Through the first thirty one Facts Parts we have demonstrated not only facts that stand as truths by themselves, independent and factual without any rebuttals. Collating facts like this and establishing them as individually correct then allows us to use these facts grouped together to establish by ground work foundational truths.
This is what Court Rooms generally do when operating in a de jure and correct status. It is through Case Law that precedence is made based on individual facts that are brought together to prove a claim. This is effectively what we are doing by laying the Facts out on the table. Providing an unrebutted statement of truth that can hold water in a court of law that establishes and defines a line of authority to be able to hold rule of law within that court room in the first place.
We have established by Maxim that a fraud built upon a fraud remains a fraud. And that anything established outside of true and proper line of authority constitutes that fraud. We have also established that ignorance can also play a role by way of making accusation in ignorance of known facts that might in deed allow an ability to hold rule of law, such as Administration under the Rules of Usufruct. This becomes as we have already discussed known as the De Facto Doctrine.
The question then becomes, what if you can prove case law and case history to be in fact incorrect. And what if the pushed narrative disagrees with that established finding. It would mean that a lie had been lived during the entire time the findings were either ignored by the established narrative, or ignorantly unknown by that narrative. That latter is less likely to be the case.
We start by looking at some Court Matters that have set precedence in this country and unfortunately now with matter of fact, fact now unrebutted, can look at the actual validity of not only the arguments being made, but the decisions or outcomes of the court itself.
First lets look at Gargan v Director of Public Prosecutions and anor [2004] in New South Wales Supreme Court. We have a quote that was made by the Justice O'Keefe who was presiding over the court. Let us start by saying this quote is not only vastly incorrect as a statement to make in the first place, it is being made by a Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales putting it as the highest court of jurisdiction in the matter at a state level.
We can see that he is making statement about Oath of Allegiance and the Coronation Oath. We can see that he defines the obligations of Queen Elizabeth II in taking the coronation oath in the first place, this does not take into account the failings of the Church in the taking of incorrect oath during the coronation process. As the Monarch takes the Office of Executor of the Estate of the People she takes Oath binding her to the Rule of Law defined in the Holy Scripture and relative to the claim by God and his blessing.
We then see that Justice O'Keefe then goes on to state that this Coronation Oath does not affect the law of New South Wales, and this is wherein he could not be more incorrect, in fact he is being facetious in attacking the very line of authority in which he himself holds oath of allegiance and oath of office.
He then goes on to state that this oath is merely a moral obligation, and thereby effectively stating that it is of no requirement to follow at all. This would in effect be an act of treason in itself by a Justice of the Supreme Court under Oath of Office. It is bordering on showing your allegiances are elsewhere than the provided line of authority in which you are holding rule of law in the first place.
We have also through Facts demonstrated that the Queen took a promise during coronation oath and that at law differs from a moral obligation quite starkly, they are almost in ways, opposite. A promise is a requirement, and obligation at law, and the Queen during oath made a promise. A moral obligation is based on your morality to appease but without the requirement to even do so at all.
Justice O'Keefe has fractured the inheritance by will and testimony of the testator in which the Monarch is the appointed Executor of Gods Will through the death of his Son as Testator being Jesus Christ. He has deliberately fractured the line of authority from the Coronation of Office of Queen of the Estate of the People and the people themselves.
His last statement is very correct, in that the requirement by promise is of Australia and not the United Kingdom. He is saying all aboard the Australia Citizenship, everyone leave the Commonwealth.
We however have defined the Sovereignty attained by ANZAC during the Great War 1914-1918 wherein by Treaty of Versailles 1919 and the entering of the League of Nations by Covenant 1919 established the Stone of Remembrance in the Kings Domain as the foundation stone to a sovereign nation independent of the motherland in England.
The question herein becomes for the court, to define the "Australia" and to prove its foundations that allow it to hold Rule of Law in the first place through a proven and defined line of authority under a blessing by Almighty God, Jesus Christ and the Prophets.
The Oath of Office taken by Justice O'Keefe binds him to the Crown Estate at which is vested in the Monarchy to which she as Queen Elizabeth II has taken Oath during Coronation process. Justice O'Keefe is as much obligated by his oath, as the queen is by hers, to the realms of the estates of the people established under the blessing of Almighty God.
The next question becomes. Define the Estates of the People and their Birthright by defining lineage of authority to be able to hold rule of law in the first place.
Justice O'Keefe has failed miserably in his statement regarding the Coronation Oath and its relativity to New South Wales as well. New South Wales became obligated to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 NSW the moment it ceased being a Colony of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and became a State of the Commonwealth of Australia. Under Clause 5 of the Act, the Justice himself is very much obligated to a line of authority established in the Constitution Act itself.
124. Citations at High Court Rulings and Transcript
https://jade.io/article/133791
In Gargan v Director of Public Prosecutions and anor [2004] NSWSC 10
"Whilst this oath binds Her Majesty, it does not affect the law of New South Wales. Furthermore the oath involves Her Majesty undertaking the moral obligation to govern the people of Australia according to the laws and customs, not of England or the United Kingdom, but according to those of Australia." - Justice O'Keefe
Cases citing this incorrect statement.
Warwick Credit Union Ltd v McCarthy [2005] QDC 92
https://jade.io/article/170405
McHugh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 416
https://jade.io/article/724882
a. The Magistrate or Judges Oath binds them to the Crown via Schedule to the Constitution.
b. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act binds the Constitution to the Crown.
c. The State is bound to the Constitution Act at Clause 5, Clause 6 and Clause 8.
d. The Law of any State is in Line of Authority to the Crown
e. His Honour is vastly incorrect that the undertaking is a Moral Obligation as it is a contract position as Head of the Estates of the People being the Birthright of the People and the Queen by Oath made a Promise, not a Moral Obligation.
f. The Preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 is under the Blessing of Almighty God putting the Coronation at direct Oath to that God.
g. That God would involve the Shrine of Remembrance and the Stone of Remembrance.
Next we will look at a High Court case in which a Mr. Dennis Stanbridge argues with the Justice of the High Court in relation to the Magna Carta. Again, we explore herein why the justice has failed miserably in his standing before the court.
The opening statement here, is very much correctly made by Mr Stanbridge, excepting his misue of the wording that a justice makes laws. A justice is to uphold the laws of the estate of the people through the blessing of Almighty God therefore upholding a line of authority to be able to hold rule of law.
Justice Kirby in the matter begins to interject before the plaintiff has even finished his statement, knowing that he has to cut off any matter of fact before it is established. I would have started my statement all over again and made the Justice listen to it in its entirety. But we can see here, that the trailing words Magna Carta are on the record.
Justice Kirby then on record makes it very clear that he is well aware of his Oath of Allegiance to the Queen having taken the oath twelve times, he also clarifies his knowledge of the Coronation Oath which itself is outside of the established legislation.
He established that the laws and usages in force are independant of his obligations to his oath which he has taken twelve times. The Promissory Oaths Acts 1868 demonstrates that there is no requirement to take Oath of Allegiance more than once, and not at all if in lineage of your bloodline. Employment is relative to the entering of that employment and office, and not that of an allegiance which need only be taken once in a lifetime.
A statement is then made that, All the queen promised to do was to uphold the law as it was made within the independent dominions, this could be held as true given sovereignty that was established by Stone of Remembrance and the actions of forefathers during the defence of God, King and Country. It is to establish the line of authority, and how that established claim provides standing before God opening up a jurisdictional challenge.
Mr. Stanbridge then goes on to provide established truths in the process of the coronation itself. His assumptions on God here are somewhat skewed in ignorance of a land claim established by a trinity that becomes God in your ANZAC as the Holy Spirit, the Forefathers of Federation and the very Sons of this Commonwealth of Australia that you all are.
Justice Kirby then goes on to commit an act of direct perjury on the court by defining the Commonwealth of Australia as a Secular Country whilst in office under oath of allegiance to a Constitutional Monarchy under the blessing of Almighty God thereby demonstrated the exact opposite in that it is very non-secular in its establishment and its foundational core elements at law.
A line of authority exists that starts with the establishing of the estate itself in which the monarch then becomes head of. Justice Kirby then goes on to state that it is not for the legislation to enact against or with a religious principle, which is not what Section 115 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution defines at all.
Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
We can see that the Commonwealth shall not make any law relative to establishing, imposing, prohibiting, anything relative to religion, but also testing for office in relation to a religion.
This does not constitute what Justice Kirby is defining at all. The Commonwealth of Australia was established itself by religion in the Holy Scripture putting the Commonwealth on the shoulder of that body created under the blessing of Almighty God.
The constitution is defining a principle foundation that cannot be undermined and that a governing body, being the Commonwealth itself cannot hamper with or impress upon changing the very foundations that exist by religious observations that give it authority in the first place.
Justice Kirby has committed a direct act of perjury by lying to the court relative to the foundations made under the blessing of Almighty God wherein a Land Claim established gives the right of the Commonwealth to define legislation under Constitution in the first place.
We should also point out very clearly here that the Great Charter 1297 goes hand in hand with the Charter of the Forest. These are kings commands and are often made by petition of the people over time. They are not acts of parliament and therefore cannot be repealed. To demonstrate this fact, we can look at the Bill of Rights 1688, initially a Charter of Right it was later legislated as an act of the British Parliament and became a basis for the limitations of the powers of parliament. The Charters themselves are of God, King and Country and outside of what becomes the shoulder of that trinity. The Parliament did not legislate them into existence, and therefore cannot remove them from existence.
The parliament is limited to the powers that are given to it by Constitution. The Great Charter, Charter of Rights, Liberties of the Forest, Charter of Liberties all exist outside of the jurisdiction of the parliament by way of defining what the parliaments jurisdiction actually is. A Parliament cannot exercise a power it is not granted by the people themselves under the blessing of Almighty God.
125. High Court in An application by Stanbridge [1996] HCATrans 175
https://jade.io/article/230248
MR STANBRIDGE: Yes, but you see, your Honour, no judge can make any law which does not line up with the laws of God, because of the requirements of the Oaths Act and the Coronation Oath which requires all judges to hold allegiance to the Queen, who in her turn has sworn in the Coronation Oath to uphold the laws of God, maintain the true profession of the Gospel, and uphold the laws of the land ‑ ‑ ‑
HIS HONOUR: No judge ‑ ‑ ‑
MR STANBRIDGE: ‑ ‑ ‑ which includes the Magna Carta.
HIS HONOUR: No judge is more conscious of the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen than I, who have taken twelve of them, nor of the Queen's Coronation Oath but, if you remember, the Coronation Oath goes on to say:
...according to the laws and usages respectively in force.
And that is what Her Majesty promised. That is what her judges perform. They conform to the law, according to the law as it is made in the particular dominions. Otherwise, it would be very difficult. I was in India last week, and the God in India who is worshipped is worshipped in places that are not churches. God in a number of the Queen's dominions at that time was called something different, so that it is very difficult to draw anything from the Coronation Oath, because all the Queen promised to do was to uphold the law as it was made in the different dominions.
MR STANBRIDGE: Though it is quite clear that the Coronation Oath refers to the God of the Holy Bible, because the whole of the Coronation Ceremony is a very Christian ceremony, and the Queen is actually given a Bible with the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland - brings the Queen the Bible saying:
Our Gracious Queen, to keep your Majesty ever mindful of the law and the Gospel of God as the rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes, we present you with this book, the most valuable thing that this world affords. Here is wisdom. This is the royal law. These are the lively oracles of God.
And then a bit later on, an orb with a cross is given to the Queen by the Archbishop, who declares:
Receive this orb, set under the cross, and remember the whole world is subject to the power and empire of Christ, our redeemer.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, I remember all of these things very vividly, Mr Stanbridge, and I take them very seriously myself, but we live in a secular country, bound by a Constitution which contains section 116 to which you have referred, and the duty of courts is to enforce the law; it is not to enforce religion or religious principle, unless that happens to be enshrined in the particular law."
a) Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second did make promise to uphold the Laws and Customs of Australia, this would require proper Royal Assent under Great Seal of the Commonwealth of Australia as issued in 1953.
b) Justice Kirby did attempt to confuse on matters of God’s Name within the Sovereign Commonwealth of Australia by drawing attention to her other realms and territories and trying to detract from his responsibility under Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office.
c) The Queen promised to do more than uphold the law as it was made within the different dominions.
d) Justice Kirby detracts from the Oath of Allegiance and Coronation Oath but then states that he takes them seriously when the Christian Faith is part and parcel of the law.
e) His Honour Justice Kirby admits to taking 12 oaths when he is only compelled to take the first.
f) Justice Kirby is speaking of an Oath of Office which is separate to (in most cases) and different to the Oath of Allegiance.
g) Justice Kirby makes claim that the Commonwealth of Australia is a secular country detracting from the Oath of Allegiance as well as the Line of Authority under the blessing of Almighty God.
h) The judiciciary take Oath to God whilst using a Bible, this is also used within the Court Room making it directly relevant to uphold the Royal Law in the Scripture as it provides the Parliament with the lawful right to exist in the first place.
i) Justice Kirby is acting godless given his position is enshrined in the Royal Laws in the Scripture.
Next is probably one of the most popular and relied upon cases when it comes to the Crown and the line of authority that exists under the Constitution. It is relative to the complete farce that became the Section 44 slayings of the Parliamentary Structure a few years ago. We can prove this is a farce due to the abstraction of the wording of the Constitution by Justices in this matter.
At point 59, you will notice this is worded very very smartly. It puts two opposing sides on the table, and relies on the ignorance of you not to define yours correctly. It becomes the "de facto" observance that is used in the complete ignorance of what ANZAC actually did to define Kings Domain within the grounds of the Royal Gardens of Melbourne.
By you not even addressing the Shrine, and its Stone of Remembrance in clash with the Stone of Scone and the rule of kings that no monarch can lie upon two pillows that were the stone the builders discarded.
You have not addressed your very own allegiances in the matter to be able to define a line of authority and your standing in the matter. Therefore the justice is very sneakily smart in his conclusion that the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by Parliamentary Titles) is not Australia.
The question still remains from the first cases we have discussed in that we have yet to be able to define this "Australia" at which they mean. We however can define by Constitution Act the Commonwealth of Australia in title.
The Justices in the matters then go on to commit a direct act of perjury on the court, albeit the plaintiff not actually be able to define a line of authority, it is still an act of perjury to lie to the court. The claim being made is that Australian Sovereignty was established by way of the Australia Act 1986. We have already discussed the problems that arise out of this attempt to fix an occupying Administrators lies as it administers under conventions and treaties to adhere to the Rules of Usufruct.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain became a foreign power the moment Australia had signed the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and joined the League of Nations as an independent and now sovereign country severed from the motherland. This is evident from the Imperial Conference 1926 and the Statute of Westminster 1931. The transformation the Justice should be referring to occurred at Peace in 1919 and not by Australia Act 1986.
The justice has perjured the court and now defined himself to be outside of office in accordance with Section 7 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, the justice has committed an act of perjury, contempt and could be construed as an act of treason to the Commonwealth of Australia in accordance with International Treaties and Conventions. He either sits in office in accordance with rule of law, or he works for something foreign to the Commonwealth of Australia and is therefore outside of law and therefore outside of office.
This case does not address the facts relative to the claims that constitute the blessing by Almighty God in the first place. This case therein does not address the problems that are trying to be established in the precedence of this case. It is often referred to as a go to point for establishing sovereignty under the Australia Act 1986. What if the States aligned themselves with something foreign to the Commonwealth of Australia by way of this Australia Act, would that not constitute treason, being done behind your backs in the ignorance of the claims that are established in God in the first place.
This case to me is a non event. It really cannot be relied upon as a defence, from either side of the argument, especially when more facts can be laid on the table to back up the 125 facts already laid out.
126. Sue v Hill [1999]HCA 30
https://jade.io/article/68130
However, constitutional provisions are to be read broadly and according to their terms: more significantly for present purposes, they are not to be read as subject to limitations which their terms do not require.
59. It may be accepted that, at federation, the United Kingdom was not a foreign power for the purposes of s 44(i) of the Constitution As a matter of ordinary language, a foreign power is any sovereign state other than the state for whose purposes the question of the other's status is raised.
173. At the very latest, the Commonwealth of Australia was transformed into a sovereign, independent nation with the enactment of the Australia Acts. The consequence of that transformation is that the United Kingdom is now a foreign power for the purposes of s 44(i) of the Constitution.
a) The Commonwealth of Australia was declared a Sovereign Independent Nation at Treaty of Versailles 1919
b) Commonwealth of Australia was separated in the enactment of Statute of Westminster 1931 post Imperial Conference 1926.
c) Commonwealth of Australia did join League of Nations as an independent Nation.
d) Sue v Hill is incorrect in its findings on Sovereignty.
e) Shrine of Remembrance was created to define that blessing under Almighty God.
f) Sovereignty is held in the blessing of Almighty God by raising Holy Ground out of International Waters as detailed in the Shrine of Remembrance and Kings Domain.
Next we look at a lesser known but still used staple mate case in defence of this Australian Government position that it holds by right the ability to legislate over you.
Lets address the first statement that the allegiance which Australians owe to Her Majesty is owed not as British Subject but as subject of the Queen of Australia. The key word here is "Australians", and the accepted view of what one is as defined by law. This statement by its self is not contradictory of its standing.
An Australian who is ignorant of what the Commonwealth of Australia is by Stone of Remembrance as the foundation stone to Gods practical and defined blessing might just accept the point of view they are this defined "Australian", most in fact would not even challenge the notion.
It goes on to state that a "person" under the Act, is an Australian Citizen. One who takes a Pledge of Citizenship that is not in accordance with the Constitution Schedule Oath of Allegiance is somewhat at law outside of the position of subject of the Crown in the first place.
If the established line of authority starts with the blessing of Almighty God and that blessing is defined by the Holy Scripture being the Authorized King James Bible 1611, then one would have to ask why a Pledge is not a Scheduled Oath and how a Legislated Act could then override the requirement to the Schedule Oath and allow a Pledge to something defined within the said Pledge.
We have already looked at Citizenship and how the Pledge differs from the Oath of Allegiance. We have looked at how the Citizenship Acts were not introduced until after the International Monetary Fund Acts. We have also looked at the Holy Scripture defining citizenship as leaving the inheritance, and comparing the grace of that inheritance against the sin of the law.
The changes to the Commonwealth of Australia in 1973-1975 also coincide with the loss of Nationality and change of the Commonwealth to this "Australia" with a host of new things including the Great Seal of Australia and this requirment to change it through history ending in the Australia Act 1986 severing from its former line of authority in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA where in it established by Preamble that line of authority at which was changed in 1919 by Treaty of Peace before the international community.
To change what occured in 1919 and copy the acts of 1926 through 1931 again in 1986 demonstrates something does not add up.
We must not forget that the Ministers of this Parliament of the Australian Government also had their internal struggles for power over Section 44 in an attempt to establish what an Australian Citizen was and their lawful right to be Ministers of God and manage this country.
The key point with Pochi v Macphee is that the Justice is correct in the contract position when it comes to the Australian Citizenship Act 2009, however this detracts from any arguments of line of authority to hold that established rule of law in the first place. This case as with Sue v Hill is a non event, it establishes a connection to an act at which no argument has been raised as to why the act does not apply in the first place. The case should not be used in a defence of a true line of authority of God through Jesus Christ.
127. Pochi v Macphee [1982] 151 CLR 101
https://jade.io/article/67021
“The allegiance which Australians owe to Her Majesty is owed not as British subjects but as subjects of the Queen of Australia.” By s. 7(1) of that Act it is provided as follows: "A person who, under this Act, is an Australian citizen or, by a law for the time being in force in a country to which this section applies, is a citizen of that country has, by virtue of his Australian citizenship or his citizenship of that country, as the case may be, the status of a British subject."
a) Commonwealth of Australia was an independent Sovereign Country in 1919.
b) Australia was defined separate in proclamation of Royal Styles and Titles 1927
c) Commonwealth of Australia is defined by Kings Domain, Melbourne.
d) Australian Citizenship was devised 1948 after Sovereignty was defined in 1919.
e) Subject are defined through Allegiance to the Realm
f) Subjects of the Crown don’t retake oaths on change of Monarchs.
g) Sons and Daughters of Subjects don’t take oaths due to the right of their parents.
h) Australian Citizenship was created after Money Lenders entered the Temple.
These are only a few cases that are used regularly in defence of any proof of what an Australian is, or the clarification of a sovereign position at law. You can see through our facts that the arguments posed are not raised by plaintiffs in these matters and the justices are speaking relative to the material that is put before the court. They can only speak on the matter for the content that is within the matter itself.
It is for us to raise the question, and put forth the argument that a line of authority has been fractured, and that their own court matters lend to proving that collusion has occurred to undermine the line of authority established by forefathers of this Commonwealth of Australia.
Most people would argue legal precepts, and not consider the claims that are the blessing bestowed by Almighty God. And herein becomes an ignorance that has allowed the State to hold the position it has within the legal fraternities since they questioned the state some 60 years ago. We have evidence that even the legal fraternity questioned the changes that were made in 1973. We know today after Secret Meetings were released to the National Archives in 2013 that not only did they change currency, they changed the national anthem, oath, great seal, parliament, senate, representatives, they change so much more.
What we can establish through Gods blessing is a line of authority through our forefathers to estates of the people that found their sovereignty after the Great War 1914-1918, and can through that blessing prove with evidence of Gods Works in the people of the Commonwealth of Australia that a line of authority currently posed by the courts themselves is not that defined by the Constitution in July 1900 in federal unity of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia by Debates of Federation of those very people.
The voice of god is truly the voice of the people if by the very creation under his blessing it is done by their voice alone.
This concludes the number of included facts, we have as can be seen gone through 32 pages of facts covering 128 facts in all. Over the time they have been published, they have been discussed on social media by all and sundry and none have rebutted any of the presented facts. This last page 32 of the Facts Part series dives a little deeper and looks at some Case Law that people often quote and rely upon in defence of a position. It is now indicated to you that there is a larger jurisdictional picture at which you havent looked at before always delving into the law.
You never thought where the law came from in the very very first place.
And you never thought how a line of authority gets established in the first place either.
And when it came to the law, you didnt consider how that rule of law relied on a line of authority established in a testator who died to leave you inheritance rather than the sin of law.
This series might then mark history with the facts left to be rebutted in the winds of time. By constitution under the blessing of the people themselves, it is for the people to see the fence they have created for themselves by ignoring the very foundations laid at which was left as an inheritance. We can only ask the questions that remain left unanswered in the hope that time itself allows the winds to speak the questions.
We started this series by posing 13 constitutional questions that have not been asked by the people before that cover aspects of law that include the very foundations establishing what it means to be the Commonwealth of Australia. Scholars have argued over these foundations in complete ignorance of what it means to define the blessing bestowed upon a people by Almighty God in the first to be able to establish any form of authority and rule of law at all leaving those Scholars themselves in an ignorant position having discounted the Holy Scripture as a core document to this position as a whole.
If you have not covered the whole facts series, while we break for the intermission, there are 32 other posts displaying over 128 facts that have brought us to this point.
QUESTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL NATURE
A country is defined by its record, and the historical record of the Commonwealth of Australia has many questionable events throughout, which has led to a questionable loyalty to that Commonwealth of Australia by its people over the actions of an Australian Government over the last 70 odd years.
The people have seen a right by the Gods of the fathers diminished more and more over time, and through the generations forget the past losing their ancestral historical record in the process. The people forget where they came from, and fail to establish a line of authority that is held sacred throughout time itself. Lest ye Forget!
The main aspect that one should take from this Fact Series is that the Holy Scripture forms the core of the foundations that allow for a Constitutional Monarchy and its Commonwealth Governance in the first place. These foundations forged out of a blessing practically defined in the Biblical Texts that afford a people grounding within the void between realms.
We approach these questions for and on the record, for the historical record and because of the historical record. It is because of the secret way in which this Australian Government has handled the management of the country, and since the sacking of an entire Governance in 1973 that many questions have been held by the people of this Commonwealth of Australia.
Many of you are familiar with some names that form a common thread all across this continent, asking for proof of authority from those in power only to continually be ignored and pushed by authority without that proof.
From the likes of Dick Yardley, Larry Hannigan, Sue Maynes, Wayne Glew, Romley Stewart, Brian Shaw and others questions have been raised that could very well still be relevant today given the extra knowledge that is put on the table before you all.
It is clear that many people of this Commonwealth have questioned and challenged the actions of this Australian Government, the State Governments, the jurisdictions of Police, and the Legislation of Parliament, as well as attempted to define the Common Law and the jurisdictions of that. All and sundry forgot to look at the foundations that warned you to remember every November, it was clear that nobody looked at where they came from to then define what the actual problem was.
And from that it was strange that nobody looked upon the Stone of Remembrance itself, the very centre of the Shrine of Remembrance wherein upon the Solar Cross sit Red Poppies and the words Lest We Forget. From the very foundations that was defined out of Peace Treaty with every town and city across the country celebrating this anchoring by War Memorial of the Great War 1914-1918.
Every country town usually has a park and cenataph centrally located, often on the roundabout in the centre of town, anchoring the city of god to the realms of god defined out of peace in war. Defended through honour, the names of the dead of the towns and cities now relevant to your struggle for self determination in accordance with the international laws established by your forefathers in the first place.
We begin to see that the Oath of Allegiance and the actions of those men that spilt blood across the battlefields of the world so that you may live by still waters is relevant to their very actions in defence of the very creation they put before the International Community by way of Debates of Federation and the unified way in which they forged that country out of the blessings of Almighty God.
The pillars of Gods Green Earth, this Garden of Eden we call the Commonwealth of Australia fractured in knowledge with its Ministers actively attempting to undermine the very core line of authority at which they are supposed to have authority. Nobody ever looked at how that was forged in the first place out of the Holy Scripture, with the Constitution itself a part of those lessons. And because of that, the pillars of the earth begin to crumble, built upon the sands of time, eventually they fall and are blown away by the winds of time, long forgotten to historical record.
It is the indissoluble federal Commonwealth of Australia, unable to be dissolved, that is founded under the blessing of Almighty God that stood upon a rock with the ancestors of that Commonwealth urging you to remember and cause the sun to rise as you were foretold. On the going down of the sun, in the morning we shall remember them. Lest ye forget.
And the populus put to slumber, their spirit taken from the temple, the pools of reflection filled in as they failed to reflect on times past, and a second cross installed across their north line from another time, out of the void across the realms into theirs. A flame eternal is lit upon the cross, to remind the people to return the spirit to the temple, the burning bush speaks the voices of the Holy Spirit of the ANZAC, those that sacrificed so that you could anchor yourselves with Gods.
They call you "woke" now, the living dead, the zombies rise, confused about history and angry about their slavery, they call for the downfall of the patricarchy and their very own bloodlines. They leave themselves anchored in chains and hired servants to the State, in complete ignorance of the standing given to them by that lineage and ancestry they blindly attack.
Slowly they are pushed into social distancing and demonstrate their subordinate position by taking orders from their Public Servants are they are treated like voluntary slaves, the finance markets start their end of usufruct which leads to the merger of suretized assets that were placed into administration for playing the Monetary Funds bonds market. Are they being pushed from woke into awake? Will the rug be pulled from under them leaving them in a world they once forgot, struggling to build it back up again from its crumbled state?
The sure fire bet is that they will continue as they have done for the last seventy years, believing that a lie is going to fix the lie that it started as. Only its going to be very difficult to uphold because the financial situation will leave the contracted position of administration at the point of merger of usufruct because of an inability to support a debt driven system. Its a sure fire lose situation that leaves the people to look at the truth of the matter. A Commonwealth of Australia lies under this Administration and the people need to return to and recognise that Commonwealth.
So we approach questions under Section 80.3 of the Criminal Code 1995, formerly Section 24 of the Crimes Act 1914 which allow us to challenge the line of authority and correct jurisdictional standing that should exist within the Commonwealth of Australia. This also allows us to break minor legislational positions in a bid to establish that an incorrect position is being taking by this Australian Government.
This Constitutional Questions become matters of importance when they have been unanswered for more than a decade in their current form one way or another. With every department of this Australian Government falling into complete silence with some very strange events occurring over the years as well. We will now look at these questions, and go through our scientific analysis given the facts that we have laid out. It is now time to summarise the answers and propose a defined position based on these facts.
We are at the end of the facts that we are to present as evidence to support the answers to our questions. After this intermission post, we will go through each of the 13 questions and then summarise the answers and put together a hypothesis based on this collation of facts and subsequent answers. It is from this that we can form a founding argument, that requires some form of rebuttal based on the facts themselves rather than any opinion anyway may have.
Through out this series, we have already demonstrated many problems with the legislated corrections that have been attempted over the years since a change in the name of governance in 1973. It is also very clear that the people themselves have questioned the narrative of the government since 1973 by their actions in social media and locally on the ground. It becomes even clearer that there is a large distrust in this Australian Government from all sectors of the population that live within its so called jurisdictions.
Hopefully out of all of this you will be able to see there is an opportunity to come to peace, and bring the truth to the table, and establish the facts before all and sundry therefor alleviating the distrust in each other and giving you reason to show some form of loyalty to each other in remembrance of those whom forged your ability to stand by title amongst the international community.
Next we will look at Question 1 of our selected questions.
1. Application of the Blessing of Almighty God and its usage in Oath of Allegiance of Ministers concerning the Differing Pledge of Allegiance offered to Residents of the States as subjects of the Crown and the Commonwealth of Australia.
This question starts to ask where loyalty lies within the governance of the Commonwealth of Australia and whether it links by a true line of authority to the estates of God established by forefathers of Federation and the Sons of this Commonwealth that spilt blood to defend it. We also look into the state of affairs of the affairs of state when we address the lineage of authority by Oath of Allegiance to the States of the Commonwealth of Australia.
We have already addressed some of this in Facts Part 31 and 32, although now we address a specific question relative to what we have laid down as a fact.
The evidence already laid down in fact is supportive of answers to the questions, there is of course much more supporting evidence to that can be put forward to support a position, however we would be here all day and night attempting to document it all. We therefore look at the core definitions of what defines a line of authority in which a body of people are able to hold rule of law in the first place.
So without rambling on too much we ask in Question One.
What is the application of the Blessing of Almighty God and its usage in Oath of Allegiance of Ministers concerning the Differing Pledge of Allegiance offered to Residents of the States as subjects of the Crown and the Commonwealth of Australia?