Do we pay tax to shareholders of Australia the Company?

[XB]

The constitution itself XB , which is 100% more than what you have referenced,

Sheesh, I've referenced the constitution several times, as well as the powers of the States under the Consitution, and several other issues. You referenced one section which was irrelevant to the discussion.

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.

Post 31. And I don't believe it's opinion, it's the position I believe it to be (ok maybe that is opinion ). You don't seem to want to tell me however why or how you form the views you hold, just that you have them (or someone else has them and you quote them).

- 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 ?

It's a registration of an an entity (not necessarily a corporation) which has or wants American Depostirory Recepits (ie placing cash or Bonds with or buying cash or Bonds in the USA), as referenced by the SIC 8880. It has nothing to do with a company or "corporation" as such. It is a mechanism to allow foreign governments and other entities to register under the 1934 SEC laws to permit them to conduct securities related activites (predominately the buying and/or issuance of Bonds) within the USA.

- 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:

You have stated (below) that you've read the documents. You would know then that the "Annual Returns" are filed each year and are basically nothing more than the budget (as presented by the treasurer and finance minister), financial details about the banking system - the roles of the 2 boards of the RBA, APRA etc, and general statistics about Australia - the political system and governance, population, housing, wages etc, basically gathered from the publicly available statistics.

You would also know that the other documents lodged on an as needed basis are basically guarantees from the commonwealth for state bond issuances or borrowings.

Nothing in them creates a company. Nothing in them is basically anything other than publicly available information.

But this is where you lose me. How do you make the leap to say these documents create a corporation? I truly do not understand how you make this jump. I've read several of the annual returns and apart from being a statement about equivalent to Year 10 Social Studies about how Australia is governed and statistic filled, mind-numbingly boring recitations of the budget and average house prices and wages, I have found nothing which even hints at the creation of a company.

But somehow you have an idea that the registration of these documents has created a company and I genuinely do not understand how you make that claim, hence the question, how is the registration relevant.

You then give me S44(i) - the implication being that there IS a foreign company and as a consequence no member of Parliament is entitled to hold office. But where and how is this company formed? It's not formed as a company in the USA, so where was it formed? If I accept for the sake of argument that there is a company registered with the SEC (which I don't) then that company must have been formed in Australia and registered in the USA as a foreign company to THAT jurisdiction ie foreign within the USA but domestic within Australia. So it can't be a foreign company that way. So how do you get from a foreign (within USA) government registering with the SEC (not a company mind but a government) to a foreign corporation?

Or are you saying that this corporation was formed by the US government ie a "foreign power"? On what basis and with what evidence could you make such a claim?

You've also included S44(v) which again gives me the impression you hold an alternate position, namely that if it's not a foreign corporation, it must be a corporation formed in Australia and that the shareholders (ie the members) are not eligible to serve in the Parliament. If that were the case it would have had to register with ASIC (or a predecessor). Where when and how was this domestic company formed, and who are the shadowy shareholders? I've searched but not found anything. What have you found, I am interested to know. And don't just say that it has an ABN so it must be a "business" as that is a furphy and the ABN registration is just a mechanism for dealing with GST (a totally different topic for a discussion another time) and does not prove the creation of this company. Where is the Certificate of Incorporation?

- that you have actually read the documents lodged, In the SEC listing ? Yes and some.

Great - that means you understand the documents that have been lodged do not show any evidence of the creation or existence of a company.

- that you have read the sections of the 1934 SEC law in the USA under which the documents were lodged, No... reference please.

I probably asked the wrong question there. It was not so much the sections of US law, but more the nature and purpose of the forms, the SIC codes and the bases upon which governments are required to or entitled to lodge documents, and the purposes of each document. I apologise for that. So that I am fair, here's the info...

The SEC lodgment codes and Form explanations are on the site.... For example:

Form 18-K lists the requirements for lodgment of the Annual Returns "For Foreign Governments and Political Subdivisions Thereof"

Form 424b3 while termed a Prospectus is a basically a Guarantee from the Federal Treasurer for the securities lending (Bonds) issued by State Governments and their bodies (here's an example of one for the Qld Treasury Corporation)

Form 424b2 is a Prospectus for issuance of government bonds (I hadn't noticed any recently from Aus but there have been some Bond issuances from Canada and here's an example)

The Standard Industry Classification codes or SIC codes describe the nature of the entity lodging the form. SIC 8880 is for "American Depository Receipts" ie money/Bonds sought to be deposited to US accounts and Federal Reserves or acquired from them.

..

I also apologise for the delay in responding to your post. My modem is playing up.... well more particularly I think it's bloody Optus, and it's giving me the shits

 

[renovator]

Im sure any company can trade with the US or any country for that matter with only an ABN with no need to register it in the US .

This is the bit that baffles me & what makes me think theres a scam going on

 

[XB]

@ dollars

There is no "box" on Letters Patent. They can and have been signed wherever the monarch decided to sign although usually near the end. That's one of the issues.... that since there's no "box" and they can be signed anywhere, arguements are mounted that they are not valid since other Letters Pantent were signed in a different place.

As for Queen... unfortunately I cannot find an online version of the UK (Imperial) Interpretation Act of 1889 which would have been in place, so I can't be certain whether it referenced "Queen". It did however reference "the Crown" and defined that as "the Sovereign for the time being".

The Commonwealth's Acts Interpretation Act of 1901 was (according to Geoffrey Sawer, in his book "Australian Federal Politics and Law 1901-1929") the second act made in the 1st Parliament in its first session and "the first substantive Commonwealth act to be enacted." (courtesy Wikipedia) It came into force 12 July 1901.

It was modelled on and adopted many of the rules set out in the Interpretation Act 1889.

The current S16 of this Act says "In any Act references to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the passing of such Act, or to the Crown, shall be construed as references to the Sovereign for the time being." - this section was amended in 1941, 1967 and 2011.

The current S23 says "In any Act: (a) words importing a gender include every other gender;" - this section was included in 1957.

Unfortunately without referencing a hard copy of the original Act, I cannot be certain what the Act originally provided and what provisions it made for alternate gender inclusion. It would however have provided for a sovereign change in some way (ie a King rather than a Queen) and I would hazard it would have mirrored the British (Imperial) Interpretation Act 1889 in this regard ie the Sovereign for the time being.

I am however confident that you would not succeed on an argument based on gender as disallowing a female GG.

But by all means give it a crack and see how it goes

 

[XB]

Im sure any company can trade with the US or any country for that matter with only an ABN with no need to register it in the US .

This is the bit that baffles me & what makes me think theres a scam going on

If you want to buy or sell Bonds or securities you must be registered with the SEC. Not trade with the USA selling widgets, but specific financial transactions with the USA eg Federal Reserve or other banks or the govt of USA itself or selling securities to the public. That is very different from trading with or within the USA. It's why they are registered with the Securities Exchange Commission.

 

[southerncross]

XB all the pedantic's aside on my part and yours, my main point is that the supreme law of the land is (or should be) based upon the constitution.

You may base your interpretation of things upon an understanding gleaned through professional knowledge of current statute or corporate law but the basis of law in this country is constitutional law IE COMMON LAW.

The flippant disregard so often expressed by subsidiaries of the government be it the ungazetted ATO, Customs, local councils, (insert name here) towards the everyday people of this country comes I think from the corporate nature of THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

There has been a disassociation between the underlying law of the country and that of current law, due in no small part to the blurring of lines that set the two apart. It is all well and good to say or state that letters patent are no longer meaningful because of certain interpretations or the introduction of the westminster statute but in reality based upon constitutional law they do matter. And they matter because with every slight change to perception of law certain rights are denied and letters patent is only a small part of it.

None of this stuff matters to 99.99% of people and discussions such as this are quite often either ignored or seen as tin foil hat wearers having a paranoid hissy fit but the Constitution is there for a reason and if it needs changing can under law only be amended by a referendum of the people. Act's by the Government that either ignore or side step this process have no basis in law under the constitution and it is only the subsequent consent of the people that allow such actions to become accepted.

This is the crux of my argument. If we as a people allow the government to arbitrarily govern based upon the corruption of the law that governs the country without challenge what will they not do ?

You argue that the listing on the SEC means nothing but what investor in their right mind would buy those shares or bonds without expecting a return on investment ? What is the collateral backing them ?

Is it totally inconceivable that some in Government might take a personal pecuniary interest in what might be achieved once the reins of power are in their hands ? Do you really think that Government is immune to such enticements?, take it a step further and wonder what might be achieved if one has the means to sway the opinion of a whole political party and thereby the economic policy of an entire country.

Yeah I know tin foil hat type stuff right ?

But the Australian constitution, the basis for law in this country has been overridden by a corporate entity that places no importance upon respecting the laws or rights that it was based upon. Instead we have in place a quasi corporate realm, an admixture of law and revenue that chops and changes if one questions the basis of it and one which provides no clear answers nor infact any answers at all if questioned. Rules that are made up as you go along, Quasi governmental organizations that post profits and losses, goalposts that move in sinc with desired outcomes of politically motivated politicians and corporate interests and a populace that under law has a right to question and demand but who's rights are stymied and ignored at every turn.

Our Australian Constitution is the supreme law of our country. Corporate governance has undermined it to the pint that corporate law now rules our country.

Whats the difference ? We used to rule them, now corporations rule us.

 

[XB]

I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I am basing my understandings on anything other than the constitution. If somehow I've given you that idea, I apologise. All my comments are based SOLEY on the constitution.

It is that law, foisted upon us by a foreign power, which govern us today.

Oh and BTW IANAL - I am, like you my friend, just an active, concerned, knowledge-seeking citizen.

And I have never said that the letters patent and other things do not matter - they do - what I disagree with are the absurd claims thet they are all invalid because, to take but one example used, Liz signed hers in the top right of the document so it must be invalid, or to take another, that the signature she used in 1956 does not EXACTLY match one used 40 years later - I mean come on, it is well known people rarely sign a document the same way - signatures vary slightly over time (they vary also between the time of day signed, and your tiredness - sign your name 500 times over a week and see how many are exactly the same).

It's these sorts of stupid assertions I have issue with.

And that's the same with this argument that the registration with the SEC (an arm of the US government SOLELY charged with managing securities financial products and bonds) somehow creates a foreign corporation. And when I raise these arguments I am either ignored or accused of pandering to and or supporting the "fake" "corporate" government, or relying on other laws such as the corporations law.

Oh and my comments about it's relevancy related solely to the claims that that SEC registration created a foreign corporation (which was now ruling us from afar)

But the interesting thing is no one has ever been able to refute my position. No one has yet answered the questions like those I asked of you, nor have they actually established the basis for the claim that the government is now a company operating out of the USA.

BTW, to answer the question you asked, "what investor in their right mind would buy those shares or bonds without expecting a return on investment ? What is the collateral backing them ?" my answer would be the very same investor who would buy Bonds issued by ANY government.

The better question should probably be why would an investor buy government issued bonds at all, but that's a separate argument.

As for the extension that the sale of bonds corrupts the government selling them, I don't know. I suppose it's possible in some regimes. I honestly do not think it is possible within ours though, but I accept you obviously think it's possible to corrupt the entire RBA, and every single current member of parliament. I just don't think that's possible - corruption of one or a few maybe but not the whole government, RBA etc - there'd always be one or more willing to say no and spill the beans on the rest. But again, I accept your view, whilst I don't agree with it, that corruption of many hundreds of people, possibly several thousand, would be possible.

I also have issue (just in case you hadn't noticed ) with those that agree that all the powers of the states which were not ceded to the federal parliament under the consitution remained with the states, but then conveniently ignore that same fact when talking about local government since that was not mentioned in the constitution. Are police, or hospitals, or maintenance of roads or the system by which properties are bought and sold mentioned in the consitution? No, because they are state powers and did not need to be mentioned since they were not being ceded to the commonwealth. How is the management of the creation, abolition, maintenance and operation of councils any different? Answer is it's not. But nonetheless there are all sorts of arguments about how since they weren't mentioned there cannot be any validity to their operation by the State Governments, the very level of government who always held that power - it's an absurd argument.

Where I think we differ is that some of those on whom you rely for support, ie those you have referred to with their websites and videos, base their arguments on fundamentally flawed interpretations of the constitution.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, if I could find a valid basis upon which I could base an argument against councils (aka local governments) I would relish it. Similarly if I could find a supportable basis for a strawman argument, I'd jump at it.

I agree that the corporatisation of society is sad and disappointing and possibly morally wrong. But no one has yet been able to tell me why it's wrong in a way that actually uses the constitution, as written (not one word cherry picked out and the rest ignored as many like to do, but the whole sentence/clause/section).

So until they can I'll maintain my position and argue with those that hold alternate views - one day maybe I'll hear something that actually stands scrutiny - here's hoping at least.

Peace out.

 

[southerncross]

I appreciate the sound and polite discussion/argument XB, It's late, I will digest your post properly and get back to you with my thoughts.

 

[radiobirdman]

Its too late now the fabian scums screwed us in 1983 there is no more COMMON WEALTH of OZ .

And a big thanks to all you communist voters.
Put your hand up tell them you are a British subject and to fuck right off , works for me

 

[southerncross]

Still here on this subject and still checking out a lot of things, just to keep things current and acknowledge XB's last post I would like to highlight something that I feel should have been placed before the people as being a change that should only have taken place under a referendum.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004Q00670

There is of course much more. If this action was undertaken due to a declaration of Australian sovereignty then when did that actually happen ?

1901

with the proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia Act (Imp)


1919

with the signing of and unanimous vote by the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in acceptance of the Treaty of Versailles.

1926

by the declaration of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of the Imperial Conference.

1929

by the Balfour Declaration

1939

by the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia enacting the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth) back dated to 1939.

1945

by the Commonwealth of Australia becoming a foundation member of the United Nations and subsequently enacting the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945.

1986

with the passing of the Australia Acts (both UK & Cth) ?

"Whatever form the change in sovereignty may take it involves a disruption of the legal continuity These rules form a body of doctrine known as the law of state succession"
(International Law, P. D. O'Connell, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. 1970, p. 365-368)

If one looks at history and the basic bankruptcy of Australia just prior to the registration of THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA as an entity of the SEC as a corporation rather than an institution, one could assume that it was an action of guaranteeing a debtor over and above any other action.

Of course there could be many other reasons, 1919 is also seen as the year that Australia became a sovereign nation under law via the Treaty of Versailles. IE the Embryonic U.N .

All that aside the corpratisation of Australian government has seen a blurring of the lines between actual and assumed law. Real and pretend if you like.

Various interpretations based upon the distinction between Statute/Corporate/Admiralty law in the courts or via Common Law that the Government and their subsidiaries are still obliged to abide by under the supreme law of the land are all too often swayed in favour of the former due to an abandonment of principle by those who rule and pass judgement.

This happens not by default but through a wilful indoctrination by all concerned in the establishment, and a coincident flow of funding for those who partake. It is no mistake that those who challenge the system are seen off with no fines or judgement against them as that would set a recorded precedent for all who follow.

Customs tax and those who choose to challenge the merit's of traffic, speeding and parking fines are all evidence that the current system is hollow and built on a house of cards.

 

[XB]

Maybe it's because I'm really tired and it's late, but I am not following what, in the first para and the document referenced (Letters Patent), you are getting at - what is it/was it that you feel had to go to a referendum?

 

[Mr Medved]

The SEC thing is not a big deal, there are bigger issues to worry about.

For example, Brian Shaw has charged many people with treason and misprision of treason (concealment) and has demanded a grand jury to deal with the matter (FWIW treason is the breach of allegiance.).

Since he did this he was listed as a vexatious litigant, and Rob Hulls created a statute to deny the common law right of grand juries. The matter is still in the courts (was in the Court of Appeals of the Supreme Court of Victoria about a week ago, and IIRC will be there again this week) and likely to be headed to the High Court.

Once you start scratching around these matters you can smell the shit, it's just hard to pinpoint the facts from the noise (i.e., SEC listing).

I do recall reading that a former High Court judge stated that in all his years of legal research he didn't believe there was a single valid law in Australia. The problem is the practicalities of dealing with statutory bodies (i.e., customs, immigrations, police, courts, unlawful 'local governments'). In particular the Magistrates' Court is simply no better than a Star Chamber and if you question the system you'll just be ignored and have the matter heard 'ex parte'.

One final note - the Constitution allowed powers to create laws related to naturalisation and aliens, and the people of the Commonwealth were subjects (allegiance to a sovereign). Where did the Parliament have the power to create citizens (allegiance to a state, i.e., republic)?

 

[AngloSaxon]

It's interesting that this allegation of Admiralty law has such a foothold on conspiracy people on the internets. Often the proponents of this when challenged are revealed to not even understand what they're arguing. I say that in general, not directed at anyone in this discussion.

XB is right the video is ludicrous and his rebuttals have merit.

The fact that the government calls itself different names according to its' agenda per term of government does not violate anything in the Constitution. Labor in 2008 changed everything from "Federal Government" to "Australian Government" which didn't change anything. It's just the name they choose. The fact the Parliament goes by different appearances of names in regular font and in capitals is irrelevant, purely irrelevant.

I wouldn't be surprised if every government incorporates itself as a company in every country on Earth - both to facilitate the business of the nation in every country and to prevent non-state actors from forming companies in the name of a country trying to profit on the name of a people it doesn't represent.

Furthermore not every company has shareholders, the video makers who claim this don't have any grounding in law or economics and makes many assumptions through ignorance that he confidently passes off and many people seem to believe him.

I wrote last time this came up on SS that everything claimed in the video can be explained by a 1st year tertiary legal studies course taken by thousands of accountants (e.g. me), solicitors, economists, actuaries and businessmen in the course of their work. They all then go on to use the law to do their business. Are they all wrong? If you say yes then here comes that word again: conspiracy nuts.

(Edited for grammar - I wrote the original very late at night)

 

[dagsgarrett]

I have been researching this topic on and off for a while now and find it very interesting, I have recently discovered this website and Organisation RightToKnow.org.au which basically gives everyday people the opportunity to request information from the Government under the Freedom of Information Act. One of the current ongoing requests is on the topic of,

Is the Commonwealth of Australia, registered as a corporation in the USA, a legal entity under the Australian Constitution?

LINK https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/is_the_commonwealth_of_australia

It will be interesting to see if he receives the run around from department to department without an answer, or in fact does receive a logical explanation to his requests


I have also found this website interesting as it pools quite a lot of information together in the one place,

LINK http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/...proof?id=3535428:Topic:431475&page=3#comments

Regards

 

[perthsilver]

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 ...

+1

The Peoples Republic of China is also registered.

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-e...exclude&Find=Find+Companies&action=getcompany

As a side note I also found this interesting (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/909321/000114554903001347/u98681p1e424b5.htm#002).
In 2003, China sold a US$1B Note at 4.75%pa due in 2013. Small change these days.

Personally I think registration is just so countries can buy and sell debt to each other, and that in a few years the CoA will be registered in China instead.

 

[dagsgarrett]

Should be a pretty simple FOI request then, interesting topic none the less,


Regards

 

[tiddleyetom]

Check to see if Australia is registered on Dun & Bradstreet as a company... http://www.dnb.com/

 

[hawkeye]

Are governments not just companies?

They provide services for people, just like companies do. The difference is unlike other companies, they forceably extract money and use threats of violence to enforce a monopoly on a geographical area. Oh, and they let their customers nominally vote for who is in charge of the company.

People have this idea of government that it's some kind of magical entity. That it has some right to authority either god-given, as was mostly in the past, or through so-called majority rights. Or even a piece of paper called the constitution. In which case, you have to ask the question, where did the people writing the constitution get the authority to write it from? Which generally goes back to well the people said so, but then that devolves, at best back to the majority saying it was OK, or some other so-called power allowing it, which itself doesn't have any authority if you examine where their so-called authority comes from.

So what are governments if not just companies that force their customers to pay? And supposedly give their customers a choice in the companies policies, though we know that's not how it really works. If say, Apple, forced it's customers to pay and then said everybody got to vote for people on the board, not even vote for what you wanted, do you think we would actually get what we wanted from them?