Although we have finished presenting the facts to the tune of 128 total facts, we will continue to name the Facts Part Series by number so that we can keep this textually in order. We begin to explore the answers to the questions that were posed in Facts Part 1 and now refer to unrebutted facts to form our answers to the questions and finally our conclusion based on that answer.

Once we have answered the thirteen questions that were posed, we can then provide an overall conclusion based on the facts presented and the thirteen answers and conclusions to the questions posed in the beginning.

We start with an important question, relative to the core loyalty that an Australian should have given knowledge of how the Commonwealth of Australia was founded out of the blessing of Almighty God. This line of authority reaching into the States of the Commonwealth we also look into the loyalties of the people who take Oaths of Allegiance to become Australians.

Question 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 and Australia.

Answer 1:

An Oath of Allegiance (s.4), or Oath of Supremacy (s.17), or Coronation Oath (s.6) is not a Moral Obligation (s.21) as was stated by the Judiciary in Gargan v Director of Public Prosecutions and anor [2004] NSWSC 10 (s.126).  Queen Elizabeth II did instead make a promise (s.22) during Coronation in 1953 (s.15).  That promise requires upholding Rule of Law (s.73) in a Line of Authority (s.2)(s.3)(s.4)(s.7) to define justice within their decisions within the Court Room.  It is clear that the Monarch takes Oath (s.6)(s.15)(s.17) that begins the Line of Authority to the Estates (s.16)(s.18) of the Crown Imperial (s.10)(s.8)(s.19) and that the Scheduled Oath of Allegiance (s.4) can only be changed through a true Heir or Successor or by the People through Referendum under Section 128 of the Constitution set out at Clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA.

The Oath of Allegiance (s.4) is framed in a Line of Authority to the Imperial Crown (s.8)(s.19) by Royal Titles Act 1901 (s.10) whilst the Commonwealth of Australia (s.2) was still defined as a Colony of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland under Clause 8 (s.68) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA.

The presented Pledge of Citizenship (s.5) is outside of this Line of Authority (s.2)(s.4)(s.8) and outside of the Rule of Law (s.73) set down by Constitution of the People of the States (s.2)(s.16).  The Immigration department is incorrect in its Pledges (s.5) which brings into question why the requirement to offer Pledge of Citizenship (s.5) over and above Oath of Allegiance (s.4) to the Monarch of the Imperial Crown Realms (s.2)(s.4)(s.8)(s.10) being the Birth-right of the People (s.18) and inheritance through their Naked Ownership.

High Court Rulings (s.126)(s.127) have been blasphemous to God (s.2)(s.4) at which their Oath or Affirmation is (s.118) to the Monarchy and the Crown Imperial (s.8)(s.19) and by falsely believing that a Promise (s.22) is a Moral Obligation (s.21) at Law when their Oath of Office (s.30) stems through the Coronation Oath (s.6)(s.15) and Coronation Stone (s.24)(s.25) defining their Lawful Position (s.26) within the Estates of the Realm Imperial (s.16)(s.18).

His Honour has been dishonourable stating that the Monarch (s.15) has a moral obligation (s.21) instead of a promise (s.15)(s.22) to govern the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia (s.2) when it is clearly known that this became a self governing colony (s.68) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland an Imperial Realm (s.10)(s.16) under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA and achieved Dominion Status (s.25)(s.28) as a Sovereign (s.51)(s.54)(s.57)(s.96) and independent body post Treaty of Versailles (s.96) through Imperial Conference 1926 (s.99).

Conclusion 1:

The Pledge of Citizenship (s.5) is outside of law, being no law at all (s.56)(s.74).  This brings the question of Citizenship to Australia into question relative to the Scheduled Oath (s.4) as to whether Citizenship is a part of the Commonwealth of Australia (s.2) or not.  This can be questioned when we step further into the Questions posed as to whether Australia (s.88) and the Commonwealth of Australia (s.87) are the same entity by definition or two separate entities (s.81)(s.87) at law (s.50)(s.70)(s.71)(s.72)(s.73)(s.74).