top of page


The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,3“Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!”- Psalms 2:2


How many times have you heard the term “conspiracy theory” used to discredit a source of information that’s attempting to shed the light of truth onto a particular subject matter?


with Tim Dwyer

learn of

Australia – Council Rates Abolished – the fraud

and other interesting links to TRUTH REVEALED! ___________________________

Tim Dwyer on the fake Government stop taking these idiots seriously or you are an idiot.

Holy Smoke, This Changes Everything. The Law is, there is NO GOVERNMENT. Clearfield Doctrine.

Tim Dwyer on the fake Government stop taking these idiots seriously or you are an idiot.

Holy Smoke, This Changes Everything. The Law is, their is NO GOVERNMENT. Clearfield Doctrine.

Some Links, PDF of Actual Un-Abridged Case...





what it States -


United States Supreme Court CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. v. UNITED STATES(1943) No. 490 Argued: Decided: March 1, 1943 As Amended Mar. 15, 1943. [318 U.S. 363, 364] Mr. Paul A. Freund, of Washington, D.C., for respondent. Mr. Roswell Dean Pine, Jr., of New York City, for petitioners. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. On April 28, 1936, a check was drawn on the Treasurer of the United States through the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia to the order of Clair A. Barner in the amount of $24.20. It was dated at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and was drawn for services rendered by Barner to the Works Progress Administration. The check was placed in the mail addressed to Barner at his address in Mackeyville, Pa. Barner never received the check. Some unknown person obtained it in a mysterious manner and presented it to the J. C. Penney Co. store in Clearfield, Pa., representing that he was the payee and identifying himself to the satisfaction of the employees of J. C. Penney [318 U.S. 363, 365] Co. He endorsed the check in the name of Barner and transferred it to J. C. Penney Co. in exchange for cash and merchandise. Barner never authorized the endorsement nor participated in the proceeds of the check. J. C. Penney Co. endorsed the check over to the Clearfield Trust Co. which accepted it as agent for the purpose of collection and endorsed it as follows: 'Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Prior Endorsements Guaranteed.' 1 Clearfield Trust Co. collected the check from the United States through the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and paid the full amount thereof to J. C. Penney Co. Neither the Clearfield Trust Co. nor J. C. Penney Co. had any knowledge or suspicion of the forgery. Each acted in good faith. On or before May 10, 1936, Barner advised the timekeeper and the foreman of the W.P.A. project on which he was employed that he had not received the check in question. This information was duly communicated to other agents of the United States and on November 30, 1936, Barner executed an affidavit alleging that the endorsement of his name on the check was a forgery. No notice was given the Clearfield Trust Co. or J. C. Penney Co. of the forgery until January 12, 1937, at which time the Clearfield Trust Co. was notified. The first notice received by Clearfield Trust Co. that the United States was asking reimbursement was on August 31, 1937 This suit was instituted in 1939 by the United States against the Clearfield Trust Co., the jurisdiction of the federal District Court being invoked pursuant to the provisions of 24(1) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S. C. 41(1), 28 U.S.C.A. 41(1). The cause of action was based on the express guaranty of prior endorsements made by the Clearfield Trust Co. [318 U.S. 363, 366] J. C. Penney Co. intervened as a defendant. The case was heard on complaint, answer and stipulation of facts. The District Court held that the rights of the parties were to be determined by the law of Pennsylvania and that since the United States unreasonably delayed in giving notice of the forgery to the Clearfield Trust Co., it was barred from recovery under the rule of Market Street Title & Trust Co. v. Chelten T. Co., 296 Pa. 230, 145 A. 848. It accordingly dismissed the complaint. On appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. 3 Cir., 130 F.2d 93. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted, 317 U.S. 619 , 63 S.Ct. 258, 87 L.Ed. --, because of the importance of the problems raised and the conflict between the decision below and Security-First Nat. Bank v. United States, 103 F.2d 188, from the Ninth Circuit. We agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals that the rule of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 , 58 S.Ct. 817, 114 A.L.R. 1487, does not apply to this action. The rights and duties of the United States on commercial paper which it issues are governed by federal rather than local law. When the United States disburses its funds or pays its debts, it is exercising a constitutional function or power. This check was issued for services performed under the Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 115, 15 U.S.C.A. 721-728. The authority to issue the check had its origin in the Constitution and the statutes of the United States and was in no way dependent on the laws of Pennsylvania or of any other state. Cf. Board of Commissioners v. United States, 308 U.S. 343 , 60 S.Ct. 285; Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States, 313 U.S. 289 , 61 S.Ct. 995. The duties imposed upon the United States and the rights acquired by it as a result of the issuance find their roots in the same federal sources. 2 Cf. Deitrick v. Greaney, 309 U.S. 190 , 60 S.Ct. 480; [318 U.S. 363, 367] D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 315 U.S. 447 , 62 S.Ct. 676. In absence of an applicable Act of Congress it is for the federal courts to fashion the governing rule of law according to their own standards. United States v. Guaranty Trust Co., 293 U.S. 340 , 55 S.Ct. 221, 95 A.L.R. 651, is not opposed to this result. That case was concerned with a conflict of laws rule as to the title acquired by a transferee in Yugoslavia under a forged endorsement. Since the payee's address was Yugoslavia, the check had 'something of the quality of a foreign bill' and the law of Yugoslavia was applied to determine what title the transferee acquired. In our choice of the applicable federal rule we have occasionally selected state law. See Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States, supra. But reasons which may make state law at times the appropriate federal rule are singularly inappropriate here. The issuance of commercial paper by the United States is on a vast scale and transactions in that paper from issuance to payment will commonly occur in several states. The application of state law, even without the conflict of laws rules of the forum, would subject the rights and duties of the United States to exceptional uncertainty. It would lead to great diversity in results by making identical transactions subject to the vagaries of the laws of the several states. The desirability of a uniform rule is plain. And while the federal law merchant developed for about a century under the regime of Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, represented general commercial law rather than a choice of a federal rule designed to protect a federal right, it nevertheless stands as a convenient source of reference for fashioning federal rules applicable to these federal questions. United States v. National Exchange Bank, 214 U.S. 302 , 29 S.Ct. 665, 16 Ann.Cas. 1184, falls in that category. The Court held that the United [318 U.S. 363, 368] States could recover as drawee from one who presented for payment a pension check on which the name of the payee had been forged, in spite of a protracted delay on the part of the United States in giving notice of the forgery. The Court followed Leather Mfrs.' Bank v. Merchants Bank, 128 U.S. 26 , 9 S.Ct. 3, which held that the right of the drawee against one who presented a check with a forged endorsement of the payee's name accrued at the date of payment and was not dependent on notice or demand. The theory of the National Exchange Bank case is that the who presents a check for payment warrants that he has title to it and the right to receive payment. 3 If he has acquired the check through a forged endorsement, the warranty is breached at the time the check is cashed. See Manufacturers' Trust Co. v. Harriman Nat. Bank Trust Co., 146 Misc. 551, 262 N.Y.S. 482; Bergman v. Avenue State Bank, 284 Ill.App. 516, 1 N.E.2d 432. The theory of the warranty has been challenged. Ames, The Doctrine of Price v. Neal, 4 Harv.L.Rev., 297, 301-302. It has been urged that 'the right to recover is a quasi contractual right, resting upon the doctrine that one who confers a benefit in misreliance upon a right or duty is entitled to restitution.' Woodward, Quasi Contracts (1913) 80; First Nat. Bank v. City Nat. Bank, 182 Mass. 130, 134, 65 N.E. 24, 94 Am.St.Rep. 637. But whatever theory is taken, we adhere to the conclusion of the National Exchange Bank case that the drawee's right to recover accrues when the payment is [318 U.S. 363, 369] made. There is no other barrier to the maintenance of the cause of action. The theory of the drawee's responsibility where the drawer's signature is forged (Price v. Neale, 3 Burr. 1354; United States v. Chase Nat. Bank, 252 U.S. 485 , 40 S.Ct. 361, 10 A.L.R. 1401) is inapplicable here. The drawee, whether it be the United States or another, is not chargeable with the knowledge of the signature of the payee. United States v. National Exchange Bank, supra, 214 U.S. at page 317, 29 S.Ct. at page 669, 16 Ann.Cas. 1184; State v. Broadway Nat. Bank, 153 Tenn. 113, 282 S.W. 194. The National Exchange Bank case went no further than to hold that prompt notice of the discovery of the forgery was not a condition precedent to suit. It did not reach the question whether lack of prompt notice might be a defense. We think it may. If it is shown that the drawee on learning of the forgery did not give prompt notice of it and that damage resulted, recovery by the drawee is barred. See Ladd & Tilton Bank v. United States, 9 Cir., 30 F.2d 334; United States v. National Rockland Bank, D.C., 35 F.Supp. 912; United States v. National City Bank, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 144. The fact that the drawee is the United States and the laches those of its employees are not material. Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389 , 398. The United States as drawee of commercial paper stands in no different light than any other drawee. As stated in United States v. National Exchange Bank, 270 U.S. 527, 534 , 46 S.Ct. 388, 389, 'The United States does business on business terms.' It is not excepted from the general rules governing the rights and duties of drawees 'by the largeness of its dealings and its having to employ agents to do what if done by a principal in person would leave no room for doubt.' Id., 270 U.S. at page 535, 46 S.Ct. at page 389. But the damage occasioned by the delay must be established and not left to conjecture. Cases such as Market St. Title & Trust Co. v. Chelten Trust Co., supra, place the burden on the drawee of giving prompt notice of the forgery- injury to the defendant being presumed by the mere fact of delay. See London & River Plate [318 U.S. 363, 370] Bk. v. Bank of Liverpool, (1896) 1 Q.B. 7. But we do not think that he who accepts a forged signature of a payee deserves that preferred treatment. It is his neglect or error in accepting the forger's signature which occasions the loss. See Bank of Commerce v. Union Bank, 3 N.Y. 230, 236. He should be allowed to shift that loss to the drawee only on a clear showing that the drawee's delay in notifying him of the forgery caused him damage. See Woodward, Quasi Contracts (1913) 25. No such damage has been shown by Clearfield Trust Co. who so far as appears can still recover from J. C. Penney Co. The only showing on the part of the latter is contained in the stipulation to the effect that if a check cashed for a customer is returned unpaid or for reclamation a short time after the date on which it is cashed, the employees can often locate the person who cashed it. It is further stipulated that when J. C. Penney Co. was notified of the forgery in the present case none of its employees was able to remember anything about the transaction or check in question. The inference is that the more prompt the notice the more likely the detection of the forger. But that falls short of a showing that the delay caused a manifest loss. Third Nat. Bank v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 76 Hun 475, 27 N.Y.S. 1070. It is but another way of saying that mere delay is enough. AFFIRMED. Mr. Justice MURPHY and Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. Footnotes [ Footnote 1 ] Guarantee of all prior indorsements on presentment for payment of such a check to Federal Reserve banks or member bank depositories is required by Treasury Regulations. 31 Code of Federal Regulations 202.32 , 202.33. [ Footnote 2 ] Various Treasury Regulations govern the payment and endorsement of government checks and warrants and the reimbursement of the Treasurer of the United States by Federal Reserve banks and member bank depositories on payment of checks or warrants bearing a forged endorsement. See 31 Code of Federal Regulations 202.0, 202.32-202.34. Forgery of the check was an offense against the United States. Criminal Code 148, 18 U.S.C. 262, 18 U.S.C.A. 262. [ Footnote 3 ] We need not determine whether the guarantee of prior endorsements adds to the drawee's rights. See Brannan's Negotiable Instruments Law (6th ed.) pp. 330-331, 816-817; First Nat. Bank v. City Nat. Bank, 182 Mass. 130, 134, 65 N.E. 24, 94 Am.St.Rep. 637. Cf. Home Ins. Co. v. Mercantile Trust Co., 219 Mo.App. 645, 284 S.W. 834. Under the theory of the National Exchange Bank case, the warranty of the title of him who presents the check for payment would be implied in any event. See Philadelphia Nat. Bank v. Fulton Nat. Bank, D.C., 25 F.2d 995, 997. FINDLAW NEWSLETTERS Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.


  • "The Government of Australia is a corporate entity and as such any officer working for that corporate entity requires the consent of parties under contract law, if no consent is given all perceived authority is null and void".


The Australian Constitution says residents have the right to water from the rivers for irrigation and conservation purposes but governments have brought in laws that are restricting this – One Nation’s Pauline Hanson, campaigning for the January 31 Queensland election.

Commonwealth Consolidated Acts


Nor abridge right to use water

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.

The Government is also charging you for

road tolls, water bills, rates, gas bills, power bills, rego, fines, parking tickets, loans and insurance all these entities will have to pay back to we the people.

1901 Commonwealth of Australia Numbered Acts


  2. ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 (NO. 2, 1901)


  4. AUDIT ACT 1901 (NO. 4, 1901)


  6. CUSTOMS ACT 1901 (NO. 6, 1901)

  7. BEER EXCISE ACT 1901 (NO. 7, 1901)

  8. DISTILLATION ACT 1901 (NO. 8, 1901)

  9. THE EXCISE ACT 1901 (NO. 9, 1901)



  12. POST AND TELEGRAPH ACT 1901 (NO. 12, 1901)


  14. THE PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES ACT 1901 (NO. 14, 1901)


  16. PACIFIC ISLAND LABOURERS ACT 1901 (NO. 16, 1901)



Krystal-Klare - shared

transcribe the letter I have reshared from another citizen's online post, with the relevant details of the office holders of YOUR state, and post it . make sure you keep a postal receipt. Direct action now. Government OVER-REACH is trampling our God given rights as espoused by THE COMMON LAW , time for idle babble is over.


ALL QLD this has been served on all QLD police Plain-Simple-English :First-Middle: House of [Last] In care of [33] Street Name. City. Queensland. [4000] Australia. 14th February 2021 Attention: - Katarina Carroll. Office found, 200 Roma Street. Brisbane. Queensland. 4000. Australia. Notice and Asseveration. Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent, Notice Agent is Notice to Principal. For your information and notice Katarina Carroll, trading as Commissioner of Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13, heirs and successors. It has come to one’s attention- 1. QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE is a STATE GOVERNMENT (not defined) ENTITY registered to Australian Securities Investment Commission, A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13, Goods and Services Tax registered 01 July 2000. 2. STATE OF QUEENSLAND CIK#0001244818 registered to U.S. securities and exchange commission pursuant to Securities Exchange act 1934. 3. QUEENSLAND TREASURY CORPORATION CIK#0000852555 registered to U.S. securities and exchange commission pursuant to Securities Exchange act 1934. 4. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CIK#0000805157 registered to U.S. securities and exchange commission pursuant Securities Exchange act 1934. Australian Securities Investment Commission (A.S.I.C.) is there for a political sub-division of COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CIK#0000805157 thus making QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 a political sub-division of COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CIK#0000805157 via A.S.I.C. Katarina Carroll you are now aware that the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CIK#0000852555 is a Foreign Government and Political sub-division subject to Securities and Exchange act 1934, Uniform Commercial Codes thus subject to enforcement of such codes by the U.S. Department of Justice. Katarina Carroll it is my will to bring to your attention to the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS quasi court system, the HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA, Sue v Hill 23rd June 1999 confirms that Australian government as we know it, is foreign, with a foreign head of power. Katarina Carroll in your capacity as Commissioner of Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 (foreign agent) and all your subordinates (foreign agents) are foreign to the land of the Commonwealth of Australia, with a foreign Queen, Queen Elizabet II, Queen of Australia, being a foreign head of power. Thus, Katarina Carroll as Commissioner of Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 and all officers, members, employees, contractors and Agents of Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 subject to the Foreign Agent Registration act 1938 as amended. [See form OMB No.1124-0001 U.S. Department of Justice] Katarina Carroll it is mandatory under section seven for all Foreign Agents to produce their Foreign Agents Statement as a matter of public record when demanded pursuant to Foreign Agents Registration act 1938 as amended without delay. Therefor all Agents must produce statement when requested. Katarina Carroll you are now aware that you Katarina Carroll in your capacity as Commissioner of Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 and all subordinates are operating on the land of the Crown, Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her Realms and Territories, Queen Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Subject to the Laws of nature and to natures God. [The Crown] Katarina Carroll you are now aware all officers, members, employees, contractors and Agents of Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 being a political sub-division of THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CIK#0000805157 must mandatorily register as foreign Agents pursuant to the Foreign Agent Registration Act 1938, as amended. [22 U.S.C. code 611. Definitions, 612. Registration statement, 614. Filing and labelling of political propaganda, 615. Books and records, 616. Public examination of official records; transmittal of records and information, 617. Liability of officers, 618. Enforcement and penalties, 619. Territorial applicability of subchapter] The COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CIK#0000852157, STATE OF QUEENSLAND CIK#0001244818, QUEENSLAND TREASURY CORPORATION CIK#0000852555 are entities created by private individuals being members of Private Political Parties holding the authority of private individuals only. Whereas living men and women holding no membership of any Registered Political Parties inside the private Constitutions of the Registered Political Parties in Queensland and not subject to any Partnership Act 1891, held by the Premier, The Chief Officer of an International Trading Corporation, The Queensland Treasury, based in Brisbane, registered to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Men and women not being members of a Private Political Party can not vote for people in that Private Business. As the Premier of the STATE OF QUEENSLAND CIK#0000852157 is the current holder of the Partnership Act 1891, and has sealed the Constitution Act 1867,Qld, held by Her Majesty the Queen, Elizabeth the second, the current holder of the Partnership Act 1890, which hold the land of the Crown inside the preamble, and that land is held in Imperial Measurements, and all Criminal Offence are held to Common Law of England. No private man or woman, a Member of the Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13, holding the authority of the Premier the Chief Executive Officer of the Queensland Treasury Corporation CIK#0000852555, a private employee of the Queensland Treasury Corporation CIK#0000852555, a Member of Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 are paid from the profits of the firm, as the act implies police officers give private service to the firm only, are held to the Partnership act 1891, hold no personal authority to arrest any man or woman in the land of the Crown for any Criminal or Common Law offences, or stop any man or woman for traffic offences or such like Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 being a private corporation/non-entity holding an A.B.N.29 409 225 509 13 foreign entity conducting business on the land of The Crown. The Police Officers give a private security service to the Queensland Treasury Corporation CIK#0000852555 as the Act itself to the public seal of Queensland Treasury Corporation CIK#0000852555. The Seal is held by the elected Chief Officer, holder of the Queensland Treasury Corporation Act 1988. The Chief Executive Officer the Premier Anastacia Palaszczuk MP. C/O. 111 Eagle Street. BRISBANE CITY. Qld. 4001. No Judge of any Supreme Court of Queensland holds any seal of the Premier of the Queensland Treasury Corporation CIK#0000852555, and can not hear and determine any Criminal or Common Law Offence. As they hold no seal of the Crown, Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth the Second, to impose any statutory fines or a statutory term of imprisonment, as held to Citations of a private trading International Court, for internal matters only of the Queensland Treasury Corporation CIK#0000852555. As held to an act of the Queensland Treasury Corporation CIK#0000852555 – WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1997 act No.1 of 1997 The Parliament of Queensland enacts © State of Queensland 1997. No Statutory appointed Judge or Magistrate hold any Common Law authority over any private man or woman, sealed inside the Preamble of the Constitution Act 1867(Qld) by way of the Partnership Act 1891. Acts Interpretation Act 1954 of Queensland Treasury Corporation 1988. Section 12. Private Acts not to affect the rights of others-The Acts of the Queensland Treasury Corporation 1988 CIK#0000852555 are International Trading Corporations held to International Trading Logo- these acts have no authority over any man or woman for Criminal or Civil Law commencing 1988. Any man and woman being subjects of the Crown that are presently imprisoned for any purported Criminal Offence of the Queensland Treasury Corporation CIK#0000852555, the Chief Executive Officer the Premier Anastacia Palaszczuk MP must personally Order their immediate release. Katarina Carroll as Commissioner of Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 you now have a duty of care to inform all subordinates, employees, contractors and agents of this notice whom are all vicarious liable when interacting with any shareholder the Commonwealth i.e. The living men and women. In particular when members of the Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 conducting commerce/business on the Queens highway in times of peace. Maxum of Law “Coram-non-judice.” It is a right granted not privilege assumed by the Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 of every living man and woman of the Commonwealth to travel unhindered by application of section 92, Commonwealth constitution 1901. Katarina Carroll as Commissioner of Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 it is your sole liability to instruct your subordinate officers to respect the Law and Constitution 1901 also to instruct your subordinate officers to respect the Civil Red Ensign Federation flag of the land when displayed, as it is a serious offence to impose Admiralty Martial Law. As evidenced by the Blue Ensign flag flying on the corporate building, State and Federal, under the Law of Merchant wherein fraud, conversion is used to create joinder. If a Red Ensign flag is displayed on any private mode of conveyance/automobile and private buildings, therefore the law is specific in this regard encountering such situations. The Law demands that any of your subordinates cease and desist. Any act of aggression, assault whilst being armed in public, uttering false claims of jurisdiction or assault by placing hands on any weapons, trespass, uttering threats to force compliance, unsigned warrants by armed Queensland Police Officers A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 shall be taken as an act of war against living men and women of the Commonwealth when in times of peace. No crime, no injured party, no criminal complaint, no contract, no consent equals no authority. Katarina Carroll as Commissioner of Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 and all officers, members, employees, contractors and Agents of Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 are subject to the Crimes act 1914 and other Common Law offences such as personation of an officer of the Crown, Treason, War crimes and Human trafficking/slavery. No man or woman is above the Law. Katarina Carroll as Commissioner of Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 and all officers, members, employee, contractors and Agents of Queensland Police Service A.B.N. 29 409 225 509 13 can no longer act in good faith/ with clean hands upon receiving this Notice. cc. To all Police Station through-out Queensland. cc. Attorney General U.S Department of Justice Office found, 950-Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530-0001. [show less]


Anna Von Reitz

Clearfield Doctrine explanation

By Anna Von Reitz

The Clearfield Doctrine (which Larry probably can't find, either) arises from a 1943 Supreme Court Case, Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 US 363-371.

The essence of the case is that when an incorporated government uses private bank script as its currency it sinks to the level of any other incorporated entity, loses its sovereign status (if it ever had any) and becomes subject to the same laws as any other corporation.

You can look up the actual case to your heart's delight, but it is also reprised in CJS, as I was kindly reminded tonight by a friend:

Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS) 91 CJS United States sec. 4 ".....when the United States enters into commercial business it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation."

Now, if you have followed along you know that the British Territorial United States was never sovereign with respect to us. It was merely a contractor providing us with specific governmental services and acting under our delegated power to do so. All "federal" powers were delegated to them and all federal powers are limited to the international jurisdiction of the sea.

So the Territorial United States was never sovereign on our shores and by operating as an incorporated entity, it suffered no loss of sovereignty it never had, nor did it affect the sovereign status of our lawful government by its actions.

It did however reap the wrath of the court for its self-serving semantic deceits and corrupt attempts to exercise the coercive powers of our government for its own business advantage and enrichment.

Just like BLM and the Territorial United States franchise doing business as the "State of Nevada" and the Municipal United States franchise doing business as the STATE OF NEVADA.

All these agencies and entities play upon our ignorance and let us assume that they are "government" entities, when in fact, they are commercial corporations in the business of providing governmental services --- no different than Burger King, International.

The Clearfield Doctrine strips these pretenders of their "government" cloak and when they attempt to use the abusive powers of government to enrich themselves, it's time to remind them of exactly who and what they are.

This can be used against them in any number of contexts.

They claim to have a commercial interest in your marriage and children? Prove it.

They claim to have a commercial interest in your home and land? Prove it.

They claim to have a commercial interest in your estate? Prove it.

They have a right to tax you for anything? Income? Property? Prove it.

They're not the government and they don't have any special government powers when they are operating as commercial corporations. Instead, they are subject to all the same regulations and limitations as any other corporation --- including the requirement that they operate lawfully --- not "legally", lawfully.

If you are standing on the land and soil jurisdiction of this country neither they nor their courts have any excuse for even addressing you, and if you are operating as a private American "vessel" conducting international trade and not allowing yourself to be misrepresented as a federal franchise PERSON, they are obligated to protect you and dismiss any action against you.

Use the Clearfield Doctrine to expose their feet of clay and then stomp on them, assuming that you have completed your own due diligence and re-conveyed your Trade Name and Assumed NAMES to their permanent domicile on the land and soil jurisdiction of this country, they have no right to trespass upon you or presume the existence of any contract with you.

Use the Clearfield Doctrine and object the moment any of these jokers contact you. Remember that a "Summons" from a court of foreign jurisdiction is a solicitation for business that you can object to and deny with the same impunity that you would reject a proposal to sell you twenty tons of cheap pizza.

---------------------------- See this article and over 1000 others on Anna's website here:


Clearfield Doctrine

Supreme Court Annotated Statute, Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 1942

Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute: Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States,318 U.S. 363-371 (1942): "Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen . . . where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. . . . For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."

What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private commercial paper is used by corporate government, then government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no different than a mere private corporation.

As such, government then becomes bound by the rules and laws that govern private corporations which means that if they intend to compel an individual to some specific performance based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then the government like any private corporation, must be the holder-in-due-course of a contract or other commercial agreement between it and the one upon who demands for specific performance are made.


The Clearfield Doctrine and USC Title 22: When a government operates as a commercial corporation it descends to the level of all such corporations and has no special powers or attributes. It is only when acting as a properly formed unincorporated Body Politic that a government exercises sovereign power of any kind. Virtually all governments operating in the world today are for-profit corporations under contract to provide governmental services. The American “US (Major)” government hasn’t operated as a sovereign entity since 1865. The US (Minor) government operates as a corporation. (Judge Anna, Part II Final Judgment and Civil Orders, Line 2277)

Best wishes!

Download PDF • 63KB



Judge Anna Documents Archive


As suggested by Paul Stramer. I am uploading Judge Anna's published PDF files to this post in case her website gets knocked off by the cabal.


Original title Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), s. 9JurisdictionAustraliaRatified6 July 1900Date effective1 January 1901SystemFederal GovernmentBranches

  • Executive

  • Legislative

  • Judicial


  • House of Representatives

  • Senate

ExecutiveSee Australian GovernmentJudiciarySee Judiciary of AustraliaAmendmentsSee Referendums in AustraliaLast amendedSee 1977 Australian referendum (Retirement of Judges)LocationNational Archives of AustraliaAuthor(s)Constitutional Conventions, 1891 and 1897-98SignatoriesQueen VictoriaSupersedesAustralian Colonies Government Act 1850


This site of the author, Malcolm Farnsworth - has a wealth of constitutional information the owner says that The sites are now endangered.

best known for the websites, and They began as educational websites in 1995, arising out of my teaching, but soon developed into archives of information and documents, with many audio and video files.

They require more resources and security than can be found in cheap, shared hosting. I lease a Virtual Private Server (VPS) with significant bandwidth and processing power. Audio files are streamed from Amazon S3. Amazon storage charges are very cheap but I carry the cost of the bandwidth when files are played.

I am very reluctant to discuss my personal circumstances. Privacy matters to me. But I've lived a life, mainly as a teacher, where I've always been able to pay my way. That has now changed. Unemployment has drained my resources. Homelessness has destroyed my lifestyle. The smallest of bills present a major difficulty. I first entered the workforce in 1979. Forty years later, the experience means little but my age is a major negative, even though I've never felt more on top of my game.

Absent change, the websites must be closed in the next month. At the urging of a number of people online, I have opted for a Patreon solution as a last attempt to keep them open. Frankly, I'm sceptical.

Ideally, I would like to keep the sites open, as an online base. The websites allow me to provide regular posts on Australian politics, political history and processes, as well as general commentary on contemporary events. It's telling that this is the first federal election in many years for which I haven't been updating

The Watergate site has been neglected in recent years but the Trump presidency ensures that there is ongoing interest in all things impeachment. There is much that could be done in this area.

In the past, I have had the opportunity to write for The Drum. I currently write a weekly piece for Meanjin. It is the only paid work I have. Frankly, the situation is completely unsustainable. Sentimentality can play no part in the decisions that have to be made soon.

At this early stage, I'm not sure what works best on here. I've set up a number of tiers, starting with $1.00/month. If there is any significant interest, I'm prepared to commit to subscribers-only material. I'm also looking at putting sections of the websites behind a Patreon pay-wall.

Your help would be appreciated. I can be contacted via Twitter.

above statement found here

( I urge the reader to help any author such as Malcolm Farnsworth, to continue their invaluable educational and shared knowledge to continue to be available for future generations and people seeking truth ... IMACOGINDEWHEELOFLIFE has no affiliate with the Author mentioned)



read fully @


The role of the High Court has also been pivotal, especially since the 1920s. It is widely believed that the difficult process of changing the Constitution has been compensated for by rulings of the Court, particularly in relation to Commonwealth-State powers.

A referendum process is the only means of changing the Constitution, although constitutional referendums are relatively infrequent. There have been only 44 attempts on 19 separate occasions to change the Constitution. Only 8 of these have been successful, the most recent in 1977. Only 4 referendums have succeeded in the past 50 years.

The Constitution consists of a Preamble, 8 Chapters, and a Schedule. It originally contained 128 sections.cont.AUSTRALIAN POLITICS .COM

The Constitution of the Commonwealth shall be as follows:


This Constitution is divided as follows:-

Chapter I – The Parliament: Part I – General: Part II – The Senate: Part III – The House of Representatives: Part IV – Both Houses of the Parliament: Part V – Powers of the Government: Chapter II – The Executive Government: Chapter III – The Judicature: Chapter IV – Finance and Trade: Chapter V – The States: Chapter VI – New States: Chapter VII – Miscellaneous: Chapter VIII – Alteration of the Constitution. The Schedule.


Australia – Council Rates Abolished – the fraud

Supporting Documents and Links

PDF – Matter of Public Interest, Council rates illegal, unlawful, abolished MatterPublicInterest-council-rates-charges.pdf

Matter of public Interest

To the People of the Commonwealth of Australia.

WE received a GIFT The Crown of England relieved ALL the Commonwealth from the oppressive burden of land rates, taxes, fees and more! We do not have to argue this right. Stare Decisi (The decision Stands)

The Feudal Doctrine was Abolished in 1660, Centuries Ago. “LET US NOT EVER FORGET AGAIN”

In the 1999 referendum WE the People of the Commonwealth of Australia voted to remain united in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Any law, statute, reservation or seal that breaches the Crown’s relationship with the people of the Commonwealth of Australia are utterly null and void. Including the Australia Act 1986.

Download • 185KB

see proof

Court of Wards and Liveries, Hughes, 1904.pdf

Download PDF • 5.88MB

THE COURT OF V/ARDS AND LIVERIES Introduction Historians who have written of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in English history, such as Proude and Gardiner, have either made "brief references to the Court of Wards and Liveries or have neglected it altogether, and all have failed to point out just what that court was. In fact no one has ever given any adequate account of the origin and purpose of this court, and of the causes which led to its abolition, first de facto and then de jure. The subject is of importance not only because thru this court the king derived a large part of his income during more than a century, but also because the abolition of this court is closely connected with that of militarj/ tenures. This study will concern itself, firstly, with a brief explanation of the origin and powers of the Court of Wards and Liveries; secondly, with a consideration of the causes which led to its abolition in fact; and thirdly, with a determination of the reasons which made it seem advisable to the parliament of 1660 legally to recognise this de facto abolition. It is not intended to include any discussion of the origin and development of wardship and liveries. One who is interested in that subject should consult


Pollock and Maitland, for a discussion of the hypothetical history of the origin and development of wardship previous to the twelfth century; the coronation oath7 " of Henry I.; the coronation charter3 of Henry I.; Glanville ; the Magna Carta" of John; and the new Magna Carta* of Henry III, These various citations include some reference to Purveyance 7 as well as to Wardship and Liveries, "because when the Court of Wards and Liveries was abolished by the first parliament of Cbarles II., Purveyance was abolished "by the same Act, 'Poll. andMait., Hist, of Eng. Law, Vol. I., pp. 325-329. ^The exact words of this oath are quoted in Stubbs Documents Illustrative of English History, p. 99 (cf. Maskell, Mon. Rit. III., 5,6) 3 Stat, of the Realm, Vol. I., "Charters of Liberties", p. 1, "Carta Regis Henrici anno Regni Primo A. P. MCI. (translated in Poll, and Mait., Hist, of Eng. Law Vol. I, p. 325.) * "Treatise on the Laws and Customs of the kingdom of England" (published between 1187 and 1189) lib. 7, c. 9 to 13. 'Magna Carta of John, Chapters 2 - 9, 37, 28, 30, 31, (translated in various places, one translation being found in Hosmer's Anglo Saxon Freedom, App. A.) 6 Stat. of the Realm, Vol. I., "Charters of Liberties", p. 14. This charter became the model for the Inspeximus of Edward I., to be found in the Stat, of the Realm, Vol. I., "Charters of Liberties", p. 33, (called "Inspeximus" from the letters patent prefixed in the name of Edward I.: "Inspeximus Magnam Chart am domini Henrici quondam Angliae patris nostri de libertatibus Angliae in haec verba.") Blackstone, in his Commentaries , (I., 287), says that Purveyance (from pourvoir, to provide) was a prerogative enjoyed by the crown "of buying up its provisions and other necessaries for the use of his royal household, at an appraised valuation, in preference to all others, and even without the consent of the owner, and also of forcibly impressing the carriages and horses of the subject to do the king*s business on the public road . . . upon paying of a settled price; a perogative which prevailed pretty generally thruout Europe •

Abolition of Star Chamber 1641.pdf

An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber.

Download DOC • 138KB

WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land: (2) and by another statute made in the fifth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is enacted, That no man shall be attached by any accusation, nor forejudged of life or limb, nor his lands, tenements, goods nor chattels seized into the King's hands, against the form of the great charter and the law of the land: (3) and by another statute made in the five and twentieth year of the reign of the same King Edward the Third, it is accorded, assented and established, That none shall be taken by petition or suggestion made to the King, or to his council, unless it be by indictment or presentment of good and lawful people of the same neighbourhood where such deeds be done, in due manner, or by process made by writ original at the common law, and that none be put out of his franchise or freehold, unless he be duly brought in to answer, and forejudged of the same by the course of the law, and if any thing be done against the same, it shall be redressed and holden for none: (4) and by another statute made in the eight and twentieth year of the reign of the same King Edward the Third, it is amongst other things enacted, That no man of what estate or condition soever he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, without being brought in to answer by due process of law: (5) and by another statute made in the two and fortieth year of the reign of the said King Edward the Third, it is enacted, That no man be put to answer, without presentment before justices, or matter of record, or by due process and writ original, according to the old law of the land, and if any thing be done to the contrary, it shall be void in law, and holden for error: (6) and by another statute made in the six and thirtieth year of the same King Edward the Third, it is amongst other things enacted, That all pleas which shall be pleaded in any courts before any the King's justices, or in his other places, or before any of his other ministers, or in the courts and places of any other lords within the realm, shall be entred and enrolled in latin: (7) and whereas by the statutes made in the third year of King Henry the Seventh, power is given to the chancellor, the lord treasurer of England for the time being, and the keeper of the King's privy seal, or two of them, calling unto them a bishop and a temporal lord of the King's most honourable council, and the two chief justices of the King's bench and common pleas for the time being, or other two justices in their absence, to proceed as in that act is expressed, for the punishment of some particular offences therein mentioned: (8) and by the statute made in the one and twentieth year of King Henry the Eighth, the president of the council is associated to join with the lord chancellor and other judges in the said statute of the Third of Henry the Seventh mentioned; (9) but the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted:

II. And forasmuch as all matters examinable or determinable before the said judges, or in the court commonly called the star-chamber, may have their proper remedy and redress, and their due punishment and correction, by the common law of the land, and in the ordinary course of justice elsewhere; (2) and forasmuch as the reasons and motives inducing the erection and continuance of that court do now cease: (3) and the proceedings, censures and decrees of that court, have by experience been found to be an intolerable burthen to the subjects, and the means to introduce an arbitrary power and government; (4) and forasmuch as the council-table hath of late times assumed unto it self a power to intermeddle in civil causes and matters only of private interest between party and party, and have adventured to determine of the estates and liberties of the subject, contrary to the law of the land and the rights and privileges of the subject, by which great and manifold mischief and inconveniencies have arisen and happened, and much incertainty by means of such-proceedings hath been conceived concerning mens rights and estates; for settling whereof, and preventing the like in time to come,

III. Be it ordained and enacted by the authority of this present parliament, That .....see link or pdf


refer to -

for more information

1660 the Restoration of the Crown of England and the ABOLISHMENT of the Feudal Doctrine


  • The Crown ABOLISHED the administration of the wards and liveries responsible for collecting these taxes, rules, regulations governing land and the court responsible for fines, seizing property for non payment. Both were ABOLISHED FOREVER AND EVER.

  • ALL LAND was converted into one and one only FREE AND COMMON SOCCAGE. FOREVER AND EVER. (private, farming, commercial)

  • No law, act, statute, reservation can change or challenge FOREVER AND EVER.

assented to by King Charles II under the Royal Seal of England

  • The Crown ABOLISHED land taxes, land rates, fees, charges, levies, on land you own. FOREVER AND EVER.


“The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made …” (Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765, vol 1 at 59)

In the debates of the Parliament, it is very, very clear as to what the context, intentions and resolutions. There is no ambiguity. (see page 7 and 8 herein)

In Section IV: (

An Act takeing away the Court of Wards and Liveries and Tenures in Capite and by Knights Service and Purveyance, and for setling a Revenue upon his Majesty in Lieu thereof.”

All Tenures to be created by the King hereafter to be in free and common Socage”

“And bee it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid that all tenures hereafter to be created by the Kings Majestie his Heires or Successors upon any gifts or grants of any Mannours Lands Tenements or Hereditaments of any Estate of Inheritance at the common Law shall be in free and common Soccage, and shall be adjudged to be in free and common Soccage onely, and not by Knight service or in Capite, and shall be discharged of all Wardship value and forfeiture of Marriage Livery Primer-Seizin Ouster le main Aide pur faier fitz Chivalier & pur file marrier, Any Law Statute or reservation to the contrary thereof any wise notwithstanding.”

Ouster le main: to take out of the hand; Wardship Value; taxes, fees etc on land; Primer-Seizin: King was entitled to enter, take possession and/or receive the whole fruits of the land; Fitz: son of; Chivalier: chivalry Knight; pur: before, for ; marrier: one that marries; tenure: land holding

Hereafter: a time in the future, FOREVER AND EVER

Any Law Statute or reservation to the contrary thereof any wise notwithstanding”

With this unambiguous language, the Crown left no room for doubt.

This Statute of the Realm IS FOREVER. It is

: no law, statute, act in the future can change or challenge.

Land alienated (transfer of sale) from the Crown in the first instance has continued by our rights at Common Law from seller to purchaser in free and common soccage



Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 2 (1766)


Download PDF • 1.71MB

COMMENTARIESONTHELAWSOFENGLANDBOOKTHE SECOND (1766) WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, Esq. Based on the first edition, together with the most material corrections and additions in the second edition. Translation of greek, latin, italian and french quotations (with some modifications) by J. W. Jones, Esq. (1823) Footnotes have been converted to chapter end notes. Spelling has been modernized.

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the Third - Chapter the First : Of the Redress of Private Wrongs by the Mere Act of Parties

“And be it further enacted That noe preemption shall be allowed or claimed in the behalfe of His Majesty or of any His Heires or Successors or of any the Queenes of England, or of any the children of the Royall Family for the time being in Market or out of Market, but that it be for ever hereafter free to all and every of the Subjects of His Majestie to sell dispose or imploy his said Goods to any other person or persons as him listeth, Any pretence of makeing provision or purveyance of Victuall Carriages or other thing for His Majestie His Heires or Successors or of the said Queenes, or Children, or any pretence of preemption in their or any of their behalfes notwithstanding; “(

Again unambiguous language: For Ever Hereafter FREE

Land is considered a commercial unmoveable Good.

Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] His honour Justice Isaacs said: In Challis’s Real Property, 3rd ed., p. 218, “It is stated with perfect accuracy”:

“In the language of the English law, the word fee signifies an estate of inheritance as distinguished from a less estate… A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in respect to the rights, which it confers, of all estates known to the law. It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which can enter into the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste; and, for all practical purposes of ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a chattel, in nothing except the physical indestructibility of its subject. Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute right, both of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will.” (note fee simple was a term that was used in Feudal Times)


.uk-Charles II 1660 An
Download UK-CHARLES II 1660 AN • 134KB


refer to -

for more information


List of Acts of the Parliament of England, 1485–1601,_1485%E2%80%931601#1535_(27_Hen._8)




Whereas2 the people3 of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God4, have agreed5 to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth6 under the Crown7 of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland8, and under the Constitution9 hereby established10:

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty11, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual12 and Temporal13, and Commons14, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same15, as follows:—


Our free and common soccage rights

As human beings we acknowledge that each of us have basic humans rights, and and we must assure that each of us do not interfere with the humans rights of peace, goodwill and safety of our fellow man.

WE have the right to enjoy land WE own.

  • WE have the right to alienate (sell) OUR land, or any personal property to whomever WE wish free of any fee, fine or tax.

  • WE have the right to give OUR property away.

  • OUR land is not encumbered by any levied rates, land taxes, fees, charges, by-laws, rack rent, poll tax (or any other Feudal terminology).

  • WE have the right to have OUR land inherited by OUR heirs by will (males or females), if there is no will the land will automatically pass to OUR heirs. (The acts intention was that if WE choose OUR property can remain in OUR family FOREVER AND EVER.

  • WE own the land all the soil all the way down to the centre of the earth and all the air above. This means any minerals, the trees, the water, the soil under the water. ALL OF IT FOREVER AND EVER (The crown did not reserve any rights to the gold or silver or the minerals in the ground.)

  • WE can commit unlimited waste, meaning WE do not have to farm land or any other thing for the benefit of the Crown (Her majesty Queen Elizabeth the II, or Commonwealth or State Government), WE can turn arable farming land into a meadow or forest, turn a forest into arable land, turn an entire farm into an area for the protection of wild life.

  • If a judgement of a court has been given against US, and is in breach of this act WE can use the act and are entitled to DOUBLE the judgement in relief.


The Red Pill 101 - SHARED


Updated Jan, 2017 – Shortlink to this page:

.com-Why Shire counc


The laws and statutes of the realm confirmed

Download PDF • 272KB


Confirmation of the Charters (1297)

1297 CHAPTER 6 25 Edw 1 cc 1 6

Confirmation of the Charters I Confirmation of the Charters.Publication thereof. EDWARD, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Guyan, To All those that these present Letters shall hear or see, Greeting. Know Ye that We, to the honour of God, and of Holy Church, and to the Profit of our Realm, have granted for us and our Heirs, that the Charter of Liberties, . . . which were made by Common Assent of all the Realm, in the time of King Henry our Father, shall be kept in every point without breach. And We will that . . . our Justices, Sheriffs, Mayors, and other Ministers, which under Us () have the Laws of our Land to guide, [shall allow the said Charters pleaded before them in Judgment in all their points;] that is to wit, the Great Charter as the Common Law, . . .

Editorial Information Textual Amendments II–V. . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VI No Aids or Prises shall be taken but by Consent of the Realm.

MOREOVER we have granted for Us and our Heirs as well to Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, and other Folk of Holy Church, as also to Earls, Barons, and to all the Communalty of the Land, that for no business from henceforth we shall take () such manner of Aids, Tasks, nor Prises, but by the common assent of the Realm, and for the common profit thereof, saving the ancient Aids and Prises due and accustomed. VII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In Witness of which things we have caused these our Letters to be made Patents. Witness Edward our Son at London the tenth Day of October, the Five and twentieth Year of our Reign.


And Be it Remembered this same Charter, in the same Terms, word for word, was sealed in Flanders under the King’s Great Seal, that is to say, at Ghent the fifth day of November in the twenty-fifth year of the Reign of our aforesaid Lord the King, and sent into England



The Magna Carta (1215)

The Magna Carta, or “Great Charter,” was arguably the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today in the English-speaking world.

In 1215, after King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs by which England had been governed, his subjects forced him to sign the Magna Carta, which enumerates what later came to be thought of as human rights. Among them was the right of the church to be free from governmental interference, the rights of all free citizens to own and inherit property and to be protected from excessive taxes. It established the right of widows who owned property to choose not to remarry, and established principles of due process and equality before the law. It also contained provisions forbidding bribery and official misconduct.

Widely viewed as one of the most important legal documents in the development of modern democracy, the Magna Carta was a crucial turning point in the struggle to establish freedom.


Shane Sigley

I have a firm resolve that we will get our country back because it is guaranteed and ratified by the blood of our Saviour. The information you and all the speakers at liabilitymate present are vital information to educate the public to prepare the Australian people for the soon restoration of our constitutional government established in 1901. The only impediment I see to that event taking place is a genuine movement for national repentance and national deliverance from tyranny as was the case during the Second World War. I see nothing of the sort so far and therefore have no hope that your efforts will yield fruit until the Christians in this land solemnly plead with the Lord. Cheers, Shane Sigley. [show less]the Australian people for the soon restoration of our constitutional government established in 1901. The only impediment I see to that event taking place is a genuine movement for national repentance and national deliverance from tyranny as was the case during the Second World War. I see nothing of the sort so far and therefore have no hope that your efforts will yield fruit until the Christians in this land solemnly plead with the Lord. Cheers, Shane Sigley.

A Dramatic Answer to Prayer The Miracle of Dunkirk

by Pastor John



More @ liability Mate channel


This video explains how the Australian Government stole our Future, our Rights, and a whole Continent.



To the extent that we politicize the issue, don't investigate, and remain silent we are consenting to the globalist agenda, the bought politicians and scripted media.






A Simple Explanation about government TREASON

Whenever you meet someone who is unaware of how the political parties have betrayed our trust in them to govern us responsibly, this simple explanation serves as a guide for you. (Watch the video at the end of this article)


Buy Dick Yardley’s Book

Dick Yardley is a farmer, and the Author of Australian Political & Religious Leaders Treason, Treachery & Sabotage. In this 500+ page book he documents the many treasonous crimes committed by the political parties that led senior legal experts like Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs to conclude that “the current legal and political system in use in Australia and its States Territories has no basis in law.”



Create an agreement today (Private Law) between Office - Office. Man - Man



4 – From Carolyn, wife of JFK Jnr

The United States Isn’t a Country – It’s a Corporation! by @CBKNEWS

Carolyn writes –


English Common Law Has Been Replaced With Talmudic Law Patrick Cullinane

byPatrick Cullinane

Failed Attempt To Sabotage PCP By Persons Unknown

ICC Asked To Investigate Allegations of Genocide Against UK Government

There now follows a Press Release from a highly qualified Barrister and a Justice of the Peace who has presided as a JP in central London Magistrates Courts for the past twenty years, who also happens to be a highly qualified pharmacist.

On 21/04/2021, they courageously lodged a ‘Request For Investigation’ with the International Criminal Court, alleging genocide, crimes against humanity and breaches of the Nuremberg Code against numerous UK government officers and their accomplices.

Please share far and wide, as well as promoting the case in any way you can because we have the prima facie evidence to sustain each of the serious allegations they are making. Therefore, whatever the outcome, they are more than worthy of the vociferous support of everybody living on these ancient isles.


Wednesday 21st of April 2021

‘Request for Investigation’ of the UK Government and its advisers, for genocide, crimes against humanity and breaches of the Nuremberg Code, issued to the International Criminal Court at the Hague, on Tuesday 20th of April 2021.

On Tuesday 20th of April 2021 we, the undersigned, issued a 27 -page ‘Request for Investigation’ to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, with a view to asking that our allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity and breaches of the Nuremberg Code, by the UK Government and its advisors, be accepted by the ICC and investigated.

We believe that we have provided compelling reasons as to why our Government and its advisers are guilty of the above charges. However, at this stage it is important to note that we are not required to provide all the evidence we have (which would run to several hundred pages) and are limited to a maximum of 30 pages, simply to make an outline case as part of our Request.

The ICC will review our ‘Request for Investigation’ and assess whether they believe there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation into a ‘Situation’, pursuant to the criteria established by the Rome Statute.

The ICC does not provide a timeline regarding acceptance, nor of course is there any guarantee that they will ultimately accept our ‘Request for Investigation’ due to a variety of reasons, including the fact that they are limited in their capacity to conduct investigations.

Updates will be provided as and when more information becomes available.

Melinda C. Mayne LPC LLM MBA GDLA

Kaira S. McCallum JP BSc

Globalist Banker Predicted Scamdemic & Genocide of The Useless

Posted on 21st April 2021 by The Bernician

For those who still doubt that the fraudulent, genocidal, Communist-style tyranny of COVID-1984 was planned long ago by the self-appointed Riders of the Pale Horse, as the unnatural denouement of their reprehensible facilitation of Big Pharma Bolshevik Coups in almost every nation worldwide becomes all the more pervasively obvious, prepare to have any remaining illusions shattered.

The following statements, which were made in 1981 by powerful international banker and unapologetic eugenicist, Jacques Attali, are taken from Interviews with Michel Salomon – The Faces of the Future, Seghers edition, which was published in France by Emi Lit when Attali was a senior adviser to French President, Francoise Mitterand:

“In the future it will be a question of finding a way to reduce the population. We will start with the old, because as soon as it exceeds 60-65 years man lives longer than he produces and costs society dearly, then the weak and then the useless who do nothing for society because there will be more and more of them, and especially the stupid ones. Euthanasia targeting these groups; euthanasia will have to be an essential instrument of our future societies, in all cases. We cannot of course execute people or set up camps. We will get rid of them by making them believe it is for their own good. Too large a population, and for the most part unnecessary, is something economically too expensive. Socially, it is also much better for the human machine to come to an abrupt halt rather than gradually deteriorating. We won’t be able to run intelligence tests on millions and millions of people, you can imagine! We will find something or cause it, a pandemic that targets certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus that will affect the old or the fat, it doesn’t matter, the weak will succumb to it, the fearful and the stupid will believe it and ask to be treated. We will have taken care to have planned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots will thus be done on its own: they will go to the slaughterhouse on their own.”
read on @

.net-Globalist Banker Predic

The Bernician Chronicles



Find out how and why 11 million illegal UK mortgages have been fraudulently registered at the Land Registry.


The Great British Mortgage Swindle stands as a damning indictment of the sheer scale and state-sanctioned brutality of the institutionalised mortgage fraud running rampant on the shores of Britain.

The Great British History Swindle


  • A documentary feature film about the falsification of British history, which juxtaposes the remarkable story of Britain's greatest living historians and an examination of their allegation that British history has been systematically falsified.


what is the Australian Government plans against this threat?

China advised to bomb ‘Australian soil’


‘Long range strikes’ on Australia

A leading voice in Communist China has advised Beijing to bomb Australia and bring “disaster” should Canberra support US military action.

The editor of a Chinese newspaper considered to be a mouthpiece of the Communist dictatorship has said Beijing should consider “long range strikes” directed at Australia.

Editor-in-chief of the stridently pro-Communist Global Times newspaper, Hu Xijin, made the extraordinary comments in an editorial advising Beijing how it should react should Australia join the US in protecting democratic Taiwan from invasion. “Australia must know what disasters it would cause to their country,” he said in the tub-thumping piece published late on Friday.



This is the biggest scandal the world has ever seen.Read the full critical information.

@ LINK no jab for me THIS SITE IS UNDER ATTACK - I RECOMMEND you read and share the information to save you and your family from severe harm and danger of death,

This site is well referenced, easy to read and understand . The facts have been well researched and presented for the readers knowledge.

the author has provided a download file of his sites as well

Download PDF • 274KB

The sites authors conclusion

  • In view of the fact that social distancing and masks are being mandated even after vaccinations, because a vaccinated person can be infected and spread a disease that has a 99.99% survival rate, how do masks, social distancing, and certificates of vaccination bring life back to normal? The answer should be obvious. They don't. The notion that herd immunity is achieved with vaccines does not mesh very well with the concept that vaccines do not restrict infection or contamination or that vaccinated persons could be susceptible to more diseases than unvaccinated persons. In a court of law, fraud would be established beyond any reasonable doubt.

  • The vaccine makers and their supply chains don't give a rat's behind(3) about your health. They care about profits and pampering their shareholders. They need pandemics if they are to see a return on their investment, as does the CDC that's listed on Dun & Bradstreet. Not to be melodramatic, but this warning by Del Bigtree, who has been following this movie from opening night is worth your time. Lastly, the directive of March 24, 2020 by the CDC to list all deaths as COVID, even on the assumption a patient was infected with COVID, is a crime. Even a twelve year old could argue this case in court. On a lighter note, Bill Maher delivers a crushing blow to the medical fascists, who relied on the flawed Imperial College Model designed by Neil Ferguson to roll out lockdowns that unleashed untold misery.

  • If you are still considering taking the jab check your policies for:

  • - Life Insurance is VOID under “EXPERIMENTAL”

  • - Malpractice Insurance VOID under “EXPERIMENTAL”

  • There is no question in my mind that many developments in this era were foreseen well in advance.

  • Just examine Bill Gates patent for a digital currency.

  • For anyone who knows anything about the World Economic Forum, in view of all the pandemic simulations that were conducted and the push for The Great Reset it is not hard to imagine the reasons for the lockdowns. It's the Hegelian Dialectic in action.

  • Bottom line. J&J and Moderna share prices are rising. Pfizer and AstraZeneca are relatively flat, as Social Security sees a decline in Retiree Rolls amid Covid deaths.

  • ~ Paul Adams

  • My other site on Covid is to die for. On May 10/21 Google deactivated links from my site to Google Drive. I'm over the target.


James O'Keefe talks truth to power and how WE can all distribute by proxy to bring down the elite globalists. 2: James O'Keefe talk truth to power and how WE can all distribute by proxy to bring down the elite globalists. Veritas exposes Social Media: Jan - April 2021START THE INFOWAR!!!#DISTRIBUTIONBYPROXY


The James O'Keefe series:


The James O'Keefe series:






Fiat Empire -- Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution (Full Length)

Fiat Empire - This documentary with RON PAUL, G. EDWARD GRIFFIN, EDWIN VIEIRA and TED BAEHR is an excellent primer for the citizen who wants to get an understanding of how money is created and why the U.S. government is in partnership with the elite banks.


The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,3“Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!”- Psalms 2:2



Nothing on this site is to taken as medical or legal advice REFER TO LINKS FOR ORIGINAL SOURCE OF CONTENT

88 views0 comments
bottom of page