ELECTION FRAUD IN AUSTRALIA
ALL ELECTORS IN AUSTRALIA AND ALL AUSTRALIANS ARE VICTIMS OF THE FRAUD OF THE AUSTRALIA ACT 1986
- The following 10 facts of Fraud of the Australia Act 1986 have not been rebutted and therefore they remain facts.
- These material facts show that Australian Law emanating from the fraudulent Australia Act 1986 is based on fraud and therefore no law at all.
- The difference is between the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and the CORPORATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
The Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901 was granted to the people by Queen Victoria.
The CORPORATION is the ruling entity that owns, runs and controls the CITY OF LONDON which is not subject to, nor under any law of the Monarch of England
This is the First Fraud
Prior to Federation in 1900 Australia was divided into Colonies, after Federation the Colonies became States, but each State was subject to the Constitution.
Prior to the fraudulent 1986 AUSTRALIA ACT any bill either State or Commonwealth touching a Constitutional issue had to be reserved for Royal Assent involving the Two Houses of Parliament back in England in the process, and then it must be ratified and accepted by the People of the Commonwealth of Australia voting in a referendum. No referendum = TREASON.
By 1984 the International Socialist movement, specifically the Fabian Socialists, had succeeded in getting Mr Robert Hawke elected as Prime Minster of Australia. He then proceeded to “enact” the Australia Act. However, HM Queen Elizabeth 2 of the UK did not sign the Act. Instead, she placed her initials at the top right of the first page to indicate that the Act was subject to a referendum of the People of the Commonwealth of Australia. No referendum has ever been held. = TREASON.
The Second Fraud
In a 1996 Senate Standing Committee paper titled “Aspects of Section 44” Professor Blackshield submitted a paper to the committee which stated that Mr Hawke may have a case to answer in relation to Section 44 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 in that at the time of being Prime Minister Bob Hawke was also an Honorary Citizen of Israel. (Duel Citizenship)
The Third Fraud
Prior to the actual enactment of the Australia Act 1986 new “Letters Patent” were issued, it appears that the signature to the new Letters Patent signed at Balmoral in Scotland in 1984 was Mr R Hawke…Not HM Queen Elizabeth II.
The Fourth Fraud
To avoid having to send the 1986 Australia Act to the governed via a Constitutional Referendum, Mr Hawke and the Six Premiers involved decided to use section 51 (xxxviii) of the Commonwealth Constitution instead to make it law. The Australia Act sought to change the terms of the Constitution. Therefore, any changes to it without a referendum make the Australia Act null and void
Powers of the Parliament
51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-
(xxxvii.) Matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law:
The Fifth Fraud
By using Section 51 and not Section 128 this activated the State Request Acts. As such, under their State Constitutions, Elector approval had to be sought prior to any Royal Assent being granted. (A referendum is required.)
The Sixth Fraud
In Western Australia, section 73 of their State Constitution
(2) A Bill that —
(e) expressly or impliedly in any way affects any of the following sections of this Act, namely — sections 2, 3, 4, 50, 51 and 73, shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen unless —
(g) the Bill has also prior to such presentation been approved by the electors in accordance with this section, and a Bill assented to consequent upon its presentation in contravention of this subsection shall be of no effect as an Act. (A referendum is required.)
In Queensland, section 53 of their State Constitution
53.(1) A Bill that expressly or impliedly provides for the abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor or that expressly or impliedly in any way affects any of the following sections of this Act namely— sections
1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B; and this section 53 shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen unless it has first been approved by the electors in accordance with this section and a Bill so assented to consequent upon its presentation in contravention of this subsection shall be of no effect as an Act. (A referendum is required.)
In New South Wales, section 7 of their State Constitution
7(a) (2) A Bill for any purpose within subsection (1) shall not be presented to the Governor for His Majesty’s assent until the Bill has been approved by the electors in accordance with this section.
7(b) shall not be presented to the Governor for Her Majesty’s assent until the Bill has been approved by the electors in accordance with this section. (A referendum is required.)
The Seventh Fraud
Within the Australia Act 1986 section 14 amends the Western Australian Constitution by amending section 50 and 51, but these particular sections are bound to elector consent and approval at section 73 of the Western Australia Constitution. (A referendum is required.)
The Eighth Fraud
Within the Australia Act 1986 section 13 amends the Queensland Constitution by amending section 11A and 11B, but, these particular sections are bound to elector consent and approval at section 53 of the Queensland Constitution. (A referendum is required.)
The Ninth Fraud
After the purported enactment of the Australia Act 1986 “Reservation of Bills” for Royal Assent stopped and Royal Assent to Constitutional amendments operated within Australia after 1986 without any knowledge of the electorate, that “Primary Fraud” had occurred in relation to The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia as opposed to the CORPORATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA operating via the CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.
The Tenth Fraud
The due process of law was not followed in any State or Territory when the State Requests Acts 1985 were purportedly enacted in 1985. (A referendum is required.)
This is all evidence that shows that Australian Law emanating from the fraudulent Australia Act 1986 is based on fraud and therefore no law at all.
48 thoughts on “Australia Act Fraud Detailed”
Bring the treasonous traitors , and their handlers , to face Justice ,,,
“The CORPORATION is the ruling entity that owns, runs and controls the “CITY OF LONDON” which is not subject to, nor under any law of the Monarch of England” – This is now known as the CiITY OF WESTMINISTER. Is there still a “CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION”? Is this “CiTY OF WESTMINISTER” the same organisation known as “THE CROWN” which is separate and distinct from the Royal CROWN being the crown which is symbolically placed on the head of the new king or queen during the coronation ceremony and which symbolises The body of law the king or queen is both subject to and also exercises as the incumbent in the monarchael office of King or Queen as the case may be.
Yes re The Crown
Have been trying to explain this to others for ages now I got it so really big thanx
Well done Rod are following you all the time Along with wayne and learning heaps from both of you reading the right book here and follow know your rights group as well very interesting,And put thing’s into practice and found that it works well,The bastards wont give in easy will they,But we must keep fighting them and bring them to justice. Once again Rod cheers for everything you are doing,From another Aussie battler thank you.
How come, this has been able to go on all these years without being investigated or changed, or protested against, if others knew about it and did NOTHING?? This is TREASON, IS IT NOT?? If this fraud was done when Hawke was in power, did other politicians, LNP know this had happened?? If so, WHY hasn’t it being fixed? This NATION needs to know WTH is going on with OUR CONSTITUTION!!
Of course they did and do
i we all are simply sit back do nothing just let the commos take over the place …… she be right mate…… in other we couldnt give a ….
Why has there not been a legal challenge by an Australian legal team set up under a go fund our rights campaign monies donated to be Tax deduction Unfortunately a lot of our legal system has been corrupted by Gov and Crime and Greed
I can comprehend why you would ask that, and in answer: – Because EVERY barrister/lawyer practicing law in a “court” (unidroit tribunal) in Australia must first swear an oath to uphold the “Bar Association”. The Bar Association is a part of the Crown Corporation.
So who do you think that they are working for?
and any lawyer that makes an oath to the BAR has as their first duty to the court, regardless if you pay them or not
Old Kodger writes;
“Because EVERY barrister/lawyer practicing law in a “court” (unidroit tribunal) in Australia must first swear an oath to uphold the “Bar Association”. The Bar Association is a part of the Crown Corporation.
So who do you think that they are working for?”
So what would happen in a situation where a lawyer comes across the criminal conduct of one of his/her colleagues? ie their duty to the law is in conflict with their duty to the ‘Bar Assoc.’? I can think of two examples where such conflicts have occurred…… Chief Justice Lionel Murphy, and Justice Michael Kirby.
I was also interested in the situation with regards Nicola Gobbo/ Lawyer X. After the criticism of the High Court that;
“EF’s actions in purporting to act as counsel for the Convicted Persons while covertly informing against them were fundamental and appalling breaches of EF’s obligations as counsel to her clients and of EF’s duties to the court. Likewise, Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging EF to do as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or affection, malice or ill-will. As a result, the prosecution of each Convicted Person was corrupted in a manner which debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system.”
It was after this that it was claimed by Vicpol that the situation could never happen again. And then I read the decision of the High Court in ACC v Stoddart HCA 47 (I think) 2010 that there is “no spousal privilege in common law in Australia”. Surely ALL privileged communications are therefore not part of common law, and there would be NO PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS in common law in Australia? This all professionals would be within their rights to report comments your thought were privileged to the ‘authorities’? And Vicpol are right, it can’t happen again because it has been decided that Nicola Gobbo would now be acting within the law?
Our Legal system is corrupted (ie Corporate)
so no Lawyer will go against the system and risk losing their livelihood- TRAITORS
That’s why I’m doing it myself in both courts… Melbourne County Court and Brisbane Supreme Court.
https://commonlaw.earth/notices/
Totally agree with Stephen, bring these traitorous, sell out people and all who aided and abetted them to face real justice.
I don’t agree with the Islamaphobia. The Koran debunks a lot of ideas presented by Musllims as Koranic Law. What a lot of nonMuslims don’t know is that when Muslims go to prayer they first pray to Jesus. Also Muslims must live by the laws of the land they are living first before Koranic Law.
Unless you are a moslem then I question how you know that they pray to Jesus first. I have never heard that, and it sounds like moslem apologist rubbish…but I’m open to seeing proof.
As for the majority of moslems…I agree they are for the most party peacful and no problem to the rest of us. BUT, and it’s a big but, if even 1% of the more than 800,000 moslems living in Australia are bent on waging a holy war against us that’s still a lot of dangerous people to have living among us. You do the math.
In case you can’t, the answer is 8,000 dangerous people. Are you prepared to accept that?
The Koran and Hadiths are filthy books These stone age cult for men follow what the imam says.
In any case, religion is the root of all evil.
Not exactly. My understanding is that Muslims must live by the laws of the land they are living in, but only insofar as those laws do not conflict with Sharia law.
And there is the problem. If you have ever read sharia law it is abominable and completely against all our principles.
It is a pity there is a certain apathy within Australian society.
I have over 40 years told people of their failings and how our original constitution still stands.
It is my understanding that the Constitution 1901 has never existed, was never signed by Q Vic…in my research on Mabo I found a request on Aus Govt website offering a reward for anyone finding the 1901 Constitution, as it was lost. The 1900 was not signed by Royal Hand Sign either by her agent, thereby negating it. Master Bencher Bowman, UK High Court stated in summing up that the Letters Patent to Australian Gov General were issued wrongly, (therefore the Oz Govt has been illegal since 1900). Also tax was described a being a voluntary payment in ATO Handbook . Since removed.
“It is my understanding”? Seriously? Don’t bother coming here trying to spread this rubbish.
Of course, if you provide proof of your “understanding” that would be different.
Until then, go do your research instead of listening to other fools.
My Question
Mr R Hawke has recently passed RIP. I’m sure he wasn’t a saint and there certainly would be some questionable issues that will now come to light.
You article above may be very true, questionable and needs to be addressed but why has it taken 33 years to be brought to light.
Many politicians and legal representatives would have viewed and known about this issue.
Why now?
Has this not been good for our country?
Apart from the gender referendum would the general public understand the questions put to them.
My meaning in the last statement is that the questions put to the public have generally been more confusing and mixed with more meaning. People vote No for the status quo. Is easier to understand why Han change.
Let alone the cost.
Why do you think no one knew? The answer should be obvious. These political party criminals are master liars. They have done so much behind our backs without our knowledge.
Definately Mike. The fake system overshadowing our 1900 Constitution Act/Preamble has a non common law Justinian code. They run off the pretense that we as a people are too incompetent to handle our constitutional affairs. So they blame we people for allowing them to decieve us. Their literature actually lists us as “Incompitent Imbiciles”, who need to be decieved for our own greater good. Very inaccurate depiction though, because we’re not as incompitent as they believe and it’s painfully obvious the deception is for their greater good, not ours.
There was no referendum regarding the gender issue, when it should have been instead it was just a postal survey and a complete sham and a waste of taxpayers money.
Many people did not get the forms to have their say and a lot of other people stole them from letter boxes to make unfair multiple votes.
ON MY WEB SITE A LINK TO THE DECLARATION OF SEPARATION SIGN IT AND SEND IT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF EVERY STATE AND TO CANBERRA.
I HAVE A “CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE” AND “PROJECT LEGISLATION” WHICH IS DEBT FREE MONEY NO TAXATION NO LOANS. WE CAN ALL GET TOGETHER AND START OUR GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT, THE WAY IS WIDE OPEN FOR US.
I suggest you may like to contact Brian Shaw of
“JesusisLord.com” if you haven’t already. Michael
I already have. He’s too religious and not cognizant enough of the law.
Follow the two rules of Common Law. 1. Do no harm; Take responsibility for your own actions. Think about it.
All politicians still alive since this occurred have and are committed Treason and are all accountable.
All actions by these Unlawful Parliaments need repealing and all mus face a Court and Jury of the men and women of Australia
Before 1973 Holt was murdered for stalling on this the reason under the 1901 Constitution a Rothschild Reserve bank would be Illegal so in 1973 Whitlem Moved the 1901 Constitution and common law out of the reach of the people. Frasor new what was going on and at the time Hawke new what was going on and was part of it. It was Keating that gave the Rothschild’s the reserve bank in 1994 and Australia has been going backwards ever since.
Ahh so this is where all this silly junk is coming from – people who know nothing talking to people who know nothing … it is an old tax scam . My advice keep paying your tax .
We’d all be delighted to see the proof behind your comment Johnathan. Or will you scurry away like every other that cannot prove jurisdiction. At least show something of merrit, Prove to us that corporate political power has the right to run Australia as a corporation. I dare you.
I would like to know how do we get our constitution back and all the pricks charged with treason
Australia must abide by the laws laid down by queen Victoria
Not by politically acting groups that choose to ignore the laws of the commonwealth
Keep up the good research!
How do we change??
You can do a lot. You can Lawfully Rebel by refusing to pay their unlawful fines. Our e-Book explains the law and how to rebel: Steps to Fight Fines…and Stay our of Court.
You can also download and sign, and get as many others to sign as possible, so that we can convene a Grand Jury: My Will Letter
If you are able to gather others in your community to hold regular meetings email me through this website and I will send you our Meeting Guidelines. These meetings are designed to educate people about the Constitution and English Common Law, as well as discussing other issues that will help us take back control of our government from the political parties.
Why don’t we have media coverage on all of this ? Oh that’s right they own all the media and they are told what they can and can’t say.
We’ve created our own media
https://youtu.be/7bVaziy3dz0
Did you know hawke and keeting passed over 286 plus laws unconstitutionally when they were elected prime ministers
Yes, and if you read the article again I think it makes the point that everything all PM’s have done since Whitlam took the Queen out of the Constitution has been unconstituional and unlawful.
I concur immensely.
Whitlam removed our Crown from our National Emblem in 1975, and gave us a STAR, denoting INCORPERATED the whole of Federal Governments. This without a referendum is complete TREASON, NOTHING LESS.
The most disgraceful terrorist attack from within our own Parliaments , State Governments and Un recognised Councils across The Commonwealth of Australia, people used by faceless Foreignors to implement their NewWorld Fascist / Communist Order. We can put a stop to this overnight if and only if the public gets off their brainwashed backsides and refuses to finance this overthrow of our Freedoms.
Idiots . You are calling Her majesty , the Australian High Court , all six State Parliaments , the Federal Parliament and the UK Parliament – traitors ! What are your qualifications ….?
Far better and more qualified than you are — obviously. Before you throw stones, go get educated.
Is not xxxviii 38? Section 51 is LI; I am referring to “The fourth fraud” and the powers of parliament. The late Comrade Hawke still has a lot to answer for in my opinion!
Please clarify your question. It doesn’t make any sense.