"All the World's a Stage We Pass Through" R. Ayana

Showing posts with label royalty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label royalty. Show all posts

Friday, 9 August 2013

Elizabeth II. The Queen Of Thieves: Creating Wars For Profit


Elizabeth II. The Queen Of Thieves  
Creating Wars For Profit


 "The Sovereign can do no wrong and no laws can be brought against her".
- Lord Halsbury "The Laws of England"


The Civil List provides lavish expenditure for the monarch to spend on Palace entertaining. Queen Victoria stole most of this annual gift from public funds and banked it in the royal maze of off-shore banks. As did her descendants until 1992.

Since 1992 when a few Labour MP’s demanded a closer look at Palace expenditure; the present Queen
, Elizabeth II, has been unable to steal as much as her ancestors.

In 1993 it came to light the Queen had a ‘Civil List Surplus’ of £35 Million.

A half decent Head Of State would have returned that money to the Treasury for use in our schools and hospitals.
Elizabeth II held on it for 'shortfalls'.  

Were it not for the book Royal Fortune, which led to more palace scrutiny, nobody would have known about the Queen's Civil List 'surplus'. The £35 Million would have followed centuries of Civil List surpluses into the royals Swiss accounts.

August 2009. We now know
Elizabeth II had the insolence to designate the Civil List 'surplus' (the £35 Million she stole) as "the Queen's reserve". Which she now insists is all but spent and therefore, she says, she needs another £6 Million added to her annual Civil List of £7.9 Million!

Between 1952 - 1992 the Queen stole another £30 Million by illegally avoiding tax. The stolen money was salted away in Swiss banks where it would have realized £300 Million by now. Anyone who thinks this woman has any love for Britain and the British has no real knowledge of the so-called "royal family."

From the start of her reign the Queen has had to plan for the possibility of Great Britain becoming a nuclear desert. The British public have never for one moment entered those plans.

Should Chernobyl happen at Sellafield or Sizewell the royals have escape planes standing by 24/7, private Pacific islands to go to and billions in foreign banks. In case of a nuclear disaster the evacuation of the Queen's family and ministers is reviewed and rehearsed every year - sometimes twice a year. The Queen's subjects will be abandoned without so much as a royal wave.


The Uranium Queen

(photo., October 17, 1956. The Queen opens Calder Hall )

Once upon a time we were told nuclear power stations would provide electricity 'too cheap to meter.' We then learned that when the Queen opened her first uranium (nuclear) power station it had had nothing to do with providing electricity.

Nuclear power stations are built to produce nuclear weapons material for Her Majesty's Government.

From the very beginning of nuclear power Her Majesty's Government planned and plotted to hide the horrendous cost of running nuclear power stations with massive subsidies, of the taxpayers money, distributed under the cloak of Her Majesty's Official Secret Act.
 

The Queen's Uranium Mines


One of a family of despotsThe Queen owns mines in America, Canada and Africa. The uranium mining company Rio Tinto Mines was formed for the British Royal Family in the late 1950's by the Queen's "Africa adviser" Roland Walter Fuhrhop. Described by a fellow German as "an ardent supporter of Hitler and an arrogant, nasty piece of work to boot." The Queen's adviser (better known as "Tiny" Rowland) had been a passionate member of the Nazi youth movement. Rowland became Africa's most ruthless businessman. Africa being a prime source of the uranium used in the Queen's nuclear reactors.

Between 1957 and 1976 British reactors produced enough nuclear waste/weapons material to suit our Defence Requirements for the next 200 years. By which time nuclear weapons will be obsolete.

Although we had more nuclear weapons material than we could ever use, without choking on our own nuclear fallout, the Queen's cartel had no intention of giving-up their obscene profits from their nuclear power and waste companies, funded by the stroke of the royal pen with an endless supply of the taxpayers billions.


URANIUM RESULTS 2009: Testing uranium poison levels near Chernobyl.

When Electricité de France announced the new European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) would be more efficient than the old Chernobyl type reactor they were, for once, actually telling the truth. The EPR will “overcook” nuclear fuel. This will produce between five and fifteen times more eternally fatal High Level Nuclear Waste for the taxpayer to pay for. Forever and ever.

An accident, like Chernobyl, in an EPR will release much higher levels of fatal radiation causing five to fifteen times the human misery Chernobyl has. How’s that for nuclear efficiency!

May 2009. The Queen granted her French collaborators permission to build two of these foreign Doomsday Machines in Somerset and another two in Suffolk. No doubt Al Qeada are already writing letters of thanks to Her Majesty in anticipation of these dream Targets of Nuclear Mass Destruction.

The Crown Prerogative dictates there can be no questions in Her Majesty's


Parliament probing Her Majesty's control of the Energy Market.

Members of Parliament are not even allowed to think of how much the royals are making
every single minute from their oil, gas and nuclear investments. Which gives you some idea how patently impotent Members of Her Majesty's
Parliament really are.

The British Head of State, Elizabeth II, presides over a weekly meeting of the Joint Intelligence Committee, (JIC) where she - and not the passing prime minister - is fully briefed on the activities of all of the British secret services.

The Queen alone appoints military commanders. No British agents, or British troops, carry out a single act, overt or covert, without direct orders signed by the British Head Of State.

With Rothschilds acting as her principle-nominee-bankers Queen Elizabeth II has become the wealthiest women in the world. In financial circles the Queen is known as the world's "ultimate insider trader.''

Not only is she advised by the world's richest financiers she also has full access to all British State Secrets, through the daily Red Boxes.

The Queen has 455 military advisers in 30 countries. If the Queen learns that some country, lets say Nigeria, is about to be destabilized, she can immediately sell her Nigerian oil shares and invest that money in Arms sales to Nigeria. The only people who know the murky details of royal insider dealing are those on the same gravy train. It would prove impossible, for anyone (especially a royal banker), to press charges of insider trading and conflict of interest against the Queen in her own courts.


Sovereign Rules

Congress can discuss royal family business but it is forbidden for Her Majesty's Parliament
to discuss the family business, or the royals offshore fortune, or the fact that Her Majesty has illegally used her Law Lords to keep her obscene wealth a secret.

The Queen's holdings in Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ) was first brought to public attention by a leak from a source at the Bank of England to Andrew Morton, who wrote the authorized biography of Diana.

Philip Beresford, author of The Book of the British Rich, written in conjunction with the Sunday Times of London, found the Queen tends to invest in "blue chip'' stocks, including Rio Tinto Zinc, General Electric Company of Great Britain, Imperial Chemical Industries, Royal Dutch Shell, and British Petroleum. Among those acting as royal cut-outs and nominees are S.G. Warburg's subsidiary Rowe & Pitman, Barings and Cazanove.

Forbes magazine also reported the Queen is a major RTZ shareholder, as is the Bank of England.

Charles Higham, co-author of Elizabeth and Philip, also states the Queen is a major stockholder in RTZ, which, with her old friends at Anglo-American, controls 12% of the world's precious, strategic, and base metals and minerals.

In 1976, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee found that an international cartel, of which RTZ was a major partner, had been formed in 1971 to fix the world's uranium prices.

A federal grand jury found corroborating evidence of RTZ's role.

To protect RTZ's directors and their richest shareholder, the Queen, Lord Denning and the Law Lords quashed Westinghouse's ability to take depositions in the United Kingdom.

On June 16, 1976, in hearings in the U.S. House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Subcommittee Jerry McAfee, chairman of Gulf Oil admitted that the cartel in which RTZ was his partner had  criminally conspired to falsely increase the price of uranium on world markets.

When the Tennessee Valley Authority tried to sue RTZ for price fixing the U.S. Attorney General again demanded testimony from RTZ executives. However, the directors of RTZ and their boss the Queen were once again protected by the Law Lords, who claimed RTZ directors did not have to appear before an American court, as this was "an unacceptable invasion of British sovereignty.''

RTZ was in on developing North Sea oil from the beginning. Writes Higham. "The Queen undoubtedly approved the heavy investment, which would enrich her in the immediate future.''

Starting in June 1975, RTZ and Texaco were spearheading shipments from the North Sea Argyll Field, to the refineries of British Petroleum, (BP) in which the royal family have a massive stake dating back to the Anglo Persian Oil Company set-up by George V and his bankers to rape the Iranian oil-fields. Anglo Persian evolved into into BP.

Colluding with the Queen the Bank of England established a highly illegal nominee company, the Bank of England Nominees Ltd. (BoEN), to hide the Queen's investments as well as the investments of those Heads Of State the Queen personally recommends. The Sultan of Brunei, King Bhumibhol Adulayadej of Thailand, the Kuwaiti royal family, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and his then friend Saddam Hussein all became clients of "Queen Lizzy's private bank."  BoEN is only one of the many cut-outs used by the Queen to hide her obscene arms, oil and nuclear profits.   

About RTZ . Rio Tinto is a leading international mining group headquartered in the UK, combining Rio Tinto plc, a London and NYSE listed company, and Rio Tinto Limited, which is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange.

Rio Tinto's business is finding, mining, and processing mineral resources. Major products are aluminium, copper, diamonds, energy (coal and uranium), gold, industrial minerals (borax, titanium dioxide, salt, talc) and iron ore. Activities span the world but are strongly represented in Australia and North America with significant businesses in South America, Asia, Europe and South Africa.  more

The British monarch became the ultimate insider-trader in the reign of "The Mad King" George III, 1769-1815. King George III was perfectly sane when he gave some of the Crown Lands to Parliament in exchange for extravagant annual payments, of taxpayers money, to fund the monarchy and their palace-pampered-lifestyle of offensive luxury. These payments are called The Civil List. 

The royals annual Civil List became an endless supply of money-for-nothing to be used for warmongering-for-profit and Empire money-grubbing-speculation. By 1936 when the Queen's grandfather, George V, died the royals private (offshore) fortune was estimated at one billion Sterling.

A small part of the present Queen's massive disposable wealth is the tens of billions amassed tax free between her Coronation in 1953 until the public demanded she pay tax in 1992.

The Queen calls 1992 her "Annus Horribilis." This was the year of the Windsor Castle fire.

Widespread public outrage erupted when the taxpayers were arbitrarily told they would have to pay approximately £30 Million for the fire! The outcome was a "memorandum of understanding" that the Queen would pay some taxes - at her pleasure. Although, the Queen can ignore this "memorandum of understanding" any time she pleases. In 2002 it pleased the Queen to refuse to pay tax on the known £70 Million the Queen Mum left to the Queen. Prior to her death the Queen Mum was always said to be broke. It transpired that eight years before she died the Queen Mum had put £140 Million into Swiss Trusts for her grandchildren.

Little Lizzy's little House

During the 1930's Depression when a third of British children suffered growth defects caused by constant hunger (Rickets). "Little Lizzy", the present Queen, had her own child size six-roomed thatched house in the garden's of Royal Lodge, Royal Windsor Great Park (three mile south of Windsor Castle).

The Times reported. ‘The Small House is fully furnished with running water electric light, and a wireless.’ 

Architect John Nash rebuilt Royal Lodge for the depraved Priny (George 4th). It became one of the Queen Mum’s many homes. She died there, aged 101, pickled in the finest gin other people’s money can buy.

Part of the Queen's known wealth consists of her private collection of castles, jewelry, works of art and a portfolio of blue chip stocks and bonds and real estate investments around the world. In 1991 the Financial Times estimated Her Majesty's investment portfolio - spare cash to play with - was worth at least £3 Billion. Her total wealth - thousands of £billions - is divided into many parts. One known part is the Venetian-style Fondo (trust), that must be passed on to her heir - free from inheritance tax.

The Queen's great grandfather King Edward VII, right, better known as Dirty Bertie, inherited the royals love of money-for-nothing. One of Edward VII's Jewish advisers was the Hungarian banker Baron Hirsch. When Baron Hirsch died in 1896, his position as leading adviser passed on to another Jewish banker, Ernest Cassel, whose daughter and heiress, Edwina, married Lord Louis Mountbatten, a chief influence on Prince Philip and Prince Charles.

The ultra-unctuous Jewish bankers Rothschilds, the scheming American financiers J.P. Morgan and E.H. Harriman and the Sassoons were all friends of King Edward VII. There has always been an incestuous relationship between the British monarch and the global-money-grubbing-oligarchy, especially with Barings Bank, dating back before the Opium Wars. In today's money Edward VII amassed a fortune of at least £50 Million.

Edward VII hated his cousin the Kaiser. His policies would lead Britain into The Cousins War


St. Morizt 1915. The rich enjoying themselves as-per-usual while millions died in WW1. 
St. Morizt was a favourite venue of war profiteers and their agents\nominees.     

After WW1 the royals resumed their usual lifestyle. Entertaining German cousins with the usual gold plate banquets after hunting on their various estates. Racing their yachts at Cowes, their horses at Ascot. Fashion shopping in Paris in the spring. Cruising the sunspots in the summer and, of course, the usual winter bash in the Alps - paid for by their bankers.

Edward VII's heir, George V, below, continued the "philo-bankerism'' of his father. George V's private financial adviser from 1929 onward was Sir Edward Peacock of Barings merchant bank. Peacock was also a director of The Bank Of England. In 1934, for his services to the royals Swiss accounts, Peacock was knighted and given a Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, which is part of the "Sovereign's Gifts'' that does not require consulting the monarch's prime mouthpiece (the passing Prime Minister.) 


George V hugely enjoyed the incestuous relationship with "the City'' he selected Lord Cromer as his Lord Chamberlain. Cromer was a director of Barings Bank and a director of several Establishment companies. When George V died in 1936 he left at least £80 Million. Tens of millions of which went directly into Swiss trusts for his ten-year-old granddaughter, below, who he adored.


      
The Depression - while decent kids were starving "Little Lizzy" never missed her morning ride in the heavily guarded Windsor Royal Park.


BTW Lizzy and her sister "Dizzy" had to be brought into world by artificial insemination. Had it not been for the royal’s team of gynaecologists the monarchy would have ended naturally. i.e. as God intended.  

"The Backward King" George VI (1936-52), who ascended the throne when his brother Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, inherited about half their father's fortune. He also inherited the advice of Sir Edward Peacock - who continued to advise the monarchy well into Elizabeth II's reign.

In 1952 Elizabeth II inherited the lion’s share of King George VI's offshore fortune, at least £50 Million, to invest and reinvest - completely tax free.

Normal investment of a £50 Million portfolio in 1952 - without the Queen's unique "insider knowledge" -would now be worth at least £3 Billion.

photo left, 1934. Albert, Duke of York and Lady Elizabeth Bowes  Lyons, the debutant who perpetuated the phony monarchy by  having herself artificially inseminated.

Lizzy Bowes Lyons was one of many totally self-centered-filthy-rich-bitches who set out to marry the handsome, Edward, Prince Of Wales. She ended-up with the thickest of his backward brothers Albert, Duke of York. Months after the Prince of Wales became King he abdicated and the throne went to Albert - who - changed his name to become King George VI. When he drank himself to death Lizzy Bowes Lyons insisted on being known as the "Queen Mother".


The Queen's American Business: Fleecing US Taxpayers

In 1968 Senator Thomas J. McIntyre (D-N.H) and Representative Silvio O. Conte (R-Mass) confirmed
Elizabeth II holds a major share in Courtaulds Textile. Courtaulds came to their attention when the Queen used the company as her nominee to hide her ownership of the largest plantation in Mississippi - on the banks of the Mississippi River near the border with Arkansas. The Queen also uses Courtaulds as a nominee for the purchase of US stocks.

What really upset the congressmen was the wealthiest woman in the world was getting agricultural subsidies to run a plantation in the United States.

The Congressional Record shows how the Queen obtained one of the world's largest plantations complete with sharecroppers in Scott, Mississippi, from Courtaulds. Previously known at The Delta and Pine Land Company, "the Queen's Farm" has 38,000 acres of rich soil, a factory and a mill. Between 1968 - 1970 "the Queen's Farm" received $1.5 Million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. At the time, the plantation was worth $44.5 Million. It employed hundreds of African-American laborers at minimal wages. On April 16, 1970, Senator McIntyre, while introducing a bill on farm payments, said. "We paid the Queen $120,000 for not planting cotton on the farmland she owns in Mississippi.'' The Queen owns many plots of American land including a stud farm in Kentucky where she entertained one of her many boyfriends - the head lad of the royal stables and father of Prince Andrew...


The Queen's EU Business

The British Head Of State, Elizabeth II, alone has the power to declare war and conclude treaties. Including the infamous Maastricht Treaty which gave British law making powers to the Queen's bankers running the EU.

                                  cartoon The Sun 27 July 2004

The Queen sent Peter "Svengali" Mandleson to Brussels to impose the Lisbon Treaty on the uneducated. Some uneducated people believe Mandleson's apprentice Tony Blair ordered the illegal wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. This was never true. History will recall Blair as just another palace bagman. Passing Prime Ministers do NOT take Britain to war. Only the Head of State can do that.


Trident Subs: Embedded Royal Profits


  With tens-of-billions in Swiss Trusts invested in uranium mines, and  tens-of-billions in American Trusts invested in uranium weapons production, BAE Systems Martin Lockheed ect., and  tens-of-billions invested in foreign "nuclear new build" companies, Areva, Westinghouse, Halliburton-Bechtel and the like the Queen puts her obscene profits first, second, third and last.

It was a labour Prime Mouthpiece who announced (albeit in different words) the British taxpayer would pay billions per-year to rent American-nuclear-submarine-missile-systems made by companies partly owned by the royal family. Every Prime Mouthpiece since Jim Callaghan has assured the British public only the British can fire these American made weapons.

The Queen expects her simple subjects to believe the Yanks are daft enough to rent-out nuclear weapons that could be fired back at them!


The Queen's Fondo (Trust) and Royal Private Property


The Queen has over 300 residences
. Most of which are part of the Fondo to be passed on to her heir (tax free). Most are "grace and favour houses'' ostensibly for family members and palace flunkies. Included in the Fondo are five castles: Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh, Kensington Palace once occupied by the late Princess Diana, and St. James Palace occupied by (the allegedly alive) Prince Charles.

Two other castles, Balmoral and Sandringham, are said to be "private property", but they were bought with taxpayers money from Queen Victoria's scandalously generous Civil List of £600,000 per-year for her sixty-four-year reign. All royal residences are maintained by the British taxpayer through Her Majesty's Department of the Environment.

Most of Victoria's Civil List loot was quietly banked abroad. right, Prince Albert bagging gold Sovereigns for the royals German bank accounts. (£600,000 per year, money-for-nothing, then is equivalent to being given over £6 Million per year, money-for-nothing, now.  Prince Albert, Victoria's first cousin and husband set-up many offshore accounts to receive not only millions stolen from the Civil List but the royals massive Empire profits)

As part of the Fondo to be handed down to the worthless heir the present Queen created the Royal Collection Trust; to which she transferred all the 7,000 paintings, 20,000 Old Master drawings, and various antiques amassed before Queen Victoria's reign. 
 
The Queen has personally acquired a large collection of art works ranging from Renaissance masterpieces, such as Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks, to examples of modern "art." The British taxpayer gets the bill for guarding, cleaning and maintaining the royals art collections.

The Duchy of Lancaster is also part of the ever growing Fondo (trust).
The duchy is comprised of properties stolen in the 13th Century from the rebel Simon de Monfort, who tried to create an honest Parliament in 1265, only to have his land and life taken by Edmund Crouchback, youngest son of Henry III.

In 1987, the Duchy of Lancaster was 36,456 acres, mainly agricultural land; within the duchy, the freehold of 2.25 acres in the Strand area of London (lying between the Savoy Hotel and Somerset House) is so valuable, that the Queen had The Duchy of Lancaster Act of 1988 steered through Parliament allowing her to develop and sell this area - mainly to her mega-rich oily Arab pals.

Charles, The Worthless Prince of Wales, banks the income of the second royal family duchy, the Duchy of Cornwall, which has 50,000 acres , including another posh section of London.

The Crown Jewels, which are kept in the Tower of London, except for major events such as State Visits and Coronations, are another part of the Aladdin's Fondo the next monarch will inherit.

Apart from the Crown Jewels, the Queen inherited the largest private collection of jewels in the world. The history of the collection shows the incestuous relationship between the Crown and the City of London. When the British East India Company Army defeated the Maharajah of the Punjab, in 1851, the company stole and later presented Queen Victoria with what was then the world's largest diamond, the Koh-in-noor. Queen Victoria took sadistic pleasure in displaying the Koh-in-noor to the defeated Maharajah on his visit to Buckingham Palace. He left the palace muttering, "Mrs. Fagin.''

At the conclusion of the Boer War the peace offering to the monarch included the largest uncut diamond in the world, the Cullinan Diamond, weighing 3,106 carats. Two cut stones from the Cullinan Diamond went to adorn the Crown Jewels, and the Queen today possesses a brooch that consists of the third and fourth largest stones (94.4 and 63.6 carats) cut from the Cullinan Diamond.

in Empire Days monarchs were regularly showered with jewels by propitiatory princes of India, and, as that largesse ran out, they received similar gifts from Anglo-American diamond finds in South Africa. For example, shortly after World War II, Mary Oppenheimer presented Princess Elizabeth with a 6-carat, blue-white diamond for helping to advertise Anglo-American's diamond monopoly at a time when diamond prices were depressed. Later, Princess Anne, the Queen's oldest daughter, on her 21st birthday, received a necklace of colored diamonds. Today, an adulatory group of oil-rich sheikhs and emirs adds to the Queen's private collection.


A Little History: Civil List Loot: King George III

Erskine May. Civil List of King George III. Chapter IV.


While the King was engaged in increasing subserviency of the court (Tory) party
, Parliamentary support was purchased with pensions and pecuniary corruption.

In February 1769 the arrears of the Civil List amounted to £513,511; and his Majesty applied to Parliament to discharge them.

This demand was made when the people were exasperated by the persecution of John Wilkes,- when the policy of the court was odious, and the King unpopular. But if the country was discontented, Parliament was held in safe subjection. Inquiry was demanded into the causes of the debt, and explanatory accounts were sought: but all investigation being resisted by ministers, the amount was granted without information. In the following year Lord Chatham avowed his conviction that the Civil List revenues were expended in corrupting members of Parliament.

But the same causes of excessive expenditure continued without a check; and eight years later the King again applied to Parliament, not only to discharge a debt of £618,340, but to increase his annual Civil List to £900,000 a year. The large amount of secret-service money, and the increased pension list were noticed,- and insinuations made of corruption. But Parliament acceded to the demands of the King. Erskine May. Civil List of King George III. Chapter IV.

The Speaker, Sir Fletcher Norton, commented. "The Commons have not only granted to your Majesty a large present supply, but also a very great additional revenue; great beyond example; great beyond your Majesty's highest expense." George 3 had Speaker Norton fired. Norton was the last Speaker to criticize the Civil List. The last Speaker of Her Majesty's

House Of Commons, Michael Martin, is a typical royal arse licker. Public opinion demanded Martin was fired for his part in stealing tens of millions from the taxpayer in false claims for expenses


Royal Notes 1947

The idiot Archbishop of Canterbury declared the wedding ceremony for Princess Elizabeth was 'exactly the same as it would be for any cottager who might be married in some small country church' ...

The differences: the twelve wedding cakes at the royal reception, including one nine feet high that Philip cut with his sword, 2,666 wedding presents, including a Thoroughbred horse, a mink coat, a 54-four carat pink diamond said to be one of its kind in the world, and a plantation and a hunting lodge in Kenya."

In his day, Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh better known as “Phil The Greek” was well regarded in filthy-rich homosexual circles. He complained to his gay friends about Elizabeth’s sexual insatiability on their honeymoon.

As his wife reverted to her stable of palace flunkies for her pleasure Phil the Greek had affairs with anything with a hole in it.

The Queen Mother and “Phil The Greek” hated each other from the gitgo. She because he was a very minor “royal” with no money. He because the Queen’s sainted mother was actually the illegitimate daughter of the Earl of Strathmore and a common serving wench on one of his estates.

The Queen Mother's offspring Elizabeth and Margaret were both produced by artificial insemination. Whose semen is not stated.

MEMO. The Crown Prerogative dictates there can be no questions in Her Majesty's Parliament probing Her Majesty's control of the Energy Market.

Members of Parliament are not even allowed to think of how much the royals are making every single minute from their oil, gas and nuclear investments. Which gives you some idea how patently impotent Members of Her Majesty's Parliament really are.


All The Queen's Thieves



Douglas Hogg the Queen's ex Agriculture Minister charged the taxpayer £2,000 for cleaning his moat.  Hogg should have been jailed years ago for his part in the BSE cover-up.


Hotel Reception Desk: Chernobyl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUyHP1knoLc&feature=related
       



From http://www.sxolsout.org.uk/zcase.html  


For more information about royal bloodlines see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/bloodlines  
- See ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section


This is a ‘not for profit’ site -
But if you like what we do please buy us a meal if you can
Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!
Please click in the jar -




For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the random synchronistic search box @ http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com


And see




 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed



The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com



The Prince of Centraxis - http://centraxis.blogspot.com (Be Aware! This link leads to implicate & xplicit concepts & images!)



DISGRUNTLED SITE ADMINS PLEASE NOTE –
We provide a live link to your original material on your site - which raises your ranking on search engines and helps spread your info further! This site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual article or other item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original (along with this or a similar notice).
Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper!


From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Monday, 11 June 2012

Australia, New Zealand & Canada Do Not Exist

Australia, New Zealand & Canada Do Not Exist
Australia the Concealed Colony: "The Truth will set Us Free"


Basic Fraud


http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/rtr321bh.jpg?w=600&h=400&crop=1

 

We are involved with a growing number of Australian people – numbering in the many hundreds of thousands, at least – who have for some time become aware, concerned and disgusted about the corrupt behaviour of both the Australian and British Governments.

It involves the British Parliament, a succession of British monarchs (including Elizabeth II), other members of the British royal family, British and Australian politicians and the Australian, British and European Courts. As should soon be evident, news stories rarely get any bigger, have as many consequences, or as many people working against the truth.

This is without doubt the greatest perpetrated fraud within our modern times, which has continued for decades and definitely will be one of, if not, the largest news & media story ever uncovered. The documented facts on our website will show how the corrupt past and present British and Australian politicians, the judicial systems of two countries, as well as the European Court of Human Rights, have deliberately lied, misled and manipulated the Australian people for their own personal financial gain, greed and political appointments.

We assure you that every claim and accusation within this Website can be easily substantiated and verified with the official evidence, court documents and even Australian and British Government legal records, which we have uploaded for you to do your own research.

For the past 80 years every Australian Politician, Judge, Magistrate, Defence Force Personnel, Federal & State Police Officer, Sheriff, Local Mayor, etc., in other words the people in Authority, have ALL either knowingly or not, committed an ‘Act of Treason’ against the Australian People, by swearing allegiance and subscribing to an oath to serve Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland and therefore the government of a Power foreign to Australia.

Since 1919 the Monarchs of the United Kingdoms (and there have been two: the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland and of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) have allegedly appointed a Governor-General, who has in turn sworn into office the Federal Government of Australia. This Federal Government then had the rights and privileges to administer the laws and run the Commonwealth of Australia.

However, for reasons outlined in the documentation provided, these Monarchs have had NO legal basis to do so! Elizabeth II has NEVER been crowned the “Queen of Australia” and has absolutely NO legal authority within Australia!

You may then start to understand how our Australian Constitution, the appointment of our Australian Governments, and the establishment of various government departments have been for decades – illegal and invalid.

The whole Judicial System in Australia is not only invalid, it is also corrupt!!! Most Judges (especially those in the High, Federal and State Supreme Courts) are aware of this invalidity and know that their own appointments are totally unlawful. However, these same Judges have continued to preside and rule against hundreds of people, even when the invalidity of their appointments and position was actually stated and challenged in legal documents filed in their own courts and who were aware of this when making their rulings! Innocent people have been ordered to pay fines, had property re-possessed, been forced into bankruptcy or imprisoned by corrupt Judges who are more interested in protecting their own livelihoods, positions, power, superannuation and the status quo.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is also an organization with NO lawful authority. Yet people once again had their lives ruined to the point of suicide for being unable to pay their supposed taxes.

In October 2005 an action against the British Government was submitted and accepted by the European Court of Human Rights for “Human Rights Abuse”. The matter related to a legal action by Mr. David Claude Fitzgibbon, Australian Barrister-at-Law, for Human Rights Abuse against himself as someone resident in Australia. The British Government had 90 days to lodge their Defence, which was NOT entered. This was perhaps the FIRST time in the history of the Court that a Defence had not been lodged!

In October 2006, the Court mysteriously ruled that there was NO evidence of Human Rights offences having occurred within Australia. How can you possibly lose a court case when the British Government does not even submit a Defence, especially when there was an abundance of overwhelming evidence to substantiate the action filed by Mr Fitzgibbon?? What deals were struck in order to have the case quashed??? (Mr. Fitzgibbon was told personally by Justice Lightman, that Australian Prime Minister, John W. Howard actually put pressure on him to decide as he did).

Refer to: Mr Justice Lightman of the High Court of Justice Chancery Division_DAVID CLAUDE FITZGIBBON v HM ATTORNEY GENERAL.pdf

“The continued usage of the Australian Constitution Act ( UK ) by the Australian Governments and the judiciary is a confidence trick of monstrous proportions played upon the Australian people with the intent of maintaining power. It remains an Act of the United Kingdom. After joining the League of Nations in 1919 Australia became a sovereign nation. It had no further legal power to use, alter or otherwise tamper with another nation’s legislation. Authority over the Australian Constitution Act lies not with the Australian government nor with the Australian people, it rests solely with the UK. Only they have the authority to repeal this legislation …”

-         The late Professor G. Clements
Eminent UK QC and emeritus Professor in Law at Cambridge University

Most people would agree that Australia is recognised globally as an Independent & Sovereign Nation.

Well what does the word ‘Sovereignty’ mean?

 

According to ‘Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia’:

 

Sovereignty ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty ) is the exclusive right to have control over an area of governance, people, or oneself. In constitutional and international law, the concept also pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit, and in certain context to various organs possessing legal jurisdiction in their own chief, rather than by mandate or under supervision.

 

The United Nations Resolution adopted by The General Assembly 50/172 ( http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/50/ares50-172.htm ) Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes, states:

1.     Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;

4. Reaffirms further that electoral assistance to Member States should be provided by the United Nations only at the request and with the consent of specific sovereign States, by virtue of resolutions adopted by the Security Council or the General Assembly in each case, in strict conformity with the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, or in special circumstances such as cases of decolonization, or in the context of regional or international peace processes;

7. Reaffirms that all countries have the obligation under the Charter to respect the right of others to self-determination and to determine freely their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development;

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.

Or does she??

Well…the first thing we have to do is to establish whether the position of “Queen of Australia” does exist? Now our first issue is that Elizabeth II has never been crowned the “Queen of Australia”. So what does that mean if we have a fictitious Monarch and what are the consequences?

A letter from the ‘Commonwealth of Australia Attorney’ General’s Department dated 7th May, 2001 states that Mr Henke wanted to see a copy of the document issued by the government of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) empowering the Queen of Australia to use the Royal Sign Manual.

(Refer: The Attorney Generals Department the Commonwealth of Australia regarding the Queen of Australia.pdf )

In the 2nd paragraph of that letter is the response which clearly states that there is NO SUCH DOCUMENT!!

Then there is the response from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom in London, to Mr William Bolton that the Queen has NO EXECUTIVE POWER within the Commonwealth of Australia.

(Refer: Letter from UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office regarding the Queen)

By letter dated 18th October 2004, this time to Mr Sempf and once again under the Freedom Of Information Act, similar material was sought and this time the same response was received from the Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet.

(Refer: Lyall Sempf Response Letter from Australian Attorney Generals Department re Queen of Australia.pdf )

Yet if we go to the next few pages, clearly on Official Government documents both here and the UK, we can see that they contain the words QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA!

(Refer to: Queen & Bob Hawks Signature on Legal Document.pdf

or

Commission of William Deane as Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia (note the Queen’s signature is in top right hand corner).pdf

or

Queen’s Signature From Australia The Concealed Colony page 280.pdf

Now, whenever you sign a legal document, be it an Affidavit, a Loan Contract from a Bank or your Will, you must always sign on the bottom of the page… it means that you agree with what is written above your signature.

Why then does the Queen sign her name on any legal Australian documents at the top of the page? [Click on the link ‘Documents’ and then under ‘Vice-Regal Appointments’ refer to the ‘Queen's Signature From Australia The Concealed Colony’ tabs].

Is it because she knows and understands the significant problems and ramifications with what is evident here in Australia and she does not want to be dragged through the European Court of Human Rights? She is fully aware and has known this for many years. (Click on the link ‘Documents’ and then under ‘Correspondence’ refer to some of the previous letters sent to her, such as: W Levick Letter to Queen Elizabeth 4th January 2005.pdf

So, if we have now 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 his Cabinet into Office, which now makes that Prime Minister’s appointment and his cabinet also NULL & VOID!!

So all the Government Departments whether Federal or State, the Local Councils, the Judicial System and the laws of the land, are now all totally NULL & VOID!!!

Are you seeing a pattern here?

Do you recognize that if the root is poisoned the fruit is poisoned?

Do you understand the difference between ‘Authority’ and ‘Power’?


http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3205/3136263083_f66af0c947.jpg

An Article by Peter Gillies


Question: Has the Queen of the United Kingdom committed a crime?

Question: Should the Australian Government be allowed to vote in the United Nations General Assembly?

At the outset I say that I am not a lawyer. I am an ordinary bloke who happens to believe in a level playing field. I believe that those that make the laws should be the first to obey them. This is not the case in Australia.

Some time ago I had a dispute with my local council. A senior planner told me that the council knew they were breaking the law, but that they did not care. “We’ve always done it” he said. They claim that all their authority derives from the Local Government Act 1993. So I set about finding what authority they actually did have.

What a can of worms I opened. Talk about lies and deceit.

First of all I went to our ‘Australian’ Constitution, which is not really ours. It is an Act of the UK Parliament and has never been part of Australian legislation. My first thought on finding this was, “How can this be right in an independent country?”

However, this aside, I did ascertain that what powers have not been conferred by the Constitution cannot be taken. That is hard legal fact. The Constitution allows for Federal and State governments but does not allow for a third level of government. A Constitutional inquiry (1985) also found this so it was decided to take it to a referendum of the people, which is the only way we can alter the Constitution. This referendum was held in 1988.

The question was asked, “Do you want to recognize Local Government?” All States came back with a resounding “NO” vote. Despite this denial by the people, all State Governments later passed a Local Government Act.

Not good so far, I thought, for a supposed democracy. But I looked further. For a government to be legally valid in Australia, under both State and Federal Constitutions, the Government must consist of three parts. It must have a lower and upper house, and it must have a Governor (State) or Governor General (Federal) who has been appointed by the Queen of the United Kingdom under her Royal Sign Manual.

OK. So now it’s getting really weird. First Australia, this independent country,

has as its supreme law – the ‘Australian’ Constitution – a law of another nation. Then, for the governments of this independent nation to be legally valid they must have a representative appointed by the leader of another nation, appointed according to the laws of that other nation’s parliament.

Surely this could not be right?

So I checked with the United Nations. They told me that one of the essential ingredients of the Charter of the United Nations is that the laws of one independent nation cannot be enforced within the territories of another independent nation.

So… if the Queen has done what her own UK Act says, and has appointed a State Governor, or a Federal Governor General in Australia, then is she guilty of committing an offence against international law?

But had she really appointed these people?

I started with the Local Government Act of New South Wales. The Governor who gave this Act Royal Assent was Rear Admiral Peter Sinclair. I emailed the House of Lords and asked, “Where are records of appointments made under the Sign Manual kept? They promptly replied that they were all kept in Folio C_ _ in the UK Archives and provided a link to that web site. I return emailed and thanked them but asked, “What about records of appointments of persons overseas?” They replied, “Records of ALL appointments under the Sign Manual are kept in this folio in the UK Archives.”

The UK Archives web site quickly provided the subject folio, but it is not readily accessible to the general public. However, a list of accredited researchers was provided so I engaged one to locate and forward a copy of the documents of appointment of Peter Sinclair.

She eventually came back with the reply, “There is no record of any such appointment.”

“How odd!” says I. So I placed a Freedom of Information request to the NSW Premier for a copy of the documents. They definitely did NOT want to give them to me.

While I was waiting for them, I went to the Newcastle University Law Library and found the UK laws relating to appointments made under the Royal Sign Manual. There are four essential ingredients necessary for an appointment to be valid. These are: -

1.     The person MUST be a British Subject;

2.     The appointment MUST be signed by the Queen of the United Kingdom;

3.     It MUST be countersigned by a senior member of the UK parliament; and, most importantly,

4.     It MUST bear the Great Seal of the United Kingdom.

OK. So these rules are set in concrete within UK legislation.

First, I found that Peter Sinclair is an Australian Citizen. He is NOT a British Subject.

Second, when the documents arrived, they did have a signature I presume was that of the Queen of the United Kingdom. However it was at the top right hand corner of the front page, BEFORE any other writing on the document. There was NO signature where it said, “Signed at Our Court of St James on….”.

Third, there was NO signature of ANY member of the UK parliament.

Fourth, there was NO Great Seal of the United Kingdom.

AHA!

We now have NO record of the appointment at the UK Archives, and NO compliance with the various UK Acts that dictate what the Queen must do with regard to appointments under the Sign Manual. But what about other Governors, and what about Governors General? A similar check on several other ‘appointees’ at various dates revealed a similar situation.

Obviously the Australian public has been deceived. But by whom? None of these persons had been appointed by the Queen of the United Kingdom under her Sign Manual. According to our State and Federal Constitutions, a law does not become a law until it receives ‘Royal Assent’ by someone who has been appointed under the Sign Manual. Obviously then, the Local Government Act (NSW) 1993 never received Royal Assent and so never became a law.

You beauty! I’ve got the bastards! But hang on. Why was a signature of the Queen there at all? Clearly she hadn’t made the appointments, or a record would be at the Archives, and the documents would have been signed at the ‘Court of St James’ bit.

So who did sign them?

A little more digging revealed that several decades ago, several Acts were passed both in the UK and in Australia. One of these Australian Acts – the Royal Styles and Title Act, 1973 – created some person called “The Queen of Australia”.

Who the hell is she? I didn’t vote for her. And in any case, the Constitution of Australia (and the Constitutions of the Australian States) only gives executive authority to the Queen of the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So this ‘Queen of Australia’ has no permission to do anything anyway.

Multiple queries later I was reluctantly informed by both UK and Aussie governments, that the Queen of the UK and the Queen of Australia are one and the same person; that they are ‘indivisible’, but the Queen of Australia acts on advice from “her Australian ministers”.

Now I have two major problems with this, and this is where the bit about the Queen committing a crime comes in.

First, nowhere does this ‘Queen of Australia’ have permission to hold the Executive Authority necessary to make appointments and laws legally valid. She certainly was not given that permission by the Australian people, and she does NOT have that permission under the UK Act, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900.

Second, under certain UK legislation, she is only allowed to be known as the Queen of another country if the foreign policy of that country is controlled by the United Kingdom Parliament. Quite clearly Australian foreign policy is NOT controlled by the UK parliament so the Queen CANNOT be known as the Queen of Australia under requirements of her own laws.

Now I did find out that the Queen is immune from most laws, but I also found out that she is NOT immune from laws that relate to her. So has she committed an offence?

Has she allowed her law (The Constitution Act) to be enforced in another independent nation in contravention of international law?

Has she allowed herself to be known as ‘Queen of Australia’ in defiance of her own parliament’s Acts?

AND…

If the Australian Constitution requires that a valid Australian government consist of an Upper House, a Lower House, AND a Governor General appointed by the Queen of the United Kingdom under her Sign Manual, and the Governor General HAS NOT been appointed in that manner, then does Australia have a legally valid government?

If it does not have a legally valid government, then does it have a right to sit on the UN General Assembly and vote on issues before that assembly?

It goes back to a level playing field. If I have to obey the law, then so do they.

Just as an aside…

If no Australian laws have received Royal Assent as required by the Constitution, are any of these laws themselves legally valid?

Just as a besides the aside…

The Australian Constitution has NEVER been agreed to by the Australian people. What WAS agreed to prior to 1900 was sent to the UK for enactment, but the UK made over 60 alterations to the document and then legislated it. The altered document was never sent back to Australia to be voted on by the Australian people.

We demand that Iraq have its own Constitution freely adopted by the people of Iraq, but what about Australia?


http://statusquo.org/aru_html/images/FlagAct/QueensAssent.jpg

HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW ABOUT AUSTRALIA?

By Michael Baker


How much do you know about Australia’s constitutional/political system: Past & Present? Try this simple TRUE / FALSE TEST.

1. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 is United Kingdom legislation. TRUE / FALSE?

2. Under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 sovereignty rests with the Queen and not with the Australian people. TRUE / FALSE?

3. That Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is appointed to Her position as Queen by the U.K. Parliament. TRUE /FALSE?

4. That clause 8 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 describes the Commonwealth of Australia as a colony. TRUE / FALSE?

5. That under ‘Australia’s’ Constitution all Australian politicians, judges, lawyers and many others must swear allegiance to a Sovereignty that has not existed for more than 86 years. TRUE / FALSE?

6. That the ‘Australian’ Constitution – being a colonial Act of the U.K. Parliament – does not contain any elements of civil rights (such as; the right to private property, freedom of expression and freedom of movement, etc). TRUE / FALSE?

7. That under the ‘Australian’ Constitution the unelected Governor-General is commander in chief of the Australian military forces and that he holds this position because he is the Queen’s representative. TRUE/ FALSE?

8. That Australia is the only O.E.C.D. nation not to have a constitutionally enforceable Bill of Rights. TRUE / FALSE?

9. In the years 1973, 1983, 1985 and 1986 the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia consistently rejected Bills of Rights for the Australian people and consequently have denied Australian citizens even the fundamental human rights enshrined in the U.N.’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966; although the Australian government was a signatory to that Covenant. TRUE / FALSE?

10. That unenacted British law (common law) continues to be applied in Australian courts even though those to whom it is applied are denied all entitlements under British law (and this situation can apply to tourists to Australia). TRUE / FALSE?

If you answered 100% TRUE to each and every question, not only are you 100% correct, you are also not an Australian politician, judge, lawyer or academic. CONGRATULATIONS!!

(For an in depth analysis of Australian political philosophy and practice refer to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll).

Yes, that’s right – The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 is legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster, being enacted into law on the 9th of July, 1900, to come into effect on the 1st of January, 1901. Which of course, it did!

Under that Act – being an Act of the U.K. Parliament – sovereignty rests with their Queen. The Oath of Allegiance which still must be used by all of Australia’s politicians, judges, public servants and others, is contained in a Schedule to the Act and reads:

“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!”

( www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitutionReferenced under the link ‘The Schedule’).

Largely unrecognized by most people, because it’s not something that grabs the attention, the Monarchs of the United Kingdom have been Statutory Monarchies since the Act of Settlement, 1701 (U.K.). That is, the Kings and Queens of the U.K. have been appointed for more than 300 years by an Act of the Westminster Parliament. The oath of allegiance quoted above makes this crystal clear: “…Her heirs and successors according to law,” and, what’s more, the law that decides Queen Elizabeth’s heirs and successors is not Australian law, it’s purely U.K. law and always was!

This hardly noticed fact has some interesting consequences. It means that the U.K. Parliament is the supreme authority in the U.K. – with or without a monarch, after all they appoint them! It means that currently a monarch of the U.K. cannot be a Roman Catholic and remain as the monarch.( see the Act of Settlement 1701). Essentially and literally, the U.K. Parliament is the supreme Authority within Australia’s political system and has been since Captain James Cook landed at Botany Bay on the east coast of the Australian continent in 1770. The chain of command runs like this: U.K. Parliament> the Monarch> the Australian Governor-General> the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (from which is selected a government).

As an extreme example, but one that proves the point: if the U.K. decided to become a republic where would that leave the so-called independent nation of Australia? The Australian political, judicial and public service systems cannot operate without a Monarch who is appointed by the U.K. Parliament!!

Also and unrecognised by the Australian public at large, ‘their’ constitution works simply because it is no longer adhered to. Take, for example, the powers of the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General. This individual can act under the ‘Australian’ Constitution like a dictator! The fact that since 1901 they have not done so is beside the point. The dismissal of the popularly elected Labor Party federal government in 1975 by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr demonstrated to all who cared to see that in the late twentieth century the non-elected Queen’s man was still a force to be reckoned with in the free democracy of backward looking Australia.

Moreover (and here the situation becomes truly laughable) the ‘Australian” Constitution – being trapped in a time-warp at the end of the 19th century – only recognises the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which is a political entity that has not existed since the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922!

So, what are the practical, down-to-earth consequences of all this?

First, that the Australian people have been denied their freedom, independence and sovereignty since at least 1945, when Australia became a member of United Nations. That the Australian people have been denied an effective say as to how they run their country and hence their own lives! Second, that the obligations contained in all of the international treaties to which Australia – through its governments – is a signatory, may be unenforceable. This could have very wide implications. Third, of debatable importance but of definite interest, will be how Australia’s politicians, judges and lawyers try to justify themselves. They can either admit that they knew the truth and therefore that they were parasites of the system, or they can admit their ignorance and thereby the fact that they were negligent by not understanding the very basis of the profession from which they have all happily gained so much. It will be an excruciation choice but one made all the more so for Australia’s highest Judges – the various Chief Justices – by the fact that important documents explaining the situation in detail were delivered to them by courier as long ago as 1999.

But surely Australia’s politicians know that the political system, which gives them so much, is flawed? Unfortunately, the majority do not! A politician needs no formal qualifications to attain high office and history shows that the average Australian politician is below average! Moreover, any new idea, much less any new critical idea based on history, law and exhaustive research, must begin as a minority opinion and there are no vote-winners in minority opinions. Why rock the boat, particularly when you have a first-class cabin (albeit on the Titanic)?

Some may wonder why the media has never ‘picked up’ on the story, but the answers are obvious. In Australia the media is interested in sensationalism and sport. Sensationalism sells and sport is one of Australia’s few fields of successful endeavour. If the international media was at any time interested – and for the most part it was not – their investigative journalism skills vanished after any of their initial suspicions were refuted by the Australian government’s own Department of Foreign Affairs. One telephone call was all it took, for modern investigative journalism always takes the line of least persistence!

In short, the rest of the world was preoccupied. Moreover, the parasitic existence of the United Nations as a self-congratulatory organization for those involved in its self-perpetuating, busy-body activities can be all too clearly seen by anyone who wishes to take even a cursory look! That august body never raised a finger to even try to prevent one of its founding members from continuing to breach its own Charter (in particular Articles 2, 4, 6, 102 and 103, all of which guarantee the right of self-determination!).

The machinations of the United Kingdom’s power-brokers remain largely motivated by a polished reticence to relinquish the trappings of empire. By applying their legislative power to lands no longer under the sovereign authority of the U.K. parliament and in jurisdictions no longer dependencies of the U.K., the very best that can be said is that Queen Elizabeth II has been misled and the laws of Her own kingdom subverted. This is the best that can be said.

The lack of any effective action by ‘those in the know’ to redress the problem – both in the U.K. and Australia – and despite numerous opportunities to do so, is proof of many things, not least being that corruption gives power and absolute corruption gives absolute power. The United Kingdom’s courts failed to do the right thing – with Justice Lightman admitting that the Australian Prime Minister, John Winston Howard flew to London and put pressure on him to decide Mr. Fitzgibbon’s case in the way he did!!

With the problem ready to replicate itself in Canada and New Zealand and the possibility and consequences of such action spreading, perhaps we should all wish the British people the best of their own luck! They may yet need it, because even if the U.K. government has a brilliant ‘Spin-Doctor’ the world can be a very lonely – if more democratic – place.

Ignorance of the law is no defence; all the more so if you were instrumental in putting that law in place!

So why not visit Australia – a land lost in time? Simply ‘put a shrimp on the barbie’ and settle back and watch the nation struggle to reclaim its 19th century colonial past as it lurches into the 21st century backwards.

Never happy with its advance from being a child of Britain to a sovereign adult nation, Australia may yet declare its adolescent longings to the world: almost free, semi-independent, burdened by responsibility, awkwardly immature and not quite certain why it feels so proud of its ‘hand-me-down’ Constitution, borrowed legal system and second-hand politics.

Believe it, or not!


http://www.designed-perception.com/uploads/1/1/1/3/11132778/4655114_orig.jpg

Joosse’s Case


Joosse’s case is important because it was one of the first in a long line of matters where

Australians placed the crucial issues of our history and the foundations of our future before the Australian and eventually, British and European court systems.

All of these courts sold out on every Australian, New Zealander and Canadian.

Joosse’s case – transcript and judgement – lays out those issues.

Refer to: (‘ Joosse High Court of Australia Transcript and Judgement.pdf )

From Basic Fraud @ http://basic-fraud.com/?page_id=17



Help This Unique Independent Site Survive
Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!
Just click in the jar -





Images – http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/rtr321bh.jpg?w=600&h=400&crop=1
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3205/3136263083_f66af0c947.jpg
http://statusquo.org/aru_html/images/FlagAct/QueensAssent.jpg
http://www.designed-perception.com/uploads/1/1/1/3/11132778/4655114_orig.jpg




For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the pagehttp://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com


And see




 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed



The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com



The Prince of Centraxis - http://centraxis.blogspot.com (Be Aware! This link leads to implicate & xplicit concepts & images!)



This site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a small but heartfelt donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper!


From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com