To demonstrate these facts is to use other peoples words and not my own, and through that we have seen former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser state that Australia had lost its Sovereignty. He was very particular on it being Australia and not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. If you do not want to listen to history, then you are clearly lost.
There are many that will argue these facts and try and put their own ignorant view on things, but the bottom line is you must read that bible as we have demonstrated as being the core foundational laws that allow a government to exist in the first place.
Ezekiel 27:13 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
13 Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they were thy merchants: they traded the persons of men and vessels of brass in thy market.
We can see by the Treatise on Corporate Law that a Body Corporate follows the Corporation by Policy of Law and not Common Law. We have also seen that the people by choice of Debates and Votes did leave the colonies to unite in a Federal Commonwealth of Australia making the Commonwealth of Australia one body politic at which the Colonies then became States of.
Being One Body Politic, the people had their Bible as that foundational law and then Common Law in which to act outside of the corporate interest that became that Crown Corporation Sole vested in a Monarchy, a Constitutional Monarchy.
53. TREATISE ON CORPORATE LAW
In the late seventeenth century, Stewart Kyd, the author of the first treatise on corporate law in England defined the “corporation” as:
…A collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying the privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according o the design of its institution , or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence….
a) Corporation by Policy of the Law
b) Acting as one, a Body Corporate
James 2:8-9 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
The word in the scripture told you very clearly that they would treat you as fishes of the seas, meaning under a foreign admiralty law, as has happened to your Government in the closing of the Prime Minister Office and the Divisions of Public Service under that Office in the changes made in 1971.
The powers conferred on the Commonwealth of Australia were defined by the people in Debates of Federation and the Constitution is a right conferred on the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the people. It is not the source of the peoples rights which were defined in God, it is the result of those rights in which the people agreed to unite in a Body Corporate, a Crown Corporation Sole vested in a Monarchy.
This Crown Corporation Sole is a body politic that has limitations on its rights through the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, not the other way around. The States had been reduced to Public Servants in that unity as the people united under Common Laws that became common to everyone in the country.
The use of the persona is and has always been for Mercantile purpose, that of trade between each other, the states and internationally. Gods word is very particular in that if you lose your King and your sovereignty that you would be treated as fishes of the seas. What this means is, you will be treated by the person alone and not as men of god.
Habakkuk 1:14 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
14 And makest men as the fishes of the sea,
as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them?
Merchants trade the persons of men, and in a bankrupt and false economy based on IMF and Reserve Bank Promissory Notes the people through that persona became liable and surety for the debts of a Crown Corporation Sole.
Blackstone demonstrates this clearly when discussing the occupation of a Crown Corporation Sole in the occupation of the Crown of England into a new family. We have already demonstrated that the Will of God is the Testament to a Family Estate in which all of you are beneficiaries through your birthright to the estates of the people.
We can see that the inherent properties of the crown are transferred and that at the Battle of Hastings 1066, the occupying King had laid claim to the person of Harold Godwinson being the Anglo Saxon King of England. The victory wasnt over the people and the nation specifically, but all the properties, assets, corporate interests of the office of king, the personage or Harold personified.
The nature of government is defined as the Common Law and the custom in which it carries out that business. The Norman-French King William Duke of Normandy had captured the Crown Corporation Sole and therefore brought all the persons of men under his Sole Personification. What this meant was that he then retained control of the Corporation Sole in which all the persons of men held their assets, titles, and so forth.
54. Blackstones commentary on the Laws of England
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/blackstone/william/comment/book1.3.html
THIS conquest then by William of Normandy was, like that of Canute before, a forcible transfer of the crown of England into a new family: but, the crown being so transferred, all the inherent properties of the crown were with it transferred also. For, the victory obtained at Hastings not being a victory over the nation collectively, but only over the person of Harold, the only right that the conqueror could pretend to acquire thereby, was the right to possess the crown of England, not to alter the nature of the government.
a) The Crown is a body in whole
b) The Crown as a body in whole can be transferred only in whole
c) The person of, not Harold himself, his person
What we learn from this is that the Crown Corporation Sole can be acquired by a foreign Monarchy in whole, and not in part, the occupying force laying claim to the very foundation that a Kingdom relies on such as we have demonstrated in Fact 25, 26 and 28.
In a bankruptcy, the Commonwealth of Australia had agreed to Hague Conventions 1907 which exists in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules of the courts in Australia. These Rules under Article 55 of the Hague Conventions IV War on Land defined the installation of Administrators in Government. This is why you see changes to the Prime Minister and the Department of the Cabinet in 1971 after the lowering of the Admiralty Ensign 1967.
A foreign admiralty rule is managing the debts of the Commonwealth of Australia under the title "Australia" and the registrations on the SEC in the United States form a part of that Administration. Australia is registered as a Corporate Entity on the SEC because it is a Crown Corporation Sole that is under Administration of Securities in Gold, Silver, Wheat, Sheep and so on. It is the Securities of the Country that are being managed through Administrators.
The Nature of Government itself has been changed post 1965 demise of the currency in the Currency Act 1965 and then the subsequent lowering of the Admiralty Ensign in 1967 that led to Administrators taking control of the Executive Branches of Government for the purposes of Securities Administration. Your mines, cattle farms, food bowl and your taxable incomes became a part of that Administration.
55. Quick and Garren Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia
“…The Commonwealth is a political community, carved out of the British empire and endowed through its Constitution with a defined quota of self- governing powers. Those powers are delegated by and derived from the British Parliament, and they are to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the people of the Commonwealth in the manner prescribed by the grant, subject—(1) to the supreme British Sovereignty (under the Crown), and (2) to the Constitution of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is consequently under a double subjection. It is subject in the first place to the British Parliament, which, as the ultimate sovereign authority of the Empire, has the legal power to legislate for the Commonwealth as a part of the Empire, and even to amend or repeal the Constitution of the Commonwealth. The grant of a Constitution to any dependency of the Empire is, however, a practical guarantee that no Imperial legislation conflicting with such grant will be passed except at the express request and with the concurrence of the dependency.
The Federal Parliament is a legislative body capable only of exercising enumerated powers. Its powers are determined and limited by actual grants to be found within the Constitution. Anything not granted to it is denied to it. If it is not granted the power to deal with religion, it cannot legislate concerning religion. It is superfluous to deny to it what is not granted—what it does not possess….”
a) The Constitution derives its Authority from the Crown.
b) The Federal Parliament is a legislative body with limited enumerated powers.
c) The Federal Parliament powers are limited by the Constitution.
d) Anything not granted to the Federal Parliament and the States is denied to it.
When the Commonwealth of Australia was formed it was initially a colony of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland under the Imperial Crown of Queen Victoria. One could demonstrate that after the Civil War in the United States of America and through the Bank of England Act 1694-1892 the Crown of England became subject to outside forces due to its failure to manage its own treasury. We can see through this Act it gives the right of the Crown to manage International Mercantile Shipping and the profits thereof.
Malcolm Fraser had stated that the Commonwealth of Australia had lost its sovereignty to that of the United States. Question for you is how did the United States lose its sovereignty and to whom. We can prove this loss of sovereignty through the Sovereignty Bill 2013 wherein the United States of America seeks to free itself from this Administration caused upon it in the Act of 1871. The American Civil war had had an impact financially, not only on the United States of America but the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as well.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/75
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/unitedkingdomparliamentsovereignty.html
If the British Parliament had supreme sovereignty at the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900, it goes without saying for Australia to hold pure and supreme sovereignty, an act of war would have had to have occurred between 1900 and today that would define that sovereignty absolute. Again we can see that the sacrifice of ANZAC on an international stage in 1919 would have something to do with defining this sovereignty separate to the Motherland.
56. Quick and Garren Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia
“…No difficulty is suggested by the words, “and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution.” The words “under the Constitution” are words of limitation and qualification. Not all enactments purporting to be laws made by the Parliament are binding; but laws made under, in pursuance of, and within the authority conferred by the Constitution, and those only, are binding on the courts, judges, and people. A law in excess of the authority conferred by the Constitution is no law; it is wholly void and inoperative; it confers no rights, it imposes no duties; it affords no protection. The Act itself is binding without limitation or qualification because it is passed by the sovereign Parliament (UK Parliament), but the laws passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, a subordinate Parliament, must be within the limits of the delegation of powers or they will be null and void. What is not so granted to the Parliament of the Commonwealth is denied to it. What is not so granted is either reserved to the States, as expressed in their respective Constitutions, or remains vested but dormant in the people of the Commonwealth…”
a) Under the Constitution are words of limitation and qualification
b) A law in excess of the authority conferred in the constitution is no law at all.
The people had united in a Federal Commonwealth of Australia, not the States. This had put the States themselves under the Common Laws of the Constitution as demonstrated by the Judiciary Act 1903 Section 80, and the limitation set out in that Constitution to hold governance.
Quick and Garren are specific in their meaning when they speak of "under the Constitution" being the limitations of the Parliament being under the authority of the people that conferred that power to them and that those laws only are binding on all Courts, Judges and the People. It is the people that manage and change these laws through Section 128 of the Constitution at Clause 9 of the Constitution by way of Referendum.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is binding without limitation or qualification because it passed by the sovereign Parliament in 1900 with the Parliament of the Commonwealth subordinate to that British Parliament until declaration of its own Sovereignty in 1919. The words "dormant in the people" defines this subordination of sovereignty until that sovereignty could be declared as a people.
The colonies had made an agreeance to fall into the limitation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act itself as States, this action saw the States lose their rights as singular body politics under Great Seals of Colony to become part of the greater body politic of the people under Public Seal. They became Servants of the people as their masters under the limitations conferred upon them by Men of God in that Constitution.
The people as men of god, could for all purposes go to referendum and remove the States Constitutions altogether under Section 128, such is the limitation that the Colonies agreed to in that unity as a Commonwealth of Australia. It is a family estate, at which the men of god do trade through their personas and by all rights could remove the Constitutional Claims of the States through the singular body politic they became in a Commonwealth of Australia.
57. Quick and Garren Annotated Constitution.
It is an undoubted recognition of the qualified electors as the custodians of the delegated sovereignty of the Commonwealth. The qualified electors represent the people of the Commonwealth, as a quasi-sovereign State, in quasi- sovereign organization. The requirement of the approval of a majority of the electors and a majority of the States is the method imposed by the Constitution for ascertaining the will of the people of the Federal Commonwealth …
a) The Commonwealth of Australia holds Quasi-Sovereignty
b) The people are the Commonwealth
To be a qualified elector of the Commonwealth of Australia would be to enter office under the correct title as conferred to them as a power within the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900. This was at the inception of the Commonwealth of Australia to be considered quasi-sovereign as a self-governing colony of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The true sovereignty of the Imperial Crown of Queen Victoria still anchored the faith over the Stone of Scone during coronation process at which Queen Victoria made promises to the Estate of God.
We all know that this changed after the Great War 1914-1918 with George V re-titling the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland into separate Kingdoms being Great Britain, Ireland and the dominions beyond the seas.
By title the Commonwealth of Australia did change, seeing the Shrine of Remembrance anchor to Holy Ground defining the newly found sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia in international laws. The Imperial Crown would have had to be taken in whole as defined by Blackstone as seen above. It would be this occupying military force that would have effected the change on the Imperial Crown Estates.
We know through the actions of Prime Minister William M Hughes that the Commonwealth of Australia established itself before the countries of the world at the Treaty of Versailles 1919 standing up to the United States president Woodrow Wilson and demanding recognition for the 62,000 lost souls during the Great War 1914-1918. Billy Hughes had demanded their right to act in person on International Waters as a sovereign and independent kingdom as we see defined in the Kings Domain, Melbourne, Victoria.
If you are constantly looking inside a government to find answers, you are ignoring the inherent rights that existed as men of god before the establishment of that Government by Constitution, this includes the very flag in which ANZAC went to war to defend.
We can see through our very own history that a Federal Ensign existed before any competition, and that in September 1901 the National Government adopted the Federal Flag as their National Presentation to the world of Commerce. Land Forces flew a Federal Red Ensign before it was in fact deemed to be Federal. If you are constantly looking in Government to find answers, you are not looking in God and outside of Government to discover who you actually are.
Quick and Garren were very clear on how you as a people defined the Constitution and gave limitations on that Government which was forged out of your very unity. You existed before the Constitution and therefore Government came after that unity. The Federal Red Ensign is a Land War Flag at which National Flags are of the Admiralty. Governments do not decide on flags of Land Warfare that existed before their formation as Crown Corporation entities.
If you as a people cannot define yourself as men of god, whom have persons in which to hold title within a Crown Corporation Sole, then you are forever going to see yourself as persons and unable to take that mask off.