Throughout the posts already made we have hinted at, and especially with comments from former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, have shown Australian Sovereignty to be a real and tangible realisation. There are many scholars and historians that speak of Australia and its history through the Great War of World War I yet fail to address the legal standing of that Australia in International Law.
Going in to the Great War 1914, the Commonwealth of Australia was a colony of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as can be demonstrated by Clause 8 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA. Coming out of the war however, saw the colonies and the motherland attend conferences over the Treaties at Versailles in 1919. This included the Covenant of the League of Nations signed at Versailles but also triggered several Imperial Conferences to deal with the division of the Empire into independent sovereign entities.
Armistice of the War had occurred late the year before at 11am on the 11th November 1918 when the guns fell silent and an Armistice for Peace declared. The Nations of the World gathered and Peace Treaties were signed 28th July 1919 at Versailles which included membership with the League of Nations.
We can see by the Covenent of the League of Nations that preservation of existing political independance and that by Article 10 of the Covenant this ideal is protected against aggression and that the League of Nations Council is to advise on how to manage cases of threat or danger to member nations.
From Article 22 we can define that in the signing of the Treaties at Versailles in World Peace the global landscape changed and the British Empire was divided into 54 member states of the Commonwealth of British Nations wherein the Member Nation ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them.
This defines the Commonwealth of Australia as signatory to the Covenant of the League of Nations 1919 and party to the Treaties at Versailles 1919 and therefore an independent and sovereign country no longer under the sovereignty of the Motherland. We can visually see this in the actions of the Statute of Westminster 1931 after the Imperial Conferences 1917-1930.
96. COVENENT OF LEAGUE OF NATIONS 1919
ARTICLE 10. The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
ARTICLE 22. To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant….
a) The Commonwealth of Australia was a founding Member of the League of Nations
b) The Commonwealth of Australia had political independence on joining
c) The Commonwealth of Australia ceased to be under Sovereignty of the State that formerly governed it.
The Commonwealth of Australia in being a founding member of the League of Nations would later in 1944 also introduce the United Nations in legislation before the existence of the United Nations in law becoming a founding member of the United Nations.
What is clear is that the Great War 1914-1918 not only had an impact in the sense of war and battle, but in the Armistice of such a dirty and bloody war, became the pivotal point for a large change to the way the world worked as a whole. Large empires of the Ottomans and the British Empires being divided in post war armistice with items like the Balfour Agreements dividing up the lands of these former governing bodies.
The Commonwealth of Australia had during the famine of the 1890s stepped towards Debates of Federation to discuss the workings of Henry Parkes in forging a Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia out of the former colonies that were suffering financially during hard times disconnected from London. This led to William M Hughes standing up in his role as Prime Minister in defence of the Commonwealth against United States President Woodrow Wilson.
In the years after the Commonwealth of Australia was defined as a Sovereign and independent country among the international community question of the ownership of land within the States of the Commonwealth was put before the courts. In Commonwealth v NSW 1923 we can see that the King has the land as Lord Paramount and items of profit such as Mining, or Forestry by virtue of his prerogative. What this demonstrates is that in 1923 it was fully recognised that the King held title in the whole land being the Commonwealth of Australia contains the States and that the States are not independent from the Commonwealth of Australia.
97. Commonwealth v NSW (1923) 32 CLR 200
The Act thus empowers the Commonwealth to acquire by compulsory process any land the property of a State. The sole question is what meaning is to be given to the phrase “land the property of a State”? The Act contains no limitation on the meaning of the phrase. It does not distinguish between the title which the King has in the land as the Lord Paramount (Co. Lit., 65a) and the title which he has in royal metals by virtue of his prerogative.
The words Lord Paramount were first used as a term of feudal law, of the overlord, the lord paramount, who held his fief from no superior lord, and was thus opposed to a mesne lord, one who held fief from a superior.
a) The Commonwealth contains the States
b) The Title of the King holds the land as Lord Paramount by virtue of prerogative.
Quick and Garren note that the States have what is known as Quasi-Sovereignty, they are self governing former colonies that look like they have a full sovereignty but in fact at the time Quick and Garren discussed this premise were lower entities to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
We know through the progression of events that happened post the Great War 1914-1918 that the Commonwealth of Australia established its independence from the former state which governed it and forged its own Sovereignty in the International Community.
98. QUASI TRADITION
civil law. A term used to designate that a person is in the use of the property of another, which the latter suffers and does not oppose. Lec. Elein. 396. It also signifies the act by which the right of property is ceded in a thing to a person who is in possession of it; as, if I loan a boat to Paul, and deliver it to him, and afterwards I sell him the boat, it is not requisite that he should deliver the boat to me, to be again delivered to him there is a quasi tradition or delivery.
[Latin, Almost as it were; as if; analogous to.] In the legal sense, the term denotes that one subject has certain characteristics in common with another subject but that intrinsic and material differences exist between them.
A Quasi Contract is an obligation invoked by law in the absence of an agreement. Its purpose is to create a legal duty where, in fact, no promise or agreement was entered into by the parties.
Magistrates courts have stated that the people are Quasi-Criminal, they look like criminals in relation to the law, but are not standing under God. It is in the peoples ignorance that they are treated as Quasi-Criminals wherein God had defined that the people were not under the law, but under the Grace of God.
Galatians 4 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
4 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
We can see the impact this had on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as it sat through Imperial Conferences after the war and defined the separation of the Crown Estates.
You can see in the appendix to the conference the signatories and treaty that was forged during the conference.
99. IMPERIAL CONFERENCE 1926 (BALFOUR DECLARATION)
Signature. In the cases where the names of countries are appended to the signatures in a treaty, the different parts of the Empire should be designated in the same manner as is proposed in regard to the list of plenipotentiaries in the preamble to the treaty. The signatures of the plenipotentiaries of the various parts of the Empire should be grouped together in the same order as is proposed above. The signature of a treaty on behalf of a part of the Empire should cover territories for which a mandate has been given to that part of the Empire, unless the contrary is stated at the time of the signature.
His Majesty the King [ title of above ] : for Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate Members of the League (of Nations) , AB. for the Dominion of Canada, CD. for the Commonwealth of Australia, EF. for the Dominion of New Zealand, GH. for the Union of South Africa, IJ. for the Irish Free State, KL. for India, MN
a) The Commonwealth of Australia was signatory to the Treaty prepared out of the Imperial Conference 1926.
b) Imperial Conference 1926 led to Statute of Westminster 1931
The Commonwealth of Australia is defined by title as a commonwealth within the treaty that was formed out of the Imperial Conference 1926. This saw the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland start to address the governance of the former colonies including the Commonwealth of Australia.
This leads to the Statute of Westminster 1931 which defines the limitations of the UK Parliament in Westminster. We can see that the Statute of Westminster 1931 stops dead in the water the ability for the UK Parliament to legislate or define law for the Commonwealth of Australia as well as all former colonies such as Canada and New Zealand.
100. STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER 1931
And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion:
And whereas it is necessary for the ratifying, confirming and establishing of certain of the said declarations and resolutions of the said Conferences that a law made and enacted in due form by authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:
And whereas the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland have severally requested and consented to the submission of a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom for making such provision with regard to the matters aforesaid as is hereafter in this Act contained:
2(1) The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion.
2(2) No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the Law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the Dominion.
3. It is hereby declared and enacted that the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation.
4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
5. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, sections seven hundred and thirty-five and seven hundred and thirty-six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be construed as though reference therein to the Legislature of a British posession did not include reference to the Parliament of a Dominion. 6. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, section four of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, (which required certain laws to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty’s pleasure or to contain a suspending clause), and so much of section seven of that Act as requires the approval for His Majesty in Council to any rules of Court for regulating the practice and procedure of a Colonial Court of Admiralty, shall cease to have effect in any Dominion as from the commencement of this Act.
a) The Colonial Court of Admiralty did cease to have effect in the Commonwealth of Australia
b) The Commonwealth of Australia did request and consent to the severing of the United Kingdom ability to rule over the Commonwealth of Australia.
c) Ratification of Imperial Conferences confirming Sovereignty of Commonwealth of Australia
d) The United Kingdom did sever any ability to make law for the Commonwealth of Australia
e) The Commonwealth of Australia by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia was independent in its own right.
While new and fresh in the minds of the justice and political spectrum this notion of independence is further challenged in relation to the Sugar Industry in Queensland. Anderson had complained about the process and management of the Sugar Industry and had entered the justice system in a bid to impress upon the State that he had a right to influence the decisions of the Sugar Industry.
We can see by the following quote from the case that the people are defined as natural-born subjects of the King and resident in Australia, it is further defined that Anderson is not a member of the public and therefore not being a public servant did not have a right and the action was dismissed brevi-manu.
What this demonstrated was that the subjects of the king had representation in public servants to speak for them and that influencing an industry by proclaiming a right as a subject and not only resident in Australia but in Queensland as well. The second point is goes on to clarify NSW v Commonwealth 1923 where in the land paramount is maintained by the monarch. Anderson v Commonwealth 1932 defines the States of the Commonwealth of Australia as being delivered by the short hand to the Commonwealth.
101. Anderson v Commonwealth (1932) 47 CLR 50
He founds his right to complain upon the allegation that he is a member of the public. It is, perhaps, no ungeneourous to understand this as meaning that he is a natural-born subject of the King resident in Australia who pays taxes and consumes sugar. Dixon J. considered that the plaintiff disclosed no title to maintain a suit for any relief in respect of the agreement, and exercised jurisdiction to dismiss the action brevi manu.
a) The Commonwealth owns the States
b) A subject of the King is not a Member of the Public
c) A Member of the Public is a Public Servant
This defined the Commonwealth of Australia as the owner of the State of Queensland as per the preamble (and Clause 8) to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA.
We can see by the definition of Traditio Brevi Manu defines delivery by the short hand to the Commonwealth. The asset of the former colony became the Commonwealth of Australia through constitution and there is no requirement to define “double delivery” or handover to the Commonwealth of Australia.
102. TRADITIO BREVI MANU
Latin, meaning “delivery with the short hand.” Traditio brevi manu or “delivery with the short hand” refers to the act of a person, to whom an item is transferred, who is already in possession of the item but not as the owner of the item. The concept prevents the need for a needless “double delivery” for a party to take ownership of an item they already have in their possession. It is a constructive or implied delivery.
contracts, civil law. The act by which a thing is delivered by one or more persons to one or more others. 2. In sales it is the delivery of possession by the proprietor with an intention to transfer the property to the receiver. Two things are therefore requisite in order to transmit property in this way: 1. The intention or consent of the former owner to transfer it; and, 2. The actual delivery in pursuance of that intention. 3. Tradition is either real or symbolical. The first is where the ipsa corpora of movables are put into the hands of the receiver. Symbolical tradition is used where the thing is incapable of real delivery, as, in immovable subjects, such as lands and houses; or such as consist in jure (things incorporeal) as things of fishing and the like. The property of certain movables, though they are capable of real delivery, may be transferred by symbol. Thus, if the subject be under look and key, the delivery of the key is considered as a legal tradition of all that is contained in the repository. . 4. In the common law the term used in the place of tradition is delivery.
A close translation or formation from the Latin “traditio.” 2 Bl. Comm. 307. The tradition or delivery is the transferring of the thing sold into the power and possession of the buyer. Civ. Code La. art. 2477. In the rule respecting the admission of tradition or general reputation to prove boundaries, questions of pedigree, etc., this word means knowledge or belief derived from the statements or declarations of contemporary witnesses and handed down orally through a considerable period of time.TRADITIO LONGA MANU
Latin, meaning “delivery with the long hand.” Traditio longa manu or “delivery with the long hand” refers to the act of delivery of a transferring party to the receiving party who does not yet have the object in their possession. For example, if a party purchases a car from an auto dealer that is on the auto dealer’s lot, the transferror auto dealer will deliver the vehicle to the transferee/purchaser at the purchaser’s home.
One should now be able to see what the definition of Traditional Owner actually means when God defines the people as Naked Owners. Traditio is defined as trade, the handing of something into the possession of the buyer. A Traditional Owner therefore at law is the one that traded the possession or the original owner.
The true Traditional Owner within Australia are the subjects of the Commonwealth of Australia that saw the Commonwealth of Australia handed over to a foreign admiralty on the 1st March 1967. After the closing of the Prime Ministers Office and all Public Service Divisions one through four in 1971 it becomes a little clearer when we look at what eventually happened under Gough Whitlam in 1973.
The receiving party became an Administrator under the Rules of Usufruct as per the Rules of Land Warfare Article 55 of the Hague Conventions. The debt of the Commonwealth of Australia was now under the Administration of an occupying and foreign government under a foreign crown and the people brainwashed to forget the past only leaving themselves doomed to repeat it.
This foreign power has attempted to attack the Imperial Crown Realms continuously since the time of Queen Elizabeth and her staunch establishment of reformation away from the papal faith. King James I defined the Word of God in the English Tongue at which the Pope declared owning a bible as a crime and banned ownership of anything except the Latin Catholic Vulgate. The Crown was attacked in the Gunpowder Plot in 1606, the Plague of London in 1665, and the burning of the Kings Seat of Government in the Fires of London 1666. This led to the Cestui Que Act defining those lost at holy see defining those still lost in the herecy of the Catholic Papal Faith to be lost yet to return to the Realm of England.