Ivan Bortic, An Interesting Account of Australian Political Standing.

The following document identifies the reality of what has happened to Australia under the deceit of the Australian Judiciary, being the people we assumed that we could trust in order to correct Australia’s political standing in order to remain sovereign and lawfully interact with other sovereign countries in an international way, however, it seems that such a judiciary has sold its soul, and sold our soles, to a private international banking system while passing such “private” banks off as sovereign governments in order to plunder the sovereignty of all such countries involved. I notice one important grammatical error in this document where the term “Governor-General” has a hyphen between the two words rendering such a term to not look grammatically right.

I would also note that Australia, having a foreign administrator, is not totally illegal, however, if such an administration forces an Australian national to become a private citizen of such a foreign administrator, than such an act by such a foreign administrator could be deemed as acts of war or treason against the very country such a foreign administrator is administering and could result in a valid case for the national citizen to dismiss such a foreign administrator and charge such officers of such an administration for treason or send them back to the District of Columbia, where such a foreign administrator derives from.

Difference between National and Private Citizen:

I would also assume that the same charge of treason could apply for the United States of America, national citizens, if the UNITED STATES administrators force the American National Citizen, to become a UNITED STATES Citizen, (US Citizen) without consent, however, ignorance is no excuse so learn the deception! Corporate Citizenship, was perfected by Accursius, under the Hohenstaufen reign of Rome, around 1230 AD, rendering the need to create a Private Citizen, (Non governmental citizen: Private Citizen) in order that such a private citizen can be charged with the debts of the sovereign state. (Become a “foreign” Trustee) This is also why western countries are now bound by the UNIDROIT Treaty of Rome under “Private Law”, Australia in 1973 and America in 1964. Roman Law still in force today but only with the Romans.

In order to create the Private Citizen in the new Corpus Juris foreign dead law system, a new account had to be created by attaching the Christian name to the family name, turning: “John Paul” of the Smith heritage into the one “new” state created name: “John Paul Smith” and those that claim such a full name with the attached family name, could be assumed as accepting (Consenting to) the foreign state created name and the liability of the Private State Administrator, attached to such a name (Account).

By accepting to act as a “Private Citizen” by consenting to claim the state created and owned name (Account) that has attached such a family (Heritage) name to their Christian name, a consenting debtor can be created even though such consent was by total ignorance of the one claiming such a name other than the Christian name only. The Christian name is the public national Citizen. Surnames only came into being in the 13th century. The first account of the Corpus Juris (Modern day trust law government) was by Justinian, Emperor of Rome, around 530 AD and was perfects by Accursius in 1230 AD, by creating the State owned “private” account that rendered a name that included the Christian and Heritage name attached into one name, destroying ones national and public standing as the true Christian creditor.

This system of ones own standing must be addressed and understood before anyone can sort out the “Public National political standing” from the “Private foreigner political standing” because it is the Private Corporations that now govern the lands as “debtor” administrators by passing themselves off as real governments. (Counterfeiting)

Remedy and warning in plain sight:

Remember the Garden of Eden? there were two trees in such a garden, (Realm) being a choice of two political standings within that universe (One word) of that garden! and God, warned Adam of such a political standing if he chose to act as the usufruct of the tree (House) of Knowledge, (Notice) … It was the serpent (Usurper, being the foreign element) that deceived Eve and Adam to take from the political standing of the debtor and be cast out from the garden (Realm) and could only return to the garden under “License” … and what was the deception? … the names: “John Paul” and “John Paul Smith” so what name (Account) was given to you by the serpent to hold? and what name (Account) was given to you to hold by the one that died on a cross to save you? ….

Interesting Letter, read on:

Ivan Bortic
May 19 at 10:57pm ·
Ya’ll need to know this🏼
Australia Is Not Valid Under International Law, as confirmed by the UK and the UN!
The plan of the Financiers for Global Governance now in full force across Europe, the UK, Canada and the USA!

On November 19, 1993, at a meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Community (APEC) in Seattle, WA, under the chairmanship of U.S. President Bill Clinton, Australia lost the final remnants of its sovereignty, bringing to an end a nearly 50-year process which began when Australia’s governing cabinet agreed to sign the November 19, 1946 Bretton Woods International banking agreement after World War II.
Now Australia is rapidly sliding into Third (or Fourth) World economic status.
Since the acceleration of “free trade” agreements in the 1970’s, pushed by a succession of socialist governments according to prearranged plans cooked up in Lon­don, Moscow, New York, Washington, and other power centers, Australia’s moral, social, political, and economic life has been ruined.

If you want to see what the New World Order looks like – or means for your children – look at Australia.

In 1972, the national debt of Australia was $23 billion, with a manageable 9.8% GDP in 1982. But to keep up its high standard of living, the Australian Government borrowed billions of dollars from private banks at high rates of interest, which plunged it into a debt of $225 billion. The interest payments on this huge debt deprived the Government of the money it needed for many of its social programs. This is why the country has now fallen from one of the world’s highest standards of living to practically a Third World standard of living.

“The last half of the ’80’s and the first half of the ’90’s,” writes Jeremy Lee in Upon the Millennium, “carried Australia through an escalating crisis which saw tens of thousands of domestic enter­prises either close down, move offshore, or be swallowed up by foreign multinationals. The latter, given full rein by the Labour Party, cut through the Australian economy like sharks. Satiated by a limitless choice of targets, they simply toyed with dis­integrating Australia. They kept the names of the ‘icons’ they had swallowed where it suited them. As Australian-made goods disappeared from the retail shelves, they were replaced with foreign-owned goods – either from overseas or from foreign-owned productive units in Australia.

“Hardworking Australians stood bewildered in fields of unmarketable fruits and vegetables, while overseas produce was shipped in to fill market space which once carried Australian goods; orange juice from Latin America, while Australian citrus rotted on the trees; fresh and frozen vegetables from Southeast Asia, while Australians ploughed their unsaleable produce back into the soil; pork from Canada, jams and bottled preserves from Poland, fish products from China and Scandina­via… The importation of steel-based items… and electrical products were legion.”
Meanwhile, “it is said that there are 56 taxes on a loaf of bread by the time it reaches the consumer.”

Oh, the glories of free trade! Australia had emerged from World War II with one of the strong­est economies in the world, the highest standard of living, and it was totally self-sufficient with its broad base of small farms. Now sixty percent of the Australian-owned farming sector has been wiped out. In 1960, there were 300,000 farms; now there are not even 100,000. In 1997, the remaining farmers were quitting the land at the rate of 35 per week. Of the remainder, 80% were in debt, owing $18 billion to banks in mid-1996, an average of $133,000 per farm.
Australia is now a debtor nation, almost entirely foreign-owned, a cog in the New World Order.

Its once-proud steel industry is now Chinese owned… though Australians were required to borrow the money from the international bankers to pay for the Chinese purchases. The standard of living is in a free-fall; real wages are declining; un­employment is rising, as is homelessness, suicide, mental illness, and environmental disasters, as the countryside empties out into overburdened urban areas. The politicians, of course, say things never looked rosier. Australia is now “multicultural” and a “partner” in the international order.

Jeremy Lee tells the story of what hap­pened to Australia, but also of what is happening to the U.K., Canada, the United States, and the rest of the so-called First World as a result of 75 years of international banking agreements and post-World War II trade agreements.
Because of the acceptance of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) that was recently negotiated in secret in Australia, a great deal of economic sovereignty in the country has been demised. Already 80% of the economic activity in the country is managed by international corporations. This process has been assisted by the Govern­ment’s entry into other agreements, such as the Fi­nancial Services Industry Agreement (FSIA) on December 12, 1997, by which it signed away its right to prevent foreign takeovers of Australian banks and insurance companies. Already the larg­est shareholder of the ANZ Bank was Chase Man­hattan Nominees (Rockefeller, 11.6%).

Briefly, the strong economies of the once-sovereign nations of the once-Christian West have been sacrificed on the altar of socialism. In pain­taking, meticulous, chronological detail, Lee shows how NAFTA and GATT, the WTO, the IMF, and the thousands of other international bureaucracies ful­fill Joseph Stalin’s 1936 Comintern conference agenda to establish “regional groupings” that would eventually amalgamate into a one-world order.
On the heels of economic controls come the so-called social legislation, the anti-hate laws, the affirmative action laws, the cultural-diversity requirements, and the thousands of pages of laws issued from United Nation bureaucracies, and rubber-stamped in parliaments by legislators who haven’t a clue on what they are voting on.
All of this is bringing an end to sovereignty and democracy in the country.
Globalism has resulted from the apparent union of capitalists and socialists as something new, a compromise, a third way between capitalism and socialism.
And what is globalism? Globalism is Global Governance to bring in the One-World Government.

There are literally dozens of books written on the subject of global governance. But none of these books were written by conspiracy theorists. They were all commissioned by the United Nations or groups associated with it, like the Club of Rome Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), which are now regarded as legitimate institutions of Global Governance, even though their power has no democratic basis. All of those books concern the establishment of a new world order in which the sovereign nation state is replaced with a global order of interdependent member states under a new form of Global Governance.

The real third way would be the application of the So­cial Credit doctrine of C.H. Douglas, which would give back to the country its power to create its own debt-free money. Then every Australian would be able to live according to the progress of their self-sufficient country with all of its natural resources and capacity to produce.
The people of Australia should make those around them aware of the errors of globalization and of the United Nation’s world laws to bring about a total control on each nation and individual.

The Law and the Government in Australia Does Not Have Legal International Validility!
All Australian laws assented to on behalf of a British Monarch, by any non-legally appointed Governor-General of Australia since 1919, cannot hold any valid or legal executive authority, as all of the Governor-Generals appointments have been issued incorrectly.

The “Old Colonial” defunct British Constitutional law, used and applied as the basis of all law in Australia, has held no valid authority in law since 1919.
The Australian people will have to finish off what Prime Minister William Morris-Hughes set out to achieve in 1919. A “new” ALL-Australian Constitution will have to be created and voted in by the people for the people.
Australians at long last, will have the opportunity to have their say, on how they wish to be governed and taxed. British lawyers are already saying, “that a legal picnic is about to unfold.”

Those who have deliberately concealed the truth from the Australian people, will now be called upon to answer for their actions.
“Australian Government Is Officially Illegal”.
The Australia of today has sadly lost the liberty of yesteryears. The government has not been the government of the people, consequently, the employed have become the disemployed, our industries have been moved offshore, our farmers have been forced off their land, the peoples utilities have been handed over to private investment, our wealth has been exported, the foreign debt hangs like a millstone around the neck of each Australian present and future, our very means of livelihood has been legislated away!

To learn that to become a Member of the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia is to commit an act of treason against the sovereign people of Australia will no doubt result in a reaction of incredulity. In fact it would be reasonable to anticipate that the reader of such a statement would be inclined to immediately reject this without further examination.

Similarly, the bold assertion that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is invalid at first appears ludicrous. As the fundamental law of the Australian Nation, if it were invalid, then all Australian Governments – Commonwealth, State and Territorial – have no legal basis for their continued existence, no valid authority to pass and enforce legislation, and no authority to enter contracts or bind the Australian people by Treaty.
The consequences could be catastrophic, both within Australia and internationally. Yet, the consequences should not influence a disinterested analysis of the basis of that situation.

The fundamental facts which give rise to the accuracy of the above statements are indeed simple and were succinctly stated a few years ago by the late Professor G. Clements (an eminent UK QC and emeritus Professor in law at Cambridge). He summed up the situation thus;
“The continued usage of the Australian Constitution Act (UK) by the Australian Governments and the judiciary is a confidence trick of monstrous proportions played upon the Australian people with the intent of maintaining power. It remains an Act of the United Kingdom. After joining the League of Nations in 1919 Australia became a sovereign nation. It had no further legal power to use, alter or otherwise tamper with another nation’s legislation. Authority over the Australian Constitution Act lies not with the Australian government nor with the Australian people, it rests solely with the UK. Only they have the authority to repeal this legislation”.
In other words, every Member and Senator in Australian Parliament has committed an Act of treason by swearing and subscribing to an oath to serve the government of a power foreign to Australia.

To underline this, the Constitution (embraced by Australian parliamentarians) at section 42, dictates that they must all swear and subscribe an oath of allegiance to the current Monarch in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (Confirmed by letter from the Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives dated 10th June 1999 and signed by Robyn Webber, Director, Chamber Research Office). But because the Monarch is appointed under the provisions of UK legislation and is therefore subordinate to the UK legislature (i.e. ‘the Queen in Parliament’) in point of legal fact, Parliamentarians, Senators and others have actually sworn an oath of allegiance to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Quite clearly this constitutes an act of treason against the sovereign people of Australia. The Oath appears as the schedule to the Act and being outside ‘The Constitution’ is beyond the reach of Section 128, and thus, may not be altered by any authority outside the UK Parliament.

Further, The ‘Queen of Australia’ is purely titular. If indeed such an Office exists at all it does so without legal authority!

By using UK law to claim power, parliamentarians and others become agents of a foreign power.

By relying on this current Act of domestic law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom the Australian Parliament is definable as an extension of the Parliament of the UK. The Governor-General, State and Territory Governors, individual parliamentarians, Senators and all others involved in government, including members of the judiciary, are definable as agents of the UK. That is, agents of a power foreign to the Nation State, the Commonwealth of Australia. This scenario manifests right down to the policeman on the beat!

The much-vaunted Statute of Westminster Act 1931 (UK) was a thinly veiled attempt to patch up a broken legal system for the Dominions. Since it was design to operate beyond the shores of the UK, it failed the requirement under Article XVIII of the Covenant of the League of Nations as it was not registered with the Secretariat, and therefore never became a valid international instrument. It had no operational effect beyond thew shores where it was created, the United Kingdom.
From October 1st, 1919 the British Monarch became irrelevant to Australia.
From October 1st 1919 Australia became a republic.
From October 1st, 1919 it has been necessary to create a political and judicial system capable of bridging the legal void created when sovereignty changed from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the people of Australia.
That necessity still exists today!
This change in Australia’s status from a “colony” to being “accepted fully into the community of nations of the whole world” is required and confirmed, in the Balfour Declaration 1929.

Recent confirmations establish invalidity of the political and judicial system currently being applied in Australia.
Clearly the Commonwealth Government of Australia is invalid!

As a consequence, no law made in the Australian Parliament has valid application in Australia, or anywhere else. The only law that can be validly applied in Australia is international law, and possibly the common law of Australia.
The simple fact of the matter is, there is a fundamental and urgent need to place before the Australian citizenry a new, if interim, Constitution under which they are prepared to be governed with a view to allowing the appropriate mechanisms to be established which would enable a democratically decided Constitution to be agreed to and implemented.

However, there maybe serious consequences for the international community as a result of invalid Australian Governments entering into both international treaties and contracts.

It must be noted that; Attempts to “patch up the Constitutional mess” continued and continue to this day, with the concealment of the truth from the Australian people!
Adopting the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) in 1942, and making it commence retroactively from the 3rd September 1939, was an attempt to rule out any illegality of involvement in WWII by not having formally declared war on Germany 3 years earlier. The Statute was adopted at the time the newly appointed Prime Minister was declaring war on Japan, and the Australian Parliament needed to be sure of it’s power to do so.
The concealment continues with 2 more documents. The first being “The Letters Patent Relating to her Office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia” which was gazetted on the 24th August 1984 after being signed 3 days earlier at Balmoral in the United Kingdom. Under UK law, the writs of the sovereign die with the sovereign. But when Queen Victoria died on the 21st January, 1900, no new Letters Patent were issued until August 1984! This was 4 (not 5) monarchs later. These Letters Patent also had a clause to cover any ‘invalid’ Commission or appointment or any action taken by someone so commissioned or appointed without authority. This is the effect of clause VII.
The next document(s) created to continue the concealment was the passage of the Australia Acts (see web address for Australia Acts (Cth) & (UK)) through both the UK and the Australian Parliaments, in 1985, to commence in 1986.

Contrary to international law, both of these Acts attempted to infringe sovereignty of another nation, were not registered as required under the Charter of the United Nations to have extra-territorial effect, and consequently, can not be relied on in any international forum.

Notwithstanding the international status of the Australia Act 1986 (Cth), the preamble and several clauses clearly indicate that British colonial law was continuing in the sovereign independent Australia, and that from the commencement of this Act, all such colonial law, as well as the UK government, will have no effect. If this was not the case, than there would not be any need to have an Australia Act, let alone 2 of them.
There are several major structural problems associated with the Australia Act (Cth), and since it is continually referred to in judicial decisions, it is worthwhile noting these problems.

(1) First, it does not remove all existing British law used in Australia. It only refers to new British law. Any Australian lawyer can testify that the Commonwealth and State Statute books are pregnant with British law, the most obvious being the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).

(2) Second, the termination of British law in Australia that is supposed to occur with this Act, when challenged, will be determined in a court which is dependent for it’s existence on the very same British law!

(3) Thirdly, Australia continues to have a monarch who derives her power from the British Parliament, and she remains the Executive Head of Government of the six Australian States. So to exercise her power in those States, her power must be seen as an extension of power of the UK Parliament.

(4) Lastly, at the very time that the Australia Acts came into law in Australia to prevent the UK Government from interfering in Australian matters (see also Sue v Hill HCA 30 of 1999), the Letters Patent relating to the Governors of South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia was signed off by none other than Sir Anthony Derek Maxwell Oulton, KCB, QC, MA, Ph.D., Permanent Secretary, Lord Chancellors Office, UK Parliament!

Recent confirmations establish invalidity of the political and judicial system currently being applied in Australia.
While all of this is relevant and pertinent, it is as well to be aware that on, 19th December 1997 the Office of Legal Council of the General Secretariat of the United Nations volunteered and thus confirmed that Australia has been a sovereign State from the 24th October 1945 at the latest. This was confirmed by letter dated 19th December 1997, from the Acting Director and Deputy to the Under-Secretary-General, Office of the Legal Counsel, under the hand of Paul C. Szasz.

On the 5th November 1999, the UK Government through their High Commission in Canberra, volunteered and thus confirmed that the UK British Nationality Act 1948 legislated that Australia was not a protectorate of the United Kingdom, so both the UN and the UK have confirmed that for at least 53 years Australia has been an independent sovereign nation State. This was confirmed by letter dated 5th November 1999, from the Chief Passport Examiner, British High Commission, Canberra, under the hand of Mrs Carole Turner.

As a consequence, under both international and UK law the UK Parliament’s ‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’ has been ultra vires in relation to Australia for at least 53 years. So, for purposes of definition and resolution there is no fundamental need to look any further back into history.

Regarding contracts, by way of a simple example, multi-national insurance companies having entered into insurance contracts which operate within the territory of Australia or under Australian law may hold contracts which are void ab initio owing to a fundamental breach of the insured’s duty of disclosure. The documents which unequivocally demonstrate the issues outlined above are inherently public documents which have been easily accessible for years.

A broader issue, likewise, arises with regard to the quantum of any damages claim that could foreseeably be made against the UK before the European Court of Justice, because given that the High Court of Australia has ruled that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Imp) is not ultra vires in Australia, and that all subordinate legislation is still subject to the limitations imposed by that domestic law of the UK, is Australia still therefore, a colony of the UK?

If so, will citizens in Australia be granted their full rights as European Citizens resident in a colony of a Member State, including the right to freely enter each Member State and trade therein without restriction or penalty (other than those prescribed by the law of the EEC for members of the European Community)?
Will damages be appropriate for the period that residents of Australia were denied such access to these European markets?

Has the UK denied the citizens resident in Australia, who by referendum on 6th November 1999, rejected the continued use of the domestic British Law, the right to self determination in contravention of International Law, the treaty establishing the European Community, the Charter of the United Nations and other treaties?
Has the UK, by subterfuge, attempted to conceal from the European Community, the real nature and depth of it’s continued involvement in the governments of Australia? If so, at what cost?

Alternatively, do the Member States of the European Union, having recognised the sovereign independence of the Australian people owe a duty, of the Covenant of the League of Nations and under Articles 2 and 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, to prevent continued illegal dominance of Australian citizens by the UK?
Are such States liable for damages if they remain inactive in this regard?
Given that the High Court of Australia has declared that even though citizens resident in Australia are governed under domestic British Legislation, they are denied the fundamental Human Rights conferred on British citizens by the same UK Parliament through both common law and through the accession of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (See the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK).
Are judicial officers within Australia – all of whom are appointed under UK legislation and commissioned by Governors and Governors-General appointed by the UK Parliament – in breach of the said Covenant?

If so, to what extent will liability be found to rest with the UK Parliament, given that despite official declarations as to Australia’s independence, that Parliament has maintained a colonial regime in Australia through force majeure?
Moreover, the status of many people who have been granted Australian Citizenship under the provisions of the National Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) has – in a limited number of cases – already been questioned, for apart from the established arguments as to the invalidity of the ‘Australian’ Constitution, which inturn renders the National Citizenship Act 1948 invalid, there exists no power within the Constitution to create other than British citizens!

And yes, by definition, Australia currently exists in a state of legal anarchy!
And yes, there is reason to believe that the international community is very concerned.
After all, what is the worth of an international treaty which has been signed by an authority which does not validly represent the sovereignty of the State?
Over a number of years senior political identities of all persuasions within Australia including Prime Ministers, Attorneys-General and other senior Cabinet Minister together with minor party leaders have been fully briefed.
The documents of history have been presented to Australian Courts at all levels. Currently there are matters before other courts outside of Australia.
Having exhausted all possible avenues for domestic remedy and recognizing that, in fact, the situation is so serious that there exists a very real potential for a total breakdown in ‘law and order’, an appeal for assistance has been advanced to the entire international community.

The mechanism by which this was achieved has been by way of a 480 page submission individually presented to all 185 Member States of the United Nations as well as to, Kofi Annan the General Secretariat, the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Committee and the Security Council.

The document includes a request for the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal to prosecute individuals who can be shown to have inhibited the inalienable right of Australian citizens to self-determination by knowingly subjecting Australian citizens to British colonial law within the sovereign territory of the Commonwealth of Australia.

It is clear that along the way the situation will be, by necessity, brought before the International Court of Justice.
Advice from three continents is that there exists no counter argument, and that therefore the outcome is a forgone conclusion.
All nations have received the submission. No nation has returned or rejected it. Many nations have confirmed and/or are actively giving their support to the Sovereign People of Australia.

It is to be hoped that Australia’s unique constitutional conundrum and associated problems flowing therefrom can be expeditiously and peacefully rectified, however it is incumbent upon lawyers, academics, politicians and the general public to be fully aware of the situation and its implications so as to be able to offer informed advice when this is sought.

What can the Australian people do to overcome this situation?
To introduce a fresh Constitution is the only reasonable answer, in accordance with international law.

How do we do that?

The first thing not to do is to ask for government permission, as it will be refused. There is no need to ask permission from any authority, the authority only exists in the authority of the people that is backed by international law and the human right to do so.
The universal problem we face in Australia is how to introduce a fresh constitution.
I consider that Australian government has become destructive of these ends. I Ilias Bafas will endevour to pursue justice, for the Australian people and the international community

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: