One thin is for certain. An official response, with evidence, is yet to be seen to some very serious questions:
Is the "Australian Government" one and the same as the "Government of the Commonwealth"?
Is the "Parliament of Australia" one and the same as the "Parliament of the Commonwealth"?
Who owns the Commonwealth of Australia Corporation registered in Washington DC? - If it is owned here in Australia, surely the company in Washington would report back to Australia? Why is it the reporting appears to be from Australia to Washington?
Why is it that there are so many elements of today's Commonwealth of Australia that parallel corporate behaviour:
- Their websites are copyright protected
- They have 'Client Service Charters'
- Logos are trademarked
- They have Australian Business Numbers
- They have Dun & Bradstreet DUNS numbers
- They are registered in a company database
- They have a prospectus - seemingly for investors?
- They have a business address
- Some have multiple trading names
- They produce annual reports
You could say theres some Frequently Unanswered Questions in that lot. What the FUQ?
Why Else Should "Government" Validate Their Authority..?
The instant "Government" cannot or will not account for their identity clearly demonstrates they are no longer Public Servants!
What is the purpose of a Certificate of Commission if one never need produce it..? - e.g. Police Commissioner, Governor, Justice of the Peace...etc. What is the purpose of taking an Oath of Allegiance if one never needs to validate their allegiance..?
Aren't these documents able to be produced very simply.. e.g. aren't they framed and hung on the wall..? If it's as easy photocopying a Certificate of Commission and mailing it.. why can it not be provided on demand..?
What do you conclude..?
Why Does Today's Commonwealth of Australia Remain Silent?
Reading the Crimes Act of 1914, one may think the penalty for 'Personating a Commonwealth Officer' would be sufficient incentive to validate the authority claimed by "government" offices... 2 yrs in jail!
Notwithstanding the terminology of 'personating' - see more in this article - the intent of the Crimes Act is to punish those who are claiming government status.
To date this has not proven effective, except in limited examples. Is it perhaps because there are stronger forces at play?
- Veteran's Today describes compromising photos used to compel 'favours' from individuals.
- Rumours abound where a 'family photo' is shown to a politician and asked to choose which one will be injured first.
- Large pay packets deposited into offshore accounts lure others to act against better judgement.
- Lucrative contracts and corporate advancement persuade others to tow the line.
Could any of these factors be at play when individuals are presented with demands to validate their constitutional authority?