The Subject of Treason is a complicated one, even though it seems straight forward on the surface. What should be stated here is that it cannot be Treason to you, if they are working for the other side, and you do not stand in your side.
Through this series we have discovered what it means to be loyal, and where that loyalty lies. As we move further we will discover how Australia gained its sovereignty in International Waters through Armistice of World War One. You have seen the Stone of Remembrance and how the sunlight pierces the ceiling at 11am on the 11th of November each year. This timing is accurate by the stars and no man made clocks coincides this accurately with the Armistice at the end of the Great War 1914-1918 wherein Peace was declared on at 11am on the 11th November 1918.
The Parliament of Australia has upon entering to sit office all taken Oaths of Office and Allegiance under the Great Seal of Australia defining the entity at which they sit office. So when we look at Treason, is Administration under the Rules of Usufruct actually treason when agreements are in place through Hague and Geneva Conventions for that occupation to manage a countries debts? We can emphatically say no it isn't, because it is after all, an administration. These men in office would have to be shown to be outside of the rules of that administration.
39. KING v CASEMENT 1917 - TREASON
http://uniset.ca/other/cs5/19171KB98.html
“Item, whereas divers opinions have been before this time in what case treason shall be said, and in what not; the King, at the request of the Lords and of the Commons, hath made a declaration in the manner as hereafter followeth, that is to say; When a man doth compass or imagine the death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir; …. or if a man do levy war against our Lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open deed by the people of their condition: …. And it is to be understood, that in the cases above rehearsed, that ought to be adjudged treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his royal majesty: and of such treason the forfeiture of the escheats pertaineth to our Sovereign Lord, as well of the lands and tenements holden of other, as of himself. …”
a) The Shrine of Remembrance and Coronation Stone has been compassed
b) The Shrine of Remembrance and Kings Domain defines Holy Ground
c) The Queen is at War with herself being Queen of Australia and the United Kingdom.
d) John Curtin did align with the United States away from the United Kingdom
e) Robert Menzies did declare war on behalf of a foreign power in 1939
f) John Howard did follow Robert Menzies ideology towards a Republic.
g) John Howard did attempt to undermine the Line of Authority to hold Rule of Law
h) John Howard did attempt to install a Preamble telling the people one did not exist
i) John Howard did propose a Republic based on the States and not the people.
j) the Queen did state openly that she had no powers over war and peace and that she could not make laws in her Christmas address 1957.
What we have demonstrated is that the Stone of Remembrance has in fact been compassed, the people being compassed by a foreign faith and crown, instead of coronation taking place in relation to the Stone of Remembrance, we have a Scottish Queen coronated over the Stone of Scone and to a foreign Crown Estate.
1 Samuel 23:26 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
26 And Saul went on this side of the mountain, and David and his men on that side of the mountain: and David made haste to get away for fear of Saul; for Saul and his men compassed David and his men round about to take them.
This does not escape the fact that the politicians by Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office are under obligations to the entity in which they are at oath to being an Administrator under Rules of Usufruct or not. Usufruct agreements define the use of the principle to engage in profiteering to pay off debts, they however do not allow the administrator to damage the principle.
In 1995 John Howard was very open about undermining that principle, the Commonwealth of Australia, and through to 1999 did attempt to undermine the very foundations that allowed it to exist in International Waters. We can see by the video here that John Howard according to law did commit an Act of Treason attempting to undermine the Head of the Realm at which he is under Oath of Office to.
Isaiah 9:6 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
and the government shall be upon his shoulder:
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,
The mighty God,
The everlasting Father,
The Prince of Peace.
The Government is on the shoulder of and under the blessing of Almighty God as we have discovered in the Preamble and through Hague Conventions we can see that since the demise of the currency in the Currency Act 1965 that the Commonwealth of Australia was in debt through the IMF Act 1947 and unable to pay its borrowings back.
An administrator has no right to undermine the principle in which it administers at International Laws. And here you have John Howard openly discussing the removal of the Head at which he himself took Oath too as well as remove a line of authority in that principle.
The Act of Treason is two ways here, the attempt to undermine the very Commonwealth of Australia under administration, and the attempt to overrule the administration at which he is party to by his oath of office.
The aim for a republic started with Robert Menzies declarations of war on behalf of this power foreign in 1939 when entering World War 2. We can see through the actions of John Curtin in 1942 in the installation of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 that he is cleaning up a loophole mess that Robert Menzies created. John Curtin redeclares war but sides with the United States instead of Great Britain.
John Howard is very open about his plans to destroy the Commonwealth of Australia and turn it into a Republic of Australia in his book Lazarus Rising. We can see that the Federal Executive Council which gave itself extra powers in 1971 consists of Prime Ministers and Governor-Generals that have as well attempted to undermine the very fabric of Australian Foundations. They do not want you returning to a Commonwealth of Australia under the blessing of Almighty God that allowed that Sovereignty to take place in 1919.
40. JOHN HOWARD
John Howard Response to Paul Keating’s Republic Proposal (June 8, 1995).
“One of the questions that has to be addressed in this whole debate is whether we could possible devise a system of government in this country which could deliver a more neutral head of state, a more neutral set of arrangements for the Australian head of state than exists at the present time.”
a) John Howard did imagine to compass the Crown and Realm
b) Compassing the Realm is an Act of Treason
c) The Coronation Stone in the Shrine of Remembrance was compassed in 1954.
d) Robert Menzies did in Secret Meetings (National Archives) help devise this compassing
John Howards attempts to not only undermine the Commonwealth of Australia but also to remove a Head to which he is under oath to himself, did fail in 1999. John Howard did devise a referendum with two questions designed to undermine the foundations at International Law sealed in Treaty of Versailles.
The first question of the Referendum was designed to remove a head of power and a lineage in God, this Australian Government under Great Seal of Australia did imagine to remove the power of the peoples self determination and self governance established in 1919. We can see by Coronation Train of George VI the Coat of Arms, Crown and Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia as King he became the head to. Considering this plan to become a republic started with Robert Menzies the proof that John Howard follows in this ideal is within John Howards own book Lazarus Rising.
The second question to alter the Constitution demonstrates that John Howard did attempt to undermine a Line of Authority defined in the Preamble to the Constitution Act. Quick and Garren point out that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 is to be read in whole and in this case already has a Preamble.
We can see that a Republic replacing the Queen while under Oath to that Queen is a direct act of Treason to the Supreme Head of the entity at which John Howard is under oath. This is regardless of which Crown Realm the oath is too, John Howards did imagine to remove the Head of Supreme and Royal Law. We can also see that John Howard did imagine to replace a line of authority defined in the Constitution Act that is also defined by the Schedule Oath to the Constitution as a part of that Act.
John Howard (and his party) did imagine to use the peoples ignorance to remove the responsibility of Administration under Rules of Usufruct to overwrite the principle being the Commonwealth of Australia with a Republic of Australia.
If the Queen is still able to use Imperial Prerogative within Australia then John Howard and the entire Parliament of 1999 acting in her name have committed a direct act of Treason against the Commonwealth of Australia and the Stone of Remembrance.
41. REFERENDUM 1999
https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/1999_Referendum_Reports_Statistics/1999.htm
A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.
a) John Howard did attempt to undermine the Rule of Law of the Commonwealth of Australia.
b) John Howard did attempt to undermine the Line of Authority of the Commonwealth of Australia.
c) John Howard did ignore Preamble to the Constitution.
d) John Howard did ignore Clause 5 of the Constitution Act giving the States powers they did not have to request a Republic being ‘traditio bravi manu’ to the Commonwealth of Australia.
e) The Preamble to the Constitution Act defines a Line of Authority to hold Rule of Law.
f) You cannot ignore the Constitution Act when it suits yet use it to define changes to Clause 5 giving rise to the Australia Act 1986.
This Australian Government by title is not in accordance with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 and the Governor-General of Australia is also not in accordance with the defined Office as Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. This Australian Government has relied on Clause 5 of the Constitution Act to establish the Australia Act 1986 yet ignored the Preamble at the start of that Act. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot rely on the Act itself, yet ignore its Preamble, especially if by title you are not in accordance with the Act.
Malcolm Turnbull continued in the footsteps of previous governments in their bid to undermine the people of the Commonwealth of Australia who did unite in a federal Commonwealth of Australia. The Australia Act 1986 did align the States with this Australian Government which is clearly demonstrated not to be within capacity under the Constitution Act. It was the people that united in a federal Commonwealth, not the States, the States by way of the Australia Act 1986 have disregarded the unity of the people.
The Turnbull Government did imagine to create a plebiscite instead of referendum knowing that the people had failed to give them what they wanted in 1999. The government has acted as Patricians to what they would see as Plebeians in the people. Malcolm Turnbull has put his government in the same position as the Howard Government had done in 1995 in relation to Treason to the Realm.
42. MALCOLM TURNBULL
"Two-step plebiscite is only way Australia could be a republic"
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/27/two-step-plebiscite-is-only-way-australia-could-be-a-republic-malcolm-turnbull-says
Malcolm Turnbull says the only chance Australia has of evolving into a republic is if a future government holds a plebiscite where voters first thrash out whether the proposed change is to a direct election or to a parliamentary appointment model.
a) Malcolm Turnbull did attempt by plebiscite to use the Australia Act to again undermine the Line of Authority of the Commonwealth of Australia.
b) Malcolm Turnbull did use Legislation to undermine the blessing of Almighty God.
c) Malcolm Turnbull did act as Patrician treating the Civilians as Plebians.
d) Malcolm Turnbull did attempt to undermine Section 128 Referendum of the People.
e) Malcolm Turnbull did attempt to legislate what is Gods.
f) Malcolm Turnbull did attempt to commit to an Act of Treason.
These successive governments since the time of Robert Menzies through John Howard, and Malcolm Turnbull as well as other representatives have continually attempted to undermine the people of the Commonwealth of Australia by replacing the Line of Authority established by the people themselves in Debates of Federation and the declared Sovereignty post Treaty of Versailles in 1919 demonstrated by King George VI Coronation Train in 1936.
Since 1939 they did imagine to compass the Crown and Realm replacing it with a new form of governance and established line of authority. If they are acting in the role of Administration they have attempted to change the principle in the Commonwealth of Australia which goes outside of the Rules of Usufruct. They certainly have relied on the ignorance of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia in an effort to establish this change.
At best they have committed War Crimes in relation to Hague Conventions at Hague IV War on Land Article 55 defining the role as Administrators under the Rules of Usufruct by attempting to undermine the Principle in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 at which they administer. At worst they have committed acts of treason directly by attempting to undermine the Head of the very oath they have taken themselves.
Article 55 - Hague IV War on Land 1907
The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, landed property, forests and agricultural undertakings belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of such properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
John Howard is on record very openly in video of the Parliament speaking of the removal of that head of power and line of authority. And if the Queen, still able to initiate an Imperial Royal Prerogative was acting in the Imperial Realm under Great Seal of the Commonwealth of Australia, John Howard has committed direct and blatant acts of Treason detailed in the 1999 Referendum.
This subject is a difficult subject to cover as we do not know the standing on which John Howard relies in his defence. What is very clear though, is that fact that since the actions of Robert Menzies declarations of war putting the Commonwealth of Australia into war on behalf of the British Prime Minister as well as open attempts to turn Australia into a Republic from its status as a Commonwealth, there is a concerted effort by successive Prime Ministers and Federal Executive Council Members to undermine a Line of Authority held by the people of Australia since the Debates of Federation in 1898 as defined in the Preamble to the Constitution Act.
What is also clear is that John Howard has committed a blatant act of treason in relation to the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office he sat under while imagining the removal of the Queen regardless of the Realm in which that occurred. He was under Oath and he did undermine that Oath directly.
If in this process he was acting for an Administrator under the Rules of Usufruct which falls under Hague Conventions and attempted to undermine the people's ability to return as naked owners of Gods Estate in the Commonwealth of Australia, John Howard is a war criminal for attempting to undermine the principle act that is under administration. This doesn't even take into account his actions of sending Australia to war in Iraq, a matter at which Prime Minister Tony Blair is openly accused of as being a War Criminal. One only has to consider the recently released Brereton Report on War Crimes in Afghanistan and a culture within the ADF as well.
Either way, the actions of these Prime Ministers and the Federal Executive Council attempts to undermine the Line of Authority demonstrates their lack of ability to hold Rule of Law with any credence. They have attempted to con the Australian people while the people are in a state of slumber and ignorance of the foundations forged to determine their very sovereignty.
We must take into consideration the comments of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser when he states that in matters of peace and war that Australia had lost its sovereignty to the United States.
When it comes to the matters of God and the Stone of Remembrance, it is very clear that since 1954 the Realm of the Commonwealth of Australia has been compassed and the people of the Commonwealth of Australia conned out of their Sovereignty proper with a monarch as head to a foreign realm.
The question then becomes. Is this treason, or blatant war crimes of administrative governance. Which ever way we look at it, the people, even in that ignorance wanted to keep a Constitutional Monarchy, now it is to define the Realm and foundations that make that Monarchy legitimate.