Crimes Against the Commonwealth – Neil Piccinin – Part 1
Crimes Against the Commonwealth – Neil Piccinin – Part 2

Introduction – Crimes Against the Commonwealth

The history of the Commonwealth is a subject of considerable complexity given the events of the recent five decades in which there has been a deliberate activity, hidden from public view, criminal in nature, to oppress its people by denial of their authority and rights, and subject them to dictates of a hostile government, not only all of which has no basis in law but is criminal by by expression of section 24AA, Crimes Act 1914, a provision since removed from view.

To begin, when the people of the several Australian colonies passed the draft of the plan to establish a single community out of the many, it marked a time in history for the first time, in worlds history, a people decided to draft and organise a form of government, colonial in nature, based on the imported English system of long drawn values and custom, fought for.

In this manner the people of the several State were the masters and the government, the servant. This arrangement is important to take note as this relationship is written into law of the constitution but not implemented today.

Australia has lost the safeguard standard of the Crown that protects the people under the laws of God.

That standard is referred to as the Crown of the United Kingdom where the source of legal authority, once belonging to Rome changed to the Anglican Church for which the King is the head takes the Coronation Oath to obey the Holy Law, of the King James Bible.

The protection here is that this law is the standard to which all law flows for the safeguard of its people.

Once the King was Sovereign, until the seventeenth century, where the Stuart Kings were defeated by Parliament, being the people, and a Republic was effectively born.

The people collectively stood supreme over the King, switching the historic roles around an inversion of the trust between King and subjects.

After several years of operating as a Commonwealth, by defeat of the Stuart Kings, an invitation was extended to Prince William of Orange, husband to Mary, cousin of King Charles, under conditions set by Parliament where the powers of the King may only be exercised by Parliament, being effectively the people.

The arrangement hereafter became termed a Constitutional Monarchy, where the monarch ruled under terms and conditions set by Parliament..

In in 1901 the Commonwealth came into being on the Westminster enactment of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, drawn on the draft passed by referendum of the people within the Australian colonies.

All this gravitates to a colony that began with two authorities, one, taken to be the Australian people, and two, the Crown of the United Kingdom, a standard of law that the British society, and its extensions, are protected by.

The people are expressed legally as the Commonwealth of Australia, where the authority to expand the parliamentary constitutional powers are derived therefrom from time to time.

Now, with reference to the King, or Queen, that appears in our foundation Act, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, there is an obligation that arises in maintaining this Commonwealth, and that is found at the second clause preceding the Constitution.

It speaks of a UK Queen, by the words; “in the sovereignty of the United kingdom”.

This purpose of the exercise of the Queen is carried out by the advice of Her Majesty’s ministers in England, as those ministers take liability of the decision for which the Queen’s responsibilities are executed.

One of those responsibilities is stated at section 59 of the Constitution to disallow a Commonwealth law that may threaten the Commonwealth and its integrity.

We will see that the UK government failed all Australians when the Whitlam Government executed a silent coup in 1973 and dispossessed the Australian people of their sovereign power of the Commonwealth.

In this coup the Whitlam Government with the legislative power of Parliament elevated the position of government above that of the people so as to invert the trust of the Commonwealth established 1900.

As stated previously, this inversion the position of master and servant were switched, the Government, once a servant, became the master and the people, once master, became the servant.

This was done by passing a series of laws, no longer in the ‘Parliament of the Commonwealth’, as previously executed prior to 1973, but under a novel name not found in the Constitution, ‘Parliament of Australia’.

Under this Parliament of Australia legislation was passed to remove the words ‘Commonwealth of Australia’, replaced simply with ‘Australia’.

This name changed was a mechanism to to deny the Australian people their position of authority in the basic law of the Constitution Act.

Under this Parliament of Australia legislation was passed to remove the words, ‘the Queen’, and replaced with ‘the State’.

There’s a law in the federal Crimes Act 1914 that deals with contempt of the Sovereign, or contempt of the Commonwealth or the Constitution, and refers to this event as an act of Sedition at section 24,  where it has been since removed by the Parliament of Australia, not the Parliament of the Comonwealth.

This repeal, however, is not valid as only the Parliament of the Commonwealth has the power to make law, where all you need to read is first part of the fifth clause:

This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State”

This inalterable provision does not refer to the laws made by the Parliament of Australia to be binding but what is binding are the laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth that are compliant to the Constitution.

Today this criminal parliamentary arrangement, under a pretended Crown, Crown of Australia, is continued to be practiced without address to the constitutional inconsistencies. This practice is a crime, as there is no law that support the invention of this Crown of Australia.

The pretended Parliament of Australia pulled a rabbit of the hat and presto, we have a new crown and Queen, all of it invented.

Now here is where the tall tale of the Queen of Australia, and its shenanigans gets interesting.

A special thank you to Neil and everyone that attended.