Updated: Feb 25, 2021
THE EVIDENCE AGAIN of the contract being registered. People really need to stand and take notice...... enough hiding.
WHO DOES THIS COUNTRY BELONG TOO?????
Brian William Shaw
THE GREAT AUSTRALIAN ROBBERY
The Overt Act of Treason
I, Brian William Shaw c/o PO Box 800 Werribee 3030 Victoria do state and affirm the following:
1. When the Governor and Attorney General for the then existing State of Western Australia enacted an Act on the 1st January 2004 the largest robbery in the history of Australia occurred. Essentially two men gained the land and resources inclusive of the entire coastline of Western Australia for themselves and others.
2. HOW DID THIS HAPPEN – UNITED NATIONS 1948
To enable this particular robbery extensive criminal collusion had to occur throughout Australia, in particular political collusion, Judicial collusion and Electoral Commission collusion.
3. THE COLLUSION
At all times the purpose of the collusion was and remains to keep the people of Australia, in particular the electors completely ignorant in relation to the robbery that has occurred, inclusive of the “United Nations Involvement.”
4. WHAT ROBBERY - 2004
The Great Australian Robbery that occurred on the 1st January 2004 involved certain politicians within Western Australia introducing Specific Legislation into the Parliament of Western Australia and by fraudulent means enabling the legislation to be enacted.
5. WHAT WAS ENACTED (The Overt Act)
On the 1st January 2004 the legislation that was enacted was titled
“Acts Amendment and Repeal Courts and Legal Practices
Act 2003” Number 65 of 2003 Western Australia”.
6. WHAT DID THIS LEGISLATION ENABLE
At Part 8 of the Overt Act the sub-header is
“Amendments about the Crown”
at Part 8; specific Acts already in position and operating within
Western Australia were altered and amended.
“All referendums were omitted”
7. THE TEN ACTS AT PART 8 ARE :-
1. Bail Act 1982 amended.
2. Children’s Court of Western Australia Act 1988.
3. The Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913.
4. Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1991.
5. District Court of Western Australia Act 1969.
6. Family Court Act 1997.
7. Juries Act 1957.
8. Justices Act 1902.
9. Local Courts Act 1904.
10. Supreme Court Act 1935 – Removes Queen
and Substitutes “Governor”
8. WHAT WAS REMOVED
Within these particular Act’s.
1. All references to the Queen/Her Majesty.
2. All references to the Crown
3. All respective oaths of allegiance.
9. WHAT WAS SUBSTITUTED
1. State or the Commonwealth.
2. The State of Western Australia
4. Under the Public Seal of the State.
5. The Prosecution.
6. Armorial Bearings of the State.
7. The Governor.
10. HOW WAS THIS POSSIBLE “REFERENDUMS OMITTED”
1. All statutory referendum requirements were omitted to prevent the people/electors becoming aware of this.
2. At all material times whenever legal issues were raised resulting in court room hearings the Judiciary takes total control and have refused any and all jury involvement to limit exposure.
11. THE HIGHEST COURT IN AUSTRALIA- ROBERT FRENCH
Within Australia the highest court that exists is the High Court consisting of seven judges and as such to enable the judicial concealment of this particular robbery, a Western Australian person was moved into the position of Chief Justice of the High Court in 2008 – Mr. Robert French.
12. THE JUDICIARY IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
By permitting the Supreme Court Act 1935 (Western Australia) to be included into the overt criminal act already mentioned, all officers of the Supreme Court of Western Australia have enabled and contributed to this Great Australian Robbery. The Supreme Court Act 1935 was added to this overt act with 12 subsections, each of the subsections are criminal acts on their own.
13. THE JUDICIARY IN VICTORIA
Tyler Gunn, [19.10.20 23:07]
At all material times every officer of the Supreme Court of State of Victoria are principals to the criminal actions that have emanated out of Western Australia, and as such have endeavored to conceal the real facts from the people and electors of The State of Victoria, by refusing that is, not permitting jury trial involvement, so that the electors are completely kept in the dark, in relation to this particular, Great Australian Robbery.
14. WHO IS THE DRIVING FORCE
To enable this type of legislation to pass through respective Parliaments and Courtroom concealment takes a large organization of people to keep the robbery from the People of Australia in particular electors. The principle driving force and organization is Freemasonry because every member of Freemasonry is bound by specific Masonic Oaths/obligations to “Conceal and Never Reveal”
15. THE FOREIGN POWER
Every Masonic Lodge operating within Australia belongs to the foreign power of Freemasonry, unfortunately for Australia and Australians the Judiciary of Australia are involved in the concealment and protection of Freemasonry, in particular Masonic Judiciary.
16. QUESTION OF FACT OR QUESTION OF LAW
The average Australian does not know the difference between a question of fact, or a question of law, essentially a question of law is handled exclusively by the judiciary which enables the officers of such courts to control the exposure, but a question of fact is entirely different altogether, because a question of fact is for a jury to determine, - A JURY OF 12-
“This is law in both Civil and Criminal jurisdictions”
17. QUESTION OF FACT > JURY ISSUE
1. Question of Fact > Jury
“Are officers of the Supreme Court of Western Australia that is the judiciary after 1st January 2004 operating outside of their original Grant of Power and as such committing serious indictable offences against the people of Western Australia inclusive of the people of The Commonwealth of Australia”
2. Question of Fact > Jury
“Are officers of the Supreme Court of Victoria principal offenders in relation to the concealment of the real facts in relation to what has happened in Western Australia”
3. Question of Fact > Jury
“Are officers of the High Court and current Federal Courts actively involved in the concealment of the Great Australian Robbery that has occurred within Western Australia and escalated into the Commonwealth of Australia”
4. Question of Fact > Jury
“Are electoral officers currently working within respective Election Commission’s within Australia actively involved in concealing the real facts from the electorates of their respective states and electors of the Commonwealth of Australia”
18. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSIONS – (AEC)
The principal Election Commission is the Commonwealth Electoral Commission enabled by the Commonwealth Constitution Act and The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
Respective States have their own Electoral Commissions: within Victoria the Victorian Electoral Commission operates and is enabled by the Electoral Act 2002.
The Electoral Act 2002 for the State of Victoria states that the Victorian Electoral Commission is one person: and currently that person is Mr. Warwick Gately.
19. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION ROLE
At all material times the role of the respective Electoral Commission at Commonwealth Level, State Level, and Council Level is to conduct Elections.
The additional role is to conduct statutory referendums when necessary to enable the electorate to fully understand and get involved in legal and legislatives issues before they are able to become Acts.
20. THE REFERENDUM REQUIREMENTS
The referendum requirements are statutory and compulsory, but they have been omitted to enable this particular concealment and robbery.
Commonwealth Constitution : Section 128 and 123
West Australian Constitution : Section 73 (2)
Queensland Constitution : Section 53
New South Wales Constitution : Section 7
Victorian Constitution : Section 18
Tyler Gunn, [19.10.20 23:07]
To enable the Great Australian Robbery the respective sections have either, been altered, amended, removed or completely ignored.
21. THE ELECTORAL PROCESS (Cosgrove / Turnbull)
1. Recently the electors of the Commonwealth of Australia voted for respective Senators and House of Representatives for elected people to represent the respective electorates in the Parliament sitting at Canberra A.C.T.
2. The election process was activated when the current Prime Minister Mr. Malcolm Turnbull (2016), requested the Governor General Mr. Peter Cosgrove a military man and RSL Member to dissolve both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament to cause an election (The Federal Election)
22. THE ELECTION WRITS – Sections 12 and 32
After the initial written request, election “Writs” are issued, these writs are issued under the Commonwealth Constitution at Section 12 for the Senate and at Section 32 for the House of Representatives writ.
23. THE NOMINATION FORMS (AEC)
Australian Election Commission and Candidates
The next process regards the candidates standing for election, this particular process is activated by special nomination forms for Senators and or House of Representatives.
For the Senators the form is Form 59.
For the House of Representatives the form is Form 60.
For each and all candidates nominees are required to be listed and checked as registered electors, which is Constitutionally Impossible after the Criminal removal of both Crown and Monarch
24. COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION – Section 44 Section 44 - The Disqualification Section
On both Forms 59 & 60, Section 44 is fully quoted on the front page with a caution added “Candidates if you do not understand please seek legal advice before signing”
25. WHO SIGNS THE WRITS – Sections 12 and 32
A. For the Senate – Senators issued under Section 12 of the Commonwealth Constitution; “The Governor of the State”.
B. For the House of Representatives issued under Section 32 of the Commonwealth Constitution “The Governor-General in Council”
26. THE INVALID WEST AUSTRALIAN WRIT. (January 2004)
On the 1st January 2004 the then Governor of the State of Western Australia John Sanderson at Section 130 of the Acts Amendment and Repeal Courts and Legal Practices Act 2003, with the assistance and consent of the then Attorney General Mr. James McGinty inclusive of respective politicians sitting in the West Australian Parliament amended the Supreme Court Act (The Judiciary) and by such amendment at subsection (3) removed Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Second and substituted himself, Mr. Sanderson thereby invalidating any and all purported election writs relating to, or involving West Australia and voiding the election.
The beginning of the “Great Australian Robbery”.
26A. THE OVERT ACT OF TREASON
“Acts Amendment and Repeal Courts and Legal Practice Act”
27. THE ENACTMENT (1st January 2004)
The purported enactment of the “Acts Amendment and Repeal Court and Legal Practices Act 2003” (The Overt Act) was enacted effective 1st January 2004 and signed in their purported respective capacities by John Sanderson, the new Governor of the State of Western Australia and co-signed by Mr. J. A. McGinty the purported Attorney General for the State of Western Australia.
28. INCONSISTENCY / INVALIDITY – Grants of Power
Within Australia the principal binding Act is the Commonwealth Constitution Act from which respective “Grants of Power” flow, but any inconsistency with the law of the Commonwealth by a law of a State, results in invalidity of that respective State law by virtue of Section 109 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.
29. THE RESULTANT EFFECT on ELECTORS
The resultant effects of the overt act of Western Australia are;-
A. The overt Act is invalid
B. The Western Australian election writ for Senators of Western Australia is invalid, inclusive of House Representatives
C. The State election writ for politicians is invalid.
Tyler Gunn, [19.10.20 23:07]
The Federal seat occupied by Julia Gillard was Lalor, situated at Werribee, Victoria, Australia. The seat is named after Peter Lalor, the infamous miner responsible for the Eureka stockade at Ballarat, who went on to become a politician in Victoria.
90. EUROPEAN COURT MASONIC WIN
The same publication mentioned above at page 11 mentions that the European Court has ruled European Governments cannot compel masons to declare membership as a condition of employment. September, October, November 2004
The same publication mentioned herein at pages 17-20 depicts Freemasonry Victoria’s September communication a Centenary of Federation through Masonic eyes. This is the celebration attended by Governor John Landy (November 2001).
91. THE PUBLICATION OMISSION – GRAND JURY APPLICATION
What is omitted from the Masonic publication – the same publication that revealed the European Court decision – was the fact that five Supreme Court judges did preside over a Grand Jury application (2001) filed against the Victorian Freemasonry Corporate structure in relation to a criminal offence of taking and administering unlawful oaths within Victoria, in Criminal Breach of Section 316 Crimes Act 1958 Victoria.
This Supreme Court hearing was omitted from the November Masonic Publication, in accordance with Masonic deception.
92. THE HEARING – OCTOBER 2001
Five judges of the Victorian Supreme Court heard the Grand Jury application and refused the application to form a Grand Jury under or in accordance with Section 354 Crimes Act 1958 Victoria.
93. THE CONCEALMENT AND PERVERTING (2001)
In accordance with the condition found at Section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Commonwealth), all Attorney Generals were notified prior to the hearing 2001. The principle constitutional issue raised in the notice concerned the purported validity of the Enactment/Royal Assent of the 1975 Victorian Constitution Act, based on the evident fact that the Victorian Constitution Act of 1855 was a United Kingdom Act and as such the Victorian Parliament would not have had the valid constitutional jurisdiction to purportedly repeal the United Kingdom Act of 1855 and enact the 1975 Victorian Act.
The State Governor of Victoria at the time was Henry Winneke, a Masonic member of Grand Lodge Freemasonry Victoria with his son Michael, the Associate of President John Winneke – son of Henry Winneke. (Both now Deceased)
94. THE GRAND JURY APPLICATION HEARING
Resulting from the constitutional notice, one Attorney General did intervene into the hearing – Mr R. Hulls, a state politician and Attorney General for the State of Victoria. The real purpose of the intervention was to make application, after leave to appear was granted to have the established matter of Byrne v. Armstrong (1889) overturned, because the matter stated that, “The Court has no discretionary power but to order the Grand Jury be formed when the affidavit reveals an indictable offence.”
95. I State that THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PART OF ANY ROBBERY IS TO KEEP THE VICTIM IGNORANT OF THE ACTUAL ROBBERY
A. I State that the original affidavit was done in the year 2016, but at this time the deponent did not know about the insertion of A United Nations Trustee into the 1948 Nationality and Citizenship Act.
B. No referendum was conducted in 1948 for this insertion.
C. When The Queen was removed illegally this “Concealed Trustee” took over.
The above content was prepared in 2016 (Turnbull Government) at the time the existence of the United Nations in the capacity of “Trustee” over Australia was not known by the writer.
Today the Great Australian Robbery continues, because the Australian people and electors are ignorant of the facts stated above. To be continued