Do we pay tax to shareholders of Australia the Company?
- Thread starter southerncross
- Start date
I'd guess there's something in US law that requires foreign governments to register as a company in order to do "government-to-government" business in the USA.
If you use the SEC search tool http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html, it's easy to find numerous other foreign governments registered:
FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL
FINLAND REPUBLIC OF
GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE
GOVERNMENT OF JAMICA
HELLENIC REPUBLIC
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF NEW ZEALAND
HUNGARY formerly: REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY
ISRAEL STATE OF
ITALY REPUBLIC OF
JAMAICA GOVERNMENT OF
JAPAN
etc ...
etc ...
If you use the SEC search tool http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html, it's easy to find numerous other foreign governments registered:
FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL
FINLAND REPUBLIC OF
GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE
GOVERNMENT OF JAMICA
HELLENIC REPUBLIC
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF NEW ZEALAND
HUNGARY formerly: REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY
ISRAEL STATE OF
ITALY REPUBLIC OF
JAMAICA GOVERNMENT OF
JAPAN
etc ...
etc ...
XB said:
Hence the relevance of section 109 , states have no right to introduce a third tier of government that raises taxes. The constitution does not recognize it and we under law have no obligation to recognize it. If as you say under the referendum recognition failed to pass, by rights it is still unrecognized and was established without due process.
Taxation is a separate argument. I assume you mean the argument that rates are taxes. That has nothing to do with the power of a state to create, amend, alter or eliminate local governments.
The fact that it is not recognised within the federal constitution does not negate the rights of the states to manage them. It is the same as saying XYZ State power was not explicitly mentioned in the constitution therefore it does not exist. It does, under the blanket preservation of State's reserve powers. The power to manage local governments is such a reserved power. It does not have to be mentioned to be valid.
And I just realised that this thread has now morphed into the other local government thread
The fact that it is not recognised within the federal constitution does not negate the rights of the states to manage them. It is the same as saying XYZ State power was not explicitly mentioned in the constitution therefore it does not exist. It does, under the blanket preservation of State's reserve powers. The power to manage local governments is such a reserved power. It does not have to be mentioned to be valid.
And I just realised that this thread has now morphed into the other local government thread
Actually they do. They can introduce any laws they want. Whether that law is valid is a separate issue. And if it is not valid, then it is only not valid to the extent of any inconsistency. In other words if 1 section in an Act if found to be inconsistant under S109 then that section, and only that section, is invalid. The remainder of the Act is valid.southerncross said:
So if a State Govt introduced laws affecting Local Govts, and this included the power to levy rates, and someone stated a case to the High Court arguing that rates were taxes and were not allowed to be in that Act, and if the High Court agreed, the parts of the laws regarding rates being taxes would be invalid but the rest of the laws would still be valid.
BTW why has no one ever done that? I mean if its so simple, why has no one ever tried that argument in court?
The fact it is not in the constitution does not mean it is not valid. It was a State power, so States can do what they want. So no, there's nothing to recognise under the federal constitution, but there IS under the State constitutions. That does not make it "unrecognised" nor established "without due process". It just means that it has nothing at all to do with the federal govt since local govts are created under State law.southerncross said:
OK - so what is the difference? They can both sue you or be sued, they both refer to the exact same thing. How or why do they differ? Don't give me oh one is registered with the SEC as that has no bearing on you or me here in Aus. Where are they respectively used? How are they respectively used? Tell me why they differ and what effect that actually has.dragafem said:XB said:Which despite many theories to the contrary are exactly the same thing.dragafem said:there is Commonwealth of Australia and COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
me dont think so...
Oh my lordy lordy. I've watched his well-produced but illogical and absurd video, and read through his website several times just in case he could prove something, and now I have to answer his claims as well ....
SEC registration - He goes on about it being a company in the USA with shareholders and into this company are poured all the taxes and revenues paid by people. The SEC registration is NOT to register or incorporate a company. I've addressed this issue twice before but you must have missed it.
It is there to satisfy the requirements within that jurisdiction ie USA and enable the Commonwealth Govt to transact business in the USA (for example to borrow money or to sell AUD and bonds). There are no "shareholders" and if you bothered reading any of the documents on the SEC you would see that.
The Seal registration is again to ensure trademark protection within that jurisdiction.
As for whether the Great Seal is the Great Seal, it was adopted by the parliament. Aus cannot use the UK Great Seal so it created its own. Somehow the fact that the Seal he wants used is in fact another country's is ignored.
The argument about invalidly appointed Governors-General is absurd to the point of laughable. Do these people have any understanding at all about how regal succession works within a monarchy, and that monarchs are not compelled to issue Letters-Patent and can issue other substitutes such as Commissions and Warrants and Grants tro achieve the same objective, or that Sovereign Governments (say like ours) are perfectly entitled to develop and create their own system of laws and then migrate ownership of those laws from their colonial masters to themselves? I guess not.
In his video he goes on and on about the Parliament of the Commonwealth as though it is some inviolable name.... well it's not. Read the constitution, it uses 2 phrases interchangeably to describe the Parliament and does not actually restrict what that Parliament can call itself.
Now how do YOU answer the questions asked in the post you quoted?
SEC registration - He goes on about it being a company in the USA with shareholders and into this company are poured all the taxes and revenues paid by people. The SEC registration is NOT to register or incorporate a company. I've addressed this issue twice before but you must have missed it.
It is there to satisfy the requirements within that jurisdiction ie USA and enable the Commonwealth Govt to transact business in the USA (for example to borrow money or to sell AUD and bonds). There are no "shareholders" and if you bothered reading any of the documents on the SEC you would see that.
The Seal registration is again to ensure trademark protection within that jurisdiction.
As for whether the Great Seal is the Great Seal, it was adopted by the parliament. Aus cannot use the UK Great Seal so it created its own. Somehow the fact that the Seal he wants used is in fact another country's is ignored.
The argument about invalidly appointed Governors-General is absurd to the point of laughable. Do these people have any understanding at all about how regal succession works within a monarchy, and that monarchs are not compelled to issue Letters-Patent and can issue other substitutes such as Commissions and Warrants and Grants tro achieve the same objective, or that Sovereign Governments (say like ours) are perfectly entitled to develop and create their own system of laws and then migrate ownership of those laws from their colonial masters to themselves? I guess not.
In his video he goes on and on about the Parliament of the Commonwealth as though it is some inviolable name.... well it's not. Read the constitution, it uses 2 phrases interchangeably to describe the Parliament and does not actually restrict what that Parliament can call itself.
Now how do YOU answer the questions asked in the post you quoted?
@ dollars
Regarding Queen - why is that necessary? Can you please please tell me where the constitution, other than Section 2, references the Queen as anything other than "the Queen"? And why, if the UK can restyle HM's titles we are not permitted to do so as well? And finally, how her style or title is relevant.
Regarding Letters Patent - much seems to be made of this by various writers that somehow the revocation, or non-revocation, or non-reissuance, or reissuance in the wrong manner in the opinion of the particular writer has affected the legitimacy of certain appointments. Which one it is seems to vary depending on the point trying to be made. So as far as I have been able to glean across various sites, the issue is that even though there are/were letters patent, some authors do not accept their validity. So to address your question, if they were produced, it would not change that author's mindset, that the letters patent produced were not valid. How does one address that when the other party refuses to accept that the document signed by the then monarch is valid? I can argue (and apparently on this site still am) till I'm blue in the face but if another refuses to concede that we are at stalemate - for example, whether my Commission as an officer in the Army is valid since it was signed by a GG who was in their opinion, not validly appointed by HM by letters Patent in a form which they believe is the "right" form, regardless of the fact that there is no "right" form.
I guess what I am saying is, even if Letters Patent were produced, some people will then argue "oh but those are not valid since it was signed in this spot rather than at that spot" or "it's not valid since the seal wasn't affixed this way, it was attached that way" (which arguements I have seen btw on sites). So producing them will achieve nothing. Could they be produced, I'm sure they could, would they be accepted by the party demanding their production, I'm pretty sure they would not.
But I am pretty sure if you asked Elizabeth II if she signed Letters Patent on 21 August 1984 she'd say yes that's my signature, even though according to some it's in the wrong place on the document and therefore invalid.
As for him/her, there has been a long standing acceptance in the interpretation of laws, sometimes codified eg Acts Interpretation Act, that references to male include female, single includes plural etc etc, should the context so require. Acts have also always been interpreted such that a reference to "his Majesty" includes or also means "her Majesty" etc
Regarding Queen - why is that necessary? Can you please please tell me where the constitution, other than Section 2, references the Queen as anything other than "the Queen"? And why, if the UK can restyle HM's titles we are not permitted to do so as well? And finally, how her style or title is relevant.
Regarding Letters Patent - much seems to be made of this by various writers that somehow the revocation, or non-revocation, or non-reissuance, or reissuance in the wrong manner in the opinion of the particular writer has affected the legitimacy of certain appointments. Which one it is seems to vary depending on the point trying to be made. So as far as I have been able to glean across various sites, the issue is that even though there are/were letters patent, some authors do not accept their validity. So to address your question, if they were produced, it would not change that author's mindset, that the letters patent produced were not valid. How does one address that when the other party refuses to accept that the document signed by the then monarch is valid? I can argue (and apparently on this site still am) till I'm blue in the face but if another refuses to concede that we are at stalemate - for example, whether my Commission as an officer in the Army is valid since it was signed by a GG who was in their opinion, not validly appointed by HM by letters Patent in a form which they believe is the "right" form, regardless of the fact that there is no "right" form.
I guess what I am saying is, even if Letters Patent were produced, some people will then argue "oh but those are not valid since it was signed in this spot rather than at that spot" or "it's not valid since the seal wasn't affixed this way, it was attached that way" (which arguements I have seen btw on sites). So producing them will achieve nothing. Could they be produced, I'm sure they could, would they be accepted by the party demanding their production, I'm pretty sure they would not.
But I am pretty sure if you asked Elizabeth II if she signed Letters Patent on 21 August 1984 she'd say yes that's my signature, even though according to some it's in the wrong place on the document and therefore invalid.
As for him/her, there has been a long standing acceptance in the interpretation of laws, sometimes codified eg Acts Interpretation Act, that references to male include female, single includes plural etc etc, should the context so require. Acts have also always been interpreted such that a reference to "his Majesty" includes or also means "her Majesty" etc
ShinyStuff
New Member
^^^
i agree regarding the use of the personal pronoun he/him.
Surely. Are all old enough to remember "Australia's Son let us rejoice! Etc etc". Sons is a reference to both sons and daughters.
Before PC became the norm, everyone knew we were a paternalistic socitey and male personal pronoun was assumed to also mean female form.
It is legitimate to have a female GG.
Shiny
i agree regarding the use of the personal pronoun he/him.
Surely. Are all old enough to remember "Australia's Son let us rejoice! Etc etc". Sons is a reference to both sons and daughters.
Before PC became the norm, everyone knew we were a paternalistic socitey and male personal pronoun was assumed to also mean female form.
It is legitimate to have a female GG.
Shiny
The basic difference XB is that the corporation acts under admiralty or contract/commercial law while the constitution is founded in common law.
Surely you can tell the difference.
Surely you can tell the difference.
I will be prepared to discuss the "relevant" laws when you can tell me
- how the "corporation" is formed,
- how the registration with the SEC is relevant,
- that you have actually read the documents lodged,
- that you have read the sections of the 1934 SEC law in the USA under which the documents were lodged,
- that you have checked why they were lodged and what the SEC codes used with them actually mean and who can use them,
- that you have noted how all the other governments listed with the SEC lodge nearly identical documents to Australia,
and you answer the questions I've asked previously, which you keep avoiding.
If you don't want to answer my questions, that's cool, just say so. But don't keep asking questions of me if you are not prepared to answer mine. I keep giving you my reasons and rationale - you give me nothing execept more vague uncorroborated, unverified and unsubstantiated theories.
Until you can establish the existence and validity of this "corporation" and negate my position regarding "registration" debating the "relevant" law is just a moot point since there is no "corporation".
- how the "corporation" is formed,
- how the registration with the SEC is relevant,
- that you have actually read the documents lodged,
- that you have read the sections of the 1934 SEC law in the USA under which the documents were lodged,
- that you have checked why they were lodged and what the SEC codes used with them actually mean and who can use them,
- that you have noted how all the other governments listed with the SEC lodge nearly identical documents to Australia,
and you answer the questions I've asked previously, which you keep avoiding.
If you don't want to answer my questions, that's cool, just say so. But don't keep asking questions of me if you are not prepared to answer mine. I keep giving you my reasons and rationale - you give me nothing execept more vague uncorroborated, unverified and unsubstantiated theories.
Until you can establish the existence and validity of this "corporation" and negate my position regarding "registration" debating the "relevant" law is just a moot point since there is no "corporation".
Questions ?
I have pointed to the relevant sections of the constitution , all you have given is opinion.
I have pointed to the relevant sections of the constitution , all you have given is opinion.
Sorry I must have missed it - all I thought you had referenced was S109 which had no relevance to a corporation.
Do me a favour as I just had a very quick skim and probably missed your post where you referenced the corporation and the constitution's sections and link me to your post ... cheers
And yes questions.... the one's you keep not answering... those questions
Do me a favour as I just had a very quick skim and probably missed your post where you referenced the corporation and the constitution's sections and link me to your post ... cheers
And yes questions.... the one's you keep not answering... those questions
The constitution itself XB , which is 100% more than what you have referenced,
Please at least reference the question/s you want me to answer, I have seen a lot of opinion but no Why How apart from #36 above.
- how the "corporation" is formed,
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CIK#: 0000805157 (see all company filings)
SIC: 8880 - UNKNOWN SIC - 8880
State location: DC | Fiscal Year End: 0630
(Assistant Director Office: 99) If that is not a company then what is ?
- how the registration with the SEC is relevant,
As stated before , is the Parliament of Australia administered under corporate or common law ?
44. Any person who--
(i. ) Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power,
or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a
foreign power:
(v. ) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service
of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members
of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:
- that you have actually read the documents lodged, In the SEC listing ? Yes and some.
- that you have read the sections of the 1934 SEC law in the USA under which the documents were lodged, No... reference please.
- that you have checked why they were lodged and what the SEC codes used with them actually mean and who can use them, As in SC 13G/A ?
- that you have noted how all the other governments listed with the SEC lodge nearly identical documents to Australia, Yes
Please at least reference the question/s you want me to answer, I have seen a lot of opinion but no Why How apart from #36 above.
- how the "corporation" is formed,
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CIK#: 0000805157 (see all company filings)
SIC: 8880 - UNKNOWN SIC - 8880
State location: DC | Fiscal Year End: 0630
(Assistant Director Office: 99) If that is not a company then what is ?
- how the registration with the SEC is relevant,
As stated before , is the Parliament of Australia administered under corporate or common law ?
44. Any person who--
(i. ) Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power,
or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a
foreign power:
(v. ) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service
of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members
of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:
- that you have actually read the documents lodged, In the SEC listing ? Yes and some.
- that you have read the sections of the 1934 SEC law in the USA under which the documents were lodged, No... reference please.
- that you have checked why they were lodged and what the SEC codes used with them actually mean and who can use them, As in SC 13G/A ?
- that you have noted how all the other governments listed with the SEC lodge nearly identical documents to Australia, Yes