Exposing The Lies of the Referendum Council
Exposing The Lies #1
Being Included in the Constitution Wont Cede Tribal Sovereignty
The Albanese government and constitutional experts reject the suggestion that entrenching the voice in the constitution would have any impact on sovereignty.
FB post with infographic
Exposing The Lies #2
The Crown Has Sovereignty Over Australia
They Say: Who has sovereignty in Australia?
The crown, the commonwealth of Australia, the states and territories.
According to legal advice by the barrister Bret Walker in 2011, cited by the joint select committee on constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, “the basis of settlement of Australia is and always has been, ultimately, the exertion of force by and on behalf of the British arrivals”.
The colonies federated in 1901, and in 1967 a referendum gave the commonwealth authority over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but, since no treaty was made with Indigenous people, sovereignty was never ceded.
Original post with info graphic:
Exposing The Lies #3
Being included in the constitution wont affect tribal sovereignty and tribal sovereignty can co-exist with the crowns
George Williams (the government appoint “constitional law expert”) says “Indigenous people still argue, and they can argue, that they never ceded their sovereignty – and that’s all true,” he said.
“And they can make those political, rhetorical or moral claims but the high court hasn’t recognised them.”
When Thorpe asked Labor’s Murray Watt at Senate estimates in November whether “going into the Australian constitution through the voice [will] cede the sovereignty of First Nations people in this country”, Watt replied: “The answer is no.”
Original post with infographic:
Wrong legal advice by Professors on Referendum and Sovereignty
Acquiescence to the Voice threatens First Nations continuing sovereignty
This reality was emphasised by an international lawyer, who was Dean for the Latin American embassies in Canberra. During our meeting, he made it very clear to me that any participation that involves being included in the Australian Constitution can and will be construed internationally as acquiescence, agreeing to be ruled, consent to being governed, by the illegal occupying power. So, the presence of the Aboriginal Embassy in Canberra, the spearhead of First Nations’ resistance, is flexing its power by negating acquiescence and empowering self-determination and the assertion First Nations continuing sovereignty.
Petition – Declaration of Dissent to the Voice, Treaty Truth Process
https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN5112
Petition Reason
The entire process lacks the consent of the very people it will affect. The Original people of the land have not consented to this process. The Voice, Treaty, Truth Process is being sold as a good thing for all Australians, the legalise used throughout the process has dual meaning. Making the process a fraud as it’s implying one thing, yet means another. We the people of Australia, did not elect these 250 representatives to speak on our behalf, they have no authority. The process is dishonourable, this is not the proper way to gain consent of the natives and legitimise the nation’s occupancy terms. This process lacks legal scrutiny for the people it is supposed to protect. The crown must be held responsible for the historical crimes and grievances. This process risks ceding Tribal Sovereignty by usurping using trickery
Petition Request
We therefore ask the House to hear our declaration of Dissent to the the Voice, Treaty, Truth Process because: Tribal sovereignty is not just a spiritual notion, but as real as the Westminster law system. The Original People are not Australian Citizens and should not be included in the Australian Constitution. It’s not fair, 90% of the population will vote on something that only affects the Original people of the land, making this entire process lacking in democratic integrity and breaches our human rights through the continuing racially motivated policies. Australians shouldn’t be burdened with a huge decision like this that affects a certain section of society. The constitution is invalid lawfully. Non Est Factum
These lands were not a Terra Nullius, yet the British Crown claimed them as such.
The upcoming Referendum is very much related to the Mabo Decision, but it’s rarely mentioned.
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia is currently a Terra Nullius Constitution, given authority, not by it’s ties to the peoples of these lands, but by the Monarch of Britain.
PM Albo made this statement a few days ago
(Note, the member for Berowra is Julian Leeser)
“The First Nations constitutional convention was held at Uluru in 2017, just more than six years ago, and it was time to commemorate the date of the 1967 referendum.
That arose out of originally the proposal from John Howard as Prime Minister who went to the election in 2007, saying that he would support a referendum on constitutional recognition.”
(why didn’t he mention it was at the same time as Howard had introduced the NT Intervention? Oh that’s right, the Intervention was bi-partisan and supported by Pearson and Langton )
AA again “Then the Gillard government began a process with constitutional recognition working group that led to the process of people including the Member for Berowra and others like Noel Pearson, other senior, legal commentators, working on proposals and then a series of consultations in the lead up to the earlier restatement, in the lead up to that constitutional convention. When that occurred then, was the former Coalition government went through a range of processes. There was a jointly chaired inquiry that was then chaired by Senator Patrick Watson and the Member for Berowra that made recommendations.
There was then a process set up, chaired by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton.”
snip
“
So it seems that this was all a Government initiative, masked as coming from First Nations’ Peoples, A form of Manufactured Consent. Consent, yes, framed as Consent, that thing that Captain Cook never asked for, and no Governor sent from England was ever ordered to seek.
How deceptive is this process?
As Robbie Thorpe put it so clearly
“Who and why are we voting when Elders in councils, bloodline back to the territory are the representative voices, custodians, caretakers and guardians and holders of the law here. Inalienable inherent rights, next of kin. Just recognize The true sovereigns. Restore, restitute, recognize, respect. I believe in treaty, let’s get it right.”
But it seems that His Majesty’s Governments have other plans.
Beware, and take care out there.
There’s deception afoot.
For proper informed consent, you have to officially end the hostilities first before any treaty “negotiations” can commence, duress and undue influence are just two of the obvious reasons why.
Over 100 articles on Constitution Recognition:
Recognise Rejected: Historic Meeting Of 500 Black Leaders Unanimously Opposes Constitutional Recognition
FB Group run by Kaiyu – Boycott The Referendum on Voice To Parliament
Vote No To Constitutional Change FB Page
https://www.facebook.com/VotenoToConstitutionalChange
Further Info:
The Crown Has No Legitimate Claim To Land Or Sovereignty In Australia (5mins)
As for the issue of domestic recognition of the original people’s sovereignty the High Court of Australia is able to subvert international law conventions pertaining to sovereignty in favour of the government’s unlawful occupation of the land. It does this because the High Court of Australia is at liberty to define the Australian constitution at its own discretion. Hence the utter denial of its lack of sovereign jurisdiction over the lands and waterways and its own discretionary right to claim its own sovereign juridical authority without any domestic need to honour the tenents of international law and universal human rights doctrines ultimately makes this country a rogue unlawful nation in the global arena in respect to common law.
The High Court recognises the inherent Aboriginal sovereignty does not result from grant by the Australian Constitution or any other settler document or institution, it does not require recognition by a government or court in order to activate it.
The legitimacy of the Australian nation’s sovereignty depends upon Indigenous people’s acceptance of the Australian Constitution.
Aboriginal sovereignty is pitted against the existing system. Aboriginal sovereignty becomes an oppositional force. It becomes a threat to territorial integrity; to system of government as Australia the country it’s self is a sovereign country with the oldest surviving civilization in the world who still hold their sovereignty and LORE. Due to no treaty being signed.
In Australia, the British Crown purported to acquire an underlying land title along with
a sovereign political power over land, which together was less than absolute ownership of land. The Crown’s sovereignty claim in Australia is weak, because it is based on the fiction of terra nullius, a somewhat suspect legal doctrine more like government policy, in which the colonial mind repressed the entire existence of the Indigenous peoples.
Indigenous land title is true communal allodial title, arguing a fraudulent colonial occupation, and implying a lack of internal reason in colonial policy and administration.
Allodial title refers, as in argument’s opening discussion, to real estate held in absolute independence, not subject to any kind of response to a person in a superior hierarchical position. It is unlikely that any citizen of any English-speaking country has ever held land in absolute independence.
Colonial officials have tried to frame transform the highly sophisticated and ancient Indigenous legal and social system, including sophisticated celestial mapping and navigation systems, into a gallery of mere religious art. This ancient system is transmitted phylogenetically, to which governance colonial officials can therefore have no participation. The research shows that Indigenous land title cannot be extinguished.
This radical forced frame transformation is without Indigenous consent. They are not
its rhetorical audience. Without effective sovereignty based on legality of transfer, the
crown’s radical title must fail in law as mere fraudulent encroachment.
The pejorative colonial frame transformation of Aboriginal law has created relentless human suffering, but is likely to fall into desuetude, just as it has inevitably in so many other parts of the now only ephemerally recognised British Imperial realm. The research suggests the frame transformation can be reversed by well-crafted and judiciously delivered epideictic rhetoric.
The Crown’s sovereignty claim is only an inchoate title to repel the invasions of other colonial powers. This suggests its so-called radical title is still subject to prior Indigenous land title. Its political power of frame transformation has been used in
disregard of Indigenous land title, to try to expand the Crown’s claimed underlying title to absolute ownership. This failure to work out title with Indigenous people, in breach
of prior Indigenous Australian law, suggests occupation based on fraud, a criminal
encroachment, and therefore, an occupation ineffective in law.
As an example of colonial judicial policy, in the 1931 case of Eshugbayi Eleko v Officer Administering the Government of Nigeria, 83 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council crafted a highly pejorative formula for application of local customary law. They inferred that natives were barbarous, and that British colonisers were a civilising influence.
http://nationalunitygovernment.org/…/academic-paper…
Questions to ask oneself as an Aboriginal person, the traditional owners and custodian of this land from the oldest civilization in the world dating 65,000 years will I acknowledge and accept the Australian constitution? Freely rejecting Aboriginal Sovereignty, Lore and ownership of Australia.
As a non indigenous person you must ask yourself whether you will be an enabler of the disposition, opposition and oppression of the traditional owners and custodian right to their Sovereignty, Lore, customs, clans, tribes and nations within their homelands of Australia.
Learn more Sydney Law review
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/…/SydLawRw/2004/15.html…
Original post: https://www.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438
thrivalinternational 
Jun 13, 2023 @ 08:07:04
Well put , clearly a lot at stake for traditional owners , I would like someone to offer detailed solutions, & a simple image of the impact on all Australian Citizens ..
LikeLike
Jun 15, 2023 @ 14:56:16
The referendum vote is for parliament. Not the constitution.the information in regard to vote is misleading.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2023 @ 00:03:10
The agenda is to recognise us in the constitution if you pay attention, no time for opinions. time to get informed before we all get done over
LikeLike
Jun 21, 2023 @ 09:47:21
Fraser Island renamed – my deduction –
K’ GOONA WARRA BIGGA POONTANG (Shit white bigga f…ed?
From aboriginal communities in WA’s East Pilbara to Tully in QLD, Goona means shit.
Goona Definition & Meaning | YourDictionary
h ttps://www.yourdictionary.com/goona
noun ( Australian Aboriginal) Faeces, excrement, shit. Wiktionary Advertisement Origin of Goona From guna or kuna, found in many Pama-Nyungan languages. From Wiktionary Goona Sentence Examples
Captain Cook’s landing contested by Aboriginal leaders
K’ could be an abbreviation of kaka which I have heard used in North Qld in the sense of dirty but means pooh generally.
h ttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-29/captain-cook-landing-indigenous-people-first…
“Warra is a root word for either white or dead in our language,” said Ray Ingrey, a Dharawal man and La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council deputy chairperson. “Over time, because of outsiders trying to tell our story for us, it’s just being translated into different parts as ‘go away’.
Poontang Definition
h ttps://www.yourdictionary.com/poontang
Sexual intercourse with a woman.
A woman or women collectively regarded only as a sexual partner.
LikeLike
Aug 29, 2023 @ 00:05:52
You need to wake up to your racist ignorant self and realise you are on Stolen TRIBAL land. Dont like it? LEAVE SIMPLE!!!! I will not tolerate your abusive offensive white supremacy shit on my site! Letting this one go up for people to see what we have to put up with still after 230 years of rape and murder. Over it!!!!! You wouldnt last in any other country with your vile bs, youd be deported or jailed!!!!
LikeLike
Jun 21, 2023 @ 13:51:21
The power and money hungry “aboriginals” pushing for “The Voice” think they are going to be in control of Australia after the referendum but as yet are unaware of Jew Banker Rothschilds quote which says – “Let me issue and control a nations money and I care not who makes its laws” – the RBA is a foreign owned Rothschild Bank.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jun 21, 2023 @ 14:22:45
Treaties are agreements between nations. They can be bilateral, between two nations, or multilateral, among several nations. Key aspects of treaties are that they are binding (meanning, there are legal consequences to breaking them) and become part of international law.
Under section 44 of the Constitution those subject to foreign power are ineligible to sit in parliament.
“Any person who:
is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or
is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or
is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or
has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives…………………….”
Do aboriginals want to be part of the whole Constitution or only a part of it?
LikeLike