Ron: In a 54’ 45” video mark mcmurtrie explains in simple terms why British law and the governments of Australia are a complete fiction with no authority over the Australian people white and black. He shows that the very foundations of British law in Australia are built on legal quicksand and it is only through the population of Australia "agreeing" to the legality of British law in Australia that the scam continues. The law is truly an Ass in relation to it's practice and its implementation in the Australian courts is a joke that has the legal system and Australian governments laughing all the way to the bank. See the video 'mark mcmurtrie aboriginal sovereignty british legal scam 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCy2uYi1xZc
I have transcribed most of the relevant information in the video and provided a few comments and supplementations. Approximate times at which various issues are discussed are usually indicated.
Vehicle Registration – (2’30”) State registries cannot be monopolies because of Federal laws therefore you can create a registry and register your own motor vehicle.
Councils don’t exist in the constitution which provides only for a federal government and state governments.. In national referendums in 1974 and 1989 a majority of Australians rejected a system of local government (5’)
Toll road – police have no authority to impede your travel on a private road. (6’ to 7’)
Every law in this country is invalid because the Constitution was a colonial document purporting to relate to the Australian colonies and the Commonwealth of Australia became a Dominion in 1911 which is a completely different legal entity.
In any event the Constitution was created by UK legislation which was never signed into law by Queen Victoria and hence never came into effect as law.
Moreover, Australia became a sovereign independent nation on the 10th of January 1920 when it became a member state of the League of Nations (if not before that, namely on 19 June 1919 when Australia’s Prime Minister and deputy Prime Minister signed for Australia as a party to the Versailles Peace Treaty) 7’ 30” to 8’ 30”).
The Australia Act 1986 (8’ 30” to 12’)
The Police claim they get their authority from the Queen of Australia under the Australia Act (Australia) 1986 so the first question to be resolved is: ‘Which Australia Act allegedly gives the police that authority – is it the Australia Act (UK) 1986 OR the Australia Act (Australia) 1986 which says in its preamble that it gets its authority from the Australia Act (UK) 1986. [Ron: The Preamble to the UK Act reads: 'Whereas the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth of Australia have, with the concurrence of the States of Australia, requested and consented to the enactment of an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in the terms hereinafter set forth:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—']
1. Where is the evidence of the people of Australia having consented to our government (which represents us) to ask a foreign power ie the UK, to make a law for us?
2. When was the international treaty registered with the UN (as required by international law pursuant to UN Resolution 1286) evidencing that the Australian people AND the British people have both consented under international law, as required, for the use of the British law IN Australia? Is it not true that THAT treaty does not exist and hence anything purported to be done under or pursuant to the Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth) is invalid and of no effect.
I (mark mcmurtrie) am not a British subject and that act has no effect on me. In these circumstances it is not possible to prove that the Crown (in any guise) has jurisdiction in Australia over a non-British subject.
NB mark mcmurtrie says that he understands that the magistrate in the case (which he won) in which he made the above submissions STOOD DOWN from the Bench some three weeks later.
Statutory Declaration (12’ to 13’ 20”)
Mark mcmurtrie swore an affidavit under international law declaring that: ‘As a sovereign indigenous Australian man I am not subject to British law, I’m not subject to quasi British-Australian law and I’m not subject to Australian law because the Australian government is an arm of the British government, BUT I DO GIVE NOTICE that I intend to comply with the Common Law and live peaceably with my fellow citizens.
This position is unimpeachable because the statute law is only applicable as the law of the sea – it does not apply on land (except where consent to its application is given). Mark murtrie served a copy of the above mentioned affidavit on a police officer who sought to 'book' him for committing an offence for having private car registration plates rather than plates issued by the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority. He subsequently won the court case.
NB Assuming for the purposes of discussion, that a law is valid and the police are duly authorised (which is never the case in Australia); even if the police have a video tape of an alleged offence THEY HAVE TO PROVE THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE OFFENCE. (around 14’)
Brief history of mark mcmurtrie’s voyage of discovery to the point where he found that there was no connection between the British parliament, its monarch and its and legal structure and the original people (inhabitants) of Australia. NB The word “aboriginal” is typical British legal double speak because it implies that if you are an aboriginal you are NOT an original inhabitant just as, for instance, Abnormal means “not normal’. Hence native peoples are “origines” rather than aborigines. Similarly, when a judge asks if you “UNDERSTAND” the charges s/he is NOT asking you if you “comprehend” the charges it means “DO YOU STAND UNDER THE CHARGES”. So if you admit and acknowledge that you understanding the charges you are deemed to admit that you “stand under” those charges and that you will answer those charges. The court then assumes you have CONSENTED to its jurisdiction.
These are the games they play with us in their courts and in their documents. (18’ 35” to 21’ 30”)
The Constitution is a colonial document. It refers to the several state colonies forming the Commonwealth and says 'the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony. [Ron: The Preamble is: 'An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia.
[9th July 1900]
(The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900is an Act
of the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster)
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia,
Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God,
have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the
Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the
Constitution hereby established:
And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth
of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same,
as follows:-- ...'
In 1911 Australia became a Dominion of the British Empire which means that any colonial law ceased to exist because our legal status had changed from that of a colony to that of a Dominion and so the Constitution referred to the colony of the Commonwealth or Australia and the colony of New South Wales (etc), which no longer existed.
On the 19th of June 1919 the Australian Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister signed the Treaty of Versailles. That gave the world a clear indication that White Australia was becoming a belligerent, independent sovereign nation free from Great Britain. Then on 10 January 1920 the Commonwealth of Australia became a member state of the League of Nations which means that as Britain was also a member state we were two separate states and that no law of England (Britain) could apply in Australia. That situation was endorsed in 1931 when the British created the Statute of Westminster which says that no law of the British parliament can be used in Australia. In 1942 the Australia parliament said they would adopt the statute of Westminster through the Australian act called the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act AND THEY ADOPTED THE BRITISH LAW THAT SAID THAT NO BRITISH LAW CAN BE USED IN AUSTRALIA!
Australian Membership of the United Nations (24’ to 27’)
In 1946 Australia became a member state of the United Nations (UN). The UN Charter includes a very clear statement that the membership of all nations and all states of the United Nations is based upon the EQUAL SOVEREIGNTY OF ALL MEMBERS. If, as is the case, Australia and the United Kingdom are both members of the UN that means that we are both of equal sovereign status – that is, White Australia has equal sovereign status to the UK or Great Britain. Accordingly no British law can be used in our lands because there’s a requirement under the terms of membership of the UN that no law of one member state, for example, England, can be used in the land of another member state, for example Australia WITHOUT THE EXISTANCE OF A RECIPROCAL TREATY BETWEEN THE TWO registered with the UN, that says the British allow the use of their law in Australia and the Australian people accept the use of British law within Australia. When that was pointed out to the Australian government it decided in the late 1970s or the early 1980s that they would somehow fix this. So the Australian and British governments attempted to fix this situation WITHOUT TELLING THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE. They sought to do this behind closed doors but they botched it. In Australia they created an act called “The Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth) but the problem was that the British had created an act called “The Australia Act 1986 (UK), WITHOUT AUSTRALIA KNOWING. Now the Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth) says that it gets its authority from the Australia Act 1986 (UK) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK) says in its Preamble that the governments of Australia consented to the Commonwealth and Great Britain creating that law for us. But the problem is twofold. First of all there is NO reciprocal Treaty to allow that to happen under the UN requirements under the UN Charter. But prior to that, the Australian Bureau of Statistics is unable to provide any evidence of any referendum among the Australian people to gain our consent for the government that WE OWN to engage a foreign power to make a law for us. That means that the Australia Act 1986 (UK) was created unlawfully without our consent. That (unlawful) Act then, was used to create or give authority to the Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth) which again was without our consent and on both occasions was without the consent of the British people who own their government. So there is no legal structure in place that gives any government entity in this country any authority or jurisdiction what so ever.
[Ron: See the High Court case of Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet (2003) 78 ALJR, which leaves the matter much in doubt.]
No Treaty with Australia’s Origine Peoples - Commonwealth Governors General and state Governors (27’ to 29’ 25”)
In 1996 then Prime minister John Howard said there is NO TREATY between his government and the Aborigine [Origine] peoples. Legally what that means is that there is no legal instrument in existence that evidences acquiescence that rule of law or sovereignty, ownership of land or anything else by the Aborigine people or the Origine people of Australia to the Australian government or, if you want to be more correct, the British agents of the British government acting as the Australian government. To further complicate things, the Australian Commonwealth government requires that at all times there be a lawful Governor General at the helm of the Commonwealth and that the Governor General and the Governor of each state, as the case may be, is required to have in place Letters Patent issued by the Monarch to give him or her the ability to act in a vice-regal capacity. Bow the Letters Patent are assumed to be in place. However, an email sent to the Privy Council on 1 September 2003 asked the question: Regarding Australian Governors-General Sir Ninian Steven, William Hayden, William Dean, Peter Hollingsworth and Major Michael Jeffrey – ‘Please tell me whether Orders were made and approved in Council regarding the above Australian Governors -General and if so for which ones and what were the Orders given?’ The response from the Privy Council secretariat on Tuesday 2 September 2003 at 2.40 am was that; ‘I am sorry but there are no orders for these appointments.’ In other words the last five Governors General for Australia have not been lawfully appointed. Now that goes equally for all governors of all states: There are no lawful governors of any of the Australian states and in fact there have never been any lawful governors of any states in this country.
Australian Police and other Government entities (29’ 25” to 31’ 50”)
Police are said to be officers of the Crown. However, the New South Wales Police Service is a corporation OWNED BY AN AMERICAN COMPANY CALLED TENEX, which is an American Arms dealer.
The Commonwealth of Australia is a company registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission in America and its address is care of the Australian Embassy in Washington DC. It is a company. The state of New South Wales is a company. The NSW Police Service is a company.
In a nut shell, we have this rampant corporate structure and these joint corporate structures and these corporations are trying to say they jointly have corporate control over SOVEREIGN HUMAN BEINGS. If anything is a farce this is it. How anything that is created BY us can have jurisdiction OVER us is ludicrous. In simple terms: “How does a child have jurisdiction over its parents? It doesn’t happen. Until the child comes of age it is under the parents’ jurisdiction. And it’s the same with government. Its clear from the government’s performance in respect of the laws that it creates it doesn’t have the competence to act as a sane human being or as a sane body of representatives, so its governed and controlled by us. Our representatives – or RE-PRESENTATIVES in the parliaments are required to do what we ask them to do or what we tell them to do, not what their party tells them to do.
To give you an idea of the illegalities occurring in our parliament: For example under the Constitution, it is illegal to influence a member of parliament to vote in a particular way. Under section 28 of the Crimes Act 1914 it is illegal to influence a member of parliament to vote in any particular manner in respect of any particular thing. Yet, we have the Liberal Party, we have the Labor Party, the Democrats and everyone else. With the Liberal Party government for example, it wasn’t our representatives that made the decisions that the government was going to take. They were made by the men in the backrooms… and in the Labor party the same thing happens. People who were never elected to parliament are influencing the parliamentarians which is a crime against our law – if indeed we are subject to that law , but we’re not.
Letters Patent to First Governor of South Australia (issued 23/2/1836) [Video 32’ to 41’50”) Clearly the native population was considered sovereign. The evidence is absolutely clear. The governors and the colonists were not to interfere with the occupation of their land and the quiet enjoyment of their land by the origines. These parliamentary instructions were explicit and mark mcmurtrie discusses them in detail. The Pacific Island Protection Act 1872.
This act covered the Australasian colonies and the Pacific Islands and tried to eliminate the exploitation of ALL original peoples throughout the area. Section 7 of the Act says:
Then in 1900 the Constitution was supposedly created and it said: Section 127 – the native inhabitants were not to be counted as part of the Commonwealth or any part thereof. So from a legal point of view we have: • An act that says the only jurisdiction that the Crown has in this land is in respect of her own subjects; • There are aborigine people who are said to be NOT British subjects (and were not even to be counted as part of the population – the reason being that sovereigns are not part of the population); • Then in 1967 the British subjects in Australia amend their (supposed) Constitution to repeal section 127 and all that does it removes reference to Aborigine people from the Constitution. And then the Commonwealth parliament wrote (into s.51 xxvi) a special section that says they have the right to make special laws for Aborigine people!? Or people of any race.
BUT if origines are not subject to their laws, British subjects and their descendents have NO jurisdiction over the origines. John Howard publicly admitted there is no treaty with the Australian origines.
The Apache Indians levied a tax on an oil company in the US and in 1981 the US Supreme Court said any treaty is just a contract The relevant treaty (contract) does not mention the transfer of sovereignty to the US government and so sovereignty remains in place with the original owners. The same situation pertains to origines in Australia.
Indigenous Trust (27’ to 30’)
The British parliament established a trust in the mid 1930s and they put a pile of money into that. It was unencumbered funds and in the late 1930s when the people establishing the World Bank needed unencumbered funds the only funds of sufficient quantity was the indigenous trust. So they started using those funds to run the World Bank. The Indigenous Trust is being administered by a Maori who on 8/8/07 at Uluru conducted a ceremony which effectively means that on the 30th June 2009 the account that holds the money that was put in trust for the Indigenous peoples of Australasia and the Pacific Islands reaches maturation. And the World Bank has been given notice that on the 1st of July 2009 those funds must be transferred and made available to the account holder. If the funds are NOT made available at that time the governments will be bankrupted. That process is expected to take 56 days. [Ron: This seems to be a similar situation to the one referred to by the Trustee and the OITC funds]. In that account on the 8th of August 2007 there was NINE TRILLION US DOLLARS that was held for the aborigine peoples of Australia. If you do your quick maths on that, that’s over nine million dollars per head for each aboriginal man, woman and child.
New Zealand at the time had 4.1 Trillion USD; Fiji had USD 2.1 Trillion … Yeah, its all allocated. That was why the shudder you noticed in late August/September last year (2007) there was a monumental shudder went through the world money market. It was because they had just been given notice that thy have gotta pay the bill in June 2009. [Ron: Needless to say the funds have not been paid. Presumably this is yet another aspect of the so-called Bush Clinton et al criminal cartel’s activities and the on-going saga of the so-called “settlements” and the failure to pay them and the OITC funds, as required, in accordance with long-standing contracts. NB These payments have to be in GOLD BULLION not in US dollars! This presumably means that the collapse of the US dollar will not assist the criminals who have stolen and misused the money].
If the governments cannot hand back the money on time they will be bankrupt. The process will take 56 days: 28 days after initial service of documents and then 28 days from there. [Ron: NB If this scenario is accurate and adhered to, then the bankruptcies could come to a head on or just after 26 August 2009. That is Wednesday of next week folks!]
If the law that the governments of Australia continue to use against us as sovereign people is owned by the British parliament – which it is, because what we call the Constitution of Australia is section 9 of a current piece of British legislation whose title is: “63 and 64 Victoria chapter 12, an Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK). The first eight sections of that Act are what’s called the covering clauses and they define how the Act is implemented. The oath of allegiance in the Act (the Constitution Act) clearly states that the only monarch that has reference in respect of the Constitution is Queen Victoria in her capacity as the monarch of the parliament of the United Kingdom, her heirs and successors. And it also uses the term “In her sovereignty” as the queen of the parliament of Great Britain, her heirs and successors..
If that’s the case and the Constitution is British law and we as sovereign people don’t want that law used against us, imagine this: What if an Australian aboriginal group got together and under their own law they form a Council of elders and they go to the European Union and under their own law ask the EU Human Rights Tribunal and its courts of justice for a declaration as to the lawful use the British law under their jurisdiction in our sovereign land. The question is: ’Do you support the use of British law against the sovereign aborigine people of Australia?’
And what if a group of aborigines form a Council of Elders under their own law and then sue the Monarch of the parliament and the parliament of the United Kingdom for the value of every piece of land in our national area THAT HAS A TITLE UNDER BRITISH LAW held over it? They took it and claim they own it which means they stole it and issued fraudulent title against it. That means it still belongs to the original owners. That means they must recompense the aborigine people for the value of this land.