Corporations Masquerading as Government in Australia & World Wide

By  Andy Whiteley

Co-Founder of Wake Up World

The Great Seal of the United Kingdom

The Great Seal of the United Kingdom, atop the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900

The Great Seal of Australia, a trademark registered with United States Patent and Trademark Office.


Which represents real (de jure) government in Australia?

Which is seen on “government”  literature  ?


Would you be surprised to find a company with the same name as your country registered with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington DC? Well, guess what?! Among those listed as corporate entities by the United States SEC are Israel, Turkey, Italy, Hungary, Sweden, Finland, Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, The Philippines, South Korea, Japan,  Jamaica, South Africa, Canada, Australia… and my personal favourite (and I quote) “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta as represented by Alberta Investment Management Corp.”

Interesting! So what could all this mean? For the purpose of this article we will follow the example of Australia.

Australia…. the lucky country?

  • SEC Central Index Key (CIK): 0000805157
  • SEC Standard Industrial Code (SIC): 8880 (UNKNOWN)
  • SEC Business Address:  1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW  WASHINGTON DC 20036
  • Fiscal Year End: 0630

Well, that certainly raises some questions!

Why is a company called ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’ registered in Washington DC? What reason could there be for a country to be registered as a company?

By definition, aren’t corporate and government entities mutually exclusive? And doesn’t government regulate companies?

Why would Australia be registered with the SEC in the United States? And why would it provide a ‘Prospectus’ and annual ‘Economic and Fiscal Outlook’ documents to the SEC? And be subject to SEC regulation?

Why is the Great Seal of Australia  a trademark registered with United States Patent and Trademark Office?

Could the ‘Australian Government’ be a corporate entity masquerading as real government, for profit, and not for the purpose of governance? Does the ‘Australian Government’ truly represent “the people” and not shareholders in another country?

Why do today’s government departments have corporate mission statements like “we provide services on BEHALF  of government” and “our CLIENTS include government…”?

What happened to “we ARE government”?? Does this suggest they are NOT true government, but a company masquerading as government?

If a company registered in Washington DC is falsely claiming government status in Australia, what happened to the real (de jure) government with a similar name? And when?

And are the laws in Australia therefore just rules for employees and contractors of the corporation?

Interesting. Let’s look a little closer…

Perhaps it is a requirement that the Commonwealth of Australia registers as a company entity in order to trade with the United States of America. Are all the other countries who trade with the United States also registered on the American SEC? Is ‘the United States of America’ also registered with ASIC, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission? And is Australia similarly registered with the corresponding trade regulators in other countries?

The answer appears to be NO.

International trade implies mutual agreement; reciprocity; a common method of exchange. But the reality is that the ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’ is registered as a corporate entity with the United States SEC, but not the other way around. There appear to be no comparable corporate entities registered in other countries with which Australia trades. And nations ranking among the United States’ biggest trading partners do NOT have corporate avatars registered with the American SEC. Perhaps registration in Washington DC is for the purpose of trading Government Bonds. Interesting…

… But this strange corporate entity is only half the story. Before government bonds can even exist, surely there must first be a legitimate government.

Government and the role of Governor-General in Australia

In Australia, the Governor-Generalis the representative of the Monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II) and the Administrator of Government. Given that the Governor-General administers government in Australia, government can only exist in Australia with a valid Governor-General. The Governor-General is reliant upon the existence of the ‘Office of Governor-General’, which was originally constituted by the late Queen Victoria in Letters Patent dated 29th  October 1900, passed under the Monarch’s seal – the Great Seal Of The United Kingdom (view Letters Patent 1900).

The power and authority to revoke, alter or amend those Letters Patent was reserved by the late Queen Victoria to her heirs and successors. Given those Letters Patent were issued under the ‘Great Seal of the United Kingdom’, surely any revocation, alteration or amendment must be issued by an heir and successor under the same Seal.

So  what’s  the problem?

In 1984, Letters Patent supposedly revoked the original Letters Patent of 1900 and provided new provisions for the Office of Governor-General (view Letters Patent 1984). This happened under the ‘Great Seal of Australia’, which we already know is a corporate trademark registered with the United States Patent & Trademark Office in the U.S. (view registration)

Surely such an attempt at revocation cannot therefore be lawful? And if not, what Office is the Governor-General in Australia presently occupying? Is the person we call “Governor-General” truly a representative of an “heir and successor” to the late Queen Victoria?

The answer appears to be NO.

Given that the Governor-General appoints Ministers, Judges, Commissioners and Justices of the Peace, and ascribes Royal Assent as the Monarch’s representative in Australia – using the Monarch’s Seal  – in the absence of a valid Governor-General, are there any legitimate government offices in Australia?

Again… the answer appears to be NO.

So let’s test the theory…

A case study

Wake Up World friend and colleague Scott Bartle documented his recent dealings with ‘Australian Customs & Border Protection Service’ in his self-funded documentary “What The FUQ? – Frequently Unanswered Questions of the Australian Government”.

This simple, concise and sometimes hilarious case-study follows Scott’s ongoing interactions with a supposed “government” entity that simply does not behave as a genuine government agency should.

And all he did was ask them to demonstrate their validity!

Documentary Trailer: What The FUQ? (2:47 mins)

To view this documentary in full,  Click here. I highly recommended it.

So… IS the “Australian Government” the same government the original Office of Governor-General was intended to Administer?

It’s a question that officials at all levels of “Australian Government” have seem unwilling or unable to answer. Some readers may think I’m a crack-pot for even asking the question. “Break out the tin-foil hats!” they’ll cry! But please… Before you form an opinion or post a comment on this article, ask the Australian Government the same question yourself:

Can you please demonstrate that today’s Office of Governor-General is the same Office that was constituted by the late Queen Victoria in Letters Patent of 1900?

It is your right, after all. And there are certainly some details that don’t add up. But it gets better….

That’s odd, they certainly don’t ACT like a true government.

At first “Government” may just ignore you. But since anyone claiming government status has a responsibility to prove it, their  silence is very indicative, don’t you think? So push your Government a little further, and see what happens when you really start to question who’s who. Taxes & fines are suddenly waived, and miraculously, licenses & permits are no longer required! And it  doesn’t  stop there.

Does this sound like the behaviour of legitimate government? NO, it does not. If challenged, does a legitimate government not simply demonstrate its validity and continue to act within its lawful authority? Or does legitimate government exempt that person’s responsibilities and wave them through the gates, quickly, quietly and with a minimum of fuss? “Nothing to see here!”

Is this situation unique to Australia?

Let’s find out! To our friends and readers from the Commonwealth of Australia, we recommend you contact your local Members  and  Senators and ask them one simple question:

Can you please demonstrate that today’s Office of Governor-General is the same Office that was constituted by the late Queen Victoria in Letters Patent of 1900?

To our friends and readers outside Australia, we recommend you identify the documents that established the original offices of government in your country, then ask one simple question of your government representatives:

Can you please demonstrate that today’s government is the same one as established at the inception of this country?

It is just one simple question! Demonstrating its own legitimacy is a very simple thing that every government agency should be able to do. And in a true democracy, silence is an unacceptable response of government to questions of its very legitimacy. But today the “Australian Government” (and others around the world) are unwilling and unable to prove their legitimacy. Written inquiries made to Ministers and Government agencies, to the Office of the Prime Minister and to the Office of Governor General remain unanswered. So in the absence of a valid response from Government, active resistance is our only option.

Why does a corporation in the United States bear the name ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’? Why in 1984 was the Queen’s authority to amend the provisions for the Office of Governor-General was granted on a company letterhead? Why are those claiming to represent true government in Australia unable or unwilling to prove that status? And why, when challenged, do officials seem to overlook one’s so-called “obligations” and run silently in the other direction?

It only takes a few minutes to write to your local member’s office and ask them to demonstrate the legitimacy of their Office. We all have a right to know. Please come back to Wake Up World and tell our readers how your inquiry was met. Silence? Jargon? Or a simple demonstration of your government’s legitimacy?

We’d love to hear your stories, so please leave a comment or send us an email

About the author:

Andy Whiteley  is a former corporate manager  turned writer, editor and co-founder of  Wake Up World. An advocate of peaceful (r)evolution, Andy  believes we are on a necessary path (albeit bumpy) to a renewed social model grounded in love, transparency, individuality, sustainability and spirit. Through his role at Wake Up World,  he hopes to have a positive influence on  that transition.

Special thanks Scott Bartle for travelling 4,000 kms to help join the dots.


Did you find this article helpful?

If so, please consider a donation to help the evolution of Wake Up World and show your support for alternative media.

Your generosity is greatly appreciated.

Wake Up World's latest videos


  • billbo

    Why ask the “queen”? Might as well ask the tooth fairy. The UK FCO has stated that “the Queen,in her role as head of state of the United Kingdom and as such advised by British ministers,has no executive power exercisable within the Commonwealth of Australia.–” The monarchy referred to in covering clause II of the defunct UK colonial constitution Act is in the sovreignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Such sovreignty ceased to exist in 1922. So much for this Windsor woman having anything to do with our land mass. Wakey,wakey.

    • “So much for this Windsor woman having anything to do with our land mass.” – In Australia, public lands are considered to belong to the Crown. This includes land for nature conservation and various other governmental purposes, as well as vacant land. Public lands comprise around 23% of Australian land, of which the largest single category is vacant land belonging to the Crown, comprising 12.5% of the land.[1]

      Crown land is held in the ‘right of the Crown’ of either an individual State or the Commonwealth of Australia; there is not a single ‘Crown’ (as a legal governmental entity) in Australia (see The Crown). Various States have adopted differing policies towards the sale and use of their Crown lands; for instance, New South Wales passed a controversial reform in 2005 requiring Crown lands to be rated at market value.[2]

      Crown land is used for such things as airports (Commonwealth) and public utilities (usually State).

      In Tasmania, the management of Crown land is governed by the Crown Lands Act 1976.

      Because the mainland area of the Commonwealth of Australia has not increased since federation, the only crown land held by the Commonwealth government consists of land in the Northern Territory (surrendered by South Australia) the Australian Capital Territory, and small areas acquired for airports or defence. This contrasts with the United States, where the expansion of the country since federation in 1787 means that most of the public land, except for public land in the original 13 states and Texas, is owned by the federal government.

  • KEN

    GREAT STORY — THANKS FOR YOUR RESEARCH AND COURAGE ANDY & SCOTT —- this CONNECTS a WHOLE BUNCH OF DOTS about what is happening in the U S and how and why our congress and government agencies behave the way they do

  • mike

    Excellent article. Did you find out who the shareholders were for the Washington DC incorporated “Commonwealth of Australia”? It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that they were the same faceless men and women who control the Wall Street Banking entities that own the Federal Reserve in America.

  • Chris

    Hang on, does this mean that effectively, we aren’t actually part of the Commonwealth anymore? Does this mean that the Union Jack on our flag which I stand for is just there for decoration? Ultimately, does this mean that the U.S. have claimed us as part of their NWO???

  • mike

    I would do some more research before you press the wrong buttons. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you my friends are only seeing the tip of a very large iceberg.
    If I buy a ticket to go for a swim I might get stopped by an attendant who will want to see my ticket. If I show him the ticket I can proceed to the pool. But if I then stand at the side of the pool demanding my right to go for a swim, what might the natural reaction of the attendant be then? He would throw me out, ticket or no ticket.
    Put another way, the only form of legitimate government is government by consent. If you pull that house down, what might you be left with? Just go for a swim, no fuss, no harm, peacefully.

    • Gunham Badi Jakamarra [Mark McMurtrie]

      Mike, best you worry about England and not this continent…the Tribes here have had enough of the fraud and lies perpetrated by your lot in respect of ourselves and our lands, which your lot entered and have trespassed upon for some 225yrs now…bets you go for a swim…..and keep your nose out of business which is none of your concern……shame your lot didn’t practice the same type of restraint you are preaching now for the past 600yrs…..

  • Thomas

    I have sent the URL of the ‘What the FUQ? doco
    to the Hon Michael Keenan MP (Fed) requesting a comment.
    The first time on 24 October 2012 with a follow up on 6 November.
    No reply was received to date but I know that in a few months time he’ll be all over everybody to et their vote.
    Not mine this time for it seems that he is in it for his own reasons.
    We need a change and we need it now, before these clowns cause play more games at our expense.

  • judynz

    Do you think you own your home? (or anything else you register! ) No, home tax does not pay for public works as you are lead to believe. Because govt owns your home they charge you Rental & like all landlords they pocket these home taxes. (Home Owners only have colour of title.)
    All public works are funded with BORROWED money & the elites collect all the interest. Believe me these Corporates are scamming us more than most would believe. This is just the tip of a huge iceberg.
    Only learning & understanding will give you strength to change things.

  • Linda

    The Queen is just one part of the evil cabal running the world with the Rothschilds, Rockefeller’s and Morgans. They pull the strings, you won’t get any answers.

  • Thomas J

    This barely touches the surface.


    To whom it may concern,
    Re: Evidentiary proof of the origin of your head of power to rule over the Original Sovereign Tribal peoples of this nation and the authority to usurp their proprietary rights and usufructory entitlements.
    With Invasion/Survival Day over for another year I would like to extend the opportunity for you to investigate the question of ‘sovereignty’ in terms to what is now known as Australia.
    Therefore I pose this question on behalf of all the Original Sovereign Tribal Peoples of this nation –
    To Local, State, Federal Government, the Crown and peoples of Australia etc.
    The Original Sovereign Tribal peoples of this nation seek from your government certified copies of any and all documents where their past or present Elders surrendered to the British colonial authorities, or the Australian successor in title, thereby allegedly ceding their sovereignty and relinquishing their proprietary right to their lands, territories, waters and natural resources through their free prior and informed consent.
    They assert and affirm that at no time since 26th day of January 1788 had the British Admiralty declared war upon Original Sovereign Tribal Peoples of this nation thus negating any claim that the Original Sovereign Tribal Peoples were conquered. Consequently their lands, territories, waters and natural resources were never acquired by conquest nor cession.
    To the best of their knowledge and belief they assert and affirm that no treaties were entered into by their Elder representatives with the then colonial governors or their successors in state.
    By this they assert and affirm that the Original Sovereign Tribal Peoples of this nation have never submitted to the British invaders nor their heirs and successors, nor have they ceded their lands, natural resources, waters and the airspace above their homelands.
    Should your office fail to produce the documentation of our alleged cession of sovereignty they will take this to confirm no such documents exist?
    In 1770 Captain James Cook landed in Botany Bay, home of the Eora people, and claimed possession of the East Coast of Australia for Britain under the doctrine of ‘terra nullius’
    According to the international law of Europe in the late 18th century, there were only three ways that Britain could take possession of another country:
    • If the country was uninhabited, Britain could claim and settle that country. In this case, it could claim ownership of the land.
    • If the country was already inhabited, Britain could ask for permission from the indigenous people to use some of their land. In this case, Britain could purchase land for its own use but it could not steal the land of the indigenous people.
    • If the country was inhabited, Britain could take over the country by invasion and conquest- in other words, defeat that country in war. However, even after winning a war, Britain would have to respect the rights of indigenous people.
    Strangely Britain did not follow any of these rules in Australia. Since there were already people living in Australia, Britain could not take possession by “settling” this country. However from the time of Captain Cook’s arrival the British Government acted as if Australia were uninhabited. So, instead of admitting that it was invading land that belonged to Aboriginal people, Britain acted as it were settling an empty land. This is what is meant by the myth of terra nullius which was proven in Coe V Commonwealth 1979 and Mabo v Queensland (No.2) 1992
    The ideal of Native (slaves) Title and ILUA’S are nothing but a fraud and only give the Crown and its corporate agent’s ownership of the land, whilst giving the Tribes access to hunt, fish, gather and continue cultural activities. This is all set up to benefit the mining and resource industries not the Tribes. This practice is in place just like the NT intervention to force assimilation upon them and force extinguishment of any rights in return for token amounts of money and recognition.
    “Native Title needs significant clarification to distinguish it from what it is said to represent when touted publicly, as opposed to what it ACTUALLY is at law. Native title is a form of title issued by Crown minion colonising government bodies to ‘Aboriginal’ groups or people over land that has been ‘colonised’. Native Title requires an applicant to admit they are a ‘Traditional’ owner”. Accordingly, one who is a ‘Traditional Owner’ is one who was the owner but has sold his interest to another….This is the Crowns’ ONLY means of acquiring Tribal lands, and in the manner it is employed represent serious extrinsic fraud on the part of the Crown and its’ minions and parliaments. Native Title applicants are not informed of this fact, and, due to the fraudulent usurpation of the Tribes sovereignty by the Crowns’ abandoned franchised corporate parliaments, they are conned into believing they are NOT the Sovereign owners of their lands. This usurpation of the Tribes Sovereignty is in direct contravention to Queen Victoria’s’ Order in Council of ~2 August 1875 which, in clear terms, prohibited the UK and its’ minion parliaments here from ‘extending or construing to extend sovereignty or dominion’ onto this continent or the Pacific Islands. Gunham Badi Jagamarra (Mark McMurtrie) 2012

    The Tribes are well aware of the legal documentation that is available to them that has been recorded by the Crown, some of these include the Act Establishing the Coronation Oath 1689 UK, the Coronation Act 1689 UK and The Act of Settlement 1701 UK also there are the orders given to Lieutenant James Cook 1768 and Governor Arthur Phillips 1787 and several letters patent. The Tribes also know of the legal status of an Order in Council being issued under the Royal Prerogative. What was ordered in the 1875 amendment to the 1872 Pacific Islanders Protection Act was absolute law that could only be overturned by another such Order in Council by the reigning monarch and as it never was this law remains(specific attention must be given to section’s 6, 7 and 10 of this Act).
    6. Power for Her Majesty to exercise Jurisdiction over British subjects in islands of the Pacific Ocean. Office of High Commissioner.- It shall be lawful for Her Majesty to exercise power and jurisdiction over Her subjects within any islands and places in the Pacific Ocean not being within Her Majesty’s dominions, nor within the jurisdiction of any civilized power, in the same and as ample a manner as if such power or jurisdiction had been acquired by the cession or conquest of territory and by Order in Council to create and constitute the office of High Commissioner in, over, and for such islands and places, or some of them, and by the same or any other Order in Council to confer upon such High Commissioner power and authority, in Her name and on Her behalf, to make regulations for the government of Her subjects in such islands and places, and to impose penalties, forfeitures, or imprisonments for the breach of such regulations.
    7. Saving of rights of tribes.-Nothing herein or in any such Order in Council contained shall extend or be construed to extend to invest Her Majesty, her heirs and successors with any claim or title whatsoever to dominion or sovereignty over any such islands or places as aforesaid, or to derogate from the rights of the tribes or people inhabiting such islands or places, or of chiefs or rulers thereof, to such sovereignty or dominion, and a copy of every such Order in Council shall be laid before each House of Parliament within thirty days after the issue thereof, unless Parliament shall not then be in session, in which case a copy shall be laid before each House of Parliament within thirty days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.
    10. Proclamation of Act.-This Act shall be proclaimed in each Australasian colony by the governor thereof within six weeks after a copy of it has been received by such governor, and shall take effect in the said colony from the day of such proclamation.
    Although England repealed most of the 1872 and 1875 Pacific Islander Protection Acts in 1964 and in 1986 finalised the repeal of the 1875 Act. In repealing these Acts there was a saving statement, to quote the Statute (Repeals) Act 1986 Chapter 12:
    An Act to promote the reform of the Statute Law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and make other provisions in connection with the repeal of these enactments. [2 May 1986]
    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-
    At 2 (4) Subject to subsection (3) above (which only dealing with Dentist Act 1878 and Medical Act 1886). This Act does not repeal any enactments so far as the enactment forms part of the law of a country outside the British Isles; but Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide that the repeal by this Act of any enactment specified in the Order shall on a date so specified extend to any colony.
    Clearly, the import of the intentions of the original Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875 remains as part of the law of the colony of Australia.
    The 1986 Australia Act did nothing to remove the recognition by the British Parliament and its monarch of Aboriginal sovereignty and dominion over their places, waters, minerals, gas, oil and natural flora and fauna.
    John Howard’s attempt as Prime Minister to repeal the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts 1872 and 1875 by the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Act 1999 failed to recognize the international law relating to conventional practices and international laws that preclude one state from repealing an Act of another sovereign parliament. Moreover, the Commonwealth Criminal Code Amendment Slavery and Sexual Servitude Act of 1999 merely repealed the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts of 1872 and 1875 respectively so that they are no longer on the public records and thus fails to alter in any way shape or form the effect of the original act which is preserved in the above Order in Council.
    Further, the Australia Act 1986 affirms that the Colonial Law Validity Act entrenches the colonial laws existing in the Australian colony.
    The Parliament and monarch of Britain is the same body of authority that gives legitimacy to the Australian State 1901 Australian Constitution Act, which comes from the same British Parliament assented to by the same British monarch, Queen Victoria, who affirmed their sovereignty and dominion.
    Further, neither the High Court nor any other Australian court has the subject matter jurisdiction to determine the issue of the sovereignty of another sovereign nation. One wonders what the judges of the High Court were thinking when they pretended to have subject matter jurisdiction to determine their sovereignty. Native title wasn’t here 230 years ago and, in reality, it isn’t here now. We now query the integrity of the Australian High Court decision in Mabo (No.2), although shattering the illusion of “Terra Nullius” the High Court failed to expand on the true recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty.
    In this regard the High Court said:
    42. The fiction by which the rights and interests of indigenous inhabitants in land were treated as non-existent was justified by a policy which has no place in the contemporary law of this country. The policy appears explicitly in the judgment of the Privy Council in In re Southern Rhodesia in rejecting an argument (66) ibid., at p 232 that the native people “were the owners of the unalienated lands long before either the Company or the Crown became concerned with them and from time immemorial … and that the unalienated lands belonged to them still”. Their Lordships replied (67) ibid, at p 234-
    “the maintenance of their rights was fatally inconsistent with white settlement of the country, and yet white settlement was the object of the whole forward movement, pioneered by the Company and controlled by the Crown, and that object was successfully accomplished, with the result that the aboriginal system gave place to another prescribed by the Order in Council”.
    Whatever the justification advanced in earlier days for refusing to recognize the rights and interests in land of the indigenous inhabitants of settled colonies, an unjust and discriminatory doctrine of that kind can no longer be accepted. …
    It is important to understand that the High Court in Mabo went on to say in para 42 that:
    The expectations of the international community accord in this respect with the contemporary values of the Australian people. The opening up of international remedies to individuals pursuant to Australia’s accession to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (68) See Communication 78/1980 in Selected Decisions of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol, vol.2, p 23 brings to bear on the common law the powerful influence of the Covenant and the international standards it imports. The common law does not necessarily conform with international law, but international law is a legitimate and important influence on the development of the common law, especially when international law declares the existence of universal human rights. A common law doctrine founded on unjust discrimination in the enjoyment of civil and political rights demands reconsideration. It is contrary both to international standards and to the fundamental values of our common law to entrench a discriminatory rule which, because of the supposed position on the scale of social organization of the indigenous inhabitants of a settled colony, denies them a right to occupy their traditional lands. It was such a rule which evoked from Deane J. (69) Gerhardy v. Brown [1985] HCA 11; (1985) 159 CLR 70, at p 149 the criticism that -“the common law of this land has still not reached the stage of retreat from injustice which the law of Illinois and Virginia had reached in 1823 when Marshall C.J., in Johnson v. McIntosh (70) (1823) 8 wheat, at p 574 (21 US , at p 253), accepted that, subject to the assertion of ultimate dominion (including the power to convey title by grant) by the State, the ‘original inhabitants’ should be recognized as having ‘a legal as well as just claim’ to retain the occupancy of their traditional lands”.
    43. However, recognition by our common law of the rights and interests in land of the indigenous inhabitants of a settled colony would be precluded if the recognition were to fracture a skeletal principle of our legal system. The proposition that the Crown became the beneficial owner of all colonial land on first settlement has been supported by more than a disregard of indigenous rights and interests. It is necessary to consider these other reasons for past disregard of indigenous rights and interests and then to return to a consideration of the question whether and in what way our contemporary common law recognizes such rights and interests in land? Crown title to colonies and Crown ownership of colonial land distinguished.
    Your claim in title to our lands, waters and natural wealth is more than ‘on shaky ground’. The High Court Mabo decision has determined that:
    44. In the trilogy of cases cited earlier in this judgment (71) Supra, pp 12-15: Attorney-General v. Brown; Randwick Corporation v. Rutledge; the Seas and Submerged Lands Case, it was said that colonial land became a royal demesne – that is, that the Crown became the absolute beneficial owner in possession of all colonial land – on first settlement, the event which conferred sovereignty on the Imperial Crown. Curiously, in Williams v. Attorney-General for New South Wales (72) [1913] HCA 33; (1913) 16 CLR 404, at p 439, Isaacs J. said it was unquestionable that –
    “when Governor Phillip received his first Commission from King George III. on 12th October 1786, the whole of the lands of Australia were already in law the property of the King of England”.
    Fortunately for their peoples, the Order in Council in the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875 clearly contradicts this assertion in para 44.
    The judges in Mabo did, however, avail themselves to the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts as part of the matters in evidence. However, it must be said these acts of the British parliament must have caused them much pain and heartache because we now know that Justices Mason, Brennan, Deane and Dawson were Knights of the Order of British Empire, while on Australia Day 1988, Justice Deane was given the Order of Australia. We also know that he was a Knight Commander con Placca of the Papal Order of St. Gregory and Knight of the Order of St. John. It suffices to say that when we consider who the justices of the High Court are we see the failings of the judicial system. If it were a just system then each of the justices would or should have at least had the decency to identify their vested interests by identifying their loyalties, obligations and financial joinder to the Crown. Being a Knight of the realm would certainly preclude Knights finding against those who appointed them. It goes without saying that their failures to look at the question of fiduciary duties and obligations give rise to this criticism.
    For you to assert that you cannot give recognition to their continuing sovereignty and dominion is an argument that has neither substance, nor legal foundation.
    According to the United Nations Resolution 2625(XXV) 1970, if they ask that the colonies remove themselves from the state so that they can establish their sovereignty and their self-determination then the colonies must obey and remove their goods and chattels from their tribal lands.
    Also to further validate that this process has begun, In July 2012 the Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi (PKOA) was finally recognized by the United Nations as an indigenous sovereign nation. The government of Atooi now has jurisdiction over the U.S. government occupying Hawaii, according to international law and the recognition by the UN. You can find the headquarters of this nation on the island of Kauai. The Ali’i Nui (High Chief) is Aleka (Dayne) Aipoalani (a direct descendant of Kaumuali’i) and the kingdom’s website is
    I urge you to not believe what I declare on face value and do some research and investigating on your own, some interesting material you may wish to look at includes-
    • Positional paper organized for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights by Karno Walker of the Ramindjerri Tribe and Gunham Badi Jagamarra (Mark McMurtrie) of the Kokatha and Tharawal Tribes on behalf of the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation (OSTF) Member Tribes 2012

    • UN submission prepared and representative of Tangankald and Meintangk Peoples by Dr.Irene Watson University of South Australia 2012

    • “Indigenous sovereignty- never ceded”: soverigeity, nationhood and whiteness in Australia by Angela M. Pratt University of Wollongong 2003

    • White “Autochthony” by Rob Garbutt for the Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association 2006

    • UN Resolution 2625 (xxv) 1970

    • Submission to the UN titled AUSTRALIA- The Concealed colony! prepared by The Institution for Constitutional Education and Research Inc. 1999

    • SYNOPSIS http://www.basic-

    • Also in your search it may be useful to examine what was the outcome to the Prerogative Writ of Mandamus served to Chief Justice French of the High Court by Neil Russel-Taylor 8th December 2010.
    Furthermore you will find that the validly of the Commonwealth of Australia ABN 122104616 (which is actually a corporation listed on the United States of America Securities and Investment Commission No. 0000805157) and the appointments of Governor Generals and Prime Ministers are illegitimate.
    By all accounts it seems that Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and also termed “Queen of Australia” has no detrimental influence or significant consequence over the citizens of Australia. Elizabeth II has never been crowned the “Queen of Australia”. The position of “Queen of Australia” does not exist. It has now been established that there is NO Queen of Australia and that there is NO Royal Sign Manual, this then makes ALL the appointments of Governors-General of the Commonwealth of Australia NULL & VOID!!So, we now have a Governor-General who has not been appointed legally, who unlawfully swears the Prime Minister and their Cabinet into Office, which now makes that Prime Minister’s appointment and his cabinet also NULL & VOID!!
    Also there is a continuance of the application of British law within the territory of the independent sovereign nation Australia. That means there is no such thing as Australian law.
    An extraordinary decision was made in the High Court of Australia in Melbourne on December 15, 1999. Justice Hayne declared that “Australia had domestic sovereignty but did not have international sovereignty”. This decision confirms that Australia itself, as a nation, continues to be a colony of Great Britain.

    Up until August 2011 the Monarch was also the Lord High Admiral and as such all of their Authority derives from this role and is operational only on the Sea. They have no Authority on the Land because the King is Lord High Constable and has authority on the land.
    The Admiralty is how all of the Commonwealth Laws operate as well as those of the US. They operate in Admiralty for commerce purposes, insurance, salvage etc. Every subject (citizen of the commonwealth) operates in Admiralty whether they realise it or not. The laws also operate in Admiralty for punishment or criminal purposes as well. Most courts are summary judgment courts. If someone was in the Army, they would be disciplined by the Army, according to those rules a summary judgment. There is no real hearing given to any evidence. If a charge is brought, it is brought by an Officer of the Government and as such is undisputable. Once charged only conviction can follow. Summary Judgement.

    In the navy the same thing applies. As the current Sovereign is Lord High Admiral their power only extends over water. This leads to another discussion about how people on the land can be affected by an authority over the sea. It happens by sleight of hand and nothing more. If you look to your countries laws try and find a law that defines what your country is. Perhaps its boundaries or borders are described. Invariably most countries under Admiralty law are defined as being rivers and water ways, some of which extend in land. For example Australia is defined as including the Cocos and Keeling Islands. In law the term “Includes” means anything which is not hereafter listed is not included. So the Commonwealth of Australia is comprised solely of the Cocos and Keeling Islands not the great land mass that most people know as Australia.

    The Queen rules by extending the concepts of the Sea inland. By claiming water ways and more recently claiming underground water flows in direct breach of the common law. Establishing townSHIPS in land. Extending roads inland from ports. Allowing Traffic to move along those roads. Traffic is the movement of passengers or cargo for a fee. Cargo is transported via sea. A road is just an extension. Metaphorically it is an in land waterway, the Crown has only ever had an Admiralty jurisdiction over maritime issues and has unlawfully applied this to the Tribal peoples and their lands.

    Thereby Original Sovereign Tribal Peoples of this nation assert and affirm that neither the Crown nor the Local, State or Federal Governments have acquired or extinguished the Original Sovereign Tribal Peoples sovereignty and their rights and freedoms to their lands, waters and natural resources and airspace above their lands.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this, hopefully it may help open the eyes of all Australians!
    You may find this latest development of real interest, the Ramindjeri are taking their argument of Sovereignty to the Queen’s Privy Council after the Federal Court admitted it does not have jurisdiction on this matter!

    • Jim

      Judge says USA INC is just a corporate franchise network
      Stuey is absolutely correct on admiralty and contract law
      Judge Dale, retired
      Thursday, 11 April 2013

      THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN by: Judge Dale, retired

      Our federal government has instructed our federal, state and local police agencies that everyone who purports to be a SOVEREIGN should be TREATED as a TERRORIST! They have also brainwashed the American public into believing that being a SOVEREIGN is anti-American and unpatriotic! Perhaps this is: “The POT calling the KETTLE black?”

      WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY? It is the inherent right and prerogative of a civilized people to rule itself, and to dictate all of the forms and conditions of the institutions it sets up to carry out this rule. Ironically, the U.S. SUPREME COURT agrees with those people who claim to be SOVEREIGN citizens of the American Republic!

      Bond vs. UNITED STATES, 529 US 334 – 2000, The Supreme Court held that the American People are in fact Sovereign and not the States or the Government. The court went on to define that local, state and federal law enforcement officers were committing unlawful actions against the Sovereign People by the enforcement of the laws and are personally liable for their actions.
      Bond v. United States, 529 US 334 – 2000 – ”ŽSupreme Court – Cited by 761 litigants in other cases.
      Bond v. US, 131 S. Ct. 2355 – 2011 – ”ŽSupreme Court – Cited by 306 “ “
      Bond v. US, 1 F. 3d 631 – 1993 – ”ŽCourt of Appeals, 7th – Cited by 66 “ “
      What are the implications of this 2000, U. S. Supreme Court ruling?

      1] The delegates to the first Federal Convention prohibited the use of corporations by all governments representing the American Republic. Therefore, all of these corporate governments and their corporate laws are a usurpation of the organic Constitution of the United States of America. All State Governments are now sub-corporations of the Federal Government, making all Courts and all law enforcement personnel, corporate federal agencies or employees. [See: James Madison Journal of the Federal Convention, Vol. 2, P. 722] and [Pull up your State Code on your PC and search the Code for the words “District of Columbia” and “Federal Government.” You will receive about 1000 references linking your state to the federal government.]

      2] The state and federal government is a corporation and therefore the Congress, State Legislatures, City Councils, Municipalities and all State and Federal Courts are corporate entities posing as Constitutional branches of government.

      3] Corporations are privately owned businesses, meaning that the Corporate United States belongs to one or more private individuals, which is always governed by a Board of Directors. The Corporate United States is privately owned by a group of European Royal and Elite individuals tied to the Federal Reserve System and the letters of incorporation are recorded in the Vatican. The President of the United States is actually the CEO of the United States and the Congress and all others are corporate employees. Everything they do is in the interest of the corporate owners! I can’t access those documents because of National Security.

      4] In order to promulgate and enforce Criminal Laws to govern the SOVEREIGN public, government must be SOVEREIGN too, which is an accepted RULE of LAW derived from the, Ancient Law of Kings. Corporations are not and can never be SOVEREIGN. They are not real, they are a fiction and only exist on paper.

      5] Therefore, all laws created by these government corporations are private corporate regulations called public law, statutes, codes and ordinances to conceal their true nature. Do the Judge and your lawyer know about this? You bet they do!

      6] Since these government bodies are not SOVEREIGN, they cannot promulgate or enforce CRIMINAL LAWS; they can only create and enforce CIVIL LAWS, which are duty bound to comply with the LAW of CONTRACTS. The Law of Contracts requires signed written agreements and complete transparency! Did you ever agree to be arrested and tried under any of their corporate statutes? For that matter, did you ever agree to contract with them by agreeing to be sued for violating their corporate regulations?

      [Citations and Complaints are contracts but they lack transparency because you were never told what might happen to you if you agree to contract, and that you had a right to refuse the accommodation!]

      7] Do any of Americas Courts have Jurisdiction over a SOVEREIGN? Yes … but only by your consent to be judged by the Court. Can they compel [Summon or Subpoena] you to appear or participate in their process? No … they can’t compel you and Yes … they can ask but you can reject the accommodation in writing and nothing can be done about it because you have refused to give the court jurisdiction over you!

      8] Enforcement of these corporate statutes by local, state and federal law enforcement officers are unlawful actions being committed against the SOVEREIGN public and these officers can be held personally liable for their actions. [Bank v. U.S., 529 US 334-2000]

      9] There being no Constitutional Criminal Laws or Transparency in the American Justice System, everyone arrested, convicted and sentenced to prison under these CIVIL LAWS are in prison by CONSENT and therein, all American Jails are actually DEBTORS PRISONS!

      10] Most of the County and State Prisons and all of the Federal Prisons are privately owned corporate businesses for profit, which kick back to the sentencing Judges. The Bureau of Prisons Privatization Management Branch provides general oversight, for these institutions. So if you are convicted in these Courts, you can expect to serve some jail time! Now you know why America has such high prison populations!

      11] Can the State Government and Courts take Custody of your children? Only with your consent, otherwise their agents and officers can be held personally liable for their actions! Orphans are a different matter and can become wards of the Court until emancipated.

      Corporate governments are a usurpation of the organic American Constitution and this corporatist onslaught in America has since its creation, been an ANTI-SOVEREIGN and TERRORIST REGIME and are in fact the real TERRORIST and TRAITORS to the American Republic.

      Blessings, Judge Dale, retired

      Democratic-Federal Franchise


      We are the Enemies of the State

      Our Government is a Corporation . . . and so are Our Schools
      See: organic act of 1871

      See also: The Great American Adventure, by Judge Dale

    • Gabrielle

      Appreciate this is an old post, but I’ve only just found it…..and I feel the winds of civil war approaching.

      You can only screw over so many people, so many times, before they fight back. And this time, the obnoxious likes of America and her corrupt, mealy-mouthed ilk will be sent packing with their tails between their legs.

  • Dr. P.

    19 February 2013
    Another update that should be spread far and wide is Prof. Jim Fetzer’s recent interview with Greg Hallett.

    Apparently, Elizabeth II abdicated in 2011, but this has not been reported. For a variety of reasons, she is NOT the heir to the British crown. May the TRUTH COME OUT!

  • Sue Maynes

    I have been part of a research team that has been unravelling this whole mess since 2002. We have approached it from the perspective of proving with verified evidence what has been done, by whom, to whom. There is a lot of documentation of “parts” of the crime, we focused on the full package. It is now ready for the International Courts of Justice, where the common law rights of the people are now held. Bottom line, we will be suing the queen, as the private woman, for breach of contract. Anyone who has questions or more info, please contact [email protected].
    Scott has created an excellent video, but we are getting a lot of people asking more in depth questions he isn’t able to answer.
    Great to see this all getting out internationally, however, as the exact same thing is being done in every common law country, to the extent of its internal laws/legislation.

    • Aus

      International bodies are all run by Illuminati.

      Petition, taking this matter to court etc DON’T WORK.
      We simply need to spread this fact and wake up more, to have peaceful revolution. They are actually SO SCARED of us.

      Also, some tend to think “US is so evil” but the US Gov is also a company! Search on guys. ;o)

  • FOSL Editor

    So, taken from the Securities and Exchange commission Database, Greece (another example), registered as a corporation in 2011:


    (Name of Registrant)”

    Schedule B of the Securities Act 1933 basically provides information on how to register:

    BUT, the SEC website itself highlights that, under the Securities Act 1933

    “Not all offerings of securities must be registered with the Commission. Some exemptions from the registration requirement include:

    – private offerings to a limited number of persons or institutions;

    – offerings of limited size;

    – intrastate offerings; and

    securities of municipal, state, and federal governments.


    This means states do NOT have to register, clearly stated. (Just to provide some hard evidence here)

  • Indo

    Some countries are registered in London Securities & Exchange also .Countries that are not registered in US or UK are registered where?

  • Sand

    Register for what?
    Did they ask me whether i approve them of registering me anywhere, let alone any of the man made laws that just fabricate out of thin air?

    I have never consented to their ownership of me or my freedom to live on a land that is not theirs to register anywhere.

    Human rights violations
    Parental rights violations
    Civil liberties violations

    • codey

      apparently your parents unknowingly registered you by signing your birth certificate

  • Sand

    I also reply to the Aboriginal people claiming ownership. All those laws are English laws and not Aboriginal law so you are bowing to their rule for a start.

    Secondly, original owners or not, nobody owns anything, we all die and do not take anything with us. If the British had not of taken over or whatever, you do not know what may have happened between than and now. You may have been taken over by the Japanese or a disease may have wiped you out. Nobody knows – but one thing is for sure. It makes me irate that i myself have to accept blame for all of this PAST, when there is nothing i could have ever done about it. As much as i wish i could, i can’t and couldn’t.

    We don’t own each other.

    With respect to what has happened to your ancestors. It also affected our ancestors in many ways. We too are just a product of what has happened and suffer everyday as well, being forced to pay for this land, that we also should not have to pay for or have been put into this situation to begin. In fact i was born here so as far as i know this land is my home too.There are many people older than i, does that make them anymore land owners than i am. I can’t help that i was born, i had no choice in the matter.

    The fact is, if we could all do for ourselves what we need to do with respect to one another and just try to move forward as best we can, after all, none of us had anything to do with what happened 200 years ago. We were not even thought of. Our great grand parents were not even thought of. What has happened, we can not change.

    We have to stop laying blame on one another because it is getting us nowhere. As for today’s problems, we can try to change that. Today’s problems are our individual rights being violated and enslavement, our children being stolen, our lives abused. Nothing but commodities for the corrupt.

    • Tudawalli

      If you do-not change the current system & ideals via some sort of agreement then atrocities will continue (as they have), actually I don’t mind your honesty & openess, yet begs the question ‘yet-again’ what is it we are truly dealing with when Original Peoples LORE is pure, built incorruptible & finely tuned to survive sustainable with Nature, not against it, each person from the eldest down to a child held necessary & important roles, plus the equality of Men’s business & Woman’s business, each well respected. The kinship rules were also very well designed, also food gathering/hunting, burning & understanding seasons meant for a healthy & happy existence for generations to come… This insight is but a ‘tip’ of the ice-berg of complexities within this Lore, this Dreaming… What came along was death & destruction & a determination of greed & gluttony like no-other, cunning/conniving lies, that are still being told, the basis of survival as a species depends on this structure, yet it’s being smothered by foreign ideals… Men still say today, was that all they invented was a ‘stick’ when really what they had/still have today is a knowledge that connects man back with Nature, that could very-well save this planet as we know-it by living with Nature, respecting it, connecting, sharing & looking after her… Your Laws are your issues, simply because you designed them to ‘oppress & steal’ things that isn’t yours, until you stop-this, until you seriously want ‘change’ & look at your children & say – ‘I tried’ – Well it’s this ideology that’s the problem that your better than these people who you found in a world of your words, fantasy, a Utopia… Then set-about to destroy them, and NO ‘what-if’s/hear-say about Japanese etc… at least a Treaty would have been signed no-doubt as already trade routes/connections have always existed Northern, Pacific, even NZ & also established fact today DNA exists with a group in/near the Amazon, Sth Americas… And why not pay for the privileged life-styles that still continues today at the cost of lives & damages, slave labour the lists of historical wrongs & Legal discrimination is shocking, the evidence suggests attempts of genocide… Sorry – Isn’t enough to ‘Close The Gap’ & honesty needs to be put forward of WHO really are Original Peoples of this continent are actually dealing with, because your ‘mirrors & smoke-screens, conniving, devious & very dangerous idealists, inventing rules that suit yourselves & the end-game of superiority at all costs, that’s the ego/vanity, you need to realize 1st & foremost that you are NOT Gods but mere-mortals…

  • Aus

    A few years ago I found this fact and have been finding more and more ‘public’ entities being just companies including my kid’s State School, showing up as a Company Search Result on

    Even before knowing this GOVisCO fact, I was kinda refusing to pay rates but I got determined to stop giving our power to traitorous criminals. Not only rates but water bills, we stopped paying and as expected, they tried to intimidate, threaten, and attempt to drag us to court. But we kept demanding verifiable counter evidence to say they are legitimate governments. I mean we challenged Registrars at Magistrates Court of Victoria and their(opponents’) lawyers.

    They have NOTHING TO SHOW!!

    I even met someone in a supermarket who told me that he hasn’t paied rates for, I think he said for 12 years! He even went to VCAT and they had to admit whatever he told them.

    It’s really about time for us to stop giving our power.
    They are so powerful because they lie to us, and swindle, stealing our power = tax etc + votes.

    John Lennon said too, that left often says “Give us power” but we actually already have power. That’s it. I agree there and add to say that we’re making a huge mistake to give that power away to criminals. Illuminati’s puppets.

    That’s where more people should join in.

    Also, don’t you ever reveal their big secret about heavy metal toxins? See the articles I linked from my “How can I detox…” article. That’s OF COURSE, one of the big reasons why they sell immunization/vaccination = cocktail of poisons to us along with a horrible ‘modern medicine’ fraud.

  • lostwoodradio
  • Bradley

    Why do you need to have a facebook (NSA) account to sign the petition i would like to know???

  • Gordon McPhail