Your Claims Are Baseless!

Angry GirlSend a notice to a “Government Department” asking for validation they are legitimate under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and likely you will get a response that states … “Your claims are baseless!” – or they may just ignore you.

Assuming they reply… have you actually made a claim – or did you just seek information? Putting that aside momentarily, why would they state “Your claims are baseless”?

Could it be the “Australian Government” isn’t actually bound by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), meaning their masters are not the people comprising the Commonwealth?

Perhaps they’ll send you the form they want you to fill out again… as if you didn’t get it the first time. Maybe they’ll write that your matter has been considered and denied… if you disagree with our decision you can take the matter to court. Fat lot of good that would do in an environment where all are unwilling/unable to validate their authority!

Alternatively your reply may instead use words such as .. “your letter has no basis in law”, or … “your letter has no validity”. Look who’s making claims now!

Does the letter you received offer any basis or validity for making such statements? No, least not from experience! Likely it will exhibit the following:

  • Reference to the Australian Government on the letterhead / or State equivalent
  • Perhaps a Registered Trademark – Kangaroo & Emu
  • Reference to a number of ‘Acts’ – that come from the same authority you questioned
  • The presumption that they are legitimate government

What does this mean? It means that you’ve asked for evidence they are a lawfully constituted government department, and all you’ve received in reply is assumption they are. How arrogant! Without the lawful evidence you requested, the letter you’ve received suffers from exactly what you’re being accused of – their claims are baseless.

Do you think this an accident; a simple oversight maybe?

What Is Really Being Said..?

Is there something you’re being told between the lines that the writer prefers not to put in exact words. Is the intention to put you down in one small phrase? Probably, but that’s the least innocuous outcome.

Is the intention to switch your focus from the legitimate question you asked to “listen to what I’m telling you“? You might think so, which is far more offensive given your question is arrogantly ignored.

Are you beginning to sense that this “Department” doesn’t care to validate who they are – as if it’s enough just because they say they are?

Is there validity in hanging onto the idea that “they are government” or “but they MUST be government”? Have you perhaps used the term “our government” – as if the impostors were actually government – inadvertently giving them legitimacy in doing so?

What Is Meant In Their Reply?

Study the tone of the reply letter. From experience, it will avoid answering your question(s) in any way, shape or form. No explanation will be offered. Instead, the tone of the reply letter will be one of instructing you to follow rules, statutes, laws, authority, directives or ‘Acts’ without one shred of evidence to validate legitimate Government whatsoever, or indeed any of the laws or Acts!

Sure one or more Acts may be cited, but validated as lawful, oh no! If you are lucky, they’ll state the date the ‘Act’ was ascribed “Royal Assent” by a Governor or Governor-General… but they’ll avoid completely whether that Office was lawfully constituted… even if that’s the exact question you asked them!! It’s as if quoting from an Act is enough to validate the origin of such Acts and their lawfulness..?

Customs Reply Letter Parliament

Customs Reply Letter – Truth & Lies

Did the response state a truth.. and expect you to presume a similar action or entity was legitimate..? e.g. Citing the Parliament of the Commonwealth as the origin of Acts within the Commonwealth of Australia, yet producing Acts from the Parliament of Australia..? Or citing Australian law as if it were the same as the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia?

Did the response state the Courts of Australia [Not the Commonwealth of Australia – Non Washington DC version] have found “similar arguments worthless”.. ignoring demand for validation of identity is not an argument..?

Was a sworn statement / affidavit provided attesting to being valid and lawful government..? Was the response received within the stipulated time frame..? Readers of Truth-Now.net who wrote to “Customs” got their reply 7 months later… and even then they misconstrued the question:

Denial of Rights - Australian Customs and Border Protection Service

Reply from Australian Customs and Border Protection Service – 7 months later

There’ll be no mention of whether the quoted Act (or Ammendment of a valid Act) derived from the Parliament of Australia or the Parliament of the Commonwealth – you are left to decide.

Instead of validation of lawful identity and authority… were threats of punishment or penalty made for non compliance..?

Did the response specifically state “you must comply”, or “you must do…”, or did it state “importers must”, or “citizens must…” requring you to presume you are an importer or a citizen etc..? Perhaps with a hidden definition..?

Customs Reply Baseless Claims

“Customs” Reply – Baseless Claims

Does this mean their attitude is that ‘we are irreproachable, untouchable, and above the law?’

You Have Your Answer

Has your question been answered? Most definitely! We masquerade as government and you, the people, are slaves! Were those the words they weren’t game to put in writing? Possibly… you asked for evidence, and they couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver.

What was it you learned at school about “Government” being public servants? What is meant by replies like the ones discussed, almost without exception, is that the entity claiming to be Government can create whatever law they like and you have no recourse whatsoever!

You really did get a full answer to your question didn’t you? It just took wading through potential threats, avoiding the issue and plenty of bluff.  Unfortunately for many, it’s not the answer we want to hear.

, , , ,