The illegality of govt explained historically

Anything that you wish to discuss that is off topic, post here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Wolf
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:46 pm
Position: Nature Lover

The illegality of govt explained historically

Unread post by Wolf » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:26 pm




I have been at a few of this chap's speeches over the years.

After many court experiences where he was able to clarify he was outside the 'law' of 'Australia' he became a lawyer and took the matter to the International court of the Hague.

Have a listen for a legal explanation of why the Original inhabitants of this country have far more power than they realise over the so-called government.
The mightiest oak was once a nut that stood his ground

User avatar
Shazzoir
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 800
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:40 pm
Position: Crypto Enthusiast
Gender: Female
Location: Brisbane, Qld

Re: The illegality of govt explained historically

Unread post by Shazzoir » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:31 pm

Can you consider posting this as a follow-up reply to one of your numerous other thread posts about political corruption instead of making yet another post about this subject, please? (eek)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Dr. Carl Sagan

User avatar
Black
Approved Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:38 am
Position: Monk

Re: The illegality of govt explained historically

Unread post by Black » Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:47 pm

Wolf,
I've just skim read through the threads in this section, of which you have a monopoly over.

Do you openly declare yourself as a "Freeman of the land" campaigner, or is this a title you refute? In the USA you would regard yourself as a "sovereign citizen", yes?

User avatar
Wolf
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:46 pm
Position: Nature Lover

Re: The illegality of govt explained historically

Unread post by Wolf » Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:34 am

The term, 'Sovereign Citizen' is an oxymoron... one cannot be sovereign and a citizen at the same time.

Neither do I consider myself a 'Freeman-On-The-Land' as I have not rescinded my contract with the State (I accept the benefits... use the currency, have a birth certificate, carry a Driver's License, etc... though I do so under duress and threat of violence upon my person).

I am just a bloke who has had the opportunity and spare time to do a lot of digging and got to test what I found in court.
What I do know is that this country is NOT the country founded as The Commonwealth of Australia just over a century ago. That country still exists but has been pushed aside by the corporate entity calling itself the Australian Government. It's parliament sits empty and unused while the pretender sits in a bunker adorned by a giant flag.

Will it ever come back? I seriously doubt it. I have heard of one attempt many years ago, set up by elements in the military but at the last moment they had a disagreement and it failed before it even started.
The mightiest oak was once a nut that stood his ground

User avatar
Wolf
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:46 pm
Position: Nature Lover

Re: The illegality of govt explained historically

Unread post by Wolf » Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:40 am

I do know of some who have rescinded their contract and reverted their interest back into the Commonwealth.

The results are very interesting, especially how they are now handled in court... going from intensely being attacked by TPTB to being respected by the court officlals overnight.
The mightiest oak was once a nut that stood his ground

User avatar
Black
Approved Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:38 am
Position: Monk

Re: The illegality of govt explained historically

Unread post by Black » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:48 am

So, you're not a Freeman of the land advocate, Wolf?

In one of the other threads you declare the Transport Act or a Transport Act was never proclaimed and therefore is not a law. Have you even read the Australian constitution?

It explains the process very clearly. All proposed laws pass by the house of representatives and the senate, and are then assented by the Governor General in the queens name before they become Acts of parliament. Proclamation is something read out, not a drawn out ceremony.

Queensland has its own constitution. In Queensland for example, proclamation and royal assent involve the Governor of Queensland. A piece of legislation becomes operational as law 1) at a specified date 2) when it is given Royal Assent by the Governor 3) on a day fixed by proclamation (declaration by the Governor) and or 4) or immediately before or after another act or provision within the same act.

Freeman of the land advocates always question proclamation, and sometimes ask for proclamation certificates, but never see it as important to question whether royal assent was given by the governor.

If you don't believe me, Wolf, have another read of the Australian constitution.

This video above on the other hand, raises many exceptional points which could really upset the very foundation of the Australian Constitution.

I will be exploring his point about Britain having its own laws at the time of colonialisation forbidding the colonisation of land where people already had an established system of government and law. The native Australian Aboriginals had there own systems of both in place, although maybe not centralised. There is a strong argument, Australia should never have been deemed Terra nullus and Britain colonials were subject to Australian Aboriginal laws the moment they set foot on Australian land.

User avatar
Wolf
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:46 pm
Position: Nature Lover

Re: The illegality of govt explained historically

Unread post by Wolf » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:38 pm

Black wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:48 am
In one of the other threads you declare the Transport Act or a Transport Act was never proclaimed and therefore is not a law. Have you even read the Australian constitution?

It explains the process very clearly. All proposed laws pass by the house of representatives and the senate, and are then assented by the Governor General in the queens name before they become Acts of parliament. Proclamation is something read out, not a drawn out ceremony.
That's right but as evidence of proclamation said proclamation must be published (Gazetted).
I ask for evidence of proclamation... in other words, gazetted.
Black wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:48 am
Queensland has its own constitution. In Queensland for example, proclamation and royal assent involve the Governor of Queensland. A piece of legislation becomes operational as law 1) at a specified date 2) when it is given Royal Assent by the Governor 3) on a day fixed by proclamation (declaration by the Governor) and or 4) or immediately before or after another act or provision within the same act.

Freeman of the land advocates always question proclamation, and sometimes ask for proclamation certificates, but never see it as important to question whether royal assent was given by the governor.
See above.
Asking for evidence of proclamation IS defacto asking for evidence of assent when phrased correctly (I include this question with my others).
As to royal assent, the 'new' constitution of 2002 removed this role of the GG, in effect removing any power the GG had. Now he or she is simply a figure-head. Bringing up this matter will get you as far as bringing up the constitution will in any lower court... you are trying to bring it into the 'wrong' jurisdiction. They are NOT constitutional courts. They are administration courts for the corporation. By giving yourself up to 'their' authority (with your presence) you are contracting to the corporation.
Black wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:48 am

This video above on the other hand, raises many exceptional points which could really upset the very foundation of the Australian Constitution.

I will be exploring his point about Britain having its own laws at the time of colonialisation forbidding the colonisation of land where people already had an established system of government and law. The native Australian Aboriginals had there own systems of both in place, although maybe not centralised. There is a strong argument, Australia should never have been deemed Terra nullus and Britain colonials were subject to Australian Aboriginal laws the moment they set foot on Australian land.
Sadly Gunham (McMurtrie) has 'lost his way' getting mixed up with the typical problems besieging members of his community.

He could have been great for his people and this country as a whole. The barrister who took him on as a law student and helped take his arguments to the UK was very disappointed when last I spoke with him a couple of years ago.

His points still stand however. As do the legal points of another challenge to Australia's 'authority-at-law', ie; the technical treason committed by every 'citizen' who has sworn an oath to a foreign entity (the Queen).
The mightiest oak was once a nut that stood his ground

User avatar
Black
Approved Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:38 am
Position: Monk

Re: The illegality of govt explained historically

Unread post by Black » Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:52 am

Wolf says,"That's right but as evidence of proclamation said proclamation must be published (gazetted)."

Yes, Wolf, you are absolutely correct. The Commonwealth of Australia Government Gazette from 1901 to 1957 is fully available on Trove. But the Federal Register of Legislation, has the lot.

It has copies of Commonwealth Government Gazettes published between 1901 and 2012, and is fully accessible. Just click on a year.

Which legislation are you saying was never gazetted? Was it the Transport Road Use Management Act 1995?

I don't understand what you are saying about arguments being taken into the wrong courts and that these courts are not constitutional? All courts are constitutional. From the High court of Australia down to the Supreme courts, the District courts, and then the Magistrates courts. Each court deals with different matters under the constitution. They are not administration courts for any corporation and no person enters into any contract with a corporation. Except if you view setting foot on Australian soil as contracting with the Australian constitution automatically, by default, and you see the Australian constitution as a corporation? Again, Wolf, your beliefs betray you. You have entered into classic Freeman of the land argument, yet you say you are not a Freeman of the land advocate?

User avatar
Wolf
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:46 pm
Position: Nature Lover

Re: The illegality of govt explained historically

Unread post by Wolf » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:10 am

The TORUM Act 1995 has never been gazetted and they even removed section 2 of the amended 2002 act.

If you can get a copy of the 1995 Act you will see section 2, The Commencement. Interestingly I was able to get it online a few years ago, but after I brought the lack of section 2 in the amended act to the attention of a judge, one can no longer find it in the database.

One has a contract with the corporation posing as government if one has used a birth certificate (a bond with a cusip number, the red number) to get any form of ID, for example, a driver's license (you sign it don't you?)

If you vote, pay taxes under your 'name', use any of the benefits offered by the state, or acknowledge yourself AS the ALL-CAPS 'person' on your license you are contracting with the state... and thus cannot claim to be a FOTL. To attempt to do so in court will often result in a psych evaluation ordered by the judge for you are seen to be 'of two minds'.

The courts do NOT operate under the Australian Constitution. They operate under 'colour of law'. Try bringing the Constitution into any court and see how you fare. Every judge knows this, including high court justices... which is why one of them wrote a paper a few years back recommending the courts return to it.

Rather than retype all the details, I will refer you to my other posts in this forum and to larryhannigan.com and southernfreemen.com for almost endless resources on this topic. Have fun (cheers)
The mightiest oak was once a nut that stood his ground

User avatar
Black
Approved Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:38 am
Position: Monk

Re: The illegality of govt explained historically

Unread post by Black » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:11 am

Those two websites, Wolf, are pure gold. Larry Hannigan in particular. Now I know where your beliefs and a lot of the topics you post here, comes from.

Are you positive the TORUM Act 1995, was never gazetted? You're absolutely sure? Did you have a good look? The removal of section 2 in the amended act 2002, is because the Act already commenced in 1995.

Are you an Australian citizen, Wolf? A resident of Australia? Under your rationale, overseas tourists to Australia, do not need to obey our laws because they've never signed over their consent. Likewise, if you were to go over to France or China, or Bali for example, unless you sign over your consent, your argument is you don't have to obey the laws of those countries? So, in your rationale, it's illegal for those Australians to be on death row in Bali, because they never entered a contract with the Bali government to obey Bali's laws against drug importation? In your rationale, it's perfectly ok for an international tourist from Syria to Australia, to come to your house, call you an infidel, and shoot you dead for not devoting your life to Mohammed. This is your rationale?

Wolf, the Larry Hannigan website in particular, is misguided nonsense. Do some homework on the legal term, "Law of the Land."

User avatar
Wolf
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:46 pm
Position: Nature Lover

Re: The illegality of govt explained historically

Unread post by Wolf » Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:45 pm

I agree that some of Hannigan's material is misguided, yet some is not. (As I have found out in court)

One obeys the law of the country one is visiting by international agreement. Every Australian 'citizen' is 'contracted' as a citizen via several documents already mentioned. And by acceptance of the 'benefits'.

As to FMOTL, I have argued with many claiming to be such until blue in the face. They are on the whole, a misguided crew, clutching at some truths and misinterpreting others to mean something Ye do not.

As to the TORUM Act... Prosecution could supply no evidence of proclamation, despite several months being given to find such evidence so the assumption therefore is no proclamation exists.

Tell me, Black... do you feel okay with a judge demanding the defendant prove a negative? Or the 'fact', stated by said judge IN COURT that the defendant is "guilty unless proven innocent"?
The mightiest oak was once a nut that stood his ground

Post Reply