Do we pay tax to shareholders of Australia the Company?

Made some recent contributions to a thread by Bullion Barron in the Memebers only general discussion thread(Join up so you can read such discussions ) here recently about the RBA and made the point in a post that "The Commonwealth of Australia" was a registered corporation in the U.S, a fact that not many people know. Sure there are many explanations of why that particular name should be registered as a company but it also begs the question of why the Commonwealth of Australia is a registered company and who the shareholders of said company are, it has a prospectus, files an annual report, copy righted seals and emblems etc. http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-e...000805157&type=&dateb=&owner=include&count=20

I came across this site earlier tonight following up info in a thread by boneyard in the current affairs subforum and it really brings into question the validity of so much that everyone takes for granted about Government. Just who is in control of our lives ? And which Government ? The corporate one with apparently no basis in law or the constitutional one which so far as I am aware was not dissolved by referendum and supposedly still exists.

Have a good look through this guy's website and see if you come out the other side with as many unanswered questions as I did. I watched the full video on the home page and it is basically the story of an Aussie guy in Perth who just wanted to import a car from the U.S and initially challenged the cost of having his cars aircon gas decanted in the U.S as a requirement of import but which then snowballs into a very credible and valid undermining of just what and who LAW is in Australia. And just what and who the Government of Australia really is, A Corporation acting as a mirror of or an actual lawful entity under the Australian Constitution? Some really very valid questions met by nothing more than silence.

http://www.truth-now.net/index.html

 

Morning bump.

The website in question is full of good stuff and well presented and well worth spending some time diving in.

 

Sign this petition to the queen.
Needs 2000
Has 1500+

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/One_Simple_Question_Is_The_Australian_Government_Lawful/

 

What's the definition of a company?

A group of people delivering goods and/or services. What does the Oz government do? Provides services to the population, principally in the area of protection services but it's branching out into others. The only difference from other companies is that it forces us to pay, whereas other companies have to ask for our money.

I don't know what this magical "government" creature is that everyone seems to think exists. Obviously, it's just another company, but it gets away with what others can't because people seem to have this delusion that it's somehow special.

The problem is not that the Oz government is a company, it's that people thought it was somehow something else. Something apparently special that people had control of or something. That's the delusion.

 

I find it amazing that so many folks are falling into this trap of thinking that because the Commonwealth has registered itself as a company in another jurisdiction so that it can take advantage of trade and investment and cross-border advantages available in that jurisdiction, and to ensure that it and its sovereign rights can be legally protected and enforced in that jurisdiction using the legal fiction of a company, that ipso facto, the commonwealth has suddely become a company within Australia.

It's pretty clear why the cwth files an annual report in the USA, to answer the OP. What that has to do with it's existence in Aus though bemuses me.

I've been through that site and it's interesting but a lot of the information on it is fundamentally flawed. The arguments mounted are illogical, based on fundamentally wrong premises and do not stand scrutiny.

 

.

 

They have perfected 'Catch-22'
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G41SJUIawVo[/youtube]

You don't have to pay an illegal government charges it levies but the illegal government determines if it is an illegal government and if you have to pay the levies.

They still have his car then.

 

IMHO, No. Interesting reading and lots of history (which are the interesting bits) which is then (again imho) deliberately distorted or manipulated

 

A few key points to ponder over:

They are a defacto government that are not operating Constitutionally.

The constitution being the contract that We the People have with all Government officers that we believe they are operating under

The office of lawful government is currently vacant but not removed from the people. We just need to fill it.

As a registered foreign corporation they are not representative or answerable to the people, but to foreign shareholders as the beneficiary's of our enslavement

We contract with them unknowingly and become "a resident officer holding office" of their corporate jurisdiction

We are now also deemed as foreigners and therefore taxable

We now have now subjugated our inalienable rights as people of the commonwealth to be bound by their corporate constitution - statutes, codes, bylaws etc

Our birth right to an equal share of the commonwealth of this land is being unclaimed by us and is up for grabs

They are as per the constitution, supposed to be protecting our birth right

 

Why then no answer or simple proof provided by the various Government departments when questioned ? And under law which is the legal government ? That which is registered as a corporation or that which exists under the constitution ? They sure as hell ain't the same entity.

 

My main take on the local info is the 3 steps to take in communicating your questions to them via a notice.

Process to start.

http://www.truth-now.net/process.htm


Step 1

http://www.truth-now.net/notice1.htm

Step 2

http://www.truth-now.net/notice2.htm

Step 3

http://www.truth-now.net/notice3.htm

follow up ........

http://www.truth-now.net/followup.htm


Comments?

 

@ boneyard & southerncross, all of which starts from a false premise, ie that the "corporate entity" is somehow different to the entity incorporated under the Constitution Act. The allocation of an ACN/ABN has nothing to do with the validity of a corporation's incorporation under the relevant legislation creating that corporation (aka body corporate)

@ southerncross the local government was, is, and until the federal constitution is amended by referendum, always will be incorporated under the States' constitutions and reserved powers. Has nothing to do with the cwth constitution and never has.

 

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 109
Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Why then was it necessary to alter the Constitution for recognition of local Government to be included in two defeated referendums ? There is no allowance for a third tier of Government.

If as you state the Australian Parliament corporate entity and it's subsidiary's are acting within constitutional law why then is it so hard for them to produce evidence of such when asked ? Why do they operate under a different seal, Is the Constitution the supreme law of Australia or not ?

 

Im not sure your correct XB . Theres just too much new evidence coming to light about it ..You seem sure of it are you a lawyer ? if you are i suggest you get down to the wording of our constitution .

SCs first paragraph says it all ^^^^ & you dont have to be well educated to understand it .

I think because its not well known tptb will give you disinformation all day long to protect their scam & its not something you would learn at uni doing a law course .

There comes a time when enough is enough its happening all over the world i feel the next decade will be australias time for action against the draconian laws they are passing eroding peoples freedoms & rights . They are getting out of control & the breaking point is in the near future i believe . If & its a big if .The people who are instilled with fear rise up & act .

Theres many things going on to fight new legislations that not many people know about & they are winning .Its only the hype you hear about not the wins by the people . The bikers laws are just one example.

Like i mentioned in another thread the principality of hutt river knew what they could do & done it in the 1970s .They are not answerable to the ato have their own passports that the government dont "officially recognise" but "approve them for travel on a case by case basis" They wouldnt let them use their own passport if it wasnt legit You dont have to be a harvard educated lawyer to understand if they could shut the place down they would . ....But they dont you know why ? THEY CANT

 

Not sure why that's relevant? What is the inconsistency that requires you to quote that section?

The key word there is recognition. That's all the referendum was about. Not how they were governed or the extent of the powers, just acknowledging that councils/local governments exist.

We never had a referendum on making them legal - they were always legal since they were created under the respective State's constitutions, not the Commonwealth's Constitution - and you would know that whatever powers were not expressly given to the Commonwealth (predominately under s51) were reserved to the States.

So the states always had the power to create or dissolve or change local governments, and have used that power consistently.

We had a referendum "To alter the Constitution to recognise local government." That's it. Not create a new level of government, but rather to recognise, within the federal constitution, something which existed and was allowed under the state constitutions.

Or as it was put by the Electoral Commission:

"The Constitution recognises government at the Commonwealth and State levels but makes no mention of local government. Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988 sought to give such constitutional recognition to local government."

Had that question been carried, the legislative change to the constitution, as I understand it, would have been to enact a new s119A:

"Each state shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the state, and empowered to administer, and make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the state".

So it's not that local governments are illegal or as you are suggesting "unconstitutional", it's merely that they are not formally recognised within the federal constitution. But since they are created, and managed by the States under their respective constitutions, the recognition or otherwise under the federal constitution is of no consequence. Even if the referendum had passed, all it would have done, as you can see, was say, "hey guys, there's local governments also in our multi-layer system of government, and these local governments are managed by the states".

 

@ renovator - I've addressed the why several times in a number of threads. If you do not accept that, fair enough. Indeed I specifically adressed the issues raised in the first para of the OP (registration, seal etc) in the thread SC referenced. Obviously he does not accept those reasons. You seem not to either. And that's fine, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Just do not assume that since you do not agree with me I must be wrong. I have yet to see any arguments mounted which validly address the issue and can convince me that some shenanigans are going on, as opposed to legitimate purposes for the registration.

Neither has anyone yet mounted any argument which validly state why the registration as a company in the USA in any way whatsoever affects the basis of the "company" formed iaw the constitution.

All I have seen is vague theories such as "oh it's been registered in the USA as a corporation so it must therefore now be a foreign corporation and it's now governing us as a company and that's not right".

Nothing has changed as to the Commonwealth. All that happened was it registered in another jurisdiction so it could be formally and legally recognised within that jurisdiction.

No "new" evidence has come to light that has not been publicly available or known about before.

Gang laws, totally different argument. HRP totally different argument. Neither has anything at all to do with the topic of this thread. I am happy to discuss them but not in the context of this discussion. I do not want to seem to be dissing you on these points - I just don't want to get sidetracked atm on other discussions.

 

Man, the way you guys obsess over this stuff...

Let's get a few facts here. One, do governments follow constitutions? I think the evidence says no, or rather, they do when they are convenient for them. And yet, constitutions are supposed to be the base of their authority and define what they can and can't do. So does the government's authority come from the constitution or does it come from the barrel of a gun?

Secondly, let's look at the constitution itself. So, a century or so ago a bunch of guys got together and wrote a document saying that they had the right to arbitrarily take people's money and also had the right to tell people what to do. Think about that. Does it sound lawful to you? Here's a video in case you don't get it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE[/youtube]

You guys have figured out the turth, you've asked questions and when you haven't got satisfactory answers you kept digging. Congratulations. Now you've figured it out and you want to hop back into the matrix. You want to get back into your nice, warm pod that you've known all your life because the truth makes you uncomfortable.

There's a reason I'm an anarchist or anarcho-capitalist or whatever label you want to use. Not because it's some kind of ideology. It's just realization and acceptance of the truth. That's it.

One final video to illustrate just what you guys are trying to do. You guys are the bald guy. Agent Smith is the government. Do you think this guy would have got what he wanted even if he had done what Agent Smith wanted?

You guys are asking a group of proven consistent liars to be honest and do what you want, when they have consistently not done so in the past.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gev8Oa3WeVE[/youtube]

Yes, the government is a corporation. Government is a label. You have to take that out of the equation and then look at the reality, because government is just a label that is indoctrinated into us when we are young and our brains are still forming.

 

Each state shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government,

ESTABLISHMENT.............

 

AND CONTINUANCE

Establish it if needed, continue it if already there.

 

So by what law did they exist beforehand if they are asking for recognition and establishment after the fact? A pretend law and one not seated in authority ? If as you believe the local government is a part of de jure Government why the need for recognition under the supreme law of Australia ?