Co-Founder of Wake Up World
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 theSecurity 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 Entity Name: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
- 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?
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?
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-General is 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 Trailer (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:
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!
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?
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” appears unwilling or unable to prove its legitimacy.
It only takes a few minutes to write to your local member’s office. Please come back to Wake Up World and tell our readers how your enquiry 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
So what the FUQ do we do next?
Written enquiries 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 response from Government, Wake Up World supports respectfully escalating this matter to the current Monarch, Her Majesty, The Queen.
Surely Her Majesty must know the answer; why a corporation in the United States bears the name ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’; why in 1984 her authority to amend the provisions for the Office of Governor-General was granted on a company letterhead; why those claiming to represent true government in Australia have been unable to prove that status; and why some, when challenged, may suddenly overlook one’s obligations and run silently in the other direction.
…and ask Her Majesty for the truth.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
…we all have a right to know.
HOLD YOUR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE
…it is just one simple question.
In a true democracy, silence is an unacceptable answer of government to questions of its legitimacy.
About the Author
Andy Whiteley is co-founder of Wake Up World.
Special thanks Scott Bartle for travelling 4,000 kms to help join the dots.
Corporations Masquerading as Government (Part II): Which “Government” Can We Trust?
By Scott Bartle
Guest Writer for Wake Up World
It appears that Corporations are masquerading as government in countries around the world – for profit and not for the purpose of governance. We know the role of true government is to act as trustees for the people… to provide services to the community, to represent its interests. But do those claiming government status today truly act as our trustees? Does real government still exist? What the FUQ is going on in government today????
Let’s go right back to the beginning… before there was Government.
When each of us is born, our parents take on the role of Executor of a trust. They appoint Trustees like nannies, school teachers, dentists etc. to return benefits to you as the Beneficiary. Your parents may make the determinations about your care, but they do so on your behalf until we reach maturity.
When we become of age (whatever age that is) we take on the role of Executor, and continue to appoint Trustees to return benefits to us as Beneficiaries. This is a global human phenomenon; even the most isolated tribes in the deepest jungles appear to behave in the same way. Let’s call this a Natural Trust.
How Does This Relate To Government?
In the same way we appoint nannies and dentists, we also appoint Government as a Trustee. They perform an administrative service and return benefits to us as Beneficiaries. We enjoy the benefits of roads, schools, public health services etc… or at least that’s how it should work. Most people, I believe, would be comfortable appointing Government as a Trustee – provided Government functions according to this Natural Trust, and more importantly that Government actually serves the people.
But what if somewhere, something went wrong..?
What if the Government, appointed as Trustee, started serving another master? What if the actions of Government were benefiting others – like shareholders? Would you trust them enough to appoint them your Trustee?
Inconsistencies in the Representation of “Government”
Let’s first look to the United States. The original Constitution reads “The Constitution for the United States”. As of 1871, a Constitution was substituted and reads “The CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.
So which is it? Which one is legitimate? How many constitutions are there?
A similar scenario appears to be taking place in Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) tells us that Government is named “Government of the Commonwealth”.… yet occupying the country’s capital is the “Australian Government”.
Further inconsistency manifests in the name of the Parliament holding office in Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) defines Parliament as ”The Parliament” or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth”. This is in direct contrast to the entity called “Parliament of Australia” which is currently occupying the country’s capital.
Surely the Constitutions in both America and Australia aren’t so weak that legal entity names can so easily be substituted? It doesn’t take a constitutional lawyer to tell you there are strict rules for altering constitutions; that’s why we have referenda. But does anyone remember the referenda that enabled these changes to be made?
And is it just the name that’s different..?
Frequently Unanswered Questions.
When such questions are put to “Government”, answers are scarce – if not completely absent. In arecent case study involving the importation of a 1959 Chevrolet Corvette into Australia, “Australian Customs & Border Protection Service” were challenged to provide evidence they were in fact a legitimate Department of the de jure Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. After twelve months of questioning at all levels of Government, no answers have been forthcoming. ”Ministers”, “Judges”, “Commissioners”, “Departments”, “Governors”, and even the Prime Minister – all remain silent.
So who are they? Are they really Government? So far, no “Government” official has been willing to attempt an explanation; to demonstrate their legitimacy as representatives of true government.
But is a government’s refusal to provide evidence of its legitimacy really good enough? Is that what you expect of a Government that is supposed to act as your trustee? What happened to accountability in Government? Should 12 months without answers be taken AS the answer…??
Accountability in Government… in the Words of JFK
So what happened to accountability in government? Surely questions related to the lawful validity of Government are not simply vexatious? Rather, isn’t a “Government” official who declines scrutiny into the lawful validity of their office claiming to be above the law?
In 1961 US President John F Kennedy made a speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association that everyone in Government – and those who believe Government do not have to answer to the people – should listen to.
He stated: “Government at all levels must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information, outside the narrowest limits of national security…. We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors, and we expect you to point them out when we miss them” said Kennedy. Those are powerful words.
So if this is the case, does real government simply shut up when its validity is challenged? Or does it attempt to address the concerns of those it is supposed to serve, especially as public pressure to do so continues to mount? And if they don’t serve us…. who ARE they serving?? What would happen if the “Government” started to act as the Executor of a trust – dictating rules, codes and statutes to you? What happens if “Government” started demanding that benefits be returned to them..?
How could this happen..?
Corporate “Government” Trust
Let’s consider for a minute the scenario of a Corporate Government Trust, in which the “government” plays the role of Executor. Would a “government” acting as Executor take questions from it’s Trustee? Would the “Government” create a legal entity to which you act as Trustee? Perhaps upon the registration of your birth? Do governments address you … or a LEGAL ENTITY? More importantly, does the silence of government on these questions provide the “fullest possible information” that President Kennedy spoke about??
What can we do about this..?
The first action appears to be to determine the capacity in which “Government” acts. Who are they actually serving..? This question is critical. But I don’t expect this information to be any more forthcoming of government than the answer of their legitimacy. So in the meantime, there are other things we can do in our interactions with Corporate Government.
- Some offer to accept the role of Trustee to their Corporate Government on the condition that they be paid an annual fee to be the Trustee… say $1,000,000 p.a.
- Others provide terms and conditions to their Corporate Government, which set out fees and charges applicable for acts of the pretence to real government.
Either of these two approaches would collapse if those claiming government status were able to demonstrate their legitimacy. But these actions have been shown to stop Corporate Government agencies in their tracks. Does this sound like the actions of a Trustee of the people? Or an Executor and Beneficiary of a corrupted system?
More importantly, how many challenges to the lawful validity of government have been met with the proof demanded by its people?
So what the FUQ do we do next?
- In dealings with any government representative, ask them ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: Can you please demonstrate that today’s government (the one you represent) is the same one as established at the inception of this country? It is the onus of any person or entity claiming government status to prove they act on behalf of legitimate government. Until they can demonstrate this, don’t deal with them.
- Sign the petition to ask Her Majesty, The Queen for the truth about the “Australian Government”; something all levels of the “Australian Government” have been unwilling or unable to provide.
- Share this article. The Corporate Government phenomenon is not limited just to the United States, the UK, or Australia. Increasingly, Governments around the world are behaving as Executors and Beneficiaries, not as Trustees of their people. We all have a right to know… which “Government” can we trust?
About the Author:
Scott spent 12 years working aboard luxury mega yachts for some of the richest and fussiest people on the planet. His travels took him throughout the Mediterranean, Caribbean with voyages through the Indian and Pacific Oceans and islands. Encountering Customs and Immigration formalities was commonplace as Captain. More recently Scott has worked in mining relying on his degree in project management.
With a keen eye for detail Scott has observed inconsistencies in “Government” and contributes this article from his findings.
Visit Scott’s website for more information – truth-now.net