03/03/2021

Steven Spiers

News, Media and Opinions

In the last post we talked about Sovereignty and how it can be demonstrated that the United Kingdom and the United States both put forward Bills to the Parliament in a bid to regain their Sovereignty and leave the United Nations. Before Slow Joe Biden took office we saw the United States remove itself from the ICC, the World Health Organisation and start tackling the problems associated with the World Economic Forum. Now however, we see Slow Joe returning to these entities and pushing the agenda of the first black president Barrack Obama. We start to see the game at play being put out into the open.

Acts 5:29 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

We have shown how former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser ousted this problem in stating that the Commonwealth of Australia had also lost in Sovereignty and ability to deal with matters of war and peace, especially in relation to the declaration of war. With former Prime Minister Tony Abbott at the helm of decision to go to war in Afghanistan by declaring that War from Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory we have the Brereton Report as the problem that demonstrates the culture of war crimes reaching up the ranks and into the parliamentary scope.

Psalm 74:4 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
Thine enemies roar in the midst of thy congregations;
they set up their ensigns for signs.

Through an occupation and the lowering of the Admiralty Ensign in 1967, the closing down of the Prime Minister Office and all the divisions of the Public Service in 1971 we see a rise in executive power. The entity “Australia” then seats into the Prime Minister and Cabinet with the Federal Executive Council moving up the ranks to sit in where the Department of Cabinet once was. Following all these changes we see the sacking of the entire Parliament of the Commonwealth and the installation of the Australian Government as power. An Executive Branch of Government installed in the place of the power of a united people.

A foreign executive had control of the Federal Parliament since 1975 and had named itself “Australia” taking on the role of Administration under the Rules of Usufruct of the Commonwealth of Australia that lay beneath it. In this the new “Australia” began to fracture the unity of the people, especially through sport with Kerry Packer helping introduce new Nationalised Cricket and Football, no longer playing for your district, the forgetting who you were became a Nationalised Game.

We can see through the following court transcript that the States lost their right as body politic to that of the Federal Commonwealth of Australia, with the Preamble describing the form of that unity as being of the people. No longer six separate body politic, the Commonwealth of Australia was a singular body politic of the people united. The States having no standing in the matter as defined by the preamble was the people in unity, not the State.

58. MAGISTRATES COURT MELBOURNE NO: A10780483
There have been suggestions that the Commonwealth of Australia and the States are separate bodies politic in the case of Re the Residential Tenancies Tribunal of NSW v Henderson; ex parte The Defence Housing Authority. 

These arguments were eventually rejected, the now seasoned view is that the Commonwealth and the States are creatures of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA which is consistent with the Commonwealth of Australia being one political community in which governmental power is divided between a number of governments, Commonwealth and State, rather than seven separate political communities.

It is difficult to reconcile any claim that the Constitution is an agreement between seven separate bodies politic with its words.  The Preamble, which can be taken into account in resolving ambiguities in the test of the Constitution, is inconsistent in two ways with the view that the Constitution is an agreement between seven sovereign bodies politic.

First, it identifies the parties to the Constitution as the people of the State rather than the States themselves. Secondly, it describes the people’s intention as being to unite in: one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under The Crown”; not seven separate bodies politic.  The fact remains, the States themselves were incorporated into this new body politic.  It is now generally agreed that their constitution are confirmed by and, as a consequence, owe their authority to the Constitution which they are now subjected.  More importantly because the States are subjected to the Constitution, the Commonwealth can seek to amend their constitutions and can even seek their abolition by means of the procedure for amending the Constitution in section 128, which is essentially a special procedure for exercising Commonwealth legislative power by the people.

The States do not have power to initiate constitutional change or prevent it for that matter.  The States are completely subject to the Constitution, and it is clear that the States are part of the people politically organized which the Constitution created rather than separate entities which predate and stand outside of that political organization.

The judicial power exercised in the State of Queensland is unequivocally derived from the Crown and not otherwise.

a) The Commonwealth of Australia is one body politic of the people.
b) The States are Public Entities and not bodies politic.
c) The people of the states did unite, not the Colonies which became States.
d) Colonies became States due to the Unity of the People in a Federal Body.
e) The Preamble in the Constitution Act defines a line of authority.
f) Clause 5 of the Constitution Act defines the States line of authority to the Commonwealth

This new “Australia” formed in 1973 saw this as a problem, and did everything in its power to change the power of the people, putting them back into incorporated State bodies. We can see at Clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA that through the Debates of Federation 1898 that the people had aligned all the former colonies under the judicial force of the people united in a Federal Commonwealth of Australia. A line of Authority is formed, and the states courts, judges and people came under the force of law of the Commonwealth of Australia.

It is through Clause 5 that the infiltration began with the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. A legislation that had no power of law at the time because the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) had already severed the UK power over the Commonwealth of Australia post Imperial Conference 1926 wherein the Commonwealth of Australia was signatory to a Treaty defining that separation of power. Prime Minister Robert Menzies had caused a blatant Act of Treason against the people of the Commonwealth of Australia by declaring war on behalf of a known foreign power at law and John Curtin upon acquiring office of Prime Minister saw to defining in the Commonwealth of Australia the specific action of Request and Consent due to this problem.

We have already looked at John Howards Treason against the people by following in Robert Menzies footsteps in promoting a Republic and the blatant treason of a Prime Minister attempting to remove a Head of State that he was in fact under Oath to. A direct and blatant attack according to King v Casement 1917 wherein John Howard openly admits to following in Robert Menzies ideals to compass the Crown of the Commonwealth of Australia.

59. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – CLAUSE 5
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s5.html
Operation of the Constitution and laws
This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

a) Robert Menzies did undermine the Line of Authority in the Commonwealth of Australia.
b) Statute of Westminster Act 1931 did sever Australia as a Sovereign entity from the United Kingdom.
c) Robert Menzies did allow changes to Her Majesties Ships of War and open the door to change the Authority of the States in the Australia Act 1986 without referendum of the People.

Manipulating the Line of Authority in Clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act saw changes to the Ships of War already declared as Commonwealth of Australia under Imperial Conference 1926. The Prime Minister John Curtin knew this given that Robert Menzies had declared war on behalf of the United Kingdom only 1 hour after the Prime Minister of Great Britain. John Curtin then followed these actions by putting Australian Troops in line with American Forces instead of the United Kingdom.

Clause 5 eventually saw the States request action to bring them in line with this newly founded “Australia” administration through the Australia Act 1986. It was the states now going outside of their given powers in federation. We can see above in court transcript that it is clear that as one body politic the states had no power as Public Service to be able to go outside of that body politic. What this means is that their actions in requesting the Australia (Request) Act 1985 are unconstitutional at the Federal level.

These changes would have required a referendum of the people in accordance with Section 128 of the Constitution at Clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA now separated from the United Kingdom as signatory to Imperial Conference 1926.

The States as Public Servants of the people now issued with Public Seals under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia under Great Seal of the Commonwealth of Australia had sought to undermine the people by joining up with this newly forged “Australia” administration.

60. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 108
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s108.html
Saving of State laws
Every law in force in a Colony which has become or becomes a State, and relating to any matter within the powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, shall, subject to this Constitution, continue in force in the State; and, until provision is made in that behalf by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, the Parliament of the State shall have such powers of alteration and of repeal in respect of any such law as the Parliament of the Colony had until the Colony became a State.


a) Every law in force in relation to the Parliament shall continue in force
b) Every law continuing in force is subject to the Constitution
c) Provision of the Commonwealth is required
d) Parliament of State has powers to Alter or Repeal Colonial Laws.

In separating from the Commonwealth of Australia and joining up in the body “Australia” as administration. The states had circumvented the rule of law and aligned themselves with a power foreign to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA. The people now treated as Citizens of the States, they attempt to act in the supposed authority of the constitution, but now under a foreign entity to the Commonwealth of Australia.

At Section 117 of the Constitution at Clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act we define the Rights of Residents in the States of that Commonwealth of Australia and can see that as subjects of the Queen (Queen Victoria) that as subjects of the Queen, and unto God, the people of the Commonwealth of Australia obligated to the Common Law as defined in the Judiciary Act 1903 Section 80 are to be treated equally without disability or discrimination. The people had united in the Grace of God, putting the Authorized King James Bible 1611 at the root of all law.

61. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 117
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s117.html
Rights of residents in States
A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.

a) Australians are Queens subjects.
b) Laws in force are subject to the Commonwealth
c) No disability or discrimination of the law.
d) Equally applicable as a subject regardless of State

The Constitution had also defined the recognition of the Laws, Public Act and record and judicial proceeding of the former Colonies as they became States of the Commonwealth of Australia. We can see by Section 118 of the Constitution at Clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA that full faith and credit shall be given throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, public Acts and record, and the judicial proceedings of these newly founded states under the singular body politic that is the Commonwealth of Australia.

What is separated is therefore separate. This in itself demonstrates that the Law is separate to Public Act and record demonstrating that the force of law is defined by the Common Law as per the Judiciary Act 1903 Section 80.

62. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 118
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s118.html
Recognition of laws etc. of States
Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State.

a) Faith and credit shall be given in Full
b) Laws, Public Acts and record, and judicial proceedings are separated, what is separated is therefore separate.
c) Proclomation of George V is demonstrative of separation creating Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia and other Realms and Territories.

The term “full faith and credit” opens up all the states to adhere to the rulings of not only the other states, but the Federal Commonwealth of Australia as well as other foreign law around the world. What this means is that other countries within the former British Empire are born from the same foundational laws, and credit must be given to the way they have dealt with things in law. This then also means that decisions in those other countries could reflect on how the Commonwealth of Australia and its States deal with decisions at law.

63. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
The recognition that must be accorded by the courts of one jurisdiction to the laws of another.  Australian courts are obliged to take judicial notice of the laws, public Acts and records, and judicial proceedings of each State: Commonwealth Constitution s 118. The High Court has rejected arguments that common law choice of law rules have been displaced for conflicts arising between the laws of Australian States and territories: McKain v R W Miller and Co (SA) Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 1 at 30-31, 34-37; 104 ALR 257.  See also Foreign Law. –Butterworths Australian Law Dictionary.

Foreign Law
The law of a jurisdiction outside the forum.  The court of the forum will assume that foreign law is identical to the law of the forum unless it is proved otherwise. Foreign law must be pleaded as a matter of fact: Asherberg, Hopwood and Crew Ltd v Casa [1971] 1 WLR 1128.  The Commonwealth Constitution s 118 in providing full faith and credit to State laws clearly overcomes the requirement of proving foreign law as between Australian States: Koob v Bebb (1951) 84 CLR 629.  See also Full faith and credit. –Butterworths Australian Law Dictionary.

Full Faith and Credit the Australian Experience.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ResJud/1954/12.pdf

The role of full faith and credit in the Federal Jurisdiction
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLawRw/1976/7.pdf

Investopedia
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/full-faith-credit.asp
Full faith and credit is a phrase used to describe the unconditional guarantee or commitment offered by an entity to back the interest and principal of another entity’s debt. The full faith and credit commitment is typically employed by a government to help lower borrowing costs of a smaller, less stable government or of a government-sponsored agency.

a) The court must acknowledge other States Laws.
b) The court must acknowledge and consider Foreign Laws.
c) What separates is therefore separate. Laws, Public Acts and records, and judicial proceedings are separate jurisdictions.

By defining what is separate in Law and Public Act and record, we can define that the Law is not a Public Act. The Public Service are the ones obligated to Public Act and record as the Servants of the People, and working in a Crown Corporation Sole are employees of an incorporated body obligated to the Policy of that body corporate. This is important when we look at Gods Words speaking of the person of a man, we could therefore see the person as the account of man within the corporate body. This would be much like requiring an account to rent a video from a video store, you are not a member without the account, and you need the account to manage the trade dealings of borrowing videos.

In the case of the States of the Commonwealth of Australia, they are under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA and the “person” is the account of a Corporation Sole vested in the Monarch for the purposes of International Trade, the benefits to the Men of God through this person are numerous but include the ability to aqcuire the use of Public Assets such as Electricity, Gas, Water, Land Title, and of course the ability to take part in Trade and Commerce through the International Waters at which the Commonwealth of Australia as a body was raised up out of.

We can see through Acts Interpretation Act 1962 of Queensland that Acts passed by the Colony before it was a State defined that all Acts of this Public Body were defined as Public Acts and Record. When Queensland was a former Colony of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland it was under the Law of England at Westminster. It was for all purpose a Public Entity in which Public Servants were employed and its employees obligated to the Public Act and record defined in its growth as a Public Body of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The unity of the people into a Commonwealth of Australia saw this public body of State become party to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 at which Clause 8 defined that body in whole as a colony of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. We can see by this action alone that the States of the Commonwealth of Australia lost their right as body politic to the greater in the Commonwealth of Australia as a colony of the former motherland. It is the Imperial Conference 1926 that saw the Commonwealth of Australia separate into its own sovereign body under Treaty within that conference as a result of the actions of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia during the Great War 1914-1918.

63. ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1962 (QLD)
11. Acts to be public Acts.
Every Act passed after the twenty-sixth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two, shall be deemed and taken to be a public Act and shall be judicially noticed as such unless the contrary is expressed by the Act.

Public Act – Websters
(Law) an act or statute affecting matters of public concern. Of such statutes the courts take judicial notice. – Websters.

Public Law – Merriam Webster
1: a legislative enactment affecting the public at large
2: a branch of law concerned with regulating the relations of individuals with the government and the organization and conduct of the government itself

a) Public Acts are used to regulate the Public.
b) Subjects of the Monarch are not Members of the Public unless in Office
c) Public Acts relate to the organization and conduct of the government itself.

If we then look at this “Australian Government” and its statements on the interpretation of Acts we can see that in its administrative capacity it states that every act must be read and construed subject to the Constitution. We have a conundrum here in that they always speak of the “Australian Constitution” post 1973 and as we have seen by the actions of John Howard did attempt to con the people into subverting the Line of Authority defined in the Schedule Oath and subsequently the Preamble to the Constitution Act by going to referendum in 1999 with two questions designed to remove a Line of Authority from the people themselves.

We can see here that they state that in some circumstances an Act may be read down or read as if it did not contain any invalid provisions, yet have failed to address a line of authority as determined in the Treaty of Versailles 1919 and Imperial Conference 1926. We have also seen how the Preamble must be read in whole as a part of the Act, at which the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution forms as an Act in whole the agreement stemming out of Debates of Federation of the people in 1898.

64. THE INTERPRETATION OF ACTS
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice6/Practice6HTML?file=Chapter10&section=09&fullscreen=1
Construction of Acts subject to the Constitution
Every Act must be read and construed subject to the Constitution, and so as not to exceed the legislative power of the Commonwealth.[517] In some circumstances an Act may be read down or read as if it did not contain any invalid provisions, so that it may be given effect to the extent that it is not in excess of the power of the Commonwealth.[518]

Regard to purpose or object of Act
In interpreting a provision of an Act, an interpretation that would best achieve the purpose or object of the Act, whether expressly stated in the Act or not, is to be preferred.[519] The purpose of an Act may be stated in an objects clause, its long title and, if one exists, the preamble. A preamble does not have separate legislative effect, but may be used for clarification if the meaning of a section is unclear.

a) An Act must not exceed the power of the Commonwealth
b) Preamble does not have separate legislative effect
c) The purpose of an Act may be stated in its Preamble
d) A Preamble is used for clarification of the meaning of the Act

We are taught to hold to the Spirit of the Law rather than the Letter of the Law and we can see here that this “Australian Government” attempts to stick to the Letter of the Law, and how it through its legal practice wholly believes in the Secular without God. It holds people to their persons and forces upon them never to take this mask off and realise the Spirit in the law that is defined by Quick and Garren and others to form the very foundations under the blessing of Almighty God.

When it comes to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution and the body politic of the people, we have discovered that the States are not singular body politic and the Commonwealth cannot be considered seven separate body politic. The people united in a Federal Commonwealth and the States were defined as Public Service under that single body politic of the people.

We also see that in transcript before the Melbourne Courts that this is well known precedent that is defined in Case Law. We can determine from this that the States requests for the Australia (Request) Act 1985 are therefore in themselves an act of Treachury against the people by subverting the body politic that is the people in an attempt to change the Commonwealth of Australia constitutionally. The States sought powers over and above the people without referendum of the people that led to the Australia Act 1986.

If we were then to look at Section 7 of the Australia Act 1986 we can see how the Governors of the States are removed from a line of authority at which the Premiers gain power and the States therefore unlinked from the Sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia into this administration government formed in 1973 as “Australia”.

We will further look into the incorporation of the States themselves in Bankruptcy Administration. What we can see through this post is that the States are not separate body politic and through the Commonwealth of Australia are obligated to referendum under Section 128 of Clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act in their request for the Australia (Request) Act 1986.

We can also define that Law and Public Act and record are two very distinct and separate things at which the States are defined to only be able to create Public Act and record and seal by Public Seal those creations as Public Service. We can see that Law is held by the Commonwealth of Australia through the Common Law as defined in the Judiciary Act 1903 Section 80 and the States are obligated to acknowledge that Common Law.

As we move through these facts, when held together as one discovery of the facts can demonstrate that the States have subverted the Line of Authority in the Commonwealth of Australia against the will of the people and without referendum of the people and have since that time acted as singular body politic holding the people under Public Act and record and not the law of the Commonwealth of Australia.




Visits: 319

1 thought on “Facts Part 16

  1. For those of you that have purchased shirts from the online store, I thankyou very much. As you are aware I have been charged under Public Act and record within the State of Queenslandand have been put before the Magistrates Court of Queensland at which they have delayed due process and the law for over seven months now since first being given Notice to Appear.

    Because of the actions of this process, I have filed in the District Court of Queensland in relation to failures of justice and the actions of the Queensland Police Service and the Criminal Acts of Officers. Most people only think about themselves, so I thank those of you supporting this process as it has been done due to the silence of this Government for over a decade of asking questions. I especially thank Matt and Graeme who in their own ways have helped me immensely.

    Yesterday alone cost over one hundred dollars just to travel, print, post and file documents and we arent even before the courts yet. So I appeal to all and sundry to donate (see the Donations tab above) so that I can continue this without stress. I am seeking answers that have not been forthcoming from this Government in its complete silence. Answers that should have been openly given as proof something nefarious is not happening. They have been unwilling to speak up at which we have assumed within our right to believe something nefarious is going on.

    So in appeal to all of you, I do need your help to see this through. Every little bit helps, and every little bit ensures that this can be done properly and to the full extent of the law without hindrance or issue. The Magistrates Court has yet to even set a trial date almost 8 months later. And the District Court will see its first sitting on the matters in 3 weeks time. I am prepared to take over a year dealing with this, but cannot do so without all of your support. As I have said, every little bit helps, so please spread the word.

    My intentions are to keep publishing the facts in relation to the Constitutional Law, and am open to your feedback in relation to rebuttal of these facts. We are half way through posting the facts so far laid out, and will add to these facts with what has been contributed in these court matters. By the end of all of this, you will see it all published and on this blog (which also needs to be paid for to stay online) and will continue so that you can get a full picture. Without social media arguing all the time, you will be able to read and define from this blog everything.

    Thankyou to all that have purchased from the store so far. When i get a chance ill add some more designs. All your donations and purchases are welcomed as we go through this very difficult challenge which eventually will see the Supreme Court and Federal Court over the constitutional matters involved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © All rights reserved. | Newsphere by AF themes.