More history lessons... The Govt is NOT our govt.

[Wolf]

In 1973, Gough Whitlam signed Australia over to the foreign: UNIDROIT Treaty of Rome, The Names and Titles Act 1973... handing the Equitable Title of the mineral and energy wealth of Australia to a foreign power whose head office is in Rome. (The USA was signed over to UNIDROIT in 1964, just after Kennedy was shot dead)

Ever since, we the citizens of the now-lost Commonwealth, have been 'coerced' into contracting (via our drivers licenses, social security numbers, birth certificates, etc) with a corporation posing as our govt. This 'new' corporatocracy (NOT a democracy) is registered as a commercial entity in foreign countries and listed on the New York stock exchange as such.

By accepting a drivers license or birth certificate as your 'identity', social security and other 'benefits', you are forming a literal contract with this corporate entity posing as govt.

image.png

image 2.png

[TheBlackStump]

Hey Wolf

Thanks for another history lesson. Your links aint there.

It was only 2-3 weeks ago that our Jewish Prime Minister Menachem Mendel Turnbull had a meeting with all state and territory Premiers. At this meeting it was rported that in the name of anti terrorism Turnbull wanted to obtain pics from drivers liscences from all states/territories to put on a national data base. All state premiers agreed to this without objection and no objection from any privacy groups either. Def was not terrorist related in any way in my opinion.



https://www.jewishnews.net.au/menachem- ... bull/32186

[TheBlackStump]

Hey Wolf..... mate do you know if what I have written below is in any way true. i can not find article i red atm but will post it if ai FIND.

I recall reading somewhere a couple of years ago that going back to about the time of Prime Minister GOUGH WHITLAM that Australia was turned into a /corporation/company and possibly was listed on the US Stock Exchange with the Queen being on of the directors.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-31/g ... rs/8759504

[TheBlackStump]

oops I misread your first post...my question answered.....

so the Queen is a director also ?

[Tuckeroo]

Hey Wolf

Thanks for another history lesson. Your links aint there.

It was only 2-3 weeks ago that our Jewish Prime Minister Menachem Mendel Turnbull had a meeting with all state and territory Premiers. At this meeting it was rported that in the name of anti terrorism Turnbull wanted to obtain pics from drivers liscences from all states/territories to put on a national data base. All state premiers agreed to this without objection and no objection from any privacy groups either. Def was not terrorist related in any way in my opinion.



https://www.jewishnews.net.au/menachem- ... bull/32186

Hi TBS, I agree with you about the expediency and lack of concern by anyone
regarding that premiers meeting with Turnbull. Did you see the press conference
at the end of it ? some of them looked a bit bewilded, as if they knew something
untoward had just gone down.

Easy for Turnbull to push it through on the back of the Las Vegas shooting.
It was only a day or two after it. I couldn’t help wondering how long
that meeting had been planned. Seemed like nothing else was discussed,
there’s always other issue on the table with these types of meetings.

Usually the media inform the public and ask the pollies what the agenda is
as these meetings approach on the calendar. Not this time, first we heard about
was the feckless press conference after it was done and dusted.
The bipartisan compliance was very concerning, isn’t there any bastard in Canberra asking questions.

T.

[TheBlackStump]

Hi Tuckeroo.... no mate I did not see the press conference. The anti terrorist meeting was reported as being planned back in June. Turnbull probably just dropped it out of the blue and in such a way (terroist related) that any STATE PREMIER not agreeing to it would feel/look like a dickhead in front of the others if they did not agree. Probably will not be much longer before our Jewish PM Turnbull hands over all of our pics/info and we are all on an international/NWO data base. I wonder if thie LV shootings was used in any other countries as a reason for those countries to provide state/province pics of citizens to be handed over to a centralised data base.

Just took info below from an article about it.

Evidence from countries overseas which have conducted such centrist database collection, shows many issues and flaws with such a system, such as a United States hearing into their use of it in some states told that the “algorithms that make the matches are wrong 15 percent of the time and are more likely to misidentify African-Americans.”

Some Aussies are already voicing their concerns and pointing out flaws in the plan, for what is sure to be scrutinised as a possible invasion of privacy:

[Wolf]

The administrators posing as our government use whatever tactics it takes to push through thier agenda.

And here in Australia we lack the alternative media presence to question the official narrative like they can in the US or the UK. For example, the Lindt cafe 'siege'... obvious false flag, especially when you take into account Manis' history and contact with ASIO.

He had a Muslim friend warn him not to have anything to do with ASIO, who had also contacted him to ask if he would help them by participating in an 'operation' they had planned with Manis.

This fellow tried to tell the media all about this but was completely ignored. Only the Citizens Electoral Council paid him any heed and tried to use thier limited influence to get him in front of the commission of enquiry that was set up.

Handily (for the guvmint) the 'siege' took place at the right moment for their new, rights-restricting, privacy-destroying, data collection laws.

[TheBlackStump]

Hey Wolf

More supporting history of what you are saying .

http://compleatpatriot.blogspot.com.au/

[Wolf]

Hey Wolf

More supporting history of what you are saying .

http://compleatpatriot.blogspot.com.au/

Yep, thanks for the link. I have come to the same conclusions myself.

Interesting how many of our politicians are 'Jesuit Trained'...

[Simon M]

The whole 'dual citizenship' situation has shone a light on all this which must make the MP's in Canberra very nervous. People are beginning to ask questions about what actually constitutes Australian citizenship, who is in charge, and what their interests are. The fact that the LNP have dismissed the Uluru Statement is another sign that their whole 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' routine is wearing thin. Barnaby Joyce publicly attacked it the day after it was released and said it would never be allowed to happen. Why did we waste so much money on a postal survey about marriage equality and yet Turnbull has simply decided to ignore an issue which goes right to the heart of the Australian Constitution regarding Terra nullius and its implications? Why don't we have a referendum on something which is of national importance, when we needed a fake plebiscite to ask 'the people' about marriage equality? It's inconsistent to say the very least. I have faith in the fact that people have started to notice. There's so much info now with all these leaks about the super-rich and their illegal banking practices, only a very gullible person would trust anything they're told these days. I think the younger generation will see through more and more of their lies.

The whole Adani mine thing is another example of obvious skullduggery. They've become lazy, our politicians, and the cracks are showing in their smiling facade. There's no way Annastacia Palaszczuk didn't know her husband was working on that massive loan to Adani, like there's no way that Arthur Sinodinos 'forgot' what happened when he was Deputy Chairman of Australian Water Holdings and they donated $74,000 to the Liberal Party...while Sinodinos was also Treasurer of the Liberal Party.

Lincoln's "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time" cliché would seem to apply. My one fear is that the greed of those at the top will prompt violence and revolution. Nobody wins in a situation like that.

I do think that people need to stop blaming 'democracy' for the problems we face and start laying the blame at the feet of the elitist organisations and individuals who openly benefit from the suffering of the majority. If the government and opposition can so easily be bought by wealthy foreign investors, it's time to start electing different people into office. I hope the days of the 'two party system' are numbered.

It's not democracy that's to blame, in my view, it's the fact that we've let the s#@t float to the top for too long.

Sorry. Rant over.

[TheBlackStump]

Hey Wolf , more proof of.........

Re the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam 1975 dismissal.

There is currently a case in the High Court of Oz to release correspondence between The Queen and then GG John Kerr. This correspondence held in the Australian National Archives was locked by Queen until 2027. Why lock this evidence away from the Australian public if Queen has nothing to hide re any involvement in Whitlams dismissal.

Applicant is Historian and Professor Jenny Hocking. Hocking is represented by QC Nick Whiltam .


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... x11hk.html


https://independentaustralia.net/austra ... ment,10852


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z18zd.html


Sex Pistols - God Save the Queen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02D2T3wGCYg

[Wolf]

... My one fear is that the greed of those at the top will prompt violence and revolution. Nobody wins in a situation like that.
...

The 'Empire' is crumbling...
Trump derailed TPP and much of 'their agenda' (although they are winning many small battles in response)
Nations are electing 'populists' (ironic how populism is being vilified in so-called 'democratic' countries)
The proxy army of ISIS is practically defeated in Syria and Iraq
The 'oil-yuan' is set to replace the petro-dollar
Putin has essentially freed Russia from the Banksters and as a result many smaller countries are joining the Russian/Chinese 'sphere of influence' and moving away from the western sphere.

Sadly, the Empire will not relinquish power easily. They have resorted to World war in teh past and will do so again.

[Shazzoir]

I think the younger generation will see through more and more of their lies.

If the government and opposition can so easily be bought by wealthy foreign investors, it's time to start electing different people into office. I hope the days of the 'two party system' are numbered.

It's not democracy that's to blame, in my view, it's the fact that we've let the s#@t float to the top for too long.

Sorry. Rant over.

Aaaaand nailed it!

[Wolf]

The below is from a Notice of Seizure of the WA government. The bloke obviously has no hope but the facts he states are true and correct:

"It is required by both State and Commonwealth Constitutions that the State of Western Australia has a Lawful Parliament that consists of the Legislative Council, the Legislative Assembly and the Queen being the Lawful Monarch of Australia. WE DON’T HAVE ONE.

The Constitution requires that THE PARLIAMENT IS NOT SOVEREIGN AND ITS POWERS ARE LIMITED BY THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION AND SUBJECT TO IT. Section 106 refers chapter III section 76 page 791 refers. THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN.

The Commonwealth Constitution states that THE PARLIAMENT IS NOT SUPREME. The Parliament claims it is. Page 676 section 55 says IT IS NOT SUPREME. “PARLIAMENT IS NOT SUPREME” AND THE VERY ESSENCE OF FEDERATION IS THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE SO, Parliament as far as constitutional questions are concerned, is UNDER THE LAW, AND IT MUST OBEY THE LAW.” also 106 refers.

The so called government claims that the states and their constitutions existed before federation and the Commonwealth Constitution just sits over the State Constitution to enhance it and it only controls the Federal Parliament. The State Constitutions only continue subject to the Commonwealth Constitution 106 refers. The High Court in Andrew James McGinty v The State of Western Australia HCA 48/1996 states that “The states did not exist prior to federation they were colonies and they ceased on the proclamation of the constitution on the 9th of July 1900 under Clause 7 of the constitution. The states were created by 107, 108 and 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution and draw their authority from it.”

The Constitutions of the States were put in place by a LETTERS PATENT issued by Queen Victoria on the 29th of October 1900 as were the LETTERS PATENTS for the Office of Governor in their Original Form. The State Government, at federation put in place the state constitution with 32 sections missing, This renders the State of Western Australia UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ALL LAWS AND DECISIONS OF COURTS UNLAWFUL.


This document proves the accusation of treason and treachery to remove the Commonwealth Constitution Section 44 of the Commonwealth Constitution at paragraph (ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a state by imprisonment for one year or longer: “is incapable of sitting”.



For and on behalf of the people of Western Australia, I Wayne Kenneth of the family Glew CPO.OWB, do formally accuse every Politician, Political Party and Public Servant of Treason against the people of Western Australia contrary to the Commonwealth Criminal Code which states any person who breaches their oath of allegiance that they owe to the people is guilty of treason and if they conceal that fact they are guilty of misprision of treason.

Every Politician, Political Party and Public Servant has breached their oath of allegiance to the people and is therefore attainted of treason and not capable of sitting. YOU ALL ARE GUILTY.

Section 106 of the Commonwealth Constitution states; “At federation the states can retain their constitutions subject to this constitution and altered according to their constitution.” NOT AMENDED OR CHANGED.



Section 42 “Every Senator and every member of
the House of Representatives shall before taking his
seat make and subscribe before the Governor
General or some person authorised by him, an oath
of affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the
schedule to this constitution.” By 106 the states
must comply and they did not nor do they. They sit in
treason until they take the LAWFUL OATH.

11 Compliance is required by HCA 39 of 1915 at
Paragraph 148. IT IS VERY CLEAR
"

[TheBlackStump]

So Wolf would you know if this person have the right of appeal to the High Court of Australia or any other court or would this just be a state only matter.

I wonder if any other Australian states or territories have the same or similar constitutions as WA.

Cheers

[Wolf]

The courts are owned. There is no remedy there....the best this fellow can hope for is a bit of exposure when they declare him a domestic terrorist. No, I'm not being extreme. In 2014 e NSW police listed 'sovereign citizens' as Domestic Terrorists. What is a sovereign citizen? According to the police it is someone who quotes from the constitution when pulled over.

All states have had their constitutions changed by stealth. Look it up. In qld our new constitution was brought in under that slimy bastard Peter Beattie in 2001... a fact I confronted him with once (told him I knew what he had done and he should be hung for treason, the only offence that still carries the death penalty. Needless to say he didn't like that idea ).

I have also brought this up in court and was told I would have to take the issue up with my 'elected representative.

There are currently charges sitting in purgertory somewhere in the court system accusing Julia Gilllard specifically of treason. The courts won't touch it. I ask you, if there was nothing to worry about why not let the plaintiff have his time in court to present his evidence?

[TheBlackStump]

Yep the governments/courts just do what they at times and get away with it.

My only experience with dealing with the govt was some 25 years ago when I lodged an FOI on a NSW State Govt Department just to get my file from them. No big deal I thought. But I was wrong.
Got my file back but heaps of stuff was blacked out so I went through the usual appeal/review procedures through the NSW Ombudsman etc but stiil could not access the blacked out stuff. I even had an opposition MP ask the relative govt minister on the floor of Parliament what is so secret about the stuff that was blacked out on my file and why I could not have access to it. Only answer was that it is not in the public interest that we release that information.

[Simon M]

The thing that worries me regarding the current Citizenship situation is that both the ALP and the LNP seem to be in furious agreement about what to do next - that alone makes me wonder what they're both hiding (or stand to lose).

I'm shocked by Turnbull's decision to suspend the Parliament to supposedly deal with marriage equality - why would that particular issue prompt such a drastic move? It's plainly just an excuse so he can work to defuse the conflict within his own party and has nothing to do with debating the results of the postal opinion poll. With the situation as messy as it is, I wish the Governor General would dissolve the Parliament so we can have a Federal election in early 2018.

I have no faith in any of them to declare anything, or not to try and get away with absolutely anything they possibly can in order to cover their own bums and line their pockets. How many by-elections are we going to end up having? It's a joke, the current Federal Government is clearly in disarray, and the major parties are simply a greedy duopoly who need to be replaced.

A minority government might do a better job of representing the people who vote in each seat, and might make it harder and more expensive for the foreign businessmen to 'donate' each MP into compliance.

[Wolf]

An excellent example of the corporatisation of our political system is the issue of local councils...
The below is from an email sent to me recently from Mark Hines. It is information I had discovered during my court experiences and is accurate enough for me to copy and paste here without editing, so here you are;

QUESTION :
If local Councils are legal ???? why are they trying so hard to get them recognized under the constitution ??

BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL, fraudulent, unconstitutional, Unlawful, and HAVE NO BASIS EITHER CONSTITUTIONALLY OR LEGALLY.

In the 70s and in 1988 the People of Australia said NO to Local Government, This is why they want a referendum to become a Republic
Which is TREASON against the Will of the Sovereign People of Australia

https://youtu.be/P53KCZDzSD4


https://youtu.be/k1AjRvDcbsk

https://youtu.be/B44abxGmBYA

https://youtu.be/UN9n6cVQp4I

Are Councils Legal?
The power to tax is the power to destroy. The one who has the power to tax will eventually own all property— and this method is being used now. The criminally brilliant strategy of gradual but never ending increases in property tax (“rates”), 'justified' by regular 're-valuations', will eventually 'price' everyone out of their properties!! A LARGE NUMBER OF US are now aware of this and we are going to put a stop to it! It is estimated that already approx 500,000 in Victoria alone have refused to pay this illegal tax. While “governments” may have gained their “legitimacy” with the excuse of various “constitutions” and /or by majority "vote‟ of the populace, (so - called “democracy”) local governments (councils) have: ---
NO LEGITIMACY—
NO CONSTITUTION—
NO HEAD OF POWER
The following are based not on assumptions but “officially” admitted FACTS.

Fact 1
The Constitution is Australia‟s basic law.
Quote: The Federal Attorney General's Department Constitutional Policy Unit, 9th January 2002; “ the current Chief Justice of the High Court, the Hon. Murray Gleeson, AC, noted the status of the Constitution as Australia's basic law (published as) The Rule of Law and the Constitution. ABC books, 2000, on page 6
“In Australia, unlike the United Kingdom, we have a basic law, the Constitution, which defines and limits the power of the Parliament to alter the Law “ And on Friday 21st June,2002 in the NSW Parliament Thearterette ,during the "Australian Conference on Bill of Rights‟, the acting Attorney-General, (the First Law Officer in Australia), Darryl Williams, AM,QC,MP has said this, about :“Constitutional and Common Law Protections”:

“ The Australian Constitution specifically protects certain rights and freedoms.
These include
(1) - trial by jury -
(2)- freedom of religious associations
(3) - prohibition on discrimination on the basis of State residence-
(4) - freedom of interstate commerce; and just terms for acquisition of property.

And then

“WE HAVE THE COMMON LAW”.
We have our own unique written Constitution which provides both express and implied protection of rights.

Fact 2
The Australian Constitution DOES NOT recognise "local government‟

Fact 3
Attempts by the “government” to alter the constitution to recognize "local government‟ have failed TWICE. The last Referendum was held on the 3rd of September 1988. 67% of the population REJECTED the proposal for recognition of a third tier of “government”, namely, local “councils”.

Fact 4
The result of any Referendum is LAW. Despite that clear unmistakable affirmation of the Constitution by the people of Australia IN ALL STATES, the “government” (Hawke) introduced the "Local Government Act 1989” (1993 in some states)

Fact 5
All the bureaucrats, in every “council”, are relying on this ULTRA VIRES, NULL and VOID Act to justify their UNLAWFUL actions.

Fact 6
Even if local “councils” were legal, (which they are clearly not!), they have no "right‟ to levy any kind of TAX on anyone! Quote from a letter by Gary Friend (Queensland) to a local newspaper March 5th, 2001: “John W. Howard, Peter H. Costello & Commissioner of Taxation Micheal J. Carmody all stated before the introduction of the infamous “Goods and Services Tax”, quote: local government COUNCIL RATES will attract NO GST because council rates are a TAX and we CAN‟T TAX A TAX. Also the High Court of Australia decided that "STATE GOVERNMENTS COULDN'T RAISE ANY TAX‟, when the “State Excise on Fuel, Tobacco & Alcohol‟ was removed.

Fact 7
A large percentage of properties are held in “FEE SIMPLE”. By LAW these properties CANNOT be “levied” or “charged” under ANY description! ( That was the very purpose of the creation of the FEE SIMPLE tenure! See High Court rulings on the subject)

Fact 8 An order/fine/ notice by police officer or a single magistrate is NOT a Judiciary Order - it is illegal because it is a violation of Common Law and comes under Slavery in the Criminal Code Act 1995 Sect 268.10
Any Council laws that conflict with Common Law are illegal.

Some reference is to illegal Tasmanian local government, however the following shows all local governments are illegal.

"At Law, words are supposed to mean what they say."
(Geoffrey Robertson, 'The Justice Game".)

While it can be argued that this document can no longer validly relate to Australia, as it is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom,

This document was created to amalgamate the Australian colonies into a Commonwealth, and to set the rules by which the Commonwealth would be governed by the people as a self-governing colony. It was styled under the format of the Westminster Parliamentary system and clearly established the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and the Parliament of the States. It also clearly established the powers and responsibilities of both those parliaments. It allowed the provision for certain alterations of those powers, while specifically restricting alteration of certain others. Such alteration of the way in which the Commonwealth of Australia would be governed by the people was strictly limited to alteration by way of referendum of the population.

THERE IS NO OTHER MEANS BY WHICH OUR SYSTEM OF SELF-GOVERNMENT CAN BE LEGALLY ALTERED.
The Constitution was formatted to protect the Australian people from a number of things, and also to give the people of Australia the ability of Self-Determination of Government.

NOWHERE DOES IT PERMIT THE PARLIAMENTS, OR THE JUDICIARY, TO OPERATE OUTSIDE THESE GUIDELINES.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) defines a constitution as:
"A precise body of fundamental principles, agreed to by the members of an organization or state, according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed."

Clause 9, Chapter I, Part I, Section 1, [63 & 64 Vict.] British Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia [CH 12] Constitution Act states:

"The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament or, The Parliament of the Commonwealth." Clause 9, Chapter V, Part I, Section 106, 107, & 108, [63 & 64 Vict.] British Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia [CH 12] Constitution Act state [Annexure A]:

106.
The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.

107.
Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become or becomes a State shall, unless it is exclusively vested in the parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from the Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be.

108.
Every law in force in a Colony which has become or becomes a State, and relating to any matter within the powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, shall be, subject to this Constitution, continue in force in the State; and, until provision is made in that behalf by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, the Parliament of the State shall have such powers of alteration and of repeal in respect of any such law as the Parliament of the Colony had until the Colony became a State.

THE ORGANISATIONS KNOWN AS 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT' DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE FEDERATION OF THE STATES INTO A COMMONWEALTH.

A RATEABLE PERSON WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE FEDERATION OF THE STATES INTO A COMMONWEALTH.

Historically, on a 'local' level, there were at first military officers, then "landed gentry" in charge of local road and drainage construction gangs. 'Local Government' did not exist, and the free populations of the Colonies, (under British Colonial Rule) were at liberty to do with their properties much as they wished.

It can be seen then, that since 'local government' did not exist at the time of Federation, then there can be no continuance of local government law.
You will note that Sections 106 and 108 "subject" the Constitutions and Laws of the States to the Constitution of the Commonwealth, while Section 107 allows the powers of the Parliaments of the States to continue unless they are exclusively vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Paragraphs 4 and 5 on page ii of the Constitutional Commission (1985 - 1988) state: [Annexure B]:

Federal Powers. The Constitution divides power between Federal and State Parliaments. It lists the subjects about which the Federal Parliament can make laws

e.g. taxation; currency; defence; external affairs; interstate and international trade; foreign, trading and financial corporations; marriage and divorce; quarantine; pensions and other social services; immigration; bankruptcy; and industrial arbitration (see especially sections 51 and 52).

State Powers. There are important omissions from the list of powers given to the Federal Parliament e.g. land, police, criminal law, education, health, roads, industrial safety, prices and incomes, and the environment. The Constitution expressly guarantees the continuing existence of the States (sections 106 and 107).

There are a few subjects about which the States are prevented from making laws (sections 52 and 90), e.g. to impose customs and excise duties. The States are also forbidden from having their own defence forces without the consent of the Federal Parliament (section 114)."

You can see from sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution, and from the Constitutional Commission (1985 - 1988) report that the power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.

The Courts of Australia have long held that council rates are a tax. Yet, under the Australian Constitution, the Parliaments of the States do not have the power of taxation. "John Winston Howard, Peter Howard Costello & 'Commissioner for Taxation' Michael Joseph Carmody all stated before the introduction of the infamous "Goods and Services Tax", Quote: "Local government Council Rates will attract no GST because Council Rates 'ARE A TAX AND WE CAN'T TAX A TAX'.

Also, the High Court of Australia ruled that "State Governments couldn't raise ANY TAX", and because of this the 'State Excise on Fuel, Tobacco & Alcohol' was removed.

It can be clearly seen that the authors of the Constitution were not allowing for any Parliament other than the Federal Parliament to impose a tax. Therefore, the only land rates tax that can be imposed within Australia, is one imposed by the Federal Parliament through the Commissioner for Taxation. Unless we receive a "Rates Notice" from the 'Commissioner for Taxation it is INVALID and UNLAWFUL.

In view of the above, this proposed action can only be withdrawn.

PART TWO - 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993'

As discussed in Part 1, the [63 & 64 Vict.] British Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia, [63 & 64 Vict.] [CH 12] Constitution Act gives specific powers to the Federal and State Parliaments.

IN NO SECTION WITHIN THE Commonwealth Australia CONSTITUTION IS THERE PROVISION FOR THE FEDERAL OR STATE PARLIAMENT TO ESTABLISH A THIRD LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE PEOPLE VIA A FEDERAL REFERENDUM.

Organizations known as 'local government' did not exist at the time of Federation. Laws that existed prior to this were laws for the Colony of NSW, or laws for the Colony of Victoria etc. Administration of local matters was confined to the control by military personnel or 'landed gentry' over local construction gangs.

The Local Government Minister purports to enact legislation, for local authorities to enforce, every time he approves a local law or policy.
Only an Act of Parliament can pass a law into existence. THE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PARLIAMENT, and therefore cannot speak an Act or law into existence.

We have the situation in TASMANIA where the various 'local governments' apply to the Minister for Local Government for a rate (tax) increase, and the Minister either approves or disallows it. In LEASK -v- COMMONWEALTH Justice Kirby clearly pointed out that a Ministerial Statement cannot speak the act into constitutional validity where such validity is missing.

Because the Parliament of TASMANIA is subject to the Commonwealth Parliament, and also subject to the Commonwealth Constitution,
AND OWES IT'S ALLEGIANCE TO THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF THE Commonwealth Of Australia, (who twice told them they did not want to recognize local government), THE PARLIAMENT OF TASMANIA COMMITTED AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF THE Commonwealth Of Australia.

They did this by overthrowing the relevant sections of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, by which they are bound, and by overthrowing the twice demonstrated will of the Sovereign People of Australia.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) defines treason as:
"The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government."

PART FOUR - FEE SIMPLE
Webster's Legal Dictionary, 1889, defines Fee Simple Title as:
"Fee Simple is a Contractual Agreement between the present owner and the previous owner, involving neither a third nor other parties. Fee Simple permits an owner to do with his property as he might wish. It is the highest form of land ownership available.

Third party interference is prohibited to a property held in Fee Simple Title."
The Property Law Act Section 18A is the legislation required to legalise the granting of Fee Simple Tenure. The property referred to in Council's unlawful demand for a permit tax is owned in Fee Simple title, and was purchased under a Fee Simple contract.

The Fee Simple (freehold) Title is a contract with a Government seal, subject only to the conditions therein. Meaning that any other charges arising from other acts including Water Act, Local Government Act 1993, etc, that are area or title based, if challenged could not be enforced as compulsory charges.

These charges, while not necessarily illegal, if challenged would have to be ruled as voluntary, therefore unenforceable. Only becoming enforceable, if or when an agreement is reached, and the services associated with the charges are accepted by the titleholder.