Oaths and Affirmations of Australian leaders - Are they in Office LAWFULLY?

As all Australians should know the colony's founding document/law is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act dated the 9th of July 1900, which came into effect on the 1st of January 1901.

Yes, that's right, 'colony's'. Australia is still a colony, See post: Australia the self governing colony

The Constitution is a document that sets the rules and regulations that people in government must follow.

It offers very little protections, per se for the people, where it's primary directives are for government.

ALL points/aspects of the constitution must be adhered to, period.

The focus is with reference to the last page of the Constitution, that being the Schedule of the Oath or Affirmation.

The Oath states the following:

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

SO HELP ME GOD !

The Affirmation states the following:

I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

    (NOTE.—The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)

Anthony Albanese sworn in David Huxley (27th Governor-General of the colony)

The Parliamentary Education Office states the following:

Oaths and affirmations are formal vows or promises. An oath concludes with the phrase ‘So help me God’, while an affirmation does not reference religion. Ministers are required to take an oath or affirmation on 3 occasions.

Before ministers can be sworn-in by the Governor-General, they must first be sworn-in as a member of the Federal Executive Council. Section 62 of the Australian Constitution says there must be a swearing-in but doesn’t say what the words of the oath or affirmation are. This is left up to the Governor-General, who administers the swearing-in for members of the Federal Executive Council.

After an Executive Councillor is sworn-in, they then take the oath or affirmation of office as a minister. This is not required by the Constitution or a law but by tradition it is always done. The Prime Minister decides what the oath or affirmation will be for their ministry. The Governor-General administers this to all ministers, assistant ministers and the Prime Minister.

Each minister must also be sworn-in as a member of the Australian Parliament. The words of this oath or affirmation are in the Constitution and can only be changed by the Australian people in a referendum. Section 64 of the Constitution says ministers can be sworn-in up to 3 months before they become a member of parliament. As a result, sometimes being sworn-in as a member of parliament is the last of the 3 oaths or affirmations taken.

IF "The Prime Minister decides what the oath or affirmation will be for their ministry.", then show us the lawfully generated instrument that allows for this.

In reality if the person does not swear the correct Oath or Affirmation as within the Constitution, then that person is not in office lawfully, period.

If the person is not in office lawfully, then whatever actions follow are not lawfully enacted.

 For example:

If an MP for example, Katherine Gallagher, has not sworn the Oath or Affirmation as per the Constitution, then she is not in office lawfully, and must be expelled, just like those who had dual citizenships, were expelled under Section 44.

Katherine Gallagher then pushes the Digital ID Bill through, unlawfully.

At another level, if the Bill becomes law, i.e. an Act, is it in circulation lawfully?

Did all the checks and balances occur at every single stage of the law making process?

The short answer would be: No.

See the Oaths and Affirmations of those in office within this 114 page document:

"Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck." - Donald Horne 1964.

Australia’s ‘Jerry-built’ homes ‘crisis’ no one is talking about - HOME BUYER BEWARE!

To make matters worse, for the Australian people, by the government importing too many bank slaves into the colony to allegedly boost the economy, the Australian people are faced with another crisis that is deliberately not talked about by the mainstream media, and that is another aspect of the low quality homes that are being built today.

Low quality farmed timber.

Newer isn't always better, and this picture sums it up pretty well. The quality of modern lumber is simply far inferior to the quality of lumber they were using to build homes in the early and mid-20th century. Wood quality began dropping on a serious scale in the 1980s due to old-growth timber being almost completely depleted.

Most wood used today is grown very fast - not only can you visibly see the difference in quality, but the newer lumber is more prone to rotting due to a lack of heartwood. 

Slow growth wood yields much more heartwood, which is the longest lasting part of the tree, whereas sap wood (new growth wood) will rot very quickly. 

Modern lumber is also a lot more prone to termite damage as it is softer and easier to consume whereas old lumber is extremely resinous and naturally termite resistant. 

A good rule - as long as the plumbing and electric has been updated, a well-built home from the mid-20th century is a better investment and will likely outlast a newer build.

Clarification: Yes, these two pieces of lumber come from two different trees. 

The expert in the attached article is not comparing the lumber of the same tree over time. He is comparing the lumber that was commonly used to build houses 75 years ago versus the lumber commonly used to build houses today

Source:supplied

Covid fines unlawful, the documents they can’t give you!

 Off the public record.

• You live in an abusive relationship with your government.

• In this colony called Australia, people live under a totalitarian, fascist, corporatised, police state.

• Forget being people of the ‘Commonwealth’ or democracy, those days are left to a museum (i.e MOAD), but that’s another story.

See article: Democracy in Australia

The government (all three tiers, Parliament, Executive and Judiciary) is corrupt to the core.

The businesses known as the courts, are corrupt where they are ‘owned’ by banking and financial services institutions such as Goldman Sachs, The Vangaurd Group and BlackRock, being subservient to their ‘stakeholders’.

See court document within the article:

Courts acting under dictation owned by financial services institutions

The courts are allegedly places of public record, but they have ways and means of hiding cases from the public, as part of the agenda of the secretive police state, naturally to the detriment of society.

In your documentation, if you expose the corruption of the police, government or courts, your matter will not make it to the ‘public record’ where it will be withdrawn or dismissed.

This may be seen as a ‘victory’ but it’s actually a loss, a loss for the people, as they are unaware of the details, and a cover-up of criminality by those in power.

In many states of Australia, ‘Covid’ fines have been withdrawn.

They have been withdrawn not when people started to challenge them, but more importantly when people started getting their paperwork right and asking the RIGHT questions.

A proper challenge to any alleged offence should be, first and foremost, on a basis of a ‘question of law’.

Government overflowing with people that gas-light their constituents.

In the police state of Victoria, under the leadership of ‘Chairman Dan’ (Andrews), premier of Victoria from 2014 – 2023, Covid fines were issued unlawfully, under whatever pretexts.

The problem there was that there was no lawfully enacted ‘infrastructure’ in place that would give rise for those fines to exist.

The government knew this, the police knew this and the courts knew this but they wanted to see if the serfs knew, so they gas-lighted the people.

Once again, when people started to obtain the correct knowledge, the fines were getting withdrawn.

The courts are corrupt.

The corruption begins at the registrar level.

They are the 'gatekeepers', the people who will not allow you to have the documents required for you to be successful in defending your matter.

So, apparently ‘advertisements’ were flung around everywhere that the good people of Victoria are under a ‘State of Emergency'.

SO, can the government prove this was a lawfully (as opposed to legally) issued declaration?

What medical advice was given that gave rise for this State of Emergency?

Allegedly there was a State of Disaster issued on 2/08/2020 @ 6pm.

Was this lawfully issued? Can ‘we’ have a copy of this?

MANY people obtained a ‘Covid’ fine, where the charge was as follows:

“Refuse or fail to comply with a direction or requirement made of a person in the exercise of a power under an authorisation given under Section 199 (INDIVIDUAL) Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.”.

In the above you may have noticed that “direction or requirement made of a person” has been underlined.

Keeping in mind that the burden of proof is on the accuser, where every aspect of the accusation or charge must be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Therefore, Victoria Police accuses that you have refused or failed to comply with a direction/requirement that was made of you.

NOW, first and foremost can Victoria Police PROVE that this alleged direction/requirement was given to your ‘person’?

If so, then you require proof that it was served on your person, where an ‘advertisement’ on a freeway digital sign is not legally binding.

A lawful declaration that one must work from home?

What Act have you been charged under?

Since the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, is the alleged source, then a ‘deep dive’ can be initiated if this Act is in circulation lawfully, under something called a ‘reservation of points of law’ or a Section 72B (of the Judiciary Act 1903).

In reality there was no lawfully enacted ‘State of Emergency’ in Victoria, and the government does NOT want the serfs to know about this.

Sure there may be a piece of paper, that states it’s a ‘State of Emergency’ but was it issued lawfully?

Since Victoria Police were fining people under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, Section 167 - Power to request information, the following is stated:

(1)     An authorised officer may request a person to provide information to the authorised officer which the authorised officer believes is necessary to investigate whether there is a risk to public health or to manage or control a risk to public health. 

(3)     A person may refuse to provide the information requested under subsection (1). 

Meaning, when they stop you, there is no need to answer ANY questions.

See documents within the article: Is the 25km rule in Victoria a valid statutory provision?

The reality is that if you ask for the documents, as shown above within the Subpoena, Form 13, the ‘gatekeepers’ will not allow you to have them, where your request WILL be denied.

See also:

• Corrupt Police Issuing (COVID) Fines Only To Be Dropped Before Court

• State of Emergency & curfew acted out illegally by Daniel Andrews?

• No 'State of Emergency' for Victoria, government lies

• Six weeks lock down but Andrews signed Victorians up for four

• Do Covid Infringements issued in Victoria meet the Prescribed Details?

That’s life in a corrupt colony.