Understand the Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth by Sue Maynes

This will give you more insight to the treachery we endure today.

In 1972, the Governor-General dissolved the Federal Parliament and issued a Writ for a new election for the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The people duly elected a lawfully constituted body of members to make the new Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The structure of that Parliament was exactly as described in the 1901 Constitution of the people and the body of members chose Edward Gough Whitlam to be their prime minister. A prime minister is simply an individual elected from the body to be the ‘spokesperson’.

EG Whitlam immediately acted for a period of some days, without parliament sitting, to begin a process of destroying the de jure parliament the people had just elected.

By using the Australian dollar (the product of a private agreement between the previous prime ministers back to Holt and the corresponding state premiers) he offered the newly elected members an increase in wages, pending they enter a new contract through the Ministers of State act. In other words, the newly elected members of the Federal Parliament all quit their jobs and moved to a new position under Whitlam’s private business – the Australian Government.

Whitlam then began operating his new business. As there was no Federal Parliament sitting any more, he simply stepped into a pseudo care-taker/administrator role.

1. The newly elected parliamentarians never told the people they were quitting, so the people could call for a new election.

2. There were no lawfully elected parliamentarians in place to instruct the governor-general to dissolve the parliament.

3. Therefore the governor-general was not able to issue a writ for a new parliamentary election.

Were these men and women privy to the fraud? Some definitely – the new back benchers – probably not.

So from 1973 on – the lawfully elected Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia – had no one in it, except the Queen as the Speaker of a House with no one speaking.

Why did the queen not speak up?

Because that was not in her role as speaker. Because ALL her authority to enact, prorogue, issue writs, etc – was in the hands of the governor-general. She cannot take that back, unless the lawfully elected members of Parliament ask her to take it back. But they did not because they were gone.

Can you see the awful catch-22?

She has to be asked lawfully to do something, and the lawful folk were not there to ask her. She can NOT do something out of the lawful order or SHE will be breaching that lawful order herself and so destroying what she might be hoping to protect.

Whitlam was a brilliant constitutional lawyer who had clearly studied Lincolns’ fraud in America. He knew exactly what to do.

So when the governor-general prorogued the next parliament it was the Australian Parliament that was dismissed and the new election was for members of the Australian Parliament.

Where was our Parliament? Waiting to take up their jobs it appears. Was our lawful parliament of 1972 ever dismissed? No.

Did that queen under Royal Assent, give Whitlam permission to do what he did? No.

Now come to 1986, the Australia Act. Did the queen give the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, permission to separate their ‘government’ from the British Parliament? No. That Parliament was still back in 1972 with no one but her in it.

Did she give the Australian Government permission to separate themselves from the British Parliament? No, she had no interest or power to do that, as she knew they were not the lawfully elected parliament. She simply noted the act.

How? By signing it at the TOP of the document, indicating that she had observed the document, but it was not binding on her.

And as it was not binding on her – the speaker of the House of Representatives in the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia – it was not binding on us.

And as ONLY the governor-general working for the Australian Government, had any power to authorize any act in that government – then her permission if given had no authority anyway.

Think about it folks. If she did not work in the Australian Government in any capacity, then her permission was of no legal standing. It was smoke and mirrors designed to trick us.

She knew that, yet she signed it. I asked David Walter why and this was his reply.

1. Someone would have signed it and said it was her – but they would have signed it in the correct place.

2. By signing it she told us all that a signature was needed on a legal document.

3. By signing it at the top, she clearly protected OUR interests, by keeping our rights ABOVE their claims.

You need to understand this point folks. When you sign a document at the bottom right hand corner, you are validating every word that was written above your signature. When you sign at the top, you are keeping yourself ABOVE and protected from being held to what is written. In effect, you are simply witnessing the document.

We are bound to her protection as the authority for all LAWS in the Commonwealth of Australia, so when she protected herself in that signature, she protected you and I.

Now – the governor-general holds the Writ of her authority in the Commonwealth of Australia. She can’t take that back, as previously stated.

So currently –

1. We have no lawfully elected Parliament

2. The governor-general holds the power to dissolve our last lawfully elected parliament & issue a writ for a new election of a lawful parliament

3. He has to be asked to do so by the last lawfully elected Parliament

4. That does not exist to so ask.

5. The queen is unable to do anything about it unless given the authority to do so

6. Because she can’t take back any authority unless authorized to do so by the lawfully elected Parliament

7. That does not exist outside of her as the speaker

8. but the speaker cannot vote – they are the neutral party.

That is why David Walter has been demanding the ICJ investigate.

He is asking that court to give her the authority to step in, remove the current gg or demand he dissolve the 1972 parliament and issue a writ for a new lawful parliament. That parliament will then restore to the people the lawful courts, lawful policing, lawful army, etc., etc.

Now many people keep saying the constitution is broken, does not work, we need to get rid of it, etc.

However, they are wrong.

If the constitution was broken – the Australian Government would not have had to pretend to use it from 1973 on. They would not have needed over 40 years of deception.

If the constitution does not work, why then did they have to come up with a plan wherein it had no power to interfere with their fraud and deception?

Instead, the criminals had to –

1. Get the constitution put out of the picture they were creating.

2. Take cautious steps so we did not realize what was happening

3. Work hard to persuade us to agree to a republic which meant WE would voluntarily dump the constitution.

4. Get us to contract to every single element of our lives to give them an assumed power over us and our activities, which they could use in courts.

5. Registered their business as a corporation in America to borrow money in our name, using our assets as collateral, for us to pay back.

6. And to implement the sale of our assets as corporate raiders.

There is one huge problem for them though.

For many years now, we have all been protesting about the sale of our assets. Therefore, those sales are now fraudulent.

For some years now, we have all been asking them for their lawful authority to sell those assets. That has not been given, so those sales are now suspected of fraud.

For some years now, we have all been speaking out in the public media – radio, newspaper letters, Facebook. That lets the world know that the sales are questionable at the very least.

So every person buying something from the Aust Govt has the ability to question whether the sale is pure or can be over-turned. Particularly the sale of our public assets.

Given that we the people have not had a de jure Parliament since 1972, and were not told that, then NO piece of legislation created by the Australian Government, a body operating under deception – has ANY validity whatsoever over you and I – even if we contracted in some capacity without the full disclosure.

That means OUR ONLY LAWFUL enactments are dated 1972. That means the folk who bought the public electrical companies or telecommunications DID NOT buy OUR public assets, but the false creations of the Aust Govt. OUR public assets exist in OUR constitution, under OUR lawful 1972 parliament.

The Australian Government could not sell THEM – only the pretence of them. Why? Because they did not own them, were not contracted to sell them & did not have our permission to sell them.

So anything apparently sold – has not been.

That includes all banking contracts, all superannuation contracts, etc. ANYTHING NOT created by OUR 1972 Parliament, may be totally fraudulent and therefore null and void.

That means that ANYONE who has been gaoled, fined, etc since that date, has a question at law. Was my punishment lawful?????

The Aust Govt thought by giving us all these “wealth creation” tools, we would simply roll over and play dead. Instead, their greed has consumed our tacit acceptance and we are rising up. Good try Abbott & Co. Time to move on.

Written by Sue Maynes

2 thoughts on “Understand the Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth by Sue Maynes

  1. So let’s do something about it.So would it mean that the people that have taken office in parliament have dune so knowing this and if so are committing frurld so should be charged also if Menses set up a business to do this then it he how should be paying the so called polititons wage and it should not be coming out off our taxes is that correct or is that just a another fruald these people are committing on us

    Like

  2. just a scroll through. Some of this is incorrect, e.g. where in law is ‘signing above = ‘I have seen this document’ and below = ‘I agree to this document’? Sue claims that we have ‘admiralty law’ etc. that has no basis in reality, and then tried to make out that ‘admiralty law’ is ‘administrative law’, when they are 2 separate things (from memory I was then blocked from her FBook group).

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s