Citation of Australia Registered as a Company in Washington D.C.
by Andy Whiteley
Co-Founder of Wake Up World
19 November 2012
from Wakeup-World Website
Vs. 
Which represents real (de jure) government in Australia?
Which is seen on “government” literature ?
Which is seen on “government” literature ?
Would you be surprised to find a company with the same name as your country registered with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington DC? Well, guess what?!
Among those listed as corporate entities by the United States SEC are:
...and my personal favorite (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?
Well, that certainly raises some questions!
Why is a company called ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’ registered in Washington DC? What reason could there be for a country to be registered as a company?
By definition, aren’t corporate and government entities mutually exclusive? And doesn’t government regulate companies?
Why would Australia be registered with the SEC in the United States? And why would it provide a ‘Prospectus’ and annual ‘Economic and Fiscal Outlook’ documents to the SEC? And be subject to SEC regulation?
Why is the Great Seal of Australia a trademark registered with United States Patent and Trademark Office?
Could the ‘Australian Government’ be a corporate entity masquerading as real government, for profit, and not for the purpose of governance? Does the ‘Australian Government’ truly represent “the people” and not shareholders in another country?
Why do today’s government departments have corporate mission statements like “we provide services on BEHALF of government” and “our CLIENTS include government...”?
What happened to “we ARE government”?? Does this suggest they are NOT true government, but a company masquerading as government?
If a company registered in Washington DC is falsely claiming government status in Australia, what happened to the real (de jure) government with a similar name? And when?
And are the laws in Australia therefore just rules for employees and contractors of the corporation?
Interesting. Let’s look a little closer…
Perhaps it is a requirement that the Commonwealth of Australia registers as a company entity in order to trade with the United States of America. Are all the other countries who trade with the United States also registered on the American SEC? Is ‘the United States of America’ also registered with ASIC, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission? And is Australia similarly registered with the corresponding trade regulators in other countries?
The answer appears to be NO.
International trade implies mutual agreement; reciprocity; a common method of exchange. But the reality is that the ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’ is registered as a corporate entity with the United States SEC, but not the other way around.
There appear to be no comparable corporate entities registered in other countries with which Australia trades. And nations ranking among the United States’ biggest trading partners do NOT have corporate avatars registered with the American SEC. Perhaps registration in Washington DC is for the purpose of trading Government Bonds.
Interesting… but this strange corporate entity is only half the story.
Before government bonds can even exist, surely there must first be a legitimate government.
Government and the role of Governor-General in Australia
In Australia, the Governor-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…
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated - BronnyNZ