The following facts support the claim of the ATO being illegal:
All law in Australia must be passed by a Parliament in both houses (in states that have both houses) and then by law must be gazetted.
The law that established the Australian Taxation Office has been challenged in a particular court whereby the Plaintiff created the need to document the ATO’s formation to the satisfaction of the Defendant and the Court.
The Plaintiff, with the approval of the Australian National Library, brought into the court every Federal Government Gazette for the time period around when the law was passed by the Federal Parliament.
The Defendant was asked to ‘Please show us in which Gazette we will find the Legislation regarding the Australian Taxation Office’, to which the Defendant stated; ‘It is not in any Government Gazette’.
The judge of the matter then stated; ‘You have proved beyond any doubt that the law establishing the Australian Taxation Office has not been Gazetted and thus place its legality in question’ he went on, ‘But I can not permit Australia to fall into financial chaos and thus strike out this evidence’.
Further, Justice J Callinan, in Moelike v Chapman [B8/2000 (24/8/2000)], agreed that the ATO was not a legal entity. This has been validated by two judges.
Since this case, an article from the Aussie Post quotes the High Court case on May 17, 2000, where the ATO admitted it isn’t a legal personality, a view also held by the presiding judge, Justice Callinan. It goes further, stating “at the heart of the matter is the inability of the ATO to provide any documentation that proves it is either a legal entity or was established following correct procedure…”.
Further, as a response by Anthony Wallace, officer of the ATO, to Mr D Cameron on February 25, 2000, in an affidavit ii, stated that the writer and others he contacted could not identify any relevant files or documents setting up the ATO.
The Australian Government has misled the people of Australia in matters relating to taxation.
Is it Lawful or Not?
Information confirming that the ATO has no legal standing and that you are not required to pay tax is contained in this article:
Extracts from letter, in our possession, and dated June 29, 2005, addressed to the ‘Taxation Commissioner’, Mr M Carmody, follow:
The letter stated:
As you are apparently aware, via Australian “High Court” cases and numerous other legal challenges against the “Australian Taxation Office”, the credibility of your “commission” and the status of the “ATO” have been known to be, for some considerable time, illegitimate.
Please take further notice that your “commission” is entirely dependent upon the following:
- Laws issued by a legal “Australian Parliament” granting the gathering of taxes, a legally appointed “Australian Government”, and;
- A Governor General with the appropriate legal status as granted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland,
It was also stated:
Please take further notice that as it has been revealed in courts in the United Kingdom:
The ruling iii in the Chancery Division of the High Court in London, on Friday 25th June 2004 (the case was heard by Master Bencher Bowman, of the Chancery Division of the British High Court, who had previously reserved his decision on 9th March 2004), has stated that “Letters Patent, issued under ‘The Great Seal of Australia,’ by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, appointing a Governor General in Australia, have been issued incorrectly.”
As a result of the ruling of the Chancery Division of the British High Court, the Governor General of Australia holds no executive powers what so ever.
That as a result of the ruling of the Chancery Division of the British High Court, all current Australian Laws assented to on behalf of a British Monarch by the Governor General of Australia, cannot hold any valid or legal executive authority as the Governor General’s appointments have not been lawfully issued and are in legal terms ultra vires.
It was also stated:
I have included, as attachments to this letter, documents and letters that have been sent to various persons to acquaint them with the travesty of injustice that has been imposed upon the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia.
It was further stated:
Take Note: that as you now have both actual and constructive notice of this legal defect you have a Duty of Care Obligation to act immediately and step down from your position, once you have notified the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia.
It was also stated by the writer that shortly after the letter was delivered, Mr Carmody left the position of Commissioner of Taxation and was replaced by another and that there was no response to his letter.
Another letter in our possession, by the same writer, was sent to the new Commissioner of Taxation on or about 15th February 2006 and stating:
Please take notice: that I requested the “Commissioner of Taxation” to step-down on the 29th June 2005 as he held no legal status.
It was also stated:
Accordingly any attempt by the “Australian Taxation Office” to demand monies with menace from any Australian citizen is an illegal act and must stop forthwith. All current and pending claims by the “Australian Taxation Office” upon the Citizens of Australia must be withdrawn immediately.
I (writer of this letter) forwarded documentation to the “Taxation Commissioner” on the 29th June 2005 to acquaint him with the travesty of justice that has been imposed upon the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia. You are advised to review this documentation without delay.
Take Note: that as you now have both actual and constructive notice of this legal defect you have a Duty of Care Obligation to act immediately.
Thus, as is made clear in the above information and attachments, no current law, created in Australia after 1919 has any legality. The writer of the above letter extracts was attempting to rectify this matter with the least amount of political, financial and human suffering as possible. Rather it was an attempt to ‘wake up’ the system.
Further, we are aware of private arrangements made by the Australian Taxation Office and other persons. Many people had taken action against (or had actions taken against them) by the Australian Taxation Office. We understand that in such private arrangements, the Australian Taxation Office had dropped all legal action and paid compensation to the opposing party(s).
We further understand that in many documented cases people had entered into an arrangement whereby the opposing party need not pay any further taxation in Australia. In some cases the Australian Taxation Office has even agreed to reimburse all taxation paid by the opposing party in a further private arrangement.
Many senior political persons, in both major political parties, are aware of this and simply turn a ‘blind eye’; because they are aware of the outrage that would be felt by the Australian people, should this matter be made public.
Therefore , taxation is voluntary
“The I.T.R. (Institute of Taxation Research) has now received irrefutable proof (through an exhaustive Freedom of Information Act search), that the Australian Taxation Office was never officially gazetted in 1973 at its formation. Legally, therefore, the A.T.O. does not exist! A barrister in Sydney presented this information to a Judicial Registrar who was hearing a liquidation proceeding. The Registrar adjourned the case immediately, after appearing “visibly shaken”. Only a matter of hours later, an airline pilot who is in the Federal Court in Melbourne, against the A.T.O., was contacted by solicitors representing that august body, and informed that they were not proceeding with the case. I wonder why?
I quote from an earlier F.O.I. Act request asking for “.. certified copies of the documents that establish the Australian Taxation Office”.
In response, Mr. R. J. Tomkins, (A.T.O. Solicitor), reports:
“With regards the creation of the Australian Taxation Office (A.T.O.), I was able to ascertain that the A.T.O was created as a branch of the Commonwealth Public Service by an executive instrument in 1973. Officers of the Commonwealth Public Service are assigned to the A.T.O and the Commissioner of Taxation is put in charge of those Officers by section 25(4) of the Public Service Act 1922. “An extensive search of the A.T.O. library and records management system failed to identify any document relevant to this part of your request.
Similarly, enquiries to the Commissioner’s Office, People and Structures Branch, The Delegations and Authorisations Officer and the Parliamentary Business Unit did not identify any document. “On the advice of the Australian Government Solicitor’s Office, I contacted the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General in an attempt to identify, and obtain a copy of the executive instrument.
This office referred me to the Federal Executive Council who then suggested I contact Australian Archives. A detailed search by all offices failed to locate the relevant document. “Accordingly, I am obliged in terms of section 24A of the Act to deny access to this part of your application on the grounds that I was not able to locate the requested document”.
It was from this original F.O.I. Act request, that the I.T.R. was eventually able to identify that the A.T.O. was never legally formed, and therefore, has been illegally illiciting taxes since its formation! The I.T.R. takes the view that all the tax laws in the country are illegal anyway, (under an illegal Constitution), and that therefore, taxes are voluntary.”
The Name, “Australian” Taxation Office, “Australian” Government
The definition of this “Australia” belongs to the changed constitutional definitions in 1973 by the Political Parties without a Referendum = TREASON.
Here the Political Parties created their own so called abstract Country called “Australia” in a geographical sense.
Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 No. 114
This Act created the purported Royal Style and Title for the Political Parties Abstract Queen of Australia.
Royal Style and Titles
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
(Note the Queen of Australia does NOT hold the Title “Most Excellent Majesty” or “Defender of the Faith”.) This Act is 3 pages
Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 Proclamation and Gazette 5 pages.
Political Parties created their own private sovereign, independent and federal nation.
“God” (not being Our God) “Our Sign Manual”
“Governor-General of Australia” “Great Seal”
“Royal Great Seal” “Great Seal of Australia”
“Government of Australia” “Parliament of Australia”
“Queen of Australia” “Our Royal Proclamation”
“Elizabeth R” “Our Australian Parliament”
“Elizabeth R”. (“R” stands for the Latin Regina, meaning “Queen”. This creates “Elizabeth R” for the Political Parties “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia”.
Also in 1973 for the Political Parties “Australia” they created the Australian Citizenship Act creating Abstract Australian Citizens to swear their Oath to the Abstract Queen of Australia
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
I, A. B., renouncing all other allegiance, swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen.
To be able to do this the Political Parties took total control of the Governor-General and Commander in Chief on the 2nd of February 1960, therefore removing Crown Authority from the Governor-General and Commander in Chief = TREASON.
In the early 1960s the Political Parties went to War with Vietnam, a War which America started BUT NO business of ours.
In 1966 the Political Parties created the Australian Dollar with NO head of power NO Crown and Constitution Authority. Therefore Counterfeit to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, which consists of the Preamble, Clauses 1 to 9 and the Schedule, prescribes at
Clause 9—The Constitution of the Commonwealth,
Chapter I—The Parliament,
Salary of Governor-General = pounds.
each senator and each member of the House of Representatives = pounds.
payable to the Queen = pounds.
Ministers of State = pounds.
In 1974 the words “Commonwealth of Australia” were changed to “Australia” in the “Legend” on the medium of exchange in the form of paper money.
The intention of the Members of Political Parties, each under their own Party’s Constitution and policies, to convert “the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation” called “Australia”, was truly coming into fruition with the introduction of “Australian currency” in “Australian Dollars”.
A magnified inspection of an “Australian Dollar” polymer (plastic) note, will reveal a watermarked seal, as shown next to the Five Dollar Note below,
i.e. the “Stylised Arms No. 2 (Solid) US Serial No. 89000533”, which was registered in 1992 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The Five Dollar Note shown above
- is NOT Legal Tender “of the Commonwealth of Australia”,
- has NO “Head of Power” and
- has NO Crown and Constitutional authority, and
- is a medium of exchange “of Australia” NOT “of the Commonwealth of Australia”.
To enforce the Political Parties Australian Dollar and their TREASON Laws against Her Most Excellent Majesty Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms & Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, and the people of the Commonwealth of Australia.
The Political Parties created their own private “Australian” Federal Police and their own private “Australian” Courts. These were to ensure that the people of the Commonwealth of Australia as established under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 would NOT be able to enforce the Laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth as in
Clause 5 Operation of the Constitution and laws
This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State;
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 Act no 53
Creates the Family Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 No. 156
Australian Federal Police Act 1979 No.58
The Commonwealth Police Act 1957 is repealed.
High Court of Australia Act 1979 No. 137
This Political Party High Court of Australia sits as a Coran, No Crown and Constitutional Authority. (Note: Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary
Coram /koraem/ lat – in the presence of)
Judiciary Amendment Act (No.2) 1979Act No. 138
which repealed Sections 4 to 14 at Part II—Constitution and Seat of the High Court.
Evidence Amendment Act 1979 No. 139
Acts No 137, No 138 and No 139 all commenced together.
All the above were enacted to the Political Parties Queen of Australia Great Seal of Australia Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia = Political Party definition
The Political Parties own private High Court of “Australia” tells us in Justice Dawson of the High Court of “Australia” on 5th November 1996 in Leask v Commonwealth  HCA 29, referred to “Head of Power”:-
“ As McHugh J said in Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner:
In determining whether a law is ‘with respect to’ a head of power in s 51 of the Constitution, two steps must be taken. First, the character of the law must be determined. That is done by reference to the rights, powers, liabilities, duties and privileges which it creates.
Secondly, a judgment must be made as to whether the law as so characterised so operates that it can be said to be connected to a head of power conferred by s 51.
In determining whether the connection exists, the practical, as well as the legal, operation of the law must be examined.
If a connection exists between the law and a s 51 head of power, the law will be ‘with respect to’ that head of power unless the connection is, in the words of Dixon J, ‘so insubstantial, tenuous or distant’ that it cannot sensibly be described as a law ‘with respect to’ the head of power. ”
- Australian Dollar is Counterfeit.
- Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is a Criminal Origination.
- There is NO such thing as a Political Party within the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act . The Contrary intention of the Political Parties “Australia” has never appeared to this day.
- Everything under the Political Parties “Australia” is Abstract
- BUT the Political Parties are still Accountable to the Laws made by the the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution
Whereas a One Pound Note, as Legal Tender “of the Commonwealth of Australia” has a “Head of Power”, has the authority of the Crown as held by our Constitutional Sovereign and Monarch, and has the Constitutional authority, all as under the Founding and Primary “Law of the Commonwealth of Australia”, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, as Proclaimed and Gazetted, consisting of its Preamble, Clauses 1 to 9 and the Schedule.
The Totally Criminal Australian Taxation Office does NOT recognize Legal Tender of the Commonwealth of Australia ALL BANK LOANS IN COUNTERFEIT AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS ARE VOID.
All those involved in the Australian Taxation Office and Australian Banks dealing with Australian Dollars are dealing in FRUAD and = MISPRISION OF TREASON
The late Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, had written an ‘explanatory statement’ iv and a letter v supporting the conclusions reached that underpin the above statements, upon which our requests are founded.
In his statement he makes note of the fact that these conclusions are based on the historical facts.
They were solely relied upon.
There is no political rhetoric or legal opinion unless based on historical fact.
His statement goes further in confirming access to the historical documentation.
One of Sir Harry’s key findings is:
“I therefore have come to the conclusion that the current legal and political system in use in Australia and its States and Territories has no basis in law. We do not seek to try these findings in a court of law. Rather, we would prefer to establish common ground where this matter could be concluded out of court.”