, may be unenforceable. This could have very wide implications. Third, of debatable importance but of definite interest, will be how Australia’s politicians, judges and lawyers try to justify themselves. They can either admit that they knew the truth and therefore that they were parasites of the system, or they can admit their ignorance and thereby the fact that they were negligent by not understanding the very basis of the profession from which they have all happily gained so much. It will be an excruciation choice but one made all the more so for Australia’s highest Judges – the various Chief Justices – by the fact that important documents explaining the situation in detail were delivered to them by courier as long ago as 1999.
But surely Australia’s politicians know that the political system, which gives them so much, is flawed? Unfortunately, the majority do not! A politician needs no formal qualifications to attain high office and history shows that the average Australian politician is below average! Moreover, any new idea, much less any new critical idea based on history, law and exhaustive research, must begin as a minority opinion and there are no vote-winners in minority opinions. Why rock the boat, particularly when you have a first-class cabin (albeit on the Titanic)?
Some may wonder why the media has never ‘picked up’ on the story, but the answers are obvious. In Australia the media is interested in sensationalism and sport. Sensationalism sells and sport is one of Australia’s few fields of successful endeavour. If the international media was at any time interested – and for the most part it was not – their investigative journalism skills vanished after any of their initial suspicions were refuted by the Australian government’s own Department of Foreign Affairs. One telephone call was all it took, for modern investigative journalism always takes the line of least persistence!
In short, the rest of the world was preoccupied. Moreover, the parasitic existence of the United Nations as a self-congratulatory organization for those involved in its self-perpetuating, busy-body activities can be all too clearly seen by anyone who wishes to take even a cursory look! That august body never raised a finger to even try to prevent one of its founding members from continuing to breach its own Charter (in particular Articles 2, 4, 6, 102 and 103, all of which guarantee the right of self-determination!).
The machinations of the United Kingdom’s power-brokers remain largely motivated by a polished reticence to relinquish the trappings of empire. By applying their legislative power to lands no longer under the sovereign authority of the U.K. parliament and in jurisdictions no longer dependencies of the U.K., the very best that can be said is that Queen Elizabeth II has been misled and the laws of Her own kingdom subverted. This is the best that can be said.
The lack of any effective action by ‘those in the know’ to redress the problem – both in the U.K. and Australia – and despite numerous opportunities to do so, is proof of many things, not least being that corruption gives power and absolute corruption gives absolute power. The United Kingdom’s courts failed to do the right thing – with Justice Lightman admitting that the Australian Prime Minister, John Winston Howard flew to London and put pressure on him to decide Mr. Fitzgibbon’s case in the way he did!!
With the problem ready to replicate itself in Canada and New Zealand and the possibility and consequences of such action spreading, perhaps we should all wish the British people the best of their own luck! They may yet need it, because even if the U.K. government has a brilliant ‘Spin-Doctor’ the world can be a very lonely – if more democratic – place.
Ignorance of the law is no defence; all the more so if you were instrumental in putting that law in place!
So why not visit Australia – a land lost in time? Simply ‘put a shrimp on the barbie’ and settle back and watch the nation struggle to reclaim its 19th century colonial past as it lurches into the 21st century backwards.
Never happy with its advance from being a child of Britain to a sovereign adult nation, Australia may yet declare its adolescent longings to the world: almost free, semi-independent, burdened by responsibility, awkwardly immature and not quite certain why it feels so proud of its ‘hand-me-down’ Constitution, borrowed legal system and second-hand politics.
Believe it, or not!
Joosse’s case is important because it was one of the first in a long line of matters where
Australians placed the crucial issues of our history and the foundations of our future before the Australian and eventually, British and European court systems.
All of these courts sold out on every Australian, New Zealander and Canadian.
Joosse’s case – transcript and judgement – lays out those issues.
Refer to: (‘ Joosse High Court of Australia Transcript and Judgement.pdf )