2021 marks a time where the people have been engaged to follow a direction by government to heed the warnings of a danger to health and adopt a set of practices developed by experts. The design of such an approach would seem plausible if not recommended, but the encroachment upon rights by dictates of government poses a threat of ongoing erosion of one’s sovereignty, one step at a time, where ultimately we arrive at the door of tyranny.

The push to implement the health scheme is laced with the slogans that include the phrases “protect the people”, “to do the right thing” and “follow the evidence based science”, to which principles I highly regard for consideration.

Upon closer inspection the vigour to which this subject is being promoted, or may be it said foisted, upon a community raises the eyebrow of concern for the extent to which one’s personal rights and freedoms are being overridden.

Are we trading one thing for another to which we may suffer needlessly and to which such rights and freedoms may be forfeited forever? Whatever the scheme, be benign, or be with mal-intent, it has to be be sold to the masses in order for the change in direction to occur.

At the outbreak of AIDS a successful campaign was undertaken to educate the public on the effect of contracting the virus which had a high infection rate and deadly consequences at the time. The message was delivered via various media, to which the people largely took precautions and that was very much it. The people were given adequate notice and acted accordingly.

Today the message is delivered with extreme threats of intimidation where the infection rate is modest and the fatality is almost non-existent among the healthy and rises according to one’s chronic health disposition or one’s increasing maturity of years above seventy.

After the financial crisis of 2008, the Queen was advised at the Bank of England of the reason why the public suffered the event of the financial crash. This advice, tendered to the Queen, is one of universal concern, and it plays its part in diverse fields, and that concern is complacency:

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge,” Hosea 4:6

“Are we free to have open discussion on the issue thats affect our lives without interference and directions by others, especially government?

“He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is led astray.” Proverbs 5:23

The duty that we owe to one another, in our society, is to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth and maintain its dignity. Such obligation is briefly stated at the fifth clause of the foundation law established in 1900:

Cl.5. “This Act,  …. , shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth ….” (underlined for emphasis)

The Act is not only our contract with one another, but the strict limits of power placed upon a federal government operating under our authority. It is our duty that we carry at all times to be vigilant, to avoid deception and which are principles to safeguard ourselves and avoid the downfall from complacency.

Articles are posted on this site, Our Commonwealth, for your attention and illumination in order to be equipped in order to fulfil the common duty expressed at the above-stated the fifth clause. Of note, refer to Our Common Mandate, posted within, for your consideration with greater details.

In line with the common mandate, there is, likewise, the perpetual obligation of the Crown, embodied in the office of the Queen, is found at the second clause:

Cl.2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

The qualification in this mandate, that needs careful regard, is the identity of the Queen in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom meaning the representation of Her Majesty may only be performed as the Queen of United Kingdom, where it is necessarily applies to the Governor-General and from there, every aspect of office-holding within the Commonwealth, including that of the judiciary.

With the identification of the law that requires the maintenance of the Commonwealth as established 1900, other than those changes by referendum amendments along the way, it is clear that this arrangement of our society is one and perpetual by right to each and every one of us.

Hidden In Plain Sight

The foundation law, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, sets up machinery of government and instrumentalities under the Commonwealth, but:

• The federal parliament no longer go by the name, the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
• The federal government no longer goes by the name, the Commonwealth Government.
• The national gazette no longer goes by the name, the Commonwealth Gazette.
• The federal police no longer goes by the name, the Commonwealth Federal Police.
• The Federal court has never gone by the name, the Federal Court of the Commonwealth when established in 1976.

Should these circumstances be of concern?
Has anyone picked up on these fundamental changes away from the Commonwealth?
And, when did these events of change occur?
Is public notice and information written about for the legal name change?
Was it complacency and does it matter?

The Whitlam Agenda & 1973

A sea change occurred in 1971 to sweep Labor to power with the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, influenced by the Justice Murphy. What began in 1972 under the cloak of secrecy was a revolution in the dismantling of the Commonwealth, and removing the presence of the Crown in Australia’s affairs. These letters of communication were kept Secret in the National Archives for two whole decades being released from that condition in March 2004, for a non-disclosed but reason that this author understands and is privy to, where you might say; “The game was up”.

Former Senator, ‘Australian’ Rod Culleton, presents a three part series on the passage of secret letters between the Whitlam government, and the Queen ministers abroad, in removing the Crown and Commonwealth: (Part 1), (Part 2), (Part 3)

The Commonwealth is the legal name by which the people of the several former colonies would be known as one society instead of several. It would also, more importantly, identify the authority by which the society would be governed, …. itself.

The people would be the authority for which the government and courts serve and the Queen, representing the Crown and God, would be the standard of law that it may not deviate from, that is, …. the law of the Bible and the ancient maxims of law.

That standard of law is how the Crown is meant to protect and for which the Queen serves, and how the taking of oaths to the Queen compels each oath-taker to the same performance of law as the Queen.

Gough Whitlam is reported to have said that he was modernising the name of Australia, concealing the gravity of the steps taken to remove the term, Commonwealth, from the law books and name of institutions in contravention of the law of the Constitution for the Commonwealth. The Institutions were renamed to be:

• The Parliament of Australia
• The Government of Australia
• The Australian Gazette
• The Australian Federal Police
• and so on ….

That Gough Whitlam took steps to conceal the extent of the change from the people and rename institutions under the authority of the federal government itself is cause for criminal investigations.

But the multi-million dollar question now begs:

If the federal government is not the government recognised within and under the Constitution for the Commonwealth then where does it draw its power and authority?

This author knows of no other instrument of authority to govern the Australian people other than the foundation law establishing the Commonwealth dated 1900. Freedom of Information searches have revealed that the government currently rely on this same founding document that has celebrated its centenary in 2001, all the time the Commonwealth had been unconstitutionally, and illegally, terminated by the Labor government in 1973.

Co-Conspirators

In 1984 the Labor government that were in power in all the States formed a plan, a genuine conspiracy, to remove the States out of the Commonwealth by removing the Crown form all the institutions drawing power through the Governor of their respective State. Hence the Australia Act 1986 was foisted upon a complacent people where no announcement was made to inform of the removal of protections as set out within the inalterable law of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.

Such acts of treason, sedition and treachery invoked, upon all the conspirators, their removal of office who had held office by oath to Her Majesty, the effect of which, amongst other things, invalidates the passage of the Australia Bill itself. More of this is presented in the article: Mutiny, States of Affairs.

A Constitutional Committee was set up in the mid-80’s to review the constitutional circumstances that came to be and make recommendations is going forward. Published in two volume and totalling approximately two thousand pages, it found numerous irregularities and proposed bills to pass the ‘Australian Parliament’ to bring the irregularities in to law by referendae. Clearly, this amounts to a confession of constitutional violations and illegalities.

This never saw the light of day as the game would have been exposed, and left to die a lonely death. These reports are not meant to be readily found, whereafter a great effort this author came to find it in the Austlii law repository website under Indigenous Resources. ???

The fact is that the government is ruling, not for the Commonwealth of Australia but for Australia, that is ‘Australia’ of its own perceived authority, without the Commonwealth and without law. It pretends authority and masquerades as the Commonwealth when it is clearly not.

The Australian people have been lied to and cheated by the successive governments including those of the several States. It seems that the Labor governments of the States are pushing the subservience of the people with the greatest enthusiasm, perhaps the underlying agenda has been decades deep and intrinsic in its platform.

It gives a new meaning to the slogan,: Up the Workers!

The whole scheme that has been foisted upon the population has been allowed to perpetuate itself because of the clever disguise it adopted, that of the Commonwealth, where the unsuspecting people are unwittingly committing the crime of sedition by contempt of the Sovereign, the Constitution and the Parliament of the Commonwealth. That is the legal outcome of ‘generally accepting’ the pretended jurisdiction of ‘Australia’ without the Commonwealth and Crown.

When the once sovereign Australian people grow to realise that their sovereignty had been stolen, and that they had been relegated to the class of servant, I believe that the Labor Party will be thrown to the dustbin of history and the Liberal Party will never be able to claim it’s once proud stance for the Rule of Law, very much promoted in the Menzie’s era of the 50’s to mid 60’s.

NP

Well May We Say:

God Save the Queen, as Nothing Will Save the Labor Party.

‍