Is the Australian Government a US Corporation?

Since July 2012, Scott Bartle (and others) have been running a relentless campaign to convince people that the government of Australia is illegitimate and is a private US corporation.

Scott Bartle

Scott doesn’t propose any solutions or describe how a supposedly legitimate government would behave any differently to the current government. He does, however, manage to make a pretty convincing argument to back his claim. His website gives a long list of reasons why he thinks the Australian Government is illegitimate.

In fact, he goes as far as to claim that the genuine Australian Government has been replaced with a private corporation registered in the USA which has private shareholders that are pocketing our taxes.


Unfortunately he doesn’t tell us who the shareholders are, or how much money they are pocketing, and how they are managing to keep this theft secret from all the auditors, media and Treasury Department employees. That’s because he can’t – because it’s all rubbish.

In this article I’ll prove, without a doubt, that the government of Australian is not a private corporation registered in the USA. I strongly suspect that Scott Bartle knows this and that he is deliberately deceiving people – I could be wrong though, perhaps he’s just poorly informed and has made an innocent mistake; I’ll leave it up to you to make up your own mind.

Is the Australian Government a Private Corporation Registered in USA?

Scott’s main evidence to support his claim that the government of Australia is a private corporation registered in the USA is given on his site here (I copied the main parts below in case he decides to remove it from his website – he has deleted that page).

from truth-now website

Scott claims that because the “Commonwealth of Australia” is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the USA, it proves that it’s a private corporation registered in the USA. This is so wrong that its not funny!

Here are all the ways in which Scott Bartle is wrong about this:

1. The SEC is not where private corporations are registered

SEC Logo

The SEC is not where you set up a legal business entity in the USA. A business entity must first be created/registered with one of the state governments. Once it is registered with a state government it only needs to list itself with the SEC if it is selling securities to investors, such as shares, bonds etc.

If the Commonwealth of Australia is a US registered business then we must be able to find it in one of the state databases of registered business names. Unfortunately, unlike Australia, the USA does not have a central database in which all business names are located, therefore you have to search within every single state database (or pay a private company to do it for you). Here is a page that lists the urls for all 50 state business name databases so you can search them yourself if you wish.

I’ve only searched the database for Washington D.C. because that is the address given on the Commonwealth of Australia listing in the SEC database. The “Commonwealth of Australia” was not found in their database and is therefore not registered as a business in D.C. (Check for yourself by going here and creating a free login account; then click the [Business Filings Search] tab; then select the “search type” of “Entity Name”.) (Here’s a checklist of what you need to do to start a business in D.C.)

The SEC’s mission is to protect investors. It does so by requiring entities seeking investors to lodge their financial records with the SEC so that potential investors can find them easily to check whether they should buy the investments.

The entities don’t have to be US companies to be listed with the SEC, even foreign companies are required to be listed with the SEC if they are issuing securities in the USA.

Does Scott Bartle know about this?

Here’s more detailed information from the SEC’s own site.

2. Foreign Governments can voluntarily register with the SEC

Because US investors are used to looking in the SEC database to find financial reports for potential investments, some overseas governments choose to voluntarily register with the SEC so that they can upload their financial records to make it easy for investors interested in buying their government bonds.

That is why the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland Australia and the New South Wales Treasury Corp are registered with the SEC. (Find the SEC listings here: Commonwealth of Australia, NSW, Queensland

The Commonwealth of Australia has registered because it is acting as a guarantor of the Queensland government debt and so it’s also making its financial records available to investors.

Does Scott Bartle know about this?

3. Two different SEC forms

SEC Form 18-k submitted by Commonwealth of Australia

Private and public corporations have to submit SEC form 10-K (see explanation, see technical explanation) whereas foreign governments have to submit SEC form 18-K (see explanation, see technical explanation).

You can see here that the Commonwealth of Australia is submitting form 18-K/A (18-K/A is an amendment to the original 18-K form).

Here is a direct link to the latest 18-K submitted by the Commonwealth of Australia. You can see that the very first thing it says at the top of the form is:

For Foreign Governments and Political Subdivisions Thereof

Then at the bottom of the first page it states:

The Commonwealth of Australia files Annual Reports on Form 18-K voluntarily in order for the Commonwealth of Australia to incorporate such Annual Reports into its shelf registration statements.

In other words, it doesn’t have to list with the SEC – it does it voluntarily to make it easy for potential investors in government bonds to find our annual report.

SEC Form 10-k submitted by Apple

Does Scott Bartle know about this?

In fact the Commonwealth of Australia hasn’t submitted an annual report since 2009. What is Scott’s explanation for this?
(See all Commonwealth of Australia filings with SEC here.)

If the Commonwealth of Australia was a “corporation”, as claimed by Scott, then its listing would look like Apple’s listing which you can view here. Notice Apple submits Form 10-K not Form 18-K.

4. No I.R.S. Employer Identification Number (EIN)

IRS Logo

All US companies are required to have an EIN ( see details on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) website. The IRS collects taxes and an EIN is like an employer’s tax file number.)

If the Commonwealth of Australia was a private corporation registered in the USA it would be required to have an EIN and to list it on its annual report to the SEC – but it doesn’t.

You can see on Apple’s listing below that it has an EIN. (Check the real documents for yourself here: Apple, Commonwealth of Australia.)

Does Scott Bartle know about this?

Proven beyond a doubt



treasury logo


financial review


Sydney University

You can see from the evidence provided above that the Commonwealth of Australia is DEFINITELY NOT a private US corporation as claimed by Scott Bartle.

But even in addition to this indisputable evidence you just have to think for a moment in order to realise how ludicrous his claims are. For example, if the Commonwealth did have private shareholders then:

  1. Who are the shareholders? And how many shareholders are there?
  2. How much money are the shareholders receiving each year?
  3. How are the shareholders able to keep these profits hidden from the accounting people who scrutinise the government’s revenue and expenditure, including:
    1. Treasury department public servants who prepare the budgets and accounts
    2. Auditors who check them
    3. Academics who study them
    4. Finance reporters who report on them.
  4. What about opposition political parties?

Are they all corruptly co-operating in this?

If this was true then this would have to be a massive conspiracy involving thousands of people over many decades.

  1. How could you get so many people to co-operate with this?
  2. Every time some new finance reporter or academic or finance department accountant came along you would have to convince them to get involved in the corruption. What’s the probability that you’d be able to do that over many years?
  3. If you were first planning this corruption would you be confident that you could convince everyone you needed to convince? Would you take the risk that someone would blow the whistle? Would you be able to convince thousands of people to take the risk?

More reasons why Scott Bartle is wrong

There are many more reasons why Scott Bartle’s claims are wrong and his proof is wrong, but this article is already long enough so I’ll write more articles in the near future that will provide more irrefutable evidence disproving Scott Bartle’s claims and get you wondering what his motives could be.

What are Scott’s motives?

Scott Bartle

Any intelligent person will have to wonder what Scott Bartle’s motives are. Is it just an innocent mistake? Or something more sinister?

Personally I find it hard to believe that its just an innocent mistake when the picture on his own website clearly shows that the SEC listing is an “Annual report for foreign governments and political subdivisions”.

What do you think?

If you’ve found any mistakes in my analysis I’d be very grateful if you’d let me know about it so I can correct it.

And of course, I’d love you to leave a comment!

More articles on this topic:

Is the Australian Coat of Arms a US trademark?
Did the PM swear the wrong Oath?

Receive notification of future posts:

Category(s): Australian Government, Debunking     [ Bookmark the permalink ]     
Receive notification of future posts: By email     By rss
Receive email notifications when new comments are added to this post.
Comments (275)
Page 1 of 1
  1. James:

    Hi there,

    As you have failed to mention the Patent Letters of 1900, I believe that you have failed to grasp Scott’s information in totality. To pull this one section apart (your post) is just spreading disinformation, shows your lack of understanding and demeans a good hearted person, who is only concerned for Australia and Australians. Perhaps you should bring yourself up to date on the issues surrounding the Patent Letters of 1900 to gain a deeper and better understanding of this complex issue and how it ties into the SEC.

    Please do more homework before spreading more disinformation as you appear to have very little grasp on this situation and how things work behind the scenes. This is not helping us bring to light that we do not have a De jure government in Oz. Your are just making it harder for the good people who are trying to fight this. Even “Australians SAY NO” on FB doesn’t agree with your posting stating “dear lau , its time for you to stop , everything you are saying is suggestion”. Perhaps you should help rather than fight against this. Taking down this post would be a good starting point as it just shows your naivety.

    I saw this recently and may help make this clearer for you.

    I would suggest reading from “Interesting. Let’s look a little closer…” onwards.

    Have you tried to get the Australian Government to confirm its validity? Perhaps you should. If the current Government can not prove that they are legitimate, then there is a massive problem….. And by the way…. They cant prove this. Myself, mates on top of Scott’s case studies shows us that they are not the dejure government… So who are they then????


    • Lau Guerreiro:

      As you have failed to mention a single statement in my article that you believe to be incorrect I can only assume that you agree that everything I have said is correct.

      If you believe that I have made an incorrect statement then please quote the statement and give your reasons why you believe it to be incorrect.

      If you don’t respond with a list of incorrect statements and reasons then I will take that to be an acceptance by you that everything I have said is correct.

      I have not mentioned the Letters Patent because they are irrelevant to the claim being made by Scott that the Commonwealth of Australia is a privately owned and registered corporation in the USA.

      In the near future I will, however, be writting another article to address mis-understandings and mis-information being spread about the Letters Pattent by people such as Scott Bartle, Larry Hannigan et al.

      I am not interested in championing the cause that “we do not have a De Jure government in OZ”. I am only interested in championing the cause of truth.

      Don’t you think that we are already told enough lies by corporations and governments?
      Don’t you think there are enough genuine causes to be passionate about?

      I don’t think we need to be adding more mis-information into the mix. It’s a waste of people’s energy to stir them up in anger about something that isn’t true.

      I don’t believe that is helping the people of this country.

      People who are spreading this mis-information about the government not being valid are striking a blow at the very core of our democracy. They’re trying to destabilise it and bring it down and they have not thought about what they’re going to replace it with!
      If you want to tear something down you’d better have a good long hard think about the consequences of that and whether the thing you replace it with is going to be better or worse than what you have now.

      And please don’t get distracted by the last part of my comment. Please make sure you list the statements from my article that you believe to be incorrect. I’ll take a lack of reply to mean that you agree that everything I’ve said is correct.

      • Tony Moushimasu:

        Please find in freedom of information regarding the Australian treasury’s own admission regarding themselves as a private owned business. Hard to discredit if they admit it, isn’t

        • Mike:


          Do you recall the section in the FOI document you mention?


      • Walt:

        If you believe democracy is better than any other form of government you are a fool. It is actually the worst form, morally reprehensible … mob rule at best. Only sociopaths (or worse) enjoy democracy because they have a chance to force their beliefs on their neighbours. ALL governmental authority is evil and immoral. Voluntaryism is the only moral choice. And before you come at me with your childish arguments about how we need big daddy government, wake yourself the fuck up: I recommend “The End of All Evil” and “The Market for Liberty”. Democracy is evil.

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          I haven’t read those books, but I’m going to assume that you’re talking about some form of Anarchy. How are you going to prevent an Anarchist country from devolving into a living hell that is ruled by a bunch of local warlords? How are you going to prevent the criminal gangs from taking over? Don’t you need a ‘big daddy government’ to keep the criminals from getting too much power?
          Do you think the criminals and sociopaths with voluntarily choose to be nice to everyone?
          Don’t tell me you believe in privatising the police, and that a bunch of private police companies would do a better job. You know what I would do if I was a crime lord in an anarchist state, I’d set up a couple of private police companies. The cops are already somewhat corrupt, imagine how much more corrupt they would be if anyone could set up a private police force!

          • Walt:

            Thank you for clearly demonstrating your complete contempt for humanity for all to see. Fear porn is so 2008. No matter, you and your evil kind are already finished … and I mean non-existence awaits.

            • Lau Guerreiro:

              Thank you for clearly demonstrating that you are not interested in a discussion about facts, and that you just want to keep believing in a Utopian fantasy that pleases you, regardless of any problems that people might bring up with your fantasy.

              Are you telling me that there is NO POSSIBILITY that crime gangs will have more power in an anarchy than in a democracy?

              Or are you telling me that you don’t want to even consider such a possibility, because it scares you too much and disturbs your enjoyment of your imaginary Utopia?

              • Walt:

                Leaving aside your assumption and presumption (which I know it actually isn’t, you’re just using primitive psych tactics … when are they going to train you scumbags properly?) … of course we’re still going to have to deal with people like you; however, it will be very swiftly … actually, most of your type will take their own lives … I know, I know, psychopaths don’t usually do that, but times have changed,

              • Lau Guerreiro:

                Yeah, yeah. I get it. You’re the calm rational one, and I’m the psychopath. Glad we’ve cleared that up.

          • Dave Thomas:

            The criminal gangs are already in control, they’re relabelled as “governments”

            • Lau Guerreiro:

              Luckily, as far as criminal gangs go, western governments are pretty nice ones. It can get a lot worse then this. Just think of Somalia.

              • Chris:

                Peadophilia is “pretty nice”?
                Why the 90 year suppression order?
                You think these were isolated incidences?
                You think organised crime isn’t in built?

                The government may have the illusion of being pretty nice, but I’d say they barely even have that.

      • Chris:

        You should have a talk with Rod Culleton, ex federal MP.
        He also says the goverment is invalid and we have 2 goverments.
        And that’s about as much as I know.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      As for the link you mentioned in your comment. The section you suggested I read is also completely wrong. If you read my article carefully you will see, an explanation and the proof there.

      No, companies don’t have to list on the SEC to trade with USA. They can VOLUNTARILY list there if they want to make it easy for investors buying government bonds to find out what australia’s financial position is. Read my article carefully.

      • Peter:

        When you state voluntary do you mean Free; without compulsion
        or solicitation ,or
        Without consideration; without valuable consideration; gratuitous. ?
        The latter definition being far more complex ….

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          I mean, there is no law requiring them to do it.

          • Walt:

            Well, there is a “law” actually (I don’t like to use the word “law” to describe the arbitary rules of the psychopath puppets called “government”). It is absolutely a requirement to be registered with NCAGE to trade with the US Government. Get your facts straight.

            • Lau Guerreiro:

              By your own words then, it is not compulsory to register with the SEC unless you wish to trade with the US government. For everyone else it is optional. Correct?

              • Walt:

                Er … no, incorrect. That’s not what I said. Mate, stop the adrenochrome, it’s messing with your thinking.

                I specifically said NCAGE. Turdmuncher.

  2. So are you saying that the Australian Gov is selling or trading Bonds in our name on the US stock exchange? If the Australian Gov cannot pay for its trades will we the people Have to fork out for the Australian Governments bad debt.? What if they actually sold the Bonds to themselves or their friends and are insider trading. In fact why even issue a bond? Its just an “I owe you” with the peoples wealth as the collateral. Oh that’s right, we don’t have the right to issue our own money.!! Which means we are under the control of a foreign power does it not, which is Treason under section 44 of the Constitution Act . The right to issue money should be in the Treasury not the Reserve bank who’s board members are multinational company directors as well,(as a point of interest). We send an appropriation bill to the reserve bank and they make us sell bonds for the money? If the Government can issue a bond it can also issue a dollar bill. One forever holds us in bondage and the other frees us. Other acts of treason are
    Federal Legislation:
    • The Australia Act 1986 – This Act brings the States into conformity with the Federal Government. It places the Federal Government over the States as our sovereign. This directly contravenes Clause 5 of the Constitution Act and section 106 of the Constitution Act.
    State Legislation:
    • Courts and Tribunals Legislation (further Amendment) Act 2000(Vic) – Enacted in 2000 this Act took the oath of allegiance out of the legal practitioners Act. This means every lawyer, magistrate and judge in Victoria is sitting with the oath out. It begs the question, why do this, unless you want them to be sitting under another substituted jurisprudence? This directly contravenes Clause 5 the Schedule and section 109 of the Constitution Act.
    • Acts Amendment and Repeal Court and Legal Practice Act 2003(WA) – This also took the oath and the Crown out and has the same implications as above. Section 109 of the Constitution Act states: When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
    These Acts are inconsistent with the law of the Commonwealth and have no authority.
    So I just don’t get why you are trying to justify them. Do you want them to do what they want or what we want? Constitutions a not put there for governments to restrain the people, they are put there for the people to restrain their governments . So trying to find loop holes for them to screw us even more should also be looked on as insubordination. Look what these governments have done to this world, because we trusted them and didn’t pay attention. It’s about time we did pay attention.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      No they’re not selling bonds on the US stock exchange. If they were then they would be REQUIRED to register in SEC, but they are not so they are only registering with the SEC VOLUNTARILY so they can upload their financial records to the SEC database because that’s where US investors are used to looking for that sort of stuff. They’re only doing it to make it easy for investors.

      If you look at the bottom of the first page of the Annual return that they have listed with the SEC you will see that it says

      “The Commonwealth of Australia files Annual Reports on Form 18-K voluntarily in order for the Commonwealth of Australia to incorporate such Annual Reports into its shelf registration statements.”

      As for why issue government bonds? Well a government bond is how the government borrows money – that’s all. When we run a deficit it means we are spending more money than we’re earning through tax and we need to borrow the money from somewhere. That is done via Bonds. There’s nothing sneaky or underhanded about it at all. Every government does it. And it means that in times of high unemployment the government can borrow in order to pay the extra unemployment benefits and then pay it back in good economic times when we have budget surpluses. This is a very good thing for the people, not a bad thing.

      It would be much worse if the government couldn’t borrow and would have to stop paying people unemployment benefits and pensions etc.

      As for all the other stuff you have mentioned, once again they are all irrelevant to my article.

      You have not mentioned one single statement from my article that you believe to be incorrect! Therefore you must be agreeing with me that Scott Bartle is wrong when he says the Commonwealth of Australia is a privately owned US registered corporation that is issuing profits to its shareholders.

      Is that right?

      • kyle:

        Hi Lau, I wanted to make myself clear in relation to your article. As stated I agreed that just because the SEC provide data voluntarily this alone does not prove they are private corporation, I agree 100%. And looking into Scotts video again, to me he is asking the questions. I think more to the point I wanted to go a little deeper because we clearly need to understand who is running who.

        the confusion of private corporations, is probably more to the point that its Private Corporations that are running our government they are indebted to this private corporation, not only that our law society i.e the BAR society is a private society, who are they, where does all the money go?

        So in fact the mere fact we are borrowing from IMF via Federal reserve USELESS DEBT INSTRUMENTS and that as you stated we place information into the SEC to get people to invest in this country, then its absolutely proves that we are required to pay that debt back. Now the government departments are ALL ACTING AS CORPORATE ENTITIES, this is FACT. For eg, why do the police force give you a business card when doing business on the side of the road. Roads and maritime would put a BUSINESS restriction on your for unpaid fines. they all deal in commerce, i.e sending bills, statements, instruments, therefore they are dealing in commerce, ITS ALL COMMERCE.

        Just look at all the legal terms as per blacks law and tell me which part of this is NOT corporate, dealing in commerce.

        1) De Jure Corporation – corporation which has been created as a result of compliance with all of the constitutional or statatory requirement of state of incorporation Government – from latin, gubernaculum signifies the instrument, that helm where by the ship to which the state was compared, was guided on its course by the gubernator, or helmsman, and in there view, the gov is but an agency of the state.

        De facto Government (is this not Austalia? by replacing the royal great seal with australian seal, against the will of the people, as per last referendum was agreed to remain part of the commonwealth.

        2) De Facto Government = one that maintans itself by a display of fore against the will of the rightful legal government + is successful shadow government?

        3) Fact – A thing done; an action performed or an incident transpiring, an event or cirumstances and actually happening in time or space or and event mental or physical, that which has taken place

        4) State – A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common law habits and custom into one body politic exercising through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons + things within its boundary’s capable of making WAR + PEACE + of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe.

        5) – Colony a dependent political community consisting of a number of citizens of the same country who have immigrated therefrom to another.

        6) Business – Employment, occupation profession in for livelihood. Activity or enterprise for gain, benefit advantage or livelihood.

        7) corporation and artificial person or legal entity created by or under authority of the laws of State. An association of persons create by statute as a legal entity.

        8) Private Corporation – Affecting or belonging to private individuals.

        9) Entity – 4 real being, existence. an organization or being that possesses separate Tax Purposes. an example would be corporations, partnerships, estates and trust. The accounting entity for which accounting statements are prepared may not be the same as the entity defined by law.
        “Entity” includes corporation and foreign corporation; Not-for-profit corporation and not-for-profit unincorporated association; business trust, estate, partnership, trust, and two or more persons having a joint common economic interest; and state, ….

        10) Citizen – One who under Constitution + Laws of the U.S or of a particular state is a member of the political community, owning allegiance + being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights.

        11) Person- blacks law 6th edition, in general usage, a human being (i.e natural person) though by satute term may include labor organisations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trusses in bankruptcy, or perceivers.

        GOVERNMENTS CAN NOT CREATE LAW!! period. they only create ACTs, STATUTES AND POLICIES. they call it law but in theory they only ACT in the colour of law.

        The highest form of law is SPIRITUAL law.
        The courts or english law is based on the King James Bible, making it the highest law, which is supposedly under GOD, which some refer to as common law, or natural law, or common sense law. This law is basically based on the 10 commandments, primarily do not harm, or kill, do not steal or damage someone else’s property, or be brought before 12 or your piers to be judged!!
        Then law of the sea (admiralty law)
        Then there is man made law, Equity Law,
        Then common law, common to the people?
        then there is commercial law (commercial law is the lowest)

        They created the person (well your parents did as they did not understand what they were doing) that is why you are always dealing in commerce as a person. Hence why people say its is a corporate run world, because that is what capitalism creates, and we the people are feeding the greed.

        Every ACT and STATUTE AND POLICY The government creates refers to a person (we know what a person is)


        Think about it. if we are borrowing Fiat Currency from IMF which is not backed by ANYTHING OF VALUE and they charge an interest on currency (not money) that is printed on demand go see and placed interest on it for digits on a screen. why should we give a shit about paying it back? see iceland and now iraq. its time to kick the IMF out and Federal reserve and go back to a commonwealth that represents what the people want.

        I would never give a shit about voting as from early on, i could see its a system of Bull shit. how can you have a democracy when there are alway commercial interest involved. Why would a government department pay GST as you claim is the reason they have an ABN. Wouldn’t government departments be tax exempt?

        IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN PRINT THE CURRENCY, AND ITS BACKED BY NOTHING BUT THE PEOPLE (the bonded slaves to pay the Bullshit debt back)
        – why is there even a debt?
        – why do they even pay interest?
        – who are they paying interest to?
        – what happens if people stop paying it?

        GOVERNMENTS DO CREATE BONDS, Thats how they raise private capital, issuing bonds, and agreeing to pay back in interest. The birth certificate is a bond, you can find this out. its all there. you are bonded? or are you? just have to understand what is happening and who you are.

        The game is up, and people are waking up all over the world! the New world order or one world government have their agenda and this is the way its heading, you can see it clear as day.


        SOVEREIGNTY is not Bull shit or a waste of time, just look above in the legal definitions, why would they have it in legal terms, and in commercial maxims of law if it wasn’t important.

        The truth is we are all sovereign, we just have to realise it, and ensure that corporate interest agencies know that its above all their Bull shit.

        GOVERNMENT is merely there to deceive the belligerent, those who are too lazy to work out what is going on. i.e PUBLIC POLICY!! to deal with PUBLIC.

        You need to ask yourself, do the public officials, public officers, public government entities, Politicians deserve our trust? do they not all act in the best interest of repaying the debt they have borrowed, blown, squandered…….

        I do not give a shit about the government, nor their policies, i wouldn’t waste my time living in that fictional world.

        (being sarcastic here:) lets all get our kids to go to school to be indoctrinated, let them all watch TV to be brain washed, let them watch our politicians avoid, dodge, skip any real questions and LIE constantly and pretend they are respectful members of our society. Lets make the best paying jobs the ones that have the least ethics, least positive impact on society and least positive impact on our planet.

        wake up the world is being run by corporate greed, and fictional currency. Be sovereign, be honourable, create your own reality, stand in truth, and enjoy the journey, its all there for a reason. Bless, peace and love 🙂

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          Sorry, there’s so much rubbish in that answer that I can’t be bothered to respond to it all.

          Please read my responses to “hagen” at the bottom of the page. Where I ask what is the motive. and why would anyone be so stupid as to do it all through a private company that can be publicly tracked rather than just stealing money through embezzlement and bribes and putting it quietly in swiss bank accounts.

          Answer those questions, because if you can’t answer those then everything else is pointless.

          • kyle:

            im not saying they are doing it as a private company, its more of a trust from my understanding. Public Trust Act, my point was as you stated SEC is to attract investors to invest in this country, they raise capital by issuing government guaranteed bonds, those bonds entail interest, which is backed up by the People, TAX and all the other government corporations, collecting through all their unlawful instruments, ACTs, STATUTES, POLICIES. then as the income comes in the make Certificates of DEPOSIT to repay the BOND and Interest. you can find this out on any of the trading sites like fidelity etc. the privacy comes in when we are using and issued federal reserve notes, these are issued by a private bank. this is also fact. I could do a video on it. but the info is all there if you search. Whats not factual about the legal definitions of blacks law? im saying you article is correct but it only proves through your own statement that they issue the info voluntarily to get investment. With investment comes obligation to pay back. therefore they have to conduct commerce. the mere fact that they are registered in the SEC does NOT prove they are private companies, agreed, but as mentioned over again, you have to go deeper. If you believe your government is operating in your best interest. good luck to you. All i see is damage to environment, issuing of licenses against the will of the people for profits. i could back this up with as much fact as you want, but I don’t wish to waste anymore time when all the info is out there for those who wish to seek it.
            There are also private corporations like tolls, etc etc, acting under the protection of the government entities that have private interest. if roads are for the benefit of the commonwealth why are private corporations cashing in, why isnt it going back to treasury which benefits the country and its people. check that out. the article proves nothing either way, other than the fact that having the entity registered with SEC does not prove or disprove corporate agenda. people are waking up, a transition is in place. its exciting, its interesting. which way will it go, we will find out. 🙂 Love to all :)…

          • Lau Guerreiro:

            Regarding road tolls.

            The road that you pay tolls to private companies are private roads that were built by private companies – the govt did not build them with taxpayer money because the government did not have the money to spend on it and the government didn’t want to borrow money to build them.
            Therefore they allowed private companies to build the road and pay all the costs of building the road and those companies now get their money back with a little extra profit by charging road tolls.

            You really need to understand the basics of what is going on before you decide that its all a big conspiracy!

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          //the privacy comes in when we are using and issued federal reserve notes, these are issued by a private bank. this is also fact. //

          No Australia does not even have a “federal Reserve” we have the “Reserve Bank of Australia” and it is definitely NOT a private company.

          //With investment comes obligation to pay back.//
          It’s not investment – its a loan, and of course you have to pay loans back with interest – otherwise nobody will lend you money.

          //therefore they have to conduct commerce. //
          Completely WRONG. They don’t have to conduct commerce in order to get the money to pay back the loans. They get money through taxation. The Australian govt raises trillions of dollars each year in taxation – they don’t need to run businesses to make money.

          Therefore the whole basis for your argument is blown out of the water.

          And if you ask why do they have to borrow money, why not just print it.
          The answer is that if you print too much money then inflation goes up and therefore your currency gets devalued on foreign exchange, which causes more inflation and you end up in hyper inflation. It’s not good for the economy – its just cheating.
          If it would work to just print money then the government could print as much money as it wanted and pay everyone $1 million per year to just sit at home and live in luxury right? Wrong. It doesn’t work – that’s why govts don’t do it and they borrow money instead.

          You need to learn a lot more about economics.

          • So you are right in one area, that the Government get trillions of dollars annually from our taxes. It now takes half a trillion to run this country, so what happens to the surplus trillions? The The Nullabour railway was built under the rules of section 51 of the Constitution (commonwealth), no interest, no debt! and it is not being done today, because Government and the judiciary would not benefit from it, so they do not want it changed. The Reserve bank is certainly not a Government bank, and it is privately owned, and Government do not have to borrow, as trillions means they just do not have to borrow from anyone, but the lying Satanic bastards keep crying poor, so that the brainwashed people fall for their deceitful lies. Definitely led by Satan himself, as they lie, steal and before they do that, they covet your freedoms, rights, funds, etc., thus breaking the 8th. and 10th. commandments, but judgement day is not far away, as the Lord Jesus Christ has the last say. So repent and do right, or else you will perish along with all other evil folk, you are not trash initially, but you have made yourself to be trash, by your evil thoughts that have been put into evil action.

            • Lau Guerreiro:

              Hi Francis,

              I’m afraid you’re misinformed about how much the federal government receives in taxes and how much it spends.

              You can get the actual amounts from government websites. This page has the final details for the year 2014-15

              If you look on page 16 of this pdf you will see the overview of the revenue and expenditure for 2014-15:

              You probably won’t bother looking at it so here is the summary:

              Government revenue (income): $380.746 billion
              Government expenditure: $417.898 billion

              So the government spent more than it received – hence the budget deficit (which you may have heard about).

              So it’s not true that it receives trillions and only spends half a trillion.
              Do you remember Abbott and the LNP banging on about the budget deficit for the last 5 years?

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          If the Australian government is a private company with shareholders then they are legally required to provide you with a list of names and contact details of their shareholders. (All companies are.)

          Here’s an explanation:

          Here’s a list of the fee’s they can charge you for getting a copy of the list of shareholders (looks like its $12.50):

          So go for it! What are you waiting for? get a list of the conspirators who have stolen the federal government and send it to all the newspapers etc. What a scoop!
          But of course you won’t find anything because there are no shareholders because people like Gough Whitlam (one of the supposed owners) are super smart people and they know it would be an utterly STUPID thing to do to register the government as a private company and put themselves down as shareholders because they would get caught in a minute and end up in jail for the rest of their lives.

          No intelligent person would ever consider doing such a stupid thing – only really dumb people who don’t know how government, or the law works would ever entertain such an idea.

        • Leonard William:

          Governments do not make law. Laws are made by parliaments. Policy is not law. The Commonwealth of Australia is registered in the US as a private company as is required to be able to bid for tenders. For evedence note that the Commonwealth has a DUNS number listed with Dun and Bradstreet.

          • Lau Guerreiro:

            You don’t have to be a “private company” to get a DUNS number, non-profits and governments can also get them. As stated on the Dun and Bradstreet website here:

            “Who is eligible for a D&B D-U-N-S Number?
            Commercial, non-profit or government entities Self-employed individuals (only individuals such as; physicians, lawyers, contractors, etc. who are engaged in a specific commercial business activity). All secondary locations including Branches and Divisions.”

            Did I just destroy the last flimsy piece of “evidence” that you were hanging on to Leonard?

          • Walt:

            “The Commonwealth” has at least 20 different DUNS.
            COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (SEC registration under SIC 8880) is sold OTC, thereby keeping the purchaser in the shadows.

            • Lau Guerreiro:

              It doesn’t matter whether you have 20 DUNS or 1, you still don’t have to be a private company.

      • Walt:

        Well, there is a “law” actually (I don’t like to use the word “law” to describe the arbitary rules of the psychopath puppets called “government”). It is absolutely a requirement to be registered with NCAGE to trade with the US Government. Get your facts straight.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      I’m not trying to find loopholes for anyone. I’m championing the truth! Some people claim to be exposing the hidden secrets, as if they are champions of truth, but when it comes down to it they don’t care at all about truth – all they care about is being angry at the government, even if they have to make up bullshit reasons to be angry at the government.

      I love this country and I want to protect it from people who just want to tear down our democracy without having a clue about what they’d replace it with! That’s dangerous!

      What would you replace our system with? If it was proven that the government is illegal then what would you do? WHen did it become illegal, what year? Would you then make all laws issued since then null and void? Would that be better than what we have now?

      You probably have no idea, but we currently have very low income taxes, if you went back to the laws of the 60’s you’d be paying a hell of a lot more tax, is that what you want?

      Come on, get real, think about what you want, and the real life practicalities of implementing it. Just getting angry at the government is pointless. You need a solution that is workable – one that you have thought through completely so that you are aware of all the consequences – that you have based on actual facts not on bullshit that people are making up.

      • How come you can’t see that a government borrowing money is wrong. The government should have the issuing power. The treasury should through the house of reps and for anyone else to have that power undermines the authority of the people. Can you see that? Look at Europe, EU has achieved what Hitler wanted by stealth and the power to issue money instead of the people. You are trying to find loopholes so stop kidding yourself and you didn’t even discuss the breaches of our constitution I pointed out you are still just trying to ridicule Scott which means your holier than thou attitude is a sham and there are many more breaches. That is Treason. If you loved this country you would stop trying to justify these people. I think you must work for the government for you to be so defensive of them. The system doesn’t need replacing as you say I say. It just needs to not break constitutional law. Get off your high horse mate. “Give me the power to issue a nations money and I care not who makes the laws” . That is a quote from Rothschild and is a very powerful statement. Go figure it out.

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          You haven’t pointed out a single statement in my article that your disagree with. I take that to mean that you agree that what I have said is the truth, but that you want me to keep the truth hidden from the good people of this country so that you can trick them into doing something that they wouldn’t do if they knew the truth. Why else would you want me to hide the truth from the people?

          I haven’t addressed your other so-called constitutional “breaches” because it would take me a whole article to address each one, and I am focused in this issue of the Commonwealth being a foreign registered corporation with shareholders that are taking profits because this is the most dangerous and most obviously wrong claim.

          I’ll be writting more articles about other claims made by Scott and others in the near future; about: validity of Letters Patent; Royal styles of the the Queen, name of the parliament, the official Great Seal, letterheads on government documents etc. [UPDATED: here’s my article debunking the coat of arms trademark conspiracy: ]

          Scott claims that they’re all invalid and he is wrong about every one of them.

          So I’m not just opening up a little loophole – I’m exposing the whole thing to be a great big sham – the whole thing is one big loophole, there is nothing of substance – it’s all loophole because none of his claims are valid.

          And no I don’t work for the government, I wish they were paying me for this because I could use the money.

          You also haven’t told me what practical differences there’d be if all Scott’s claims were proven to be true? So the name of the government on letterheads would change, and the logo, and the governor general and politicians would have to be sworn in again and all the laws they had passed illegally would have to go through the parliament and be passed again.
          So what? Big deal? Would you be happy then?

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          Regarding the evils of issuing bonds:
          Bonds are issued by the Commonwealth government and State Governments, even companies can issue bonds. It is just a loan to the government, it is NOT creation of money.

          If you have $5000 you can go to the bank and put it in a fixed term deposit for several years and the bank will pay you interest – you are loaning that money to the bank. You can take that same money and loan it to the government for a fixed term and they will pay you interest – they call that buying a government bond. You can even do the same thing with some companies.

          The companies will pay you a higher interest rate because you are taking a bigger risk when you lend to them because they might go bankrupt and you loose your money.
          Government bonds pay a lower interest rate than banks and companies because the country can’t go bankrupt – you are always guaranteed to get your money back (unless you’re a basket case like Greece).

          The Reserve Bank just handles the transaction for the government. If the government is running the budget at a surplus the Reserve Bank doesn’t just go out and decide to borrow lots of money via bonds – it only does it when the government needs the money to finance its budget deficit.
          So the control is in the hands of the elected politicians because they have control of the budget.

          There’s nothing bad about bonds. All good companies borrow money in order to grow. All normal people borrow money to finance cars and houses. It makes sense to borrow money when you need it. And it’s the same thing for governments. It would inflict a lot of pain on the poorest people if governments couldn’t borrow money via bonds.

          I hope that settles your mind a little about bonds.

          • You don’t listen and if Scott was lying the government would have proved it to him and the fact they couldn’t say’s it all doesn’t it. And what is so bad about our government being a company you say!! We all know a business is purely out to make profit, so this does away with the term “protect and serve” does it not?
            Capitalism is based on principals of choice and competition. You do not have to deal with a business unless you agree to a contract with them and without a contract you are not obliged to participate or pay them anything.
            And you say you want to tell the truth to the Australian people. People who say they are going to tell you the truth usually have an agenda and are the biggest liars. And for someone to so adamantly refute Scott and set up a website seems more like a dis info campaign than just some guy who “wants to tell the truth” You seem to be crapping on about how the car is driven instead of how it was built.

          • Lau Guerreiro:

            I didn’t set up this website just for this – look at the wide range of other things I’ve written about before. Scott is the one who set up a website just for this purpose!

            The government is not a company! Have you read my article and followed the links to the evidence? Who is the one here that is not listening?

            You are not in a business relationship with the government – you are bound by the laws of the country regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

            Imagine if people were only bound by laws that they agreed with! Murderers, rapists, theives, con-men wouldn’t agree with any of those laws would they? Is that what you want? I don’t!

            “People who say they are going to tell you the truth usually have an agenda and are the biggest liars”. What about Scott? I wonder how long it will be before he starts making money out of this? Asking for donations, running workshops etc.

            As for why the government don’t prove it to Scott? What proof would Scott accept? What exactly is it that he wants them to give him?

            How do you know that he has asked them for proof?

      • jack Waterman:

        I’m a bit confused over the difference between The Commonwealth of Australia and The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. Aren’t they two different things? I love Australia ( the land – rivers, mountains , beaches, people ) but I don’t love the government. They don’t seem to work for the land and its people; they appear to be more interested in the welfare of large corporations and protecting their capacity to earn more from our resources. And this is the reason why people question the legitimacy of the government.
        The people of this country have repeatedly shown that they value our environment and our quality of life. I’m certain that most would expect government policy to reflect that.However, due to government policies these values are being eroded , whilst the few rich are getting richer as this small group controls the majority of wealth in this country.
        Is the present government acting according to our constitution ? Do we have access to our common law rights? Do we have a right to demand renewable energy ( now proven to be cheaper than coal based energy). Haven’t we got a right to expect our government to take steps to ensure that our grandchildren can enjoy the Great Barrier Reef, eat uncontaminated food, or breath clean air?

        • Paul Johanson:

          Jack Waterman, the difference is, The Commonwealth of Australia is us the people we are the ultimate law as set out in our Constitution of 1901, the government is who we elect to manage our affairs in a fair manner. Australia was granted it’s freedom from colonialism in 1919 the 28th of June, so we have been a free and sovereign nation since then, but no one told us, our government of the day in 1919 was sworn to secrecy for 30 years, 1949, but our Governments since then have still failed to inform us. The UNLAWFULL Gov. that sits in Canberra is one of a long line of UNLAWFULL Governments since the Arch TRAITOR E.Gough Whitlam changed the our Constitution without the necessary referrendum, this is an act of TREASON. Then Bob Hawke changed our law from English Common Law, to Australian Law again without a referrendum, an act of TREASON, each Government since Whitlam has committed an act of TREASON, mthe are all TRAITORS.

    • well said Tom, bravo.


      You don’t really understand how the constitution works – there are too many errors in your understanding of the law for mre to bother to answer all so I’ll start with your first point about sovereignty. Comments about oathes of allegiance etc are basically irrelevant.

      There are three types of power in the constitution
      EXCLUSIVE – only the Commonwealth has power to create laws in some areas
      CONCURRENT – both the states and the Commonwealth have powers to create laws (the Commonwealth is superior if they directly contradict each other)
      RESIDUAL – the Commonwealth has absolutely nil power to create laws on anything not mentioned in the constitution (note they will sometimes attack an area indirectly by reliance on some treaty etc)

      You should understand that the constitution was a document agreed to by the colonies, where they gave away some of the extensive powers they had via the The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, when the federation was created. The Commonwealth is limited in what it can do by the constitution, and, effectively the rest lies with the states. There is meant to be a balance, its why the C’th can’t draft criminal laws (unless via territories power, immigration, unemployment or trade etc).

      There is no superior “sovereign” in a way implicit to whatever point you were trying to make.

  3. You are not listening, all you seem to be able to hear is your own voice can you explain why all our police departments have an ABN and as you say ” you are bound by the laws of the country regardless of whether you agree with them or not.” so why are they breaching the laws? are you saying we are bound to their laws and they can just ignore our constitutional ones.? As for Scott making money. I asked him how much for a DVD and he sent me one in the post free.!! Your a contradiction mate.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Ok, I give up. I’m wrong. Your right. Everything Scott says is right.

      • Scott is not saying he is right, he is saying things don’t appear right and we should be asking questions and bringing the government to account. Would you have us just go play the Sony and keep our mouths shut. Well the world is starting to wake up mate and you are becoming a minority. Here is some things you can look at instead of just reading government lies.

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          I admire, respect and honour your passion and energy Tom, but don’t waste it. There are enough legitimate causes out there that are worthy of your energy and commitment – put your energy into those.

          You need to have the wisdom to discern between valid and invalid causes. In the same way that you hold the government up to scrutiny you also need to hold anti-government forces up to equal scrutiny.

          When you inform yourself on a subject, don’t just get one side of the story, you need to get both sides, because sometimes anti-government forces make mistakes and can lead a lot of good people to waste their valuable energy on wild goose chases.

          I encourage you to read my article and comments again carefully and check all the links to source documents that I have provided. This is the way that you should write an article if you want to convince people that you have a legitimate argument. You need to provide links to the original documents so its really easy for people to check the validity. And don’t just put links to other anti-government websites because that doesn’t prove anything. You have to have links to independent sites.

          Another thing is that if you align yourself with causes that are bogus then people will assume that all your other causes are bogus as well and it will make your job a lot harder.

          • Walt:

            You should shut up, Lau, you damned commie … your “articles” are transparent propaganda … not going save you, though; your predator masters are still going to chew you up with the rest of us (and even if the rest of us survive, you’ll still be on the menu).

            • Lau Guerreiro:

              You seem to be a bit upset. Are my facts and logic hurting your feelings and destabilising your fantasies? If I have said something that you think is wrong then provide a rational argument to disprove it.
              In case you don’t know, calling me a commie and my arguments propaganda does not constitute a rational argument. It’s more like a dummy spit.

      • James:

        FINALLY !!! Give it up man, you are starting to look foolish!

        Scott is Legit. I know him personally. He is honest and a very good man. He is not out to make money, but to help bring forward the truth.

        You are not helping Lau! I am glad you finally realise it!

        • James:

          Oh and I know there is more information coming out soon that will see you rip down this post in seconds! Stay Tuned!

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          ha ha. I look forward to that information.

          You still haven’t told me which statement in my article is incorrect? Why? Please, please tell me what I have said that is wrong.

          OK, maybe Scott genuinely believes what he’s saying, and he’s not out to make money. He might even be a really nice bloke. But that doesn’t make him right about the Commonwealth of Australia, being a foreign corporation.

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          Oh and I know I also have more stuff coming out later … here’s a hint, everything on this page: is wrong.

          • I can say the same for your passion aswell Lau
            You talk about anti and pro gov sights. Well one thing is for sure pro gov is leading us .towards more centralized power and big gov and anti is leading us toward people and rights. I can see who’s side your on. If you have trouble getting answers out of your local representative how’s it going to be when you put a complaint into the UN. Do you think there will be any replies ?

          • James:

            The more you type Lau, the more foolish you look. You are way out of your depth and league!

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Tom, I stand for co-operation and getting things done efficiently so that there is least waste. So if you want a nation of people to co-operate then you need a lot of organisation – that’s what government is supposed to be for – and they do a reasonable job but of course it can be improved.

      If you are anti-government and pro-individual then that is anti-co-operation, because its every person for them self – its all about me and my rights and fuck taxation and fuck unemployment benefits and social security and contributing to the good of the whole.

      You might say that I am wrong – that the people will organise themselves! Yes, organise themselves into a government that will collect taxes and pay unemployment benefits etc. which is what we already have! So don’t try to tear it down, just try to make it better!

      • You sound like a communist/socialist the UN would suit you perfectly. I also believe in co-operation but that doesn’t mean forcing my fascist will on others if they don’t want to co-operate. There is a simple old common law and that is ” I shall cause no harm to my fellow man and I shall cause no loss to my fellow man” well all the current government seems to do is sell us out to the multinational companies and what do they do? They cause harm and loss so wake up sunshine. You act like we are anti government but your just trying to put a smear on us. You say “don’t try to tear it down, just try to make it better” well that’s what we are trying to do by making them abide by the constitution,which means we do respect law, why don’t you help instead of hinder.

        • Eric:

          well believe it not he is helping by making his misinformed pro government claims he is forcing us to show the fake proper gander being spread by the fake corporate government AKA THE UN our money goes to them in donations.

  4. Lau – I have been part of a research team trying to find out where our constitutional structure of government has gone, for over 8 years now. Scott is right in what he is stating, he just does not have all the information. If you want more, please contact me by email and I will provide it. Feel free to debunk anything we have found.
    And as an extra thought process for you – why is the Great Seal of Australia – the kangaroo and emu trademarked with the US TESS, when it is supposedly the seal of the government of this country, who are supposedly elected under our rules? And why is all government legislation copyrighted to the government and not the people?

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      If our national emblem wasn’t trademarked in the USA is there anything that would prevent someone else from trademarking it in the USA? And therefore prevent the Australian govt from using it there? And then they could sell the trademark back to the Australian government so they could use it?

      I don’t know the answer to these questions but it sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps before you suggest that there is something corrupt happening you could check whether they trademarked it because it is a wise thing to do to stop someone else doing it?

      How would you copyright anything to the people of Australia?
      If someone breached the copyright and you had to take them to court who would do that?
      And is “the people of Australia” a legal entity that would be recognised in court?
      Can the “people of Australia” sue someone?
      I don’t know the answer to these questions but I suspect that the “people of Australia” is not a valid legal entity.
      Before you suggest that there is a problem with the legislation being copyrighted to the government of this country I suggest you find out whether “the people of Australia” is a valid legal entity that would be recognised by copyright law.

      (And anyway the government of this country are the elected representatives of the people and they created the legislation so it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that they copyright it.)

      As for more facts: I would love to see any facts that prove that any of the statements I have made in my article are false.

      • Sue Maynes:

        Well – I am one of the ring-leader Lau refers to, but he is not being honest with his readers. We had an email ‘conversation’ of 17 emails from him and replies from myself.

        On the 6th December, I gave him the details of why govt cannot copyright these seals but he did not pass that onto any of you.

        That proof was – Article 6ter of the Paris Convention
        Protection of State Emblems, and Names, Abbreviations and Emblems of International Intergovernmental Organizations

        In one reply Lau relied on Wikipedia to give him his response. So with his infinite legal knowledge which clearly is superior to the QC’s and etc that I have been involved with, he worked out exactly where we are wrong!

        Yay Lau!

        As to Adam’s comment that we are relentless – pity we have such a wealth of government documents that support the conspiracy theory. But I am sure Adam and Lau, can use wikipedia to disprove them all!

        Meanwhile, the theft of our civil & political rights and our rights of equity continues.

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          Ok Sue I’ve written an article that explains everything you need to know about why the Australian Coat of arms appears in the USPTO database.

          Please read it and let me know if you can find anything in it that is incorrect.

          If you can’t find anything wrong with it,
          will you admit that you are wrong when you claim that the coat of arms being in the USPTO proves the Australian government is a private company?
          (I won’t hold my breath!)

          • Sue Maynes:

            Interesting information Lau – you have been busy. Disprove this then – why is the Australian government now liaising its courts with New York courts even though we operate under different systems of law, and why is there documentation stating that the inclusion of the registration in the US means the government must answer to american civil law? And I know you have the paperwork on that.

            More importantly, you are also overlooking the key question in all this.

            the Commonwealth of Australia is a corporation established under contract between Queen Victoria, her heirs and assigns and the People of the various original states of the colonies then existent on the landmass of Australia
            AND IF
            the corporate seal of the Commonwealth is the Royal Seal incorporating the Lion and the Crown inter alia the Habeus Corpus Act 1862
            AND IF THEREFORE
            any act of legislation that you and I must obey has to be sealed to OUR corporate seal
            HOW THEN
            does this government enforce legislation sealed to a seal registered by THEM, making it the seal of their corporation, not ours?

          • Lau Guerreiro:

            As I predicted:
            You haven’t found any errors in my article
            but neither have you admitted that your claims about the coat of arms are incorrect, have you?

            The article doesn’t say anything about whether the Australian government is or isn’t legitimate. It simply says something about why the coats of arms are in the USPTO database.
            Do you have the integrity to admit that you are wrong about why the coats of arms are in the USPTO database?
            I bet you don’t!

            Regarding the Seals: I can prove that is also all wrong, I have all the information and will write an article on that next week. But you’ll just ignore everything in that article as well and change the subject to something else won’t you?

            What will you do when I’ve answered all your questions and disproved every last bit of nonsense?
            Will you hang on that long?
            Have you invested so much in this nonsense that you will continue to cling desperately to it no matter what?

            I invite you to have the courage to let go.

      • Eric:

        whist on the surface your statements appear correct. there are hidden aspects that your not divulging donation to the UN the UN are essentially the share holders and donations are all published and accounted for on the books making all seem 100% legit

    • kyle:

      Hi Sue Maynes: Lau Guerreiro I would be interested in this info too, Thank you Lau for putting together a very informative post. I think you have added some logic to it. I have not seen anyone dispute what you posted not directly anyway, However I do not think the investigation should NOT stop at the SEC, I too would like to get to the truth and understand this for myself.

      • kyle:

        Can you possibly share it here on this forum?

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          I no longer have the information as I lost it all when my hard drive crashed last year. It was over a dozen word documents and pdf’s.
          Maybe Sue can upload it to a website somewhere and post a link to it here.
          But my opinion is that there was nothing in there that backed up any of her claims.

  5. Adam:


    I know you are doing the right thing but as I am sure you have found by now these people are relentless. It doesn’t really matter what you say or do, even though you are factually correct, they are not here to weigh up your arguments. They’re not interested in what the real truth is.

    These people that you are arguing with are no different from conspiracy theorists. Anything you show them that disputes any of the moronic allegations made in this ridiculous video will, to them, be from a source that is “in on it.” I’m sure that you’ve been asked to reveal who you work for or have been accused of being a “paid shill.”

    Don’t let this consume too much of your time. You seem like a smart guy and I am sure that your intelligence could be put to much better use than giving these absolute idiots the attention they are craving. It might help your blood pressure a little too.

    Have a good day, mate.


    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Thanks, Adam. Very wise words.
      I’ve had an intense email discussion with one of their ringleaders and you’re absolutely right. Every time I disprove something they ignore it completely and move on to the next bit of their “evidence”.

      The only reason I’ve let this consume so much of my time is that I think these people are dangerous because they are attacking the very core of our political system and I don’t think it would be good if there was a permanent small percentage of people who believed this stuff. Besides making it harder to get good policies implemented, It would only be a matter of time before some extreme nutter gets so angry and frustrated with the govt that they decide to blow something up.

      Anyway, I’m just waiting to get some more information from authoritative sources and I’ll put up a couple more articles debunking the rest of their “proof” and then that will be it. At least there will be somewhere on the internet where the counterargument can be found and I will have done my bit.

      Thanks for your support.

    • James:


      • Adam:

        Laugh out loud is precisely what I do when I watch these ridiculous videos. Only a moron would take the claims seriously.

  6. Geoffrey Marks:

    SPQR – Sen?tus Populus que R?m?nus – “The Senate and People of Rome ”

    In regard to the comment “I’m not sure if “the people of Australia” is a valid legal term.
    I thought that if western law was derived from Roman law then this would point to a model that did mention “the people of Rome”, and in turn it was used throughout Europe ie. “the people of (whatever)”.
    So surely the “people of Australia” would be a valid legal term?
    Regardless of this being a republic or constitutional monarchy?

    • Sue Maynes:

      Our system of government began circa 1500 and is a Covenant System. The Covenant System which aspires to a higher authority than Man (one does not necessarily have to be religious to accept this). It originated in Jerusalem and came to Britain via Greece. It gave birth to English Common Law which King Alfred codified in the 9th century and which law was largely incorporated into Magna Carta 1215 (in force 1297) and our parliamentary system of constitutional government. This is a unique heritage as it has been our gift to the Free World upon which the parliaments in the great Dominions and the republic of the United States of America have been founded. This great company of free democratic nations in the world is basically one people at law – a force for stability in the world.

      The Dictatorial System under the Will of the State originated in ancient Babylon and came to Continental Europe via Rome. It gave birth to Roman Civil Law which found expression in dictatorships and revolutions, in particular the French Revolution of 1789. Most of the nations of Continental Europe after World War II had new constitutions and it is the basic dichotomy, or division, between our English Common Law and the European Civil Law that has never been faced in this whole issue of Europe. The Treaty of Rome was designed around the temporary co-operation between France and Germany and Britain is lying on this bed which does not and never will fit, no matter how much deception goes on.

      The Commonwealth of Australia is the contract between the People who live on the landmass of Australia and the constitutional monarch – currently Elizabeth II (her words). Therefore politically, we are the people of the COMMONWEALTH of Aust.

  7. Hagen:

    I have to say that there is definitely something dodgy going on in Canberra, Macquarie St. etc; people like Rob Menard seem to be right; why has a country like Australia got a “national debt” – that makes no sense to me other than in the context of corruption … but, isn’t it all moot in the face of the massive geo and bio engineering going on right in our faces? Unless we stop that we’re all of us fucked.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      National Debt occurs when the government spends more money than it raises in taxes. This doesn’t require corruption – one factor is that politicians want to get re-elected and therefore they don’t increase taxes and don’t reduce expenses.

      Another factor is borrowing for long term infrastructure – like building the Sydney Harbour Bridge. If you build it in one year why should the entire cost of it be paid by the taxpayers of that year? If the bridge is going to be used for the next 50 years then why shouldn’t the taxpayers who will use it in the future pay their fair share of the bridge cost?

      Therefore, to be fair, governments borrow the money and gradually pay it off with the taxes from future taxpayers. That makes a lot of sense doesn’t it?

      • Hagen:

        Yes, I know how national debt (or National Debt) comes about, but it still doesn’t make sense to me, I still don’t understand why – why our national government needs to borrow money (and tax the individual to pay it off) when the simplest way, to my mind, to conduct economics would be issuing currency that only represents physical wealth – why doesn’t the government issue currency and cut out the middle man? That way the tax dollars would go further, wouldn’t they? That way they could spray us with twice the vitamins and endorphins.

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          It may sound like the simplest way but governments don’t do it because it doesn’t work. If it did work then the government could print an extra 5 million dollars for each person in Australia and then just give it to us and none of us would ever have to work again!

          If every country did the same then the entire world population could retire and live like kings!

          Wait a minute – who would collect the garbage, and build my new house? There must be a problem with this theory!

          The problem is it results in hyperinflation (google that).
          And while doing a little bit of it might be ok for a little while the problem is that once you start, it becomes very tempting for politicians to give away free money, and then overseas countries fear the effect of inflation and therefore devalue your currency, which in turn causes greater inflation and thus more temptation for politicians to issue more currency and it becomes a viscous cycle.

          Countries, investors etc don’t trust countries that do that sort of thing and that’s not good for the country.

          • Hagen:

            I admit I’m not the smartest bloke on the block, but I still don’t get it. If everyone produced 5 million dollars worth of goods or services why shouldn’t they be paid 5 million dollars? What if we called “dollars” “calories” instead? I come from good peasant stock and that just seems to make more sense to me because the one thing we all have in common is that we gotta eat. And breathe.

          • Lau Guerreiro:

            If, during a week’s work you currently produce 10 widgets, each worth $100, then next week you will still only produce 10 widgets even if the government pays you $5 million dollars for them.

            That is how hyperinflation occurs – when you produce the same number of goods and services but the government prints more money and gives it to people. People are then able to pay more for each product and therefore sellers put their prices up.

          • Hagen:

            I understand how and why inflation works (hyperinflation being a scale of inflation the same way deflation is) – the number 5 million was completely arbitrary – I just used it because you did – substitute “dollars” for “Turkish lire” and get paid 5 million this week and 5 million every week then there’s no inflation, or?

          • Lau Guerreiro:

            Since it doesn’t matter whether its Lire or dollars lets just keep it simple and leave it as dollars.

            The problem isn’t with getting paid $5 million this week and every week. It’s with getting paid $1000 this week and then being paid $5 million dollars next week, while producing exactly the same amount of goods for sale as last week.

            You have to increase productivity so that there are extra goods available to soak up the extra money available.

            If you don’t increase productivity then it leads to hyperinflation. And people won’t be any better off than they were before the government printed the money, because they’ll still only be able to buy the same quantity of things that they could before, except that now they have to pay much more for them – so there’s no point in doing that.

          • Hagen:

            So fractional reserves and Fed bailouts of Aussie banks helps how?

          • Lau Guerreiro:

            There haven’t been any bailouts of Australian banks.
            Fractional reserves is what EVERY bank in every country uses. Without fractional reserves banks wouldn’t be able to lend any money, they would just have to put all of it in a safe and leave it there.
            How would that benefit the country?

          • Hagen:

            Actually, it’s in the public record now, all of the Big Four took bailout money from the Federal Reserve.

          • Lau Guerreiro:

            Ok I’ve investigated your last comment and the response is worthy of an entire article on its own so please read my response here:

          • Hagen:

            I know this is such a big topic, but there’s one question posed earlier which you’ve forgotten to address, an answer to which would settle the debate for me: why do all Australian Government and State Government departments have ABNs and why do all Australian police forces have ABNs?

          • Lau Guerreiro:

            You can see the NSW Police Force ABN listing here:

            Notice that in the “Entity Type” field it says
            “State Government Entity”!

            Notice that it does NOT say
            “Australian Private Company” or
            “Australian Public Company”.

            If you click “State Government Entity”
            it will take you to this page
            which explains what that term means:

            On that page you can click
            ” > Enity Types >”
            and it’ll take you to this page that
            lists all the possible entity types
            that can have an ABN.


            Notice that is a really easy
            and obvious thing to do,
            yet none of the “experts”
            that have been informing you
            about this subject
            were capable of doing this!

            What does that tell you about them?

            What it tells me about them is that either:

            1) They’re not that smart.


            2) They know about the info I’ve just shown you
            but they don’t want you to know about it.
            Probably because they’re more interested in
            keeping you angry
            and reading their websites
            than they are in telling you the truth.

            Could there be other valid reasons
            why they didn’t tell you what I just told you?
            I don’t think so.

            Another thing the experts could
            easily have done,
            instead of repeatedly raising this ABN question
            in their blogs and
            making up nonsense theories about it,
            is simply to ask somebody
            who can give them the answer
            – such as the NSW police department!

            Boy, what a radical idea – ask your questions
            to someone who can give you a definitive answer
            – what a revolutionary concept!

            I’ve just done the “experts” jobs for them
            – I emailed the NSW Police Force asking why they have an ABN.
            I’ll let you know when I receive an answer.

            Meanwhile, if you’d like to ask
            the Victorian or Queensland Police Forces
            or any other government department
            then please feel free to do so.

            This is what I did:
            1) Google “NSW Police”
            2) Top of the list is their website so I click on that
            3) click on the Contact Us link
            4) Fill in the form with your question!
            For “select which area you wish to contact”
            I selected “Commissioner’s office”.

            This is the question I asked:

            Dear Commissioner,

            I’m a blogger at and I’m doing some research for a series of articles I’m writing which debunk some conspiracy theories that are doing the rounds of the internet.

            These theories claim that the Australian Government is a privately owned company registered in the USA.

            I know these claims are ridiculous and have proved it, (here: ) but one of their supporting pieces of evidence is the fact that the state police departments and other government departments have ABN numbers. They use this to say that therefore they are privately owned, for profit companies.

            Could you please explain to me why the NSW Police Force needs an ABN so that I can include this explanation in my upcoming article.

            Yours Sincerely,
            Lau Guerreiro

            Their website says they
            usually respond within 7 days
            so I’ll post the response
            when I receive it.

          • Lau Guerreiro:

            I suspect that they have an ABN
            so that they can claim back the GST they pay
            on things they buy.

            Even though Its all government money,
            the police departments are state government and the GST is collected by
            the federal government.

            So, I’m guessing that they pay 10% GST
            on most things they buy
            and then claim that money back
            from the federal government.

            This is probably also the reason why
            federal govt departments also have ABN’s
            – even though they’re owned by the government, each department has its own, tight, budget
            and, therefore,
            they need to get the accounting
            exactly right for their department.

          • Hagen:

            That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t escape the fact that these entities are businesses which is, at the very least, a conflict of interest. It really is about the bottom line, not service.

          • Hagen:

            Let’s assume you are right, that the NSW Police Service is not a business, and, fuzzy logic, that having a business number doesn’t mean that it is a business – how is corporate sponsorship of the NSW Police Service justifiable? To me that is a major conflict of interest.

          • Lau Guerreiro:

            Yes, corporate sponsorship of a police force
            could be a conflict of interest.
            I think this is a legitimate issue
            and I support people spending their energy raising this issue and investigating it further.

            This, however, has nothing to do with
            the claim that the government or police forces
            are private companies.

            I’m not up to speed on this issue,
            but I, don’t feel that it’s a big problem,
            because nobody in the police department
            is going to get extra money in their pocket
            as a result of corporate sponsorship.

            And, perhaps, many of the types of crimes
            that corporate sponsors might commit
            probably aren’t the sort of crimes
            that fall under state police jurisdiction
            – they’re more likely to come under
            federal police or ASIC or something like that.
            But don’t quote me on this.

            I fully support you or anyone else in
            pursuing this issue further.

            One of the reasons I spend time
            debunking nonsense about
            the govt being a private company
            is because I believe
            there are many more genuine issues out there
            that truly deserve greater scrutiny
            and people would be doing society
            a greater service by
            spending their energy on those issues.

          • Lau Guerreiro:

            Regarding your comment that they’re “businesses”. I don’t believe that’s true.
            They’re not trying to make a profit.

            The only reason they engage in
            anything that raises funds is because
            the money the government gives them
            (from taxation)
            isn’t enough for them to provide
            the services they would like to
            provide to the public.

            If the government were to increase taxation
            in order to increase their funding then
            they wouldn’t need to engage in
            revenue raising activities.

            Therefore you we have three choices:

            1) Let them carry out revenue raising activities
            in order to provide additional/better services.

            2) Don’t allow them to revenue raise
            and therefore cut their services.

            3) Stop them from revenue raising,
            but increase taxation
            and provide them with more funding
            so they can continue providing
            the same services.

            Then there’s also the issue of
            fairness and user-pays.
            If departments stop charging people
            for some services that are
            only used by a small number of people
            then that means that
            the rest of the taxpayers will now have to
            pay for those services.

            In some cases its fairer on all tax-payers
            to have the departments apply a
            user-pays system
            to some of their services.

          • Lau Guerreiro:

            Here is a link to the NSW Police Force’s Corporate Sponsorship Guidelines.


          • Hagen:

            The Jedi mind trick can’t be used for evil, for very long anyway. Everything Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc did was legal, too.

          • Kevin:

            Lou, you seem like a smart guy. I randomly stumbled onto this “Australia is a company” issue, and frankly it’s fascinating. I think your post is really informative. I hope people take your information to heart when they conduct their research.

            I don’t think, however, that you have applied the same level of effort, though to understanding how the monetary system works. This has been a research topic of mine for the past year or so. I think if you read up on it, you’ll be pretty surprised at what you find. You’re saying things I was saying a few years ago before I knew the whole story.

            The United States has had a handful of different monetary systems through its history. (there are a number of good books on this subject, like “The Monetary History of the US”.) It’s gone back and forth from a privately owned banking system that has a charter to issue money, and the gov’t issuing money.

            Currently, the money system is totally debt based, and back by nothing. The US federal debt securities and the Fed establish the “basis money”. The rest of the money supply (the bulk of money in circulation) comes from fractional reserve lending by commercial banks. The gov’t does actually issue debt-free coinage (this was behind the trillion dollar coin scheme).

            The current incarnation of the debt backed system has its roots in the 1913 founding of the federal reserve system. But it really didn’t become completely detached from gold or silver until 1971.

            During the civil war, the US issued debt free currency, so called “greenbacks”. These notes have the word “United States Note” over the head of the president and have a red seal. There are still a handful of these floating around (not the civil war variety). The typical note in your pocket today is a “Federal Reserve Note”. Silver certificates are also pretty common.

            But today, the vast majority of “money” is created electronically, ex nihilo, by the private banking system. It’s just conjured into existence by a banker and credited to an account.

            People fear the prospect of the gov’t just issuing currency, but completely ignore that the debt based system has failed catastrophically several times. For example, it completely imploded during the great depression. It also basically failed in 1971. Arguably, it is failing right now. And by “failure” I mean, debase the currency to avoid “default”.

            Since the inception of the Fed, we’ve had many recessions and two of the worst depressions in our history. Plus inflation is totally rampant–supposedly the debt based system and its technocrat governors are supposed to prevent all these things.

            You can go off the rails into conspiracy theory land with monetary history to explain how we got here. But the answer is really simple; the current system is in place is because people are total uneducated suckers! It’s people’s effort, time, creativity, skill, and strength that actually creates value, not a bank putting digits in an account. It’s beyond bizarre that we pay a toll to fellow citizens to basically wave a magic wand and make money.

            I think if you read up on the subject, the history will shake up your current view of money.

  8. Hagen:

    Yes, I mean chemtrails.

  9. simon hurford:

    regarding the banks and the “short term loan” you talk about…arent the big 4 in australia owned by some of the biggest banks in the world anyway…who are owned by the same people that own every other major business in the world?…who own the corporations that call themselves governments?…who own the courts and judges?…and by the sound of it ,own you and your site?…so tell me differently about all the major shareholders that own all the reserve/federal banks of the world?…except for those few countries they have not invaded yet..

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      The Australian government owns the Reserve Bank of Australia. And your superannuation funds and insurance companies own large chunks of our banks.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      I’ve just discovered that I can’t be certain that my previous statement:
      “your superannuation funds and insurance companies own large chunks of our banks.”
      is 100% true.

      I’ve discovered this website
      which lists the top shareholders for the 4 major banks.

      It appears that about 40% of all four banks is held by just four corporations: HSBC, J P Morgan, Citicorp, and a subsidiary of the NAB bank.

      But its not that simple! Because those shareholdings are not by those corporations themselves – they’re Nominees holdings. I’m not fully up to speed with what that exactly means, but a reasonably good explanation of it on the same website (here: )
      states that these corporations don’t really own all those shares – they hold them for other shareholders.

      I’ll need to find out what this means, does it mean that it is held for their customers who have managed superannuation funds with them?

      There are a lot of questions to answer about this and I’m not going to jump to conclusions at the moment. I’ll have to investigate this in more detail and write an article about it later.

      It does bring into question the notion that the big 4 banks are in competition with each other. If these 4 major shareholders decide to act as a team then it would be hard for anyone to say that they didn’t have control of all four banks!

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      And if the one “team” controls all four banks, then why would they be interested in competing with each other? They wouldn’t would they?

      Forget about wasting your time and energy on nonsense like the Australian Government being a US registered company being run for the profit of Gough Whitlam and his mates; bringing greater competition into the Australian banking system is a REAL issue that’s worthy of your time.

      • Sandon:

        “And if the one “team” controls all four banks, then why would they be interested in competing with each other? They wouldn’t would they?”

        Suncorp Bank own AAMI (I think) & also own Shannons, These all compete against one another.

        Banks compete against one another for wealth creation through the stock exchange / share market. Oldest business trick in the book.

        For example a large company will sell half of their company to themselves or another company name, to give the illusion that someone else owns the company & is competing with them. They will remodel under the new company name. Most customers have no idea the exact same person / persons own the new supposedly competing company.

  10. Bobby:


    Watch this and comment on it or write an article

    The Money Masters.

    And for some stuff from the 90’s which adds great perspective, The Hour of the time Bill Cooper entire mp3 collection, and the federal reserve from America

    18th Jan 1993

    And look into this….if Australia is legitimately in the Australian peoples hands, why don’t we all receive a dividend from all the resources exported from Australia. We should all have, just by being Australian citizens, an equal amount deposited in each bank account. This is similar to a theory called Social Credit. Look into it….would like to see what you dig up! =)

    Happy hunting!

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Bobby, Have you found anything in my article which is incorrect? Or are you just ignoring the inconvenient truth and changing the subject to something else?
      Sorry, I don’t have time to watch a 3 and a half hour video about the history of the US Federal Reserve – it has nothing to do with this article.

      Regarding citizens receiving dividends from mining:
      1) Name one country that deposits mining dividends into citizen’s bank accounts?
      There are none! Does that mean that all countries are illegitimate?
      2) Mining companies pay royalties (not dividends) to the citizens via the state and federal governments and now they also pay the new mining tax. Plus they pay 30% company tax on all their profits like all companies do.

      Because the companies pay royalties to governments it means that you don’t have to pay as much tax and therefore you have more money in your bank account.
      If you think the mining companies should return more of the profits to the citizens then you should lobby the government to increase the mining tax.

  11. Jim:

    lau is that chinese? do not forget it was a chinaman who said waterboarding is not torture.

    2. lau you have not answered any question about the letters patent of 1900 the proof is on you.

    3. canada watch this 12 year old explain the fraud

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      1. No “Lau” is not Chinese or any other asian nationality.

      What’s waterboarding and torture got to do with anything?

      2. This article was not about the letters patent it was about whether the Commonwealth of Australia is a US registered company. Have you found anything in my article that is incorrect? No? So I take it that you agree with me that Scott Bartle is wrong about this particular point?

      Or are you just going to completely forget that you ever read this article and keep believing the lie?

  12. Bobby:

    Don’t the class A stock holders remain private and unnamed if they wish to? Making it difficult or if not impossible to find out who they are?

    Legitimate question. please be nice

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      The Commonwealth of Australia in NOT a registered company and therefore can not have any shareholders.

      All employers with employees, all business partnerships, all corporations, and other categories of organizations, are REQUIRED to acquire an Employer Identification Number (EIN) from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

      But the listing for the Commonwealth of Australia DOES NOT have an EIN which PROVES it’s not registered as a corporation in the USA.

      Please read my article carefully so that you understand what it’s saying.

  13. Bobby:

    What do you think of Fractional Reserve Banking and compounded interest?

    Do you agree that slavery has existed since ancient times, and now exists in a totally abstract from of endless usury repayments and artificial scarcity??

    Given we have factories now (well china does mainly, ever since we had no idea the Lima declaration was signed in our “best interest”…omg) that can produce any amount to meet all demand, what can be causing this inflation? Does it not come from added cost pressure from debt repayments and environmental social/political interests pushing up power prices, halving the land use for edible food for ethanol production, therefor increasing the price of all food, suppressed and bought out and shelved innovation?

    Have you heard of the historian Carrol Quigley or Antony C Sutton?

    Please save the flaming for a 12 yr old audience who might find it cool…even then, most would see it lame given the severity of the issue, right or wrong.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Fractional Reserve Banking is what EVERY country uses. There is no alternative that is proven to work.

      If you don’t want to be a “slave” to usury then don’t borrow money from the banks – simple as that – you’re in charge of your destiny there.

      If you want to borrow money without becoming a “slave” to usury then find someone who will lend it to you without charging you interest – maybe one of your mates who has the same beliefs as you about usury will lend you some money at no interest? Or you could lend him some of your hard earned cash at no interest?

      I’m sorry that inflation is getting you down, especially since it is at historically low levels now, (do you remember the 70’s and 80’s when inflation was always around 12% ?),
      but this has nothing to do with my article.

      • Sandon:

        Wrong – we do not choose our own destiny at all. We are enforced to do things we do not want to do or be imprisoned or fined etc. We all have to work wherever we can get work to pay to live. That is not being able to choose our own destiny. Being in debt has nothing to do with it. If we did not work, we would die. We also do not have a choice of brain or whether we are born with disabilities or being short and so on. We have no choice whatsoever.

  14. Bobby:

    Your article is blind to how the system use to be, and now argues the current situation is normal…just because you wont go back in time and look at the previous history of banking, and how the government did its original banking operations and pathways for investment, which now, by result of the new situation,we have this corporate entity pathway, never intended by the people of Australia or the constitution, channeling overseas investment. This has been done without referendum and a mandate.

    Why was the commonwealth bank privatised? are you ignoring my points? Funny how Bonds are used to tie hands and feet as well to collect interest, hmm…..

    And…Lau..i know every country uses it( fractional reserve banking)…lol….there has whats been called “sound banking”, or full reserve banking. Surprised you haven’t heard of it. That’s what all banks use to be before the reserve requirement was changed by banking interests inside the governments of EVERY country…especially the UN countries… So you see, your touting false information there. There has been other forms of banking reserve requirements.

    Some short vids…when you have the time…

    What are the cost pressures causing inflation? Please open up a bit on that.
    And slavery….please share some thoughts on ancient slavery to now, you seem to have forgotten to mention it, Lau.

    Watch the doco..The Money Masters..its not hard…an hour b4 bed each night…tisk tisk…wow…come on mate. Lame. Its not just about the, to quote you, “the history of the US Federal Reserve”,but the entire mode and method of current banking and its origins.

    If you used the time effectively and stopped writing B.S you know nothing about, it would be easier for you. When you mature and actually do some real research into banking and its origins, you will realise that all banks are now, since at least the 1850s, have been under the control of private international money lenders. All Central banks of the world are in a system where they connect up with the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). The grand daddy central bank, if you will, that was established after World War One. All information put out about banking has since been through the process of knowledge filtration maintaining the general public’s ignorance about the core of the issue.

    And…um….you started talking about banking, spank your bank etc…. and this goes back to what the your article is trying to disprove/prove, namely that Scott is wrong, Australia is an entity no longer functioning for the best interest of the people it is supposed to represent. So you see, its quite related to your overall argument. Sorry you missed that.

    Some proof you ask?? That Australia in no longer functioning in the best interest and representing the will of the Australian people?? Look at the schedule of the Australian Constitution, the oath the Prime Minister must take to be sworn in as such….compare it to what is said by our current, and some past, P.M’s…i’ll provide you with links….since you’ll avoid it otherwise,,,, <——– the video of Gillard swear in. <———–the oath that should be stated.. Compare….

    And dig into Libya for an idea on how a countries wealth can be used to help education, welfare and housing…and if you lived there during that time… you got it for free! lol. how bout that ay!? He was even going to get an award for it..but…we know what happend there….

    Please don't be offended by my jousting. I'm happy to be proven wrong, or at least have your brain go over the sources i have provided. No doubt you will find something i missed. =)

    1:26 am…work tomorrow, fark. lol… Night.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      I’m sorry Bobby,
      but I don’t have time right now to discuss all of your points,
      and I’ve already deviated away from the topic of this article,
      way more than I should have in this comment thread.

      I’d love to have the time to go through all of the topics you raise
      and research them thoroughly
      and be able to debate you from a highly informed position.

      I suspect that on some points I would agree with you,
      but on the majority I would disagree with you.

      I’m not saying the world’s banking system is fantastic.
      I’m not saying the world is perfect and all politicians are saints
      – definitely not!

      I’ll briefly address a couple of your points:

      – 1)full reserve banking:
      I suggest that before you advocate it that
      you consider both sides of the story.
      Do you know what the likely negative consequences of it will be?
      Most economists say the negatives outweigh the positives
      – what are the negatives?

      2) why the commonwealth bank was privatised?
      Probably because the government wanted some extra cash from the sale.
      And they wanted to free it to raise capital so it can grow etc.

      3) Bonds: I’ve explained that in an earlier reply to someone else.

      4) full reserve banking:
      According to wikipedia:
      “Full-reserve banking was practiced briefly by
      the Bank of Amsterdam in the early 1600s”
      Can you actually name any other countries
      and times when it was used?

      5) Slavery:
      Nobody is a slave in Australia.
      We are all free.
      Nobody forced me to borrow money to buy a house,
      nor on my credit card.
      If you want people to take your other issues seriously
      then I suggest you refrain from making extreme, obviously incorrect,
      statements like that.

      6) The Prim minister’s Oath
      There are two different oaths.
      One that all parliamentarians need to use
      when they are sworn in to the parliament.
      That’s the one whose exact wording is spelt out in the constitution.

      The other one is an additional one used by
      members of the Executive Council, which includes the PM.
      The words of that oath are not spelled out in the constitution.
      It just says they have to swear AN oath
      and therefore that wording can be modified
      without having to change the constitution.

      To return to the main point of this story and the main point of Scot Bartle’s conspiracy theory. Our government is not a private corporation. Nobody has produced the slightest bit of proof of that.

      When you create a company in the USA it is created/registered in a particular state, and when you want to start a new company you have to search that state’s database of companies to find out if the name of the company is already used by somebody.
      The SEC is not that database, its an additional central database solely for the purposes of making it easy for people to find financial information of organisations.

      When a company lists with the SEC, it’s annual return shows both the state that it is registered in and the Employer Identification Number (EIN). For example look at he annual return for Apple:
      Note that the “State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization” is California
      Note that its EIN is 94-2404110

      Now look at the listing for the commonwealth of Australia:

      it has neither a state of registration nor an EIN and the form is a 18K not a 10K.

      So our government is NOT a private US Company!
      Come on, what will it take to get you to admit that?
      Stop changing the subject and admit it!

      Either that or search the databases of all the US states
      and find the registration for the Commonwealth of Australia.

      Come on there are only 50 databases to search.
      You can search one per night.
      And then if you find something you will have definite, irrefutable proof!
      Because now you have nothing.
      Even if you have proof about the banking system, slavery, oaths etc.
      you don’t have anything to show the govt is a private company.

      Come on, admit it!
      Or does it hurt too much to let go of that delicious little lie?

  15. Bobby:

    I’ll be quick.

    No pain, except you fail to see the importance of it all. and your using wikipedia….what the? You know how that site works right?

    Bonds, i’m not “someone else” so your avoiding that again. We the Australian people are guarantor to these loans… more taxes to repay interest anyone?

    There was no mandate to privatise the commomweath bank. illegal.

    No lie is delicious. To you they might be. They are dirty stinking lies!!! slip of the tongue there?

    Our banking system is not in our best interest, and it just seems acceptable to you because you haven’t really looked past all the media hype and controlled opposition to look in between the lines to the implications.

    I’m saying any registry to the SEC system is not needed, and all investment should be done through the private sector, which doesn’t require our Gov. to register with anyone. This a plank of integration by the private international money lenders to get all countries on the same books for ease of accounting and centralised power. So just by this existing, exposes that the system is being incrementally changed over generations to avoid suspicion, and to form a one world corporation/government.

    The government, as in the past with the Trans-Australian Railway, (crossing the Nullarbor Plain) can, similar to a grant process, create the money for all major investment, that adds to productivity and the assets of the nation. For a country like ours, with the man power, resources and knowledge in engineering….we NEVER need money from any private bank/investor to do anything. So for Australia to sell the commonwealth bank cause “government wanted some extra cash from the sale” is quite ridiculous. Money only represents wealth, it isn’t wealth. What would a million bucks buy you in the dessert…or a more far out example, the moon?? Nothing. your would need someone to recognise the notes as representing wealth it can exchange the goods and services for.

    Everything in Australia (gov, the peoples assets) is on the road to being privatised….SO ALL GOV ASSETS ARE BECOMING a corporation. Its called a public/ private ownership…the public picks up the tab for running costs through taxes and consumer (hate that word, to close to cattle for me) interaction, and the private corporation gets all the profits. Please be aware.

    Fractional Reserve banking means a private bank can create money it doesn’t have by book keeping entry, and loan it out… so when a bank runs happen, they will NEVER have all the money they say they have to the people the bank owes it too or in from of deposits. The bank purposely runs in a negative complicity. Goldman Sachs was lending out 300 to 1!!! and then got bailed out!! a lot of people paid interest on the 299. good business if you can get it. Though if you don’t “tow the line”…you might end up like JFK.

    And no. that is the oath that must be stated as written in the constitution, sorry. please provide the documentation that makes you believe otherwise.

    As a side, what form of corruption to you think exists in the world? No rush whatever.

    Thank you for you continued effort and replies.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      I’m putting together an article explaining the two oaths
      and am just waiting for the
      Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
      to get back to me with the answer to a minor question.

      So hopefully, I’ll post the article next week.

      Regarding what corruption I think exists in the world:
      A lot.
      See my responses to Peter’s questions below
      for what I think would
      get rid of a lot of corruption
      and make the world a better place.

  16. Peter:

    Would it be fair to say there is really nothing wrong with our system of government , its not perfect , but if it aint broke why fix it !

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Churchill said:
      “democracy is the worst form of government
      except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.

      People who want to change the system of government
      have to think through all the consequences
      of the proposed new system of government.

      It’s easy to point out the deficiencies in the current system
      and point to the benefits of the proposed system.

      But proponents of change need to also
      point out the benefits of the current system
      and the deficiencies of the new system!

      And then to show that on the whole the new system would be better!

      They need to show that they have thought it through thoroughly.
      We don’t want to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

      • Balmung:

        Lau, you are such a fucking child. Firstly, Churchill was a pederast. Second, the System is working perfectly, exactly as designed i.e. to fuck everyone in the arse. And lastly, all forms government are communist. All “authority” is illegitimate and immoral. Get some Larken Rose into ya. And grow the fuck up.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      If I was to make a change to our system of government
      it would be something to do with
      making it easier for people to be more informed
      about the pro’s and cons of issues being debated in parliament.

      More and more it is all about the 10 second sound bite for the news,
      and dumbing down debate.
      It’s too easy for politicians to
      deceive the public with scare tactics
      and misrepresent facts.

      They should be forced to back what they say
      with facts that can be independently checked.

      There should be an independent website
      where all political parties post their policies
      and all statements they make to the media
      with links to proof that back what they say.

      The public should be able to point out lies etc.
      There would have to be independent moderators
      (perhaps selected like juries are)
      to cull the comments so that only those that
      genuinely add something new will remain,
      so it doesn’t get overwhelmed with nonsense and spin.

      Those that are culled will always remain in the archive
      so that the public can still view them if they wish
      so that they can verify that no undue censorship is happening.
      There should be an appeals process
      so author’s of culled comments can appeal
      to have their culling reviewed.
      The public should be able to see all appeals.

      The arguments would be structured logically into point forms
      so that each point can have comments for and against.
      Eventually the moderators or “people’s judges” would be
      able to issue verdicts on certain points – as true or false
      or partially true.

      Such a system would cause the politicians to self-censor
      because they would know that there’s no point in lying
      because their lies will be found out and recorded for ever.

      There could also be a running tally
      of the number of false statements each politician has made
      – and a “trustworthiness badge” allocated.
      Politicians with no lies get a green badge,
      those with less than x lies in the last year
      get an orange badge
      and those with more than x lies in the last year
      get a red badge.

      Then media outlets could show
      the colour of the politicians badge
      next to their name whenever they appear on television.
      That would get politicians to stop lying quick smart!!


        here here, well said

      • Rabbitnexus:

        We’re in 2021 now and while it is definitely way off topic, this comment caught my attention for relevance today. With this COVID “Pandemic” what you propose would have been vastly superior to what we get.Which is mandates based at one time on projections but which have only become more strict and encroaching on our freedom as time goes by. There are no challenges allowed, the official pronouncements from organisations like the WHO and the CDC in the USA, which is source for our actions here, have however changed. On the whole backing off from the early extreme projections and reversing their advice on things like masks and lock-downs. Yet governments are not altering their course and not even professionals in medicine and medical science, virology and micro-biology are able to challenge anything and if they try face censorship and loss of jobs, licences etc. This is anti-science, which has as a bedrock principle openness to review and challenge, questions and rebuttals. We are given no sources scientific for mandates which fly in the face of our laws, constitution and international treaties. The government is clearly operating in a conspiracy with certain billionaires and organisations they own/control to force people into accepting a dangerous and pointless experimental vaccine and they have suppressed a cheap and effective cure (quinine and zinc) in order to make such a ‘vaccine’ viable. No approval would be forthcoming if the cure existed. Which it does, discovered in 2005 via SARS research quinine and zinc are a miraculous cure for all corona viruses. Adding azithromycin for serious cases makes this 100% effective. This is all supported by science, so too very good reasons for people to be wary of a ‘vaccine’ with a horrifying history in 50 years of failed trials. The entire scenario does have the appearance of a corporation and not a government of by and for the people. Our common law is totally ignored and even our legislated laws have ceased to function. Nobody seems likely to be held to account for the virtual destruction of civilization. Whether a corrupt government or corporation run amok the system is broken from humanity’s point of view and is clamping down on what we know as freedom. Rights we took for granted have become arbitrary ones to be given or taken away by those who masquerade as elected/ Yet if that was true, why is it always the same people, the same families and professions who fill the seats? How does a two party system or defacto one, one of which we all have, represent an entire society from any size nation? It cannot, it is a placebo. we have the illusion of choice but really we have none.

        In practice, whatever the source material one consults, we do not have government in the format which we presume.Those presumptions reflect the democratic ideals with which we’ve been indoctrinated yet the current political system does not resemble them in any way. I think whatever you believe about our system, whatever documents exist to inform this view, do not correspond to reality all the same. This should become even more obvious before long.

        I like your suggestions on how to improve our system but, who is going to be the arbiter of “FACTS” and truth? Today we have many “fact checkers” but in truth these are all com promised lie factories. The governments have spread lies and about half the country believes them to be gospel truth, based on their trust in authority and lack of curiosity. The other half are strenuously opposed and call out for lies so much taken for granted. Nobody who is wedded to the authoritarian model cares to look to the side, they do not care that so many are disenfranchised, nor what they have to say if it does not stay in accord with the authority given narrative. So who would arbitrate truth?

        I’d add my own favorite change. One to ensure that men can profit but not become so powerful they can curtail the rights of others. It is one thing to be a multi-millionaire. Another thing altogether when someone has enough money to buy and sell countries. Treat citizens of those countries as livestock, which is what we’re facing now. I would have a wealth cap of say $100 million. Enough for an island and private jet, but not enough to undermine democracy and human rights. It is too late now. Maybe next time humanity rises from the ashes of what is to come, we can consider it.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      As for the financial system:

      I think the biggest problem is tax havens.
      They are depriving governments of tax revenue
      that should be being paid by the rich
      thus putting a greater tax burden on the poor.

      They also allow criminals like drug dealers
      and illegal arms dealers to operate their businesses.

      They also make it very easy for politicians to
      receive bribes.

      There is no good reason why non-tax-haven countries
      should allow tax-havens to exist!

      Non-tax-haven countries should impose
      trade embargoes and financial embargoes
      on tax haven countries.

      Governments should ban all companies
      who operate in their own country,
      and all individuals
      from having any financial dealings
      with tax-haven countries.

      The solution is going to have to be
      more complicated than this
      but I’m sure that if the world wanted to do this
      we could figure out a way to make it work.

  17. Darren:

    I havent read every comment so i hope this hasnt been addressed as yet. Ok so you say Commonwealth of Australia (COA) is not a corporation registered in the U.S. Ok lets say that is true for the moment, then why is COA a registered corporation in Australia with an ABN (Australian BUSINESS number), why is COA a registered business in Australia… So firstly there needs to be a referendum to ask the peoples permission to operate as a corporate business and not as Government… the law states the Government cannot be a corporation…. So why is it? Is this not the most blatant corruption and disregard for the people? Who runs the Government? The people or the puppets employed by the World Bank and their cronies? Forget about the US Security Exchange, what about ABN 122 104 616 which is the Australian BUSINESS number as well as these;
    The State of New South Wales ABN 066561153
    The State of Victoria ABN 054558619
    The State of Queensland ABN 066 102930
    The State of South Australia ABN 050208921
    The State of Western Australia ABN 072526008
    The State of Tasmania ABN 053201308
    The Trustees of Northern Territory Government ABN 09059854’

    So lets understand firstly whats happening in Australia before we even look at whats happening internationally? Please debunk this if you state the U.S. claim is wrong… No matter how you look at it there is corruption running rampant from State and Federal Governments being registered business’s to not being able to rebut Scotts claims… Why dont the government just explain to him why they are ‘legal’ and above board as they project??? Why arnt the Australian Customs the Customs and alike a legal entity as prescribed in the constitution? Why cant government departments validate themselves when challenged??? Forget about America, what happening in our back yard? So yeah lets say you are right about the US exchange… What about everything that is ‘not quite right’ going on in Australia????

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      If Scot is wrong about the government being registered as a US company,
      what makes you trust any of his other claims?

      It isn’t just “companies” that can have an ABN.
      Many types of entities can, including not-for-profit organisations.

      Here is a list of all the types of organisations that can register for an ABN.
      Note than many of them are government organisations.

      Why have an ABN?
      The main reason for having an ABN is so that you don’t have to pay more GST than you should.
      Whenever an organisation sells something they charge GST.
      Whenever they buy something (like photocopy paper) they pay GST.
      At the end of the month you subtract the GST you paid from the GST you received and what’s left is the GST that the organisation has to pay to the federal government.

      The state governments don’t charge GST on many things
      but they do have to pay GST on things they buy.
      So in order to claim back the GST they paid to the Federal govt
      they need to have an ABN.

      Why can’t govt departments validate themselves?
      How many constitutional lawyers do you think the Customs Department employs?
      I’d guess they employ none!
      And therefore they don’t have anyone who is able to do that sort of thing.
      And how would they prove it to you?
      If everything was above board and legit, what exactly would they show you that would satisfy you?
      If you ask someone a question, you can’t know if they are wrong unless you know what the correct answer is.

      Their website has this page about where they derive their authority:

      and this page with further details about the relevant legislation.

      Is that sufficient for you?
      If not then why not? What is wrong with it?

  18. Jenni:

    No you are not making sense and Scott has so much more creditability than you ever will fool ok so you say the Australian government and all the different facts of the Government are not corporations then why do they all have ABN numbers Government are not for profit and there to govern the county for the people yet they repeatedly alter the Constitution with out a referendum incase you didn’t know this is treason.
    Your are nothing more than a government troll trying to discredit good honest hard working Aussie who are waking up to the bull shit that is Government.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      It isn’t just “companies” that can have an ABN.
      Many types of entities can, including not-for-profit organisations.

      Here is a list of all the types of organisations that can register for an ABN.
      Note than many of them are government organisations.

      Why have an ABN?
      The main reason for having an ABN is so that you don’t have to pay more GST than you should.
      Whenever an organisation sells something they charge GST.
      Whenever they buy something (like photocopy paper) they pay GST.
      At the end of the month you subtract the GST you paid from the GST you received and what’s left is the GST that the organisation has to pay to the federal government.

      The state governments don’t charge GST on many things
      but they do have to pay GST on things they buy.
      So in order to claim back the GST they paid to the Federal govt
      they need to have an ABN.

  19. Pushbutton:

    Hi Lau

    You have the patience of a saint. It is obvious from your article that the Commonwealth of Australia is not a corporation and you have proved Scott wrong on this point. My understanding is that the Commonwealth Bank loaned monies to the Government to fund WW1. This saved them from borrowing at higher rates from overseas. So fractional reserve lending can work for the people. Unfortunately we have now sold the farm and ownership is now concentrated. As you rightly stated this is problem. Scott and others are too focused on the structural problems rather than the people problems. Our system relies on individual moral integrity. This is in steep decline and no structure can stand when people give themselves over to evil.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Thanks Pushbutton. It’s nice to hear a supporting comment for a change.

  20. Robert:

    Hi Lau,
    I have read your article and all comments and there seems to be a lot of confusion as to who is right. Whether the Commonwealth of Australia is a corporation or not is a big issue and needs clarification.

    Back to the EDGAR search, what does the U.S securities and exchange commission stand for? You have stated “Scott claims that because the “Commonwealth of Australia” is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the USA, it proves that it’s a private corporation registered in the USA. This is so wrong that its not funny!”

    Is U.S the same as USA or America or is it just United States or a corporation? Please clarify.
    Don’t assume anything that any government site or corporation masquerading as government publish. Investigative journalism goes to the very core stop assuming. This day and age so called investors as you put it could easily find information from our government site. It doesn’t wash with me that it makes it easier, that’s just nonsense. There’s more to it that just that but we will never know.

    If the Commonwealth of Australia is legitimate then why drop the “Commonwealth of” off our dollar notes. This was done in 1973 when the Royal styles and Titles act 1973 (cth) was passed. Why this change?

    Letters patent is also of major concern although you incorrectly state they are of no concern. These can only be issued by the current monarch which was never done in 1953 when she assumed the role. A legitimate government would have the great seal of England as to define that laws have been established with the consent of the monarch under this seal. You fail to see that the seal of Australia is not with the monarch’s consent and these are made without consent of the monarch.

    As for the oaths taken, why the hell are politicians swearing allegence to a foreign queen? Is that not treason? The high court has declared the UK is a foreign nation according to our constitution. I don’t think they would be swearing this allegence if they thought our constitution was valid so it only follows that they are not a legitimate government.

    I recall a fellow by the name of Hicks locked up like a rabid dog that our government allowed claiming he was alligned with a foreign power. Who do these people think they are!

    Lau you stated “You are not in a business relationship with the government – you are bound by the laws of the country regardless of whether you agree with them or not.
    Imagine if people were only bound by laws that they agreed with! Murderers, rapists, theives, con-men wouldn’t agree with any of those laws would they? Is that what you want? I don’t!”

    You can’t be serious, where’s the proof that anyone is compeled to be bound by anyone, and that includes government. You have not thought this through…more assumptions. Murderers, rapists, thieves, con men all do harm and breach natural law/common law. That is just a ridiculous statement.

    Anyway my question is if we are all created equal then what compels anyone to follow any man made statutes except what is commonly known as natural law, do no harm.
    Why do we assume that we have to pay tax for instance, were we born slaves and have to comply with what ever our masters demand? Where is the proof that we are owned? Lau can you please show me where this evidence exists?

    Lau you have also asserted that we pay lower taxes but have not addressed as to why we are compeled to pay these in the first place. If the government is not legitimate how would you feel about parting with your hard earned money to a corporation?

    As for your love of the country and our great democracy please define how we have a democracy. We have a 2 party dictatorship and that’s it. If you don’t agree then tell me when “tow the party line” has not been implemented and the other elected representatives have told the PM to go fuck themselves. No one wanted carbon tax except for 1 dictator.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Hi Robert,
      Thanks for taking the time to make a detailed comment.

      1 ) Regarding your question: “Is U.S the same as USA or America or is it just United States or a corporation?”

      To me these are all equivalent: U.S, U.S.A, United States, United State of America.
      They all refer to the country.
      I don’t use “America” as it’s a continent.

      2 ) Regarding “so called investors as you put it could easily find information from our government site”:
      I disagree. The investors are in the USA
      and they don’t know all of the government sites
      of all the countries in the world.

      Why not make it easier for them?
      Is there a good reason to NOT make it easier for them
      by putting the info on the same site
      as they look for other financial info?
      What is the harm in making it easier for them?

      If you think its so easy then
      why don’t you try to find the same info on the Australian govts website?
      and post a link here
      and tell me how easy it was to find,
      and what you entered into Google to find it.
      (And remember that Google returns different search results
      depending on where you are located,
      so people in Australia will be shown Australian sites
      in preference to US sites
      but the reverse is the case if you live in the USA.)

      3 ) Regarding dropping “Commonwealth of” from our money:
      They did it to make it shorter.
      It doesn’t make any difference what is printed on the notes.
      It isn’t the words “Australia” or “Commonwealth of Australia”
      that make it legal tender.
      They could replace it with “Pluto” if they wanted to
      and it would still be legal tender.

      4 ) Regarding the oaths:
      You ask “why the hell are politicians swearing allegiance to a foreign queen? Is that not treason?”

      Section 42 of our constitution says they have to do it.
      And Yes UK is a foreign country,
      but they don’t swear allegiance to the Queen of the UK
      they swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia.

      The Queen has many “jobs”.
      Each country in the commonwealth has its own monarchy
      and Elizabeth is the head of all 15 of them.

      When we become a republic,
      they’ll stop swearing allegiance to her.

      You make the opposite complaint to most
      “people that think the govt is illegitimate” (aka fakegovters)
      – most complain because they think
      Gillard DIDN’T swear allegiance to the Queen.

      5 )Regarding being bound by laws:
      I’m afraid you are confused about what “common law” is…
      it is not the same as “natural law”.

      “Common law” refers to the law that is created
      as a result of judges’ decisions in courts.

      The Constitution gives the government the power to make laws.
      Sometimes the laws passed by govt (statute law)
      are a little ambiguous
      or don’t cover every possible circumstance,
      so when court cases arise which fall between these cracks then
      the judges have to interpret the law and make a ruling.
      These rulings then become “precedents”
      and these precedents are like little additions to the law
      – they become part of “common law”.

      Every few years the govt may take some of the new “common law”
      that has been added recently
      and add it into the statute law
      so that anyone wanting to know what the law is
      can read it all in one place
      and not have to be aware of many obscure court cases.

      “natural law” does not exist – it is wishful thinking.
      People use “natural” law to imply that it is
      universal and beyond doubt.
      What proof can you give me to demonstrate that there is
      any such thing as “natural law”, where is it written?
      “Natural” to who?
      What you consider natural law in one country
      may not apply in another country
      or not have applied 300 years ago.
      So it changes with culture and time,
      so how “natural”/universal can it be?

      6 ) Regarding where there is proof that we are owned ( and have to pay taxes)
      It sounds like you don’t think we should have
      a constitution, or a government.
      If the government is not to make laws
      then what is it for?
      If the government can not collect taxes
      then who will pay for it to operate?
      Who will pay for the services that it provides?
      Roads, defense, police, courts, hospitals, fire brigade,
      unemployment benefits, prisons, pensions, emergency services,
      embassies, diplomatic staff, customs, child protection services,
      disability benefits, libraries?

      Sounds like you don’t want to pay for any of that?
      Do you want to go back to living in anarchy?
      We’ve been there done that
      and over many centuries we’ve learnt that
      life is better when we have laws that everyone is bound by.

      7) Regarding democracy:
      We have democracy. You get to cast a vote.
      And if you don’t like the choices available for who to vote for then
      you and your mates can set up an alternative party.
      That’s what democracy is all about.
      How else would you do it?
      Do you want to introduce a law that says
      there must be minimum of 10 parties to choose from?
      Even then, what would stop 2 of them from
      becoming very popular and dominating the parliament?
      Do you want to have a law that says
      we have to have 10 parties and they each must have
      the same number of seats in the parliament?
      Then you wouldn’t need to vote!
      That’d be the opposite of democracy!

      If you don’t think that what we have is democracy then what is?
      How would you do it?
      And please think through the practical implications
      and explain what it would actually look like after implementation.
      How many parties would there be?
      And how would you stop 2 parties from
      becoming vastly more popular than all the others?

  21. Robert:

    Hi Lau,
    Thank you for your quick response but you surprised me as I thought some research (maybe a lot) was required before you replied.
    I believe deep down you have good intentions but are extremely ignorant of history, the constitution and quite frankly just about everything. I have pondered your responses in disbelief and I have tried to see it from your point of view but unfortunately I can’t stick my head that far up my arse.

    1. You state that the U.S. and there acronyms are all equivalent and refer to the country and you don’t use America as it is a continent. Is this researched fact or just your opinion. Just think about those statements for a second.
    If they were all the same then why would you have the need for all these variations and the actual continent where the land mass commonly known as the United States of America exists is known as North America.

    2. You answered this question yourself without realising it. Do you honestly think investors do the leg work themselves or do you think they have paid employees analysing this for them. The main point here is why doesn’t our so called government publish the same information on the Australian government website yet it is willing to publish our financial records and forecasts on a foreign nations website? You don’t think that is a bit peculiar. I could also ask you the same question regarding Australian investors, do they have to go to a US website to acquire information about our country, how absurd.

    3. Regarding dropping “Commonwealth of” from our money and your response was… they did it to make it shorter. I have only just now stopped laughing at this very informative insight. Money as you refer to doesn’t matter if Pluto was printed on it, it would still be legal tender. Well once our currency had written on it “Legal tender in the Commonwealth and in all Territories under the control of the Commonwealth” now it just reads “This Australian note is legal tender throughout Australia and it’s Territories”. Notice how it is now not under the control of the Commonwealth. Take $100 to your local bank and ask them what you can redeem it for or better still ask your local member of parliament and who controls it.

    4. You failed to answer this one but please do some research on the Letters Patent and the Royal Styles and Titles Acts of 1953 and 1973 and you may be enlightened as to why they are extremely important. Any law created under the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 must have royal assent which is accomplished via the letters patent issued by the monarch. Non response to a question doesn’t make it disappear.

    5. This is a puzzling response as you have stated as to why they have to swear allegiance to a foreign queen. Your answer was Section 42 of our constitution says they have to do it. And Yes UK is a foreign country, but they don’t swear allegiance to the Queen of the UK they swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia.
    Oath of the constitution reads; I A.B, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me god.
    (Note – The name of the King of Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Brittan and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time)
    I could ramble on for ages on this topic but for starters your correctly state they swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia. So where in our constitution can I find the Queen of Australia? You know that I can’t because one doesn’t exist. This Queen of Australia is a fictional creation by politicians but I get the impression that you only believe whatever is on government web sites and also the Queen of the UK. Do you also know that the Queen is only in her role through an act of the British parliament titled the Act of Settlement 1701 (uk) and therefore is subordinate to the British parliament.

    6. You also failed to address this question and sighting what Wikipedia classes as information is laziness. Common Law is not Judge made law it is the judgements of particular cases that is used for precedents. It derives from the common men sitting in judgement commonly known as a jury whose verdicts decide right from wrong. Would you not think it preposterous to allow a non-elected official such as a Judge to arbitrarily make decisions and expect this to now be law? Several Judges tried this many years ago and the then king hung them. Have you ever heard of the Magna Carta? Common Law was/is the starting point and all laws derive their heritage from this.

    7. Once again you dodged the question regarding the proof that we are owned you only offer your opinion. Find it for me where anyone can make a claim that we must submit to the demands of someone else.
    The government was formed according to the constitution to serve the people not make demands from them. They can make laws for peace, order and good government. As you point out who will pay for the services and as for taxation, well everyone pays taxes on everything already through GST. When you have a government that wants to force (and I mean force through threatening monetary penalties or gaol) its arbitrary laws onto the people they are supposed to protect and serve something is extremely wrong.
    If you have read the annotated constitution page 793 states “The Constitution of the Commonwealth is the Federal Constitution; it establishes a government of limited and enumerated powers. The Federal Parliament is not, like the British Parliament, sovereign; it is not even, like the Parliament of the colonies before Federation, invested with powers which, within its territorial jurisdiction, are practically sovereign; its authority is limited to specified subjects.”
    Therefore the making of laws upon laws and taxes upon taxes is not good government, more like a tyrannical bunch of thieving crooks.

    8. Do you think we really have a democracy, the government will tell you that but what we really have is a republic with a dictator and we have had this for a long time! When is sending our troops to kill so called terrorists that have not invaded this country in the name of democracy democratic? Not to mention the countless number of women and other peoples children that they have slaughtered in the name of democracy. A democracy is when 51% decide to kill the other 49%.
    If you have ever read the constitution there were never any political parties, never any mention of a prime minister, premiers and the governor general had the control of the military. Howard’s decision to support Bush and Blair was that democratic or arbitrary?
    All of this could only have been achieved if the politicians are not under the constitution, can’t you see this? If they were then they have all committed treason.
    There is no doubt that the people of this country deserve their own constitution, one that they have full input into and fully endorse. No allegiance to a foreign power or foreign nation or a fictional queen that doesn’t exist. Self-determination deciding how we choose to live, what laws we want that is beneficial for all, not penalising and instilling fear in everyone, no wars unless in self-defence as we know government Intel from foreign nations is just a bunch of lies. We need to look after our own people first and that means every one of them before a single cent spent on government perks.

    Nice chatting with you Lau, debates are healthy and can be enlightning but the bottom line is we all want the truth and it is very frustrating when we don’t get it and are constantly lied to.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Hi Robert,

      1 ) The official name of the country is United States of America,
      which is a mouthful so people shorten it to United States.
      U.S.A and U.S are the respective acronyms.

      As stated in Wikipedia: (
      America usually refers to either:
      – the Americas, a landmass comprising North and South America
      – The United States of America, a country in North America

      Laughing at the messenger does not negate the information
      that the messenger brings.
      I often link to Wikipedia so that I don’t have to
      reproduce great slabs of information in my own post,
      and also to demonstrate that
      I’m not making up the information that I’m putting forward.

      While Wikipedia is not always correct,
      it’s ridiculous to to dismiss everything it says as if it’s all crap.
      A recent study by Nature magazine showed that
      Wikipedia is only slightly less accurate than the Encyclopedia Britanica.
      Would you laugh at an entry from the Encyclopedia Britanica?

      In any case, you need to
      refute the actual statements being put forward by wikipedia,
      not just laugh at wikipedia.
      Laughing at the messenger is a classic tactic
      used by people that can’t refute what the messenger is actually saying.
      It’s called ad hominem fallacy.

      2 ) It’s to make it easier for the investors’ “paid employees”.
      And not all investors have paid employees,
      especially in the USA where many people manage their own superannuation funds.
      In any case, putting the info on the SEC does not “prove” anything.

      3 ) If they changed the printing on all notes so that it once again said
      “Legal tender in the Commonwealth and in all
      Territories under the control of the Commonwealth”
      and you took it to the bank and asked what you could exchange it for,
      would they give you a different answer than they would now?
      Therefore the words on the paper are irrelevant to your claim.

      You have also completely misunderstood the meaning of the old writing
      “Legal tender in the Commonwealth and in
      all Territories under the control of the Commonwealth”
      means that it’s legal in Australia
      and legal in “all Territories under the control of the Commonwealth”.
      It does NOT mean its legal in “Australia and all Territories”
      and that the money is “under the control of the Commonwealth”.

      4 ) You only think there’s a problem with the letters patent because
      you don’t believe that a monarch
      (or whoever is ultimately responsible for the monarchy)
      has the power to split their kingdom into several smaller kingdoms.

      How absurd is it to say that if I am the supreme power/owner of a kingdom
      that I can’t split it up?
      Especially if it is done with the agreement of all the governments in my kingdom
      (as it was)?
      If I have a kingdom that includes the UK, Australia and Canada,
      why can’t I split it up into 3 kingdoms if all 3 countries agree to it?
      It would be absurd not to be able to do that wouldn’t it?
      They could even have chosen to split it into separate kingdoms
      and put different people as the head of each
      – her brothers and sisters, for example.

      5 ) As. above for 4)
      Here’s a question for you:
      What would happen if the people of the UK decided to become a republic?
      Would that automatically force Australia
      and all other commonwealth countries to become republics?
      According to you the answer should be yes.
      But in reality the answer is no, because they are all separate kingdoms.

      6 ) Precedents aren’t usually set by juries
      – they’re usually set in the High Court which does not have a jury.

      7 ) You show me the proof that we are “owned”.

      8 ) Where in the constitution does it say that
      the elected members of our parliament can’t decide when our country goes to war?

      You haven’t answered any of my questions regarding
      what your new democracy would look like.
      How would it be practically implemented?

      You’ve just made a bunch of “motherhood statements”
      about government being for the people etc.
      Yes I agree with all that.
      But can you come up with something that is different to what we have
      that actually works better
      and manages to avoid the problems of the current system?

      Motherhood statements are just wishful thinking.
      You need to identify each problem with the current system
      and then specify how your new system will avoid that problem
      – you need to think of all the possible ways that
      people could get around or subvert your new system
      and show that you have plugged all the loopholes
      and that there won’t be any unintended consequences.

      It’s very easy to complain about the problems,
      but it’s much, much harder (and sometimes impossible)
      to come up with a better solution.

  22. Having just read the commentaries about the documentary “What the FUQ” I feel that the focus should be to congratulate Scott on his efforts to expose the extreme corruption that exists within the halls of all of the so called governments of the land mass called Australia. When a layman watches this documentary what stands out is the fact that the bureaucrats that Scott was rightfully corresponding with where unable to answer the questions that he was asking. If the Customs and Excise people were authorised under section 51 of an Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia then why not answer his request and why not answer the question relating to the registration of entities called the “Parliament of Australia”, Commonwealth of Australia. It would have so easy to answer these questions but instead they did not.
    Having studied the law in Australia and England I can assure the reader that under an Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia the people calling themselves our representatives are all committing misprision of Treason and in fact the criminal called Julia Gillard was charged with misprision of Treason and the illegal DPP under an inconsistent law took over the prosecution and had the charge struck off without a valid reason in law.
    There has also been a substantiation of the ABN with respect to many government entities and employee’s as being under an obligation to the GST. Please all those that are taking part in this discussion read section 55 of an Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia and you will note that the GST is unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
    With regard to the money problem then please read section 115 of an Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia and please ask yourself where the gold and silver is to back up the notes that are being printed and distributed by the banks.
    An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 63&64 Queen Victoria 1900 brought in some fundamental facts that are not being adhered to by those in the “government” .
    All parliaments from Federation onwards are Constitutional and not Sovereign, so they cannot just bring about any legislation , the need the people of Australia to approve of any law not described in the laws of England or Australia.
    From Federation onwards the emphasis should have been to make sure that an Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 63&64 Queen Victoria 1900 be a compulsory subject in all of our schools that way assuring a well educated public when it comes time to have a referendum under section 123 and 128..
    Please look at a High Court case Moelecker v Chapman 2001 where the Australian Taxation Office was found to be a non-entity. Alarm bells should have gone off country wide but no,, barristers and solicitors were threatened by their own law institute if they pursued the case any further and then the following year Dooney v Henry gave the GST legitimacy through the interpretation of the High court judge sitting in that case.
    We the people must wake up and start asking questions just like Scott did and the responce from those who should know better inspired the documentary. We the people have a responsibility to the law and in fact when you read a little book called “Your Will be Done” by Arthur Cresby you will see that we need to hook up with the elected representatives in our parliaments and express “our will” and that that will override any party political policy that stands between the Sovereign people and the servant .
    There have been some very good comments brought about here but please lets all work together and start encouraging our neighbours to do the same as an Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia belongs to the people and allows the people to keep government in their prospective place.
    By the way the Commonwealth is a Political Union under Ephisians 2/12 of the King James Bible as described in the annotation of an Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 63 & 64 Queen Victoria 1900. As such Sue v Hill High Court is void as it describes England as a foreign power.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Why hasn’t the customs department validated itself to Scott?

      1 )
      How do you know he has even asked them the question?
      How do you know they haven’t given him an answer?
      How do you know he isn’t making it all up?

      How many constitutional lawyers do you think the Customs Department employs?
      I’d guess they employ none!
      And therefore they don’t have anyone who is able to do that sort of thing.

      They have answered Scotts question on their website:

      Is that sufficient for you?
      If not then why not?
      What is wrong with it?

      If you think that the answer provided
      on the above-mentioned web pages is insufficient
      then what would be sufficient?

      Imagine, for a moment, that everything had been done legally,
      as you would have liked for it to be done
      and you asked that legitimate Customs department
      to prove they are legitimate
      then how would that legitimate Customs department prove their legitimacy to you?
      Would they be able to do it to your satisfaction?
      Or would they be in the same situation as the current Customs department?

      If you think that the above-mentioned pages are insufficient
      then you need to spell out exactly
      what they should be able to present in order to authenticate themselves.

      What pieces of paper should they be able to show you that would satisfy you?

      This is a very serious question.
      Don’t just ignore it.

      If someone gives you an answer to your question
      and you say the answer is wrong
      then you must be able to say what is wrong with their answer
      and what the right answer should look like.

      Scott doesn’t even try to do this,
      neither have you
      nor has anyone else who makes these claims.

      Do you get the point?
      Tell me exactly what is wrong with the answers they have given you here:

      If you can’t do that then why are you telling me their answer is wrong?
      It doesn’t make sense to do that, does it?

      • Tets:

        I noticed one thing, which is that you failed to address the High Court Case (Moeliker v Chapman 2000) where Stephen Chapman, Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (I believe that is the correct title) stated “The ATO is not a legal entity.”

        I believe the ACSII has the HC transcripts. Unfortunately, the 1st page/link is no longer available but if you read through the remainder of the proceedings (afaik the two court sessions after the 1st was adjourned) still make some clear mentions of the ATO not being a legal entity.

        Your logic appears sound but perhaps the ‘ignorant’ part of me yearns for more research and possibly an unbiased opinion. Maybe thats just my way of refering to you as a possible Shill.

        I very well might be wrong… but I would certainly like to hear your arguments regarding the Moeliker v Chapman case!

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          Thanks for your comment Tets,
          The purpose of my article was to deal with the core allegation that the Commonwealth government has been DELIBERATELY set up by criminals and fraudsters for the purpose of siphoning off profits into their bank accounts.

          Legislation is complicated, and the people who draft it aren’t infallible, sometimes they make mistakes!

          So yes, some mistakes may have been made in the drafting of legislation and Moeliker v Chapman may have highlighted one of those mistakes.

          But are you saying that the “mistake” was not a “mistake” and was actually a well thought out strategy devised by a group of criminal politicians for the purposes of personal profit?

          Surely that doesn’t make sense does it? If they were drafting legislation then why wouldn’t they draft a legislation that couldn’t be shot down in court? Who would benefit from drafting a flawed legislation and how?

          If you can explain to my who the people where that were involved in drafting the flawed legislation and how they benefited, and why they wouldn’t have been better off to draft legislation without the flaws then I’d love to hear it.

          My position is that this issue highlights a technical flaw in the system. The vast majority of people agree that we (as individuals and as a country) are far better off with taxation than without taxation. While everyone prefers to pay slightly less tax, there are very few people who think that we would be better off if nobody paid any tax.

          The “spirit” and intent of the law is clear and the overwhelming majority of people agree with it. Most people would agree that the people who are the “criminals” and of dubious moral fibre are the ones who are endeavoring to use technical loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

          • Tets:

            Unfortunately I don’t have the opportunity currently to address all of your points but I will address as much as I can.

            We should pay tax; road tax is one I can think of that we all need and use.

            There are many other taxes that I’m positive the majority of people would agree to pay for the benefit of keeping our infrastructure going and ‘system’ going.

            However, certain taxes, take for instance the Carbon Tax, instituted by a foreign agency, is not only unconstitutional but also could be considered criminal. The fact Gillard (here ins Australia for instance) simply steamrolled the tax on her population implies a lack of true democracy, suggesting perhaps we’ve truly entered the post-democratic era.

            As for our politicians being criminals… well, criminals tend to be the most ambitious and there a multitudes of people that trick others in a variety of ways. Politics, ever since I was a small boy, seemed a particularly immoral and untrustworthy profession. While there are certain politicians worthy of some respect (take Ron Paul for instance), anyone with most of their interests vested in a particular project/system etc will necessarily take a stance to defend their personal status quo. Most people are afraid of change after all, yet it is a pre-defined element of life.

            If I get the chance I will attempt to clarify things further. However, mine is only a point of view and as stated before may simply be wrong. But we need people that are wrong about their views in our communities to help find the ultimate truth and though I may disagree with some of what you say, I honour and respect your work, logic and dedication to proving/debunking the variety of issues covered in your blog.

  23. James:

    See I told you that you were looking at this wrong

    This is official.. This is now international law… If you wish to deny this, please provide your proof to rebut the UCC filings.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Hahahahaahahaha!!! Hahahahaahahaaha!!! Hahahahaahahaha!!!!
      Without a doubt that article is
      the biggest load of nonsense I have read in a long, long time.
      It’s just one nonsense after another.
      I’m stunned that anyone falls for that bullshit.

      They just make up some nonsensical, legal sounding crap on a piece of paper
      and claim that it is now international law
      that takes ownership of all property in the world
      and dissolves all governments!!!
      Unbelievable!! How can anybody believable that crap?

      I might now write my own bit of paper that
      annuls their new international law
      and hands over ownership of all property and money to me!
      Why not? If they can do it then so can I.

      • James:

        You are clearly clueless Lau and have just shown your lack of understanding on SO many levels….. Enjoy being a slave in the old system,

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Please tell me James, where did these fraudsters supposedly file this piece of paper that has miraculously turned it into international law?

      The closest their article comes to telling us where it is filed is this:
      “thanks to a series of UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) filings made by the One People’s Public Trust”

      So what is the Uniform Commercial Code? Is it somewhere where international law is created and registered?
      No. It’s not even an organisation.

      It’s just a collection of recommendations for laws – it’s like a book of recommendations that advises the US states on laws they should implement so that all the laws in all the states are the same.
      Their recommendations are not laws… they only become laws when each state’s government votes them into law.

      And it doesn’t have anything to do with international law.
      This group of fraudsters know that they can just pick any old semi legal sounding organisation and say anything about it and most of their gullible followers won’t bother to check whether the so-called organisation even exists!

      They claim that lodging this ridiculous piece of paper with a non-existent organisation has created international law that dissolves all governments and gives them ownership of all gold and currency.

      Their audacity is breath-taking.
      Is it possible for them to make up a bigger lie than that?

      Hopefully by making such an outrageous lie, people will finally realise that people like Scott Bartle have no credibility at all, and that nothing they say about these issues can be trusted.

  24. Sean Waters:

    . . . hey Lau, how does this fit in with discussion abt Elitist wanting to run the planet?

  25. Lau Guerreiro:

    The majority of her talk is based on the deliberate misquoting of an important passage
    from a book called The First Global Revolution
    which is actually a report by the think tank called The Council of the Club of Rome

    This is the original passage:

    “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite,
    we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
    water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.
    In their totality and their interactions
    these phenomena do constitute a common threat
    which must be confronted by everyone.
    But in designating these dangers as the enemy,
    we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about,
    namely mistaking symptoms for the causes.
    All these dangers are caused by human intervention
    in natural processes, and it is only through
    changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
    The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

    The following is is how Ann butchered it to completely change it’s meaning to suit her purposes:

    “In searching for a NEW enemy TO UNITE US,
    we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
    water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.
    All these dangers, OF COURSE, WILL BE caused by human intervention

    She immediately comments
    “That’s the origin of global warming.”

    She goes on to say that this passage
    is the smoking gun that proves that global warming
    is a lie made up by the Club of Rome.

    There relevant section starts at 4:30

    The real quote is on page 75, not 104/105 as she claims.

    Given that that the main quote that she bases her talk on has been deliberately changed to make claim something that it doesn’t I think that it is very unwise to believe anything else she says unless you have thoroughly investigated it yourself.
    And by “investigated” I don’t mean reading the conspiracy websites where she, no doubt, got this deliberately modified quote from.

  26. pete:

    Ill just say, we need to get together and analise why so called gov entitiy, can produce money and lend it to countries that they seem fit, and how ”our” reserve bank can produce money for other countries, and get caught bribing politicians from overseas countries to produce ”their” money.

    Please look into how the ”reserve” bank has been caught on many occasions money laundering, bribing, by the federal police, then doing its own investigations, with no independant outside their ”department” audit.

    The basic premise to all this,is well, the Feds private..[lends money to private banks here in Oz, which are mostly owned by the private shareholders of the FED.[ No Audit ever of the FED,] the BOE is private, the IBS is private, ever wonder how you can have a neutral
    country in a war, thats has been a major red flag to me since I was 12..

    Its just bizarre that the world agrees that Switzerland can be neutral, and it just so happens to have the IBS in its ”care”..

    And what does the IBS do? clears international funds, ALL other words, its an international clearing house in a neutral country, that operates international trades, while all around it the countries that dont have an IBS in their country, are completely destroyed.

    Then amazingly, after the ”war” is ”over” the IBS in coohoots with all the ”reserves”, around the world, print trillions of electronic currency, that they then loan to the ”destroyed” countries to ”recover” from , and of course create new taxes to ”pay” the IBS back after it has loaned ”money”[electronic digits, not actual money] to the destroyed countries, to ”repair” them…?

    To me as a [previous]12 year old, and to present 12 year olds,[canadian girl] its really obvious how corrupt this ”system” is..

    Billions of people have been maimed and basically murdered, so this appallingly obvious horrific ”system” can ..”continue”, and the reason why some people defend it, is a basic thing that has been bred, trained into adults, after being born without it…..FEAR..

    Fear, of the new, an easy glide into a new reality, creates the basic premise, I am scared, of changing ALL[that is about to happen] my reality, so I must protect it, with aggression, ridicule, and ignorance..

    Professor Antony Sutton, all his books, pretty well tell you through freedom of Information, that we are about to realise what has been pulled over our eyes for close to 5000 years of more, who knows..

    We are all so much more than this, it up to accept the obvious, and together this bizarre thing called Western Civilsation, will pass beneath us all like some dream..Nicola Tesla, Victor Schauberger, Searle, Ida Tarbell, Keeley, Moray, and recently The Keshe Foundation, are the people that we should concentrate on..and together we will know bounds..stay healthy..and Heal- thy..when in doubt, ask a child..

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Thanks for your comment Pete. You make some good points.
      Additionally, I think we need to shut down all tax havens. They only serve criminals.

  27. kev:

    The 18-k form or whatever it is is only used for the annual report and the page I found clearly says Company. .. ???

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      The people who wrote the website have used the same label in places regardless of the type of entity that is being listed. So in some places there is a link that says “see all company filings”. But that is obviously just a web developer thing – they didn’t go to the trouble of changing the heading for each different type of entity that is being listed.
      Are you going to ignore all the other proof on the SEC site that it is not a company and base everything on a web developer’s laziness?

  28. kev:

    Yes. Can you show were in English Grammar that allows for allcap spelling ?

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Can you show where English Grammar doesn’t allow for allcap spelling?

      Can you show anywhere in legal law or trial outcomes where an organisation’s name in all caps is treated differently to the name not in all caps?

      And more importantly can you show where a legal system has stated that COMPANY ABC is not the same entity as Company Abc?

      Can you show a single contract anywhere that has been proven to be invalid because the companies name was in allcaps and the company’s name was registered in lowercase?

      Somebody is making this ALLCAPS crap up!! Don’t fall for their nonsense!

      I’m sure that at some time during your life you’ve had to fill out a form and they asked you to print it out one letter per box in capitals..
      They do it because people’s handwriting is so bad – they want to make sure that there is no confusion as to what letter has been written… And then when they got automated scanners they want the scanner to be able to automatically recognise the letters.

      I guess that’s how the “tradition” of writing important information in ALLCAPS came about.

      Also its a way of making the name stand out, so that a clerk is looking for a particular piece of paper on the desk they can easily see the name of the company because it stands out against all the lowercap letters.

      They definitely did not do it for some sort of conspiracy.

      See if you can find any other organisation that uses ALLCAPS on some of their forms. e.g. insurance companies, car registration, or John Smiths accountants round the corner … They aren’t all part of some wild conspiracy.

      • kev:

        if you put your name in a box on a page ,does that not mean its sperated from the page and then ( lets say the ATO) can not be held accountable. ?

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          I’ve never heard anything of the sort.
          Can you show me where that is written?

          How would that apply to the case of the Australian government?

      • kyle:

        Blacks Law 6th edition, page 211 CAPITAS DIMINTIO MAXIMA the highest or most comprehensive loss of status. this occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one o freedom to one of dondage. (BIRTH CERTIFICATE??)
        Blacks Law 6th edition page 210, CAPITALIZATION – capitalization represendts the total amount of the various securities issued by a corporation. capitalization may include bonds, debentures, preferred and common sticj abd surplus…… and it goes on but seems pretty clear to me, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA written in capitals under blacks law is normal for stocks, bonds etc. But does explain also when your name is in capitals? they are either referring to your bonds, or you with diminished status.

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          //Blacks Law 6th edition, page 211 CAPITiS DIMINTIO MAXIMA the highest or most comprehensive loss of status//

          This has nothing to do with current law. It is a term used by ancient Romans. It has nothing to do with using capital letters. “Capite” is the roman word for “head”.
          “Capitis Diminitio Maxima” literally means “maximum diminishment of head”. It refers to the process of a free man becoming a slave.

          “Capitis Diminitio Media” literally means “medium diminishment of head”. It refers to the process of a free man losing his citizenship.

          “Capitis Diminitio Minima” literally means minimum diminishment of head”. is a lesser loss of status.

          Neither of them has anything to do with capital letters or modern law.

          //Blacks Law 6th edition page 210, CAPITALIZATION – capitalization represents the total amount of the various securities issued by a corporation. capitalization may include bonds, debentures, preferred and common //

          This has nothing to do with capital letters.
          The word “Capital” has 3 meanings:
          1) The capital of a state or country e.g. London
          2) A capital letter e.g. “ABC”
          3) An accounting term referring to money or assets that you own e.g. “capital account”, companies and banks “raise more capital” or “invest their capital”

          Your quote refers is the accounting definition of “capitalization”.

          I’m starting to see how this crazy idea about names being written in capital letters may have come about. People have been conflating the 3 different definitions into the one thing: capital letters, Roman slavery law and corporate bonds and money.

  29. kev:

    Australian Government ? I cant find that term in the constitution ?

  30. kev:

    Lau , you still their mate ???

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      “Australian government” is a colloquial term that we all use and I assume you know what I’m referring to.
      Regardless of what you think our federal government should be called, according to the constitution, the entity that is found in the SEC database is not a US registered company.
      Are you still there? Why haven’t you answered any of the questions I asked you regarding ALLCAPS or how putting things in a separate box on a form relates to the matter at hand?

  31. Lau Guerreiro:

    Hi Kevin,

    Thanks for your comment.

    Yes I’ll have to investigate the monetary/banking system more thoroughly. The problem I’ve found in my brief investigations is that I can’t find a credible source that explains how it works. All the sources that explain that the banks just make up money out of thin air come from people who are complaining about it.
    If you have found any links to non-partisan sources, or a page in an economics text book, then please let me know – I’d love to read it.

    The reason I’m dubious that banks create money “ex nihilo” is because when the govt began doing it (after the financial crisis) there were shrieks of horror from some camps, claiming that “money printing”/”quantative easing” was a disaster that would send inflation through the roof.
    My question is: if the banks are already creating money out of nothing then why is it so bad when the govt does it? Why complain about one and not the other? Why would one send inflation through the roof and the other not?
    I believe that the answer is that: the banks don’t do it – that’s why no economists complain, and that’s why we haven’t had runaway inflation.

    Australia uses the fractional reserve banking system, but the banks can’t just create money in people’s accounts. They’re always telling us that Australians don’t save enough and borrow too much and therefore banks have to borrow money from overseas to lend to Australians – they wouldn’t have to do this if they could just create money in people’s accounts.

    • Kevin:

      First, here’s a summary, then I’ll try to answer specific points. Here’s a document from the Federal Reserve that explains the system. Pretty much every country uses this method.

      I actually think the explanation in that booklet is pretty crummy and could be just a page or two. Governments sell debt through the bond markets. Banks can buy debt and sell the debt that’s issued by the government. The central banks expand the money supply by buying gov’t securities that are sold by banks. This is the first “money from nothing”. When the central bank “buys” securities, it just credits the seller.

      The QE policy of Japan and the US is just this process running at full tilt. The Fed intervenes in the US bond market, for example. So, even though the US debt is higher than it’s ever been, interest rates are at all time lows. The Fed claims this is to stimulate the economy, but critics argue they’re continuing to bailout the big banks (and the gov’t) by really just creating money from nothing. Also, another criticism is that nobody knows what the real market value of US debt is, basically the Fed action is totally distorting the market.

      The second part of “money out of thin” air is just a poetic explanation of the fractional reserve system. If a bank has $10,000 on deposit, and reserve requirements are 10%, then the bank can loan $90,000. The $90,000 comes from “nothing”. It’s just credited to an account. The commercial banks, that is, banks that issue home loans, car loans, etc… create part of the money supply with loans.

      if the banks are already creating money out of nothing then why is it so bad when the govt does it?

      The current money creation system takes three parties–the central bank, the government, and the commercial banks. I think people don’t realize that it’s actually a private for profit banking system that’s creating almost all the money in circulation. They confuse the banks with gov’t agencies, because they operate in this public role, and the banks encourage this belief because people would take this power back if they woke up.

      There are only a handful of places in the world that have money that’s just issued by the gov’t with no debt. The isle of gurnsey is one famous example. (

      In that case, the gov’t would just issue the money or credit accounts, replacing the central bank or the commercial bank. For example, if Australia was going to build a road, it could just pay everyone involved in non-debt money. There’s really no difference at all between the gov’t doing it and the banks, except when it’s done by banks, interest is paid on the loan.

      Why would one send inflation through the roof and the other not?

      In principle, neither system is necessarily inflationary. But you can do some thought experiments to understand why the tendency is toward inflation for a debt based system. Imagine a closed system where you are the only banker, and I am the only borrower. You loan me $1000 at 10% interest for a year. I need to pay back $1100. But wait, there’s only $1000 in existence… so somebody else needs to take out a loan so I can earn the extra $100 to pay you back, and he needs to earn the extra to pay his interest, and so on. Banks need to keep issuing loans to make more money, so they have incentive to increase the money supply.

      Likewise, gov’t issued money has often failed. The mechanism the gov’t has to reduce inflation is to call the money back in through taxes or fees, or to stop issuing new money. Governments, though, always through history have debased their currency.

      The inflation picture, now, is more complicated than it was in the 1970s, because the QE money is flowing all over the world into different assets. So property values in London, for example, are rising at 10% per MONTH in a speculative bubble. Stock markets are rising, etc… So far, though, consumers haven’t had a real shock, but some people think that’s coming.

      Australia uses the fractional reserve banking system, but the banks can’t just create money in people’s accounts. They’re always telling us that Australians don’t save enough and borrow too much and therefore banks have to borrow money from overseas to lend to Australians – they wouldn’t have to do this if they could just create money in people’s accounts.

      If people save, then banks have more reserves, and can lend more. The fractional reserve lending is where the money is created “from nothing”. So if you buy a car with a loan, the banker effectively just waves a magic wand, and you have a car to drive, and a debt and interest to pay.

      I think, now, that no country has a gold or silver backed system, and people all around the world are totally trained to accept that all money is just symbolic–numbers in an account, or pieces of paper, or trash metal–there’s no reason to have bankers do this anymore. It is really just a long running scam.

      • Lau Guerreiro:

        Thanks for the link, I’ll investigate when I get time,
        for now I just want to pick up on one point.
        You still haven’t explained why Australian banks have to borrow so much money from overseas, if they can create as much as they want.

        What I believe happens with the fractional reserve system is that if a bank’s customer deposits $1000 the bank has two ways of fulfilling its fractional reserve requirements:
        1) it can keep $100 and lend $900 – thus making profit on $900
        2) it can keep $1000 and borrow $9000 from someone else (e.g. overseas) and then lend out the $9000 at a higher interest rate, thus making a bigger profit than option 1).
        Option 2) is what banks try to do because it is how they can maximise their profits.

      • LEONARD:

        The first and major cause of inflation is the creation and advancement of credit into common circulation. Without the “interest” charged inflation could only be caused by greed.

  32. Kevin:

    I think the reason Australian banks are borrowing from Japan or the US is that interest rates in Australia are higher than they are in the US or Japan. So they can borrow at 1% and lend at 5% (or whatever). I don’t really know how such loans are related to reserve requirements… that’s a pretty interesting question.

    I just realized that my example up above is incorrect and really exaggerates the commercial banks ability to create money from a single loan.Your example #1 is correct if a bank has a 10% reserve requirement. A 10% reserve requirement eventually turns $1000 in deposits into $10,000 in loans, but not in one shot (which is what my example implied).

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Yes in example 1 the $1000 eventually turns into $10000, but it’s not the banks that are doing it. And its definitely not the same bank that ends up with the $10000 – its economy wide.
      If a tourist comes to Australia and pays me $1000 to sleep in my hotel, and I deposit that $1000 in Bank A who lends $900 to Joe who pends it on beer at the pub and the publican deposits $900 in bank B who lends $810 to Mary who buys a dress and the dressmaker deposits $810 in bank C who lends $729 to Bill who buys dog and dog owner deposits $729 at bank D who lends $656 to Peter … etc.

      That’s how the $10000 eventually gets created. Its not some secret, dodgy conspiracy thing.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      In my example, there is no stage where the bank has just made up money into someone’s bank account – in all instances the bank actually had the money.

  33. sue maynes:

    The Aust govt borrows for a particular reason. Borrowing always involved having collatoral and the money had to have collatoral or hold the value in itself. So the pound, shilling and pence held the Queens crowned head to indicate that it was valued by the land. When aust changed to dollars andcents, without either a referendum or an act of legislation, they removed the crown from the notes – they held no collatoral. And therefore are promissory notes. If you have read any of the history of welsh.mining and unions you will therefore understand that this means this curency can only be used internally. Govt borrow real collatoral backed money internationally, keep that , account for it on computerised recording as bok entry ‘money’ and you and I pay it back with sweat equity and the sale of real property thru community assets. Govt keep the realmoney and operate tjis country thru the promissory notes. I know a fellow who took a very lsrhe amount of aust dollars to the Bank of England to convrrt to english pounds. They would not do iy, quote ‘its not worth the paper
    its written on.

  34. Bob McDonald:

    Ah Another psy-op hey it does not matter how much you say you are telling the truth it all sounds like and is in fact just another deception . At the end of the day it’s not just the SEC thing it is the whole kit and ka-boodle ,the truth is out and once this happens you just cant stop it , bad news travels fast .Humanity Awakens to the lies of the Jews Hitler and the Holocaust ,Zionism and is-ra-el not to mention our Paedophile Government of Traitors criminals fools and thieves . .

  35. Harrington Eire:

    Good luck convincing the believers and wearers of tinfoil hats that they are wrong. I have been discussing these and other outrageous claims made by the freemen strawmen etc groups for ages with little success. They are almost religious in their beliefs. How they misinterpret and misrepresent the constitution etc can be extremely frustrating. Thank you for clearly and concisely covering some of the issues raised. I lack your patience and thank you for an web address I can now post to these misguided people, asking them to read this before pushing an argument (or agenda).

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Thanks for your comment Harrington.
      I totally understand the frustration you’re feeling. It eventually got too much for me and I had to move on, but it’s good to hear that there’s someone still out there (you) fighting the good fight.
      I wrote this article in the hope that it would kill this stupid conspiracy theory but unfortunately it just keeps going.
      Hopefully if enough people like you keep posting a link to this article the people who are peddling this ridiculous conspiracy theory will run out of gullible people to fall for their bullshit.
      Keep soldiering on! It’s a good cause.
      There are enough real problems with our governments. We don’t need people diverting their energies to these silly conspiracy theories.

      • Harrington Eire:

        well said

  36. Dave:

    Lau has put a lot of work in. So much that he’s having a really hard time accepting he is mistaken.
    There are so many instances in these comments where his theory has been completely blown out of the water yet he completely refuses to accept them.
    That tells me two things…….. He’s either just plain stubborn or this blog was deliberately started to misinform those suspecting the current system and seeking the truth.

    Two more quick points. Sue Maynes has it right and Adam is a shill

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      LOL. Typical comment from die-hard supporters of Scott and Sue.
      Says I’m wrong but provides no evidence, and doesn’t even specify which bits I’m wrong about and then tops it off with the classic “you must be a shill”.

      Go on Dave, I challenge you to identify one statement from my article that I’m wrong about.
      And then for bonus points provide proof supporting your assertion.
      I bet you can’t do it.

      What’s so laughable is that everything you said about me is true about you.
      I bet you’re a shill for Scott Bartle and Sue Maynes!

  37. Michael J. Sumner:

    Kool thanks 4 the info as when I looked that up a couple of years ago I was surprised to see us listed there in the U.S. but then all the other questions came into my mind, like who are the directors and shareholders but couldn’t find the info so went 4 a surf.

    I like your logic and appreciate the amount of time that u spent on this as all sides of the story need to be know and us monkeys can work it out for ourselves based on rational and researched information.

    I really don’t care if we’re are run by corporations, the super wealthy or the lizard people from another dimension as it makes not a dam of difference in the long run. The point is that we have to update our current dysfunctional political management system from a representative democracy to a true democracy where the seat of power is clearly with the people.

    This brings me to the one of the main contention with the current system and that is the issuance of government bonds to loan money for infrastructure development. Yes it is ‘normal’ for our government to issue bonds, (our birth certificates basically), in exchange for cold hard cash on a computer screen but it is in no way functional or by any means our best most evolved option as I’m sure you would agree.

    Central banks as run & controlled by super wealthy families are basically legal money making entities that turn thin air, (no gold standard or backing), into real money and then get paid $$$billions in interest from the labours of our hard work, the citizens of planet earth. We know that the central banks have now lost control and when not paid back cause a bankruptcy sale of that countries assets to private corporations that are in many ways funded by those same central banks eg: Greece and also many countries in the developing world. I don’t think that you or anyone that has a critical and analytic mind would disagree that this is insidious and not in the best interests of the citizens of the world.

    Why can’t we have our own central government bank that issues money based on our bonds? A bank with the shareholders are the citizens of that country? A bank where the directors are voted in by the people of that country? A bank that offers not only ‘loans’ to it’s government but also offers low interest loans to business and individuals of that country? A bank where our interest payments go back into the country and not the pockets of the super wealthy? Why can’t we, the citizens, easily invest as little as $100 in a government bond program and get interest rather than put it with a bank so we get to invest in ourselves and our country?

    I think these are all logical and valid questions as ‘normal’ just doesn’t cut the mustard in the 21st century.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Hi Michael,

      I’m glad you like the debunking.

      You wrote:
      // Why can’t we have our own central government bank that issues money based on our bonds? A bank with the shareholders are the citizens of that country?//

      We do, the Reserve Bank of Australia is owned by the Australian people, just like the army, navy, air force, the CSIRO and every other public entity.
      The RBA raises money for the government by issuing bonds.

      //A bank where the directors are voted in by the people of that country?//

      That would be a bad idea because it would politicise the running of the RBA. I don’t want the Labor or the Liberal party running the RBA. I want good economists running it. The RBA is a well run independent institution.

      //Why can’t we, the citizens, easily invest as little as $100 in a government bond program and get interest rather than put it with a bank so we get to invest in ourselves and our country?//
      The RBA pays much lower interest rates than banks do. When you put your money in an Australian bank you’re also investing in Australia because the money is lent to people and business in Australia to build houses and expand businesses. The majority of bank shareholders are also Australian residents so most of the profits also stay here.

      As for the issue of government bonds being issued against our birth certificates:
      I’m sorry to say that you’ve been mis-informed about that.
      That assertion is another blatant piece of nonsense that is put out by fraudsters.
      If you ever come across an article that mentions birth certificates and government bonds then don’t believe anything in that article or anything else the author has written.
      Those sort of articles are written by two types of people:
      1) fraudsters
      2) people who know absolutely nothing about economics and have been duped by fraudsters

      There are many, many things wrong with society, corruption, the financial system and wealth inequality. But the sorts of issues and solutions raised by websites that mention the birth certificate issue are almost always completely wrong.
      It makes me mad because it distracts good people from focusing on the real problems.
      I sometimes wonder whether that’s a deliberate tactic – whether the real shills are the people putting out all these crazy conspiracy theories in order to divert people from what’s really going on!

      Before you call me a shill who supports the current economic system read the following two articles that I wrote (and the comments)

  38. Dave:

    Proof? What proof?
    All I see from you is a half arsed theory based on your own assumptions and you have provided no proof whatsoever. In fact, if you read all of the comments as I did earlier today (and I am not about to do it again just to show I’m right because I have a life to live) you will see the only real proof was provided by Sue Maines, yet you chose to completely ignore her and ramble on with your baseless rhetoric.
    That alone is enough to tell me that the truth isn’t something you are interested in and you have an agenda. You haven’t even researched what you were told.
    Die hard supporters of Scott and Sue?
    Another of your assumptions.
    I have never heard of Scott before reading this blog earlier today. Yes, I have heard of Sue which is to be expected as I am active in waking people up to this blatantly corrupt system of corporate governance that we are forced to endure, so our paths crossing is perhaps to be expected.
    Proof from me?
    The proof has been presented to you above, yet you have ignored it completely and I am not about to waste my time or anyone else’s by continuing this conversation.
    I see my role as to help people question everything in that they eventually see the truth and in here my job is done.
    Question everything you are told good people. Even from me.
    Good day to you 🙂

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Another typical answer full of bluster and devoid of substance.
      Did you read my article?
      How can you say that I didn’t provide any proof?
      I provided links to the source materials and instructions so that you and anyone else can verify it for yourself – don’t just take my word for it.

      Did you agree with any of the points in my article?
      Do you disagree with anything in my article? If so what?

      I didn’t respond to some of the stuff that Sue Maynes brought up in the comments because it was off topic. It was just more of the typical avoidance and obfuscation tactics used by these fraudsters – when they’re proven wrong they avoid admitting it and instead change the subject to something tangential. Then if you prove them wrong on that tangential point they change the subject again, and they keep going and going, changing the subject each time and never admitting they were wrong on any of it.
      It’s like trying to grab a greasy pig.

      I find it difficult to have any respect for people who use those sort of tactics.
      It shows a lack of integrity and lack of moral courage.

      • kyle:

        I agree based on your article, I can not see any evidence that proves australia is a private corporation, however I do believe more investigation is required, there seems some confusion of the move from royal great seal, to trademarked logo. there seems definitely some changes that have occurred in the past that clearly have not been completed through the will of the people. its definately a mind field. its should not be that hard to understand where your government lies, what happened to the commonwealth funds? the search continues. Thanks lau i think this article does exactly what it was intended to do. I am yet to see anyone prove otherwise so far. 🙂

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          Thanks Kyle.
          One of the common themes in much of the crackpot ideas surrounding the Australian sovereignty issue is the complaint that changes were illegally made without “the will of the people”.
          Australian citizens elect politicians to make laws on their behalf. It is our will that these politicians make decision on our behalf – that’s what a democracy is all about.
          The “people” only need to be directly asked about a change (via a referendum) when the words in the constitution are changed.
          There are no other conditions that require a referendum to be held.
          We don’t have to have a vote when a coat of arms is changed.

          So all of the crackpot “experts” on this sovereignty conspiracy, who raise the issue of “the will of the people” don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. If an “expert” raises that issue as some sort of proof then stop listening to them and don’t believe anything else they say because they have just proved to you that they don’t have a clue.

  39. Lau Guerreiro:

    I have tried to contact Scott Bartle on several occasions asking him to respond to my article. I’ve invited him to write his own article refuting my claims and that I will post it for all to see. But he has never responded to me, all he did was ban me from his facebook page.

    He is still out there, busy attempting to con people with this bullshit.

    Don’t get sucked in by people like him.
    There are plenty of real problems with our society.
    Don’t waste your time on this sort of bullshit!

  40. hagen:



    Basically an ADR exists to make it easy for North American investors to buy shares in the company.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      So what’s your point?
      I’ve had a look at your facebook page and you don’t draw any conclusions or make any interpretations from the evidence presented. I take that to mean that you don’t know what all that information means.

      I’ve already done that for you in my article.
      If you can prove that anything I have said in my article is wrong please let me know and I’ll review it.
      All the information you present on your facebook page is consistent with what I’ve said in my article: Australia is not a privately owned company that’s registered in the USA.

      Look, think about it for a second. If you were a thief and fraudster, not a small-time one, but one who was so confident that you wanted to steal lots and lots of money from the government of Australia, how would you do it?
      1) Would you just quietly withdraw some money from some accounts or get the government to pay your companies for work that looked legitimate but was never done?
      2) Or would you Register the entire government as a private company in the USA? Which would require you to list your name as a shareholder.

      Let me give you the answer.
      Only an absolute fucking idiot would register the government as an American company. Why? Because it’s a big smoking gun. It’s extremely strong proof that can be used in court against you.
      If you are the registered shareholder of the company you can’t deny that it in court can you? It would be a very easy paper trail to follow and would ensure that you went to jail for the rest of your life. It’s like stealing the government and then painting a sign on the side of the Sydney Opera House telling everyone that you stole it and the names of the shareholders.

      Why the fuck would anyone want to do that?
      Anyone with half a brain would immediately know that registering the Australian government as a company in the USA was a completely stupid thing to do that would certainly result in you spending the rest of your life in prison!

      What benefit would they get from registering it as a US company? Answer me that?
      It makes much more sense to do the sort of things that they are REALLY doing now, like giving contracts and favours to companies and getting those companies to put bribes in secret swiss bank accounts. It’s so easy to do and its really difficult for anyone to find out about it and difficult to prove in court so the chances of going to prison for it a really small.

      When faced with the choice between:
      1) receiving bribes from companies into secret Swiss bank accounts and
      2) registering the entire government as a US company.
      Why the fuck would you register it as a US company? It’s a completely bonkers thing to do! Nobody, NOBODY would be so stupid as to do such a thing.
      It makes absolutely no sense at all.

      Ask yourself, “what advantage do the fraudsters get by registering the Australian government as a US company, that they wouldn’t get from embezzling money through bribes and Swiss bank accounts.” If you can’t think of one that’s because there is no advantage, there’s only really big disadvantages.

      The reason I’ve laid out in this comment is the main reason that intelligent people immediately dismiss the US corporation conspiracy as completely bonkers. It’s just so fucking obvious to anyone with a little bit of intelligence. Most people are dumbfounded that there actually exist people who can’t see how obvious this is. That’s why when they come across them they just assume they’ve got mental problems and don’t even waste their time arguing with them.

      But I have compassion for them. I don’t want people to go around upsetting themselves about this bullshit. That’s why I’ve taken the time to prove that it’s all nonsense. If people want to be upset about something then at least be upset about something that’s real – there’s plenty of that to go around.

  41. hagen:

    I totally agree with you; it’s NOT a US corporation.

    It’s a domestic one that’s been registered with the SEC as an ADR.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Ok, so what does that mean?
      Is it a perfectly legitimate thing to do? To register the Aust gov as a domestic company and then register it with the SEC as an ADR? Is that what’s supposed to happen? Or does that mean there’s something dodgy going on?

  42. hagen:

    BTW FYI a BOE isn’t supposed to draw conclusions, just present the evidence.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      What’s a BOE?

  43. hagen:

    BOE = Brief of Evidence.

    Is it all legit? You tell me. Is it ok for a foreign entity to own shares in a company that has obviously represents the Australian Government in at least some matters?

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      If you’re prosecuting a legal case then you not only need to provide a BOE, but you also need to establish a motive for the crime.

      What is the motive?
      Why would somebody set up the government as a company and themselves as a shareholder, so that all the information is publicly available and undeniable, rather than sneakily do back door deals and receive bribes into their secret Swiss bank accounts?
      Why? What’s the motive?

      Because I can’t find a motive, I can’t even think of a bad motive.
      There is absolutely NO advantage to doing it as a company!
      And LOTS of disadvantages to doing it through a company.
      It doesn’t make any sense AT ALL to do it as a company.

      So please, Hagen, explain it to me.
      What’s the motive?
      Why is it better to do it as a registered company than to do it through secret bribes and embezzlement?

      Anyone? Can anyone explain that?

  44. hagen:

    ah, now we’re stepping into the realm of the metaphysical. Or perhaps the insane. I don’t k ow what the motive is, Lau. But I haven’t taken ob the role of Prosecutor, merely that of Investigator. I have presented hard facts and leave it to the individual to to prosecute the case to the judge of their own conscience. Whaever the verdict, the original question would never have been asked had not the behaviour of the power elite raised the collective eyebrow.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      It’s got nothing to do with the metaphysics.
      It’s just good old common sense.
      The supposed “shareholders” of the company are very intelligent people. They wouldn’t do something that would make it easy for them to get caught and prosecuted. They wouldn’t leave the evidence lying around so that any idiot with half a brain can look it up on the internet it and prove that they’ve stolen the country!

      Here’s another question:
      What is the purpose of making it a company and having shareholders? Is it so that the company can do its accounts and pay its taxes and declare a profit which is then split up among the shareholders? That’s just stupid!

      The idea that someone would steal a country but then bother to set up a proper company with shareholders and file tax returns and abide by all the company laws so that it can eventually distribute the profits to the shareholders is just so amazingly stupid that its really hard to believe that grown people would believe such stupidity.

      Sorry to be blunt but there’s no point in hiding the truth from you.

      Here’s another question:
      Who determines how much profit there is from the Australian government? Who works that out? Surely there are public accounts somewhere that show that right?
      Surely it must be in the budget documents that are released each year.
      They contain all the revenue and all the expenditure.
      Profit is revenue minus expenditure, so it must be in the budget accounts.
      Please have a look in there and find the entry for profits distributed to shareholders.

  45. hagen:

    Lau, I’ve presented facts, fully referenced. If you can find refuting evidence I will eargerly engage with you, but as it is, you are being purely speculative, repeatedly, which does neither of us credit. Refute or have the courage and grace to concede.

  46. Ilias B:

    “The capital of Australia is in fact Washington DC,” Julian Assange said, in a clear reference to surveillance cooperation between the two countries.
    He also claimed that in this regard, it is already irrelevant to speak of Australia’s sovereignty.
    “All sorts of strange things happen in politics, but I think Australia is a lost cause as a sovereign state,” Julian Assange said.
    He added that “halting increasing surveillance in Australia is also a lost cause.”

    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? Gobalism 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.

    – Extracts of this article were taken from the book “What will we tell our children?” by Jeremy Lee

  47. Ilias B:

    Austtalia was bankrupted like all western nations after WW2 That when Australia started to loose its sovern status… It is not a country as you may think!!!

    The Law and the Government in Australia Does Not Have Legal International Validity!!!

    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.
    LikeReplyMore4 minutes ago

    Ilias Bafas
    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.
    LikeReplyMore3 minutes ago

    Ilias Bafas
    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!

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Hi Ilias,

      Thanks for taking the time to comment.

      Unfortunately I don’t have the time or inclination to refute or investigate everything that you have stated.

      What I believe is that it doesn’t matter whether what you say is true or not. If I assume that most of what you have said is correct then this is the conclusion that I will arrive at:

      Australia has been incorrectly set up, probably due to some technical legal mistakes and/or oversights and possibly as a result of some deliberate actions.

      However, it doesn’t matter. It makes no difference to anyone because everyone is behaving as if Australia is correctly set up.

      And everyone (including other countries) will continue to act as if Australia is correctly set up, because it is not in anyone’s interest to undo what has been done. Undoing it and redoing it “properly” will only cause huge legal problems and incur huge costs and clog up courts and waste shitloads of money – the only people who will benefit will be lawyers.

      Therefore there is nothing to worry about. We are not in “urgent” need of change. There is no impending crisis. Relax.

      You wrote,
      “there is a fundamental and urgent need to place before the Australian citizenry a new, if interim, Constitution”

      You probably would have said exactly the same thing 70 years ago wouldn’t you? And here we are 70 years later and no great catastrophe has befallen us! That being the case I’d say that either it’s not “urgent” or you’re defining the word “urgent” very differently to the way the dictionary defines it.

      Even if we did set about getting a new constitution it wouldn’t change anything of significance. It would certainly not change any of the many economic issues that you complain about.

      We’d end up with a constitution and a system of government that was almost identical to what we have now.

      And we’d still have exactly the same political parties: Labor, LNP and Greens. They’d have exactly the same attitudes and polices and exactly the same politicians.

      Nothing would change! Just a few legal technicalities that nobody except people like you care about!

      No matter how much time you spend on this issue it will never change, because the cost of changing it far, far outweighs any benefits of changing.

      We are better off spending our time and money on other things that will benefit us all much more. I encourage you to seek them out.

  48. LEONARD:

    I have just had a read through the posts on this site beginning 2 Dec 12 and ending 24 Aug 15.
    Phew, so much argument and so little fact. Lau is certainly not an economist by any stretch, and having published three books on the monetary and banking system over the last twenty odd years I believe I have some knowledge regarding both the monetary and banking systems. Firstly there is no such thing as a “Fractional Reserve” banking system. That term was made up by private banksters decades ago to create a mythical formula to satisfy the ever enquiring public who were being awakened to the pilfering rackets devised and use by banksters. The use of SRD’s (statutory reserve deposits) in the Commonwealth of Australia was abandoned in 1988 and the statement to say so was printed in the Reserve Bank Bulletin every month for years after. The reason there is no need for SRD’s is that banks always create every cent of credit they advance at the moment they advance that credit. No bank has ever loaned money. They only advance credit. Numerous quotes which abound in myriad books and on the Internet, credited to many who were, and are, experts in the field of banking, advise us so. No bank has ever made money by borrowing and lending a single cent because it is an impossibility. All money comes into common circulation as a debt to a private bank. No interest is ever advanced or loaned and in point of fact there is no such thing as interest “money” because interest paid to a bank is somebody else’s borrowed principal. Know the difference by referencing the fact that you re-pay principal but only pay interest. Interest does not exist as a separate intrinsic item. If all the banksters called in all their loans today, all the money would disappear into their clutches and there would be no money with which to pay the interest. Some would be able to repay their principal and their “interest” whilst others would not be able to repay or pay. Some could repay but not pay. The mathematics of it all is simple. The understanding of money is simple only banksters and politicians make it appear difficult in order that the masses won’t understand it so they can be fleeced by the greedy. JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH, a well known economist, in his book “Money, Whence It Came, Where It Went” explained the creation of “money” and went on to say that “the process is so simple it repels the mind”.

    There is not one single reason why a government should register with the SEC, or any other organisation, except for commercial reasons, because the economic performance of all governments is followed closely, and written about and published all over the world by reputable organisations so that anybody wishing to invest can be fully appraised before they put funds forward. To believe otherwise is accepting an untruth.
    Author and economist.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      //There is not one single reason why a government should register with the SEC, or any other organisation,//

      To make it easier for people to find the information, so people don’t have to search for all those other places. Is that a stupid thing to do – to make it easy for people? Is it a bad thing to do?
      Is it totally ridiculous to imagine that anyone would want to make it easy for investors to find the information they need?

      I don’t think it is. I think its a wise thing to do.

  49. Hey Lau, interesting article, I have explored this myth myself. I don’t want to paste a lengthy rebuttal here, but I have a facebook page called The Freeman Delusion in which I take a detailed look at most of the freeman/sovereign citizen ideology from which these concepts originate. The piece I wrote on the US corporation myth can be found here…

    I also look into most of the alleged constitutional arguments in this thread, feel free to use it as a resource.

  50. RMAU:

    So we have two types of Corporations, one that benefits only the Illumined Ones and the other they control through statutes. One that the freemen and freewomen of Australia gets abused by without realising it and the other that keeps them in fantasy so they can continue being abused. Think about it!

  51. Icarus:

    Wow, what the hell have I run into? Someone sent me a video that Scott guy made and I ended up here when trying to find out if someone had already pointed out his obvious flaws. Anyway your analysis is pretty good and points out some of the the nonsense that guy is spreading. However it’s clear that those trying to argue with you have zero idea of things like bond issuance and particularly if you want to do so in the US, which is by far globally the largest source of liquidity for corporate and government borrowing. Anyway I applaud your endeavour in trying to take some the comments seriously, but you can’t argue rationally with people suffering from cognitive bias, and there seems to be a great deal of that here! Anyway, as I’ve said good analysis, you’ve made valid points.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Thanks, Icarus

  52. periklis:

    Sorry Lau but clearly you have very little grasp of the “big” picture. Let me put it as simple as I can. If the/any “real” government was De Jure and by the people for the people then it would print it’s own money at will where and when needed FOR it’s people to do/build whatever is needed and not seek permission to “borrow” this, what is really, a fiat worthless currency whereby a foreign entity/corporation prints it (the loan amount if it prints anything at all because everything is digital/electronic and fictional/imaginary these days) and then loans it to what you say is a de jure government with interest to be paid whereby no interest is EVER printed/created in the physical realm so how can the interest of this fictional electronic worthless money ever be paid back? Oh borrow more imaginary money from the foreign corporation/entity called the IMF or World Bank? Maybe go for a punt in the markets of electronic stocks of imaginary money and value of fictional entities/companies?

    EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING, in the modern day is corporatised and in the “legal” realm of commerce/admiralty/maratime law including you through your legal name which you exist through/under!

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Clearly you are the one who has no idea how any of this works. Please do some research from sites that are not conspiracy sites so that you can understand the other side of the argument. Then you will be in a position where you can make an informed decision about what’s going on and how the system works.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      If things worked the way you think they do then why don’t governments print loads and loads of money? Why don’t they print $10 million for each person in our country and just give it to them? And then nobody would have to work right?
      Even better why don’t they print 10 billion dollars for each Australian and then we can go and buy up all the houses and stuff in the rest of the world? Wouldn’t that be great?

      The reason governments don’t do that is because they’re not fucking stupid. They know that there are two serious problems that would stop this from working:
      1) inflation
      2) exchange rates
      If you don’t know how either of these works then please go and learn about them.

      Inflation is a relationship between the quantity of money in a country and the quantity of things that the money can buy in that country. Look up the law of supply and demand.

      There are only a certain amount of things for sale, e.g. houses, shoes, haircuts.
      Houses are sold to the highest bidder. If people don’t have much money then they won’t bid very high, if people have twice as much money then they can, and will, bid twice as high to secure the things that they want. Shop-keepers will keep putting their prices up as long as people keep buying their stuff.

      So when governments print lots of money, it causes inflation. If they print lots and lots of money it causes hyper-inflation. That’s why they don’t do it. The only time that they can get away with printing money is when the economy is experiencing a period of deflation. In that case the inflation is cancelled out by the deflation, but even then they can’t print too much – they need to keep the two in balance.

      Exchange rates are a free market where people buy money in another currency and they bid for it – its an auction. People only buy a currency when they want to spend that currency in that country. So if an american can buy a shoe in the USA for 20 US dollars, and the same shoe in Australia costs $200 Australian dollars then the American isn’t going to exchange his 20 us dollars for 20 australian dollars – he’s going to want 200 australian dollars for his 20 us dollars.
      Therefore when your country has high inflation it leads to your currency being devalued.
      Therefore if the government prints $10 billion dollars and gives it to you it will become worthless in Australia because of high inflation and it will become worthless overseas because of the devaluation of the currency.

      Now go and see if you can find a proper explanation like that in any of your fucking bullshit conspiracy websites. They won’t explain that to you because they are so fucking stupid that they don’t know how things work, yet they think they know it better than everyone else – MORONS!

      Or they do know it, but they don’t want to tell you because they want to fool you into believing their fucking bullshit so that they can make money from the advertising on their website.

      Stop being so fucking gullible, and trusting those fucking fraudsters and idiots and do some proper research from proper sources instead of just from fake news sites.

      For Christs sake!

      By the way, you also have no clue about how government bonds work.

      • periklis:

        Good one Lau but you’re insults don’t do you any favours and using the word conspiracy says it all. I work with facts, not conspiracy sites as you like to think. I work with what IS and for what purpose or reason something IS based on the facts and not any sites or msm or government dribble….what IS…. what everything IS, is bullshit….government, the “system” as it’s called and everything tied into it…. it’s all bullshit. Inflation…more bullshit…the only reason for inflation is the bullshit “legal” fiat currency (fake money) bullshit “system”…a system of perpetual slavery but you know everything right? Give me a Q & A with all your top economists, politicians, solicitors and accountants and televise it live, worldwide, unedited and at prime time for the whole world to watch and let me make a fool of myself! I challenge anyone in your bullshit system of inflation, fake money and bullshit laws run by bankers (through their corporations) to prove me wrong….Oh yeah, that’s right, they don’t answer questions do they? They just kill people that would dare expose their bullshit “system”!

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          Sorry for the insults, if you read the rest of my comments here, you’ll see that I’ve never done it before… it’s just that I’m getting a bit frustrated with having to answer the same sort of nonsense over and over again.

          To address your points:
          Pretty much the very first thing they teach you in economics is about the law of supply and demand. It’s a really simple and absolutely basic concept which absolutely no-one disputes, it’s not controversial in any way.
          Once you understand how supply and demand works you then understand how inflation works, because inflation is just what happens when demand increases faster than supply.

          Supply and demand always works the same way regardless of what the system of currency is. It doesn’t matter whether it is gold backed, or fake fiat or whether it’s conch shells or pigs. If the number of conch shells increases but the supply of products and services does not increase then you will get inflation. There’s no disputing that. Inflation is real – it’s not just some made up bullshit to fuck over the poor people.

          The rich people are fucking you over, but it’s not because of fiat currency bullshit or because they made up inflation (inflation is real) or the govt bond system is all a scam (its not). It’s not any of that – that’s all conspiracy and fake news bullshit that fraudsters make up to earn a buck from advertising on their websites.

          Here’s a conspiracy theory for you, I think that some of those websites talking about bullshit fiat currency and all the stuff that you’ve talked about are created by the rich as a form of disinformation, so that people who are pissed off with the system will find those sites and believe that crap and then when they try to spread that crap to the wider public, intelligent people will immediately see that it’s a load of crap and then dismiss all conspiracy theories as a load of crap, and therefore real conspiracies never get investigated properly by intelligent people.

          That’s why I get upset, because these bullshit conspiracies are diverting attention from the real problems.

          The real problem is that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes, they use tax havens and corrupt governments into giving them all sorts of tax breaks.
          The real problem is that many of the rich are so greedy that its a sickness, where they can never get enough, and they have no compassion for the poor.
          Then they divide the poor and set one against the other, black against white, muslim against christian, republican against democrat, anything to distract from rich versus poor.
          The problem is that the playing field isn’t fair. Once you are rich you have a huge advantage over anyone who is poor. Trump’s dad gave him a $1 million loan in the 70’s which would be like giving him a $10 million loan now.
          If you had that sort of money to start a business of course you could become very rich yourself.
          But the rich tell the poor that if they want to be rich they should work harder, or study harder and get a better job. Trump did neither of those, he just used his dady’s wealth.

          Get angry about the real problems, not the fake bullshit put out by fraudsters and dumbasses.

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          Here are some useful links about supply and demand, inflation and exchange rates.
          None of this stuff is controversial or disputed by anyone. It’s not govt propaganda. It’s academic stuff that is agreed on by economists all around the world. Surely you don’t believe that every economics professor around the world is part of some huge propaganda scam, do you?


          here’s a video that’s a bit more advanced


          “Monetarism theorizes that inflation is related to the money supply of an economy. For example, following the Spanish conquest of the Aztec and Inca empires, massive amounts of gold and especially silver flowed into the Spanish and other European economies. Since the money supply had rapidly increased, prices spiked and the value of money fell, contributing to economic collapse.”


          See the section on “increasing the supply of currency” in this article:

          Once you understand this stuff you’ll be able to spot the bullshit from fraudsters.

          • periklis:

            Nothing has value, true value, other than one’s labour, for everything used to make/create anything is FREE! It’s only one’s labour that creates, processes, drills, digs, plants, waters, picks, washes, drills etc that has value…the labour required to build, create, grow and pick food etc…. everything is FREE at the core…the timber, metals, minerals, seeds/food etc…Yes I’m going back to basics because to treat/fix a problem one must go to the root/core cause of the problem but see the “system” and government (run by corporations yes) do not want that because that would take away their power and control over the masses and at the same time remove their status and comfortable way of life feeding off the greater population. Don’t think I don’t know what I’m talking about because i’ve analysed everything (the facts of what is and the why and how of what is) and if you want to know the truth, everyone’s time, no matter what they do be it carpentry, electrical, customer service, solicitor, doctor or whatever…should be “worth” the same rate per hour of this fictitious man made money called “legal” tender and those who work more hours would earn more…no other way!

            • Lau Guerreiro:

              So you believe that if you are a great carpenter and you work really fast and build 20 high quality chairs in a day, and your neighbour is also a carpenter, but he is crappy and really slow and lazy and he only builds one crappy, low quality chair per day, that he should be paid the same as you?

              • periklis:

                The one who makes more chairs quicker and better will sell more chairs so will make more money as a result. Let’s not confuse labour with the number or quality of goods made and sold.As far as time goes there is no great/vast difference in how long a particular job or task/service takes to get done in any given skill/trade/profession either so your argument is flawed somewhat. Each and every one should seek the skill/ability they both enjoy/love doing and able to do and not be forced into some sort of work they either/both don’t enjoy or are not very good at it. Then whatever one does as a service or skill should be paid the same as anyone else. If the doctor needs a pipe fixed or someone to buy fresh produce from and there’s only one plumber and one farmer in town then they would have no choice but to pay the same hourly rate to both the plumber and the farmer for the time they take to provide their service/goods!

                What YOU are implying is that if somebody has no skill or ability to provide any service/goods then, what, they don’t deserve to live? Because they can’t get any money! Let’s not look at people who don’t want to work for a minute but even they deserve to live with the bare essentials of food and water to a degree.

                You see the pension is for the former of the above paragraph whereby this bullshit fiat currency “system” cannot be forced onto mankind without giving the “unable/disabled/elderly/aged” enough to survive on BUT, then again, the government doesn’t even give enough for them to survive nowadays!

                The system is broken and it is broken by design, a design to benefit those who created it and those who contribute to and support it physically and through promoting/marketing campaigns and, to not only not benefit but, actually, destroy those that contribute only on a minute scale (the majority).

                I could do a whole seminar of the every little detail that makes up this bs corrupted system and also a somewhat blueprint to fix it and also fix all the other bs the government not only doesnt care about but actuall feeds (like all forms of “actual” criminal activities/behaviour).

  53. Robopopo:

    Periklis, you’ve no doubt worked out by now who pays Lau’s expenses … and don’t believe him about the insults … one of his trademarks (and typical tactic of someone who knows they are not being exactly honest)

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Who pays for you to come here and make this comment? Are you one of the fraudsters running a website that’s making money by making up bullshit? You don’t dispute anything that I’ve said, you just come here to slander me.
      You sound just like a shill for those fraudsters – they provide no evidence to support their bullshit, all they do is call anyone who proves them wrong a shill.
      Well you’re the shill.

  54. Gregory J. Sobb:

    Has anyone read the site regarding the isue of Australia being a corporation ect. It classess all that is said above as a fallacy. Can someone take a good look at this please ( Australian Paralegal Foundation)

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Thanks for bringing that website to my attention Greg.

      The article that addresses this topic is this one:

      It is well written, and does not specifically address the claims that the Australia is a US Registered corporation, but does an excellent job of explaining what a ‘corporation’ is and why Australia has one registered.
      It explains the history of corporations, and is well worth a read.

      • Lau Guerreiro:

        The site has many other good articles to do with legal matters and therefore I recommend that before anyone believe some weird theory to do with Australian law, that they should check that site first.

  55. Hagen:

    Bullshit website, ignores the the same questions Lau skirts around, primarily:
    1. Why is COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA listed as SIC 8880 American Depositary Receipts instead of SIC 8888 Foreign Governments?

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Please provide instructions for how I, or anyone else, can verify for themselves whether what you say is true. How can we verify that the Commonwealth of Australia is listed as SIC8880 American Depository Receipts?

      Also, it would be good if you could also provide a link to where we can read the official definition of SIC8880 American Depository Receipts.

      If you want your claims to be taken seriously, then provide instructions for how people can verify your claims for themselves (like I have in my article).

  56. Hagen:

    Notwithstanding that you have been provided links several times in the past, any serious research into this topic would have easily uncovered this information. But for the benefit of others in this thread please see where all relevant material is linked.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      In that page you state the following:
      “Down the page, there is a link to a form ’18-K/A Annual report for foreign governments and political subdivisions’. This is a revealing document, replete with technical legal and financial language, and beyond the scope of this particular BoE. Suffice to say that it clearly points to the registration of COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA by elements within the Australian Government.”

      Doesn’t the title of the form ’18-K/A Annual report for foreign governments and political subdivisions’ tell you anything? Does it not tell you that this is a form used by foreign governments and NOT BY PRIVATE COMPANIES?
      How more obvious can it be?

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      As I state in my article above, The SEC is not where private corporations are registered in the USA.

      A business entity must first be created/registered with one of the state governments. Once it is registered with a state government it only needs to list itself with the SEC if it is selling securities to investors, such as shares, bonds etc.

      If the Commonwealth of Australia is a US registered business then we must be able to find it in one of the state databases of registered business names. Unfortunately, unlike Australia, the USA does not have a central database in which all business names are located, therefore you have to search within every single state database. Here is a page that lists the urls for all 50 state business name databases so you can search them yourself if you wish.

      If you can find a listing for the Commonwealth of Australia in one of those registers then you will be much closer to proving your case.
      So come on, it’s only fifty searches. Considering all the time and effort you’ve put into this stuff, why haven’t you taken the time to find the definitive evidence yet?
      Perhaps you have searched, but didn’t find anything, thus proving that it is NOT a US registered private company, but you don’t care about the truth, you just want to keep promoting this bullshit?
      Come on, find the listing in a state register. Prove me wrong.

  57. Hagen:

    Cherrypicking evidence as usual. Totally ignored the answer to your own questions… the answer being, by the way, that an ADR is, by definition, a bundle of shares of a foreign company made ready to trade on Wall Street.

    It ISN’T a US private registered company, as we’ve discussed before – it’s a private Australian registered company. But it is an ADR.

    Quite a few of them, all self-described as privately held companies …
    but wait, there’s more ….

    “Australian Consulate General is a privately held company in Los Angeles, CA .
    Categorized under Trade Commission, Government.”

    oh look, another private company …

    a privately held company, are we making sense yet?

    “Queensland Government Trade is a privately held company in Los Angeles, CA .
    Categorized under International Affairs. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of unknown and employs a staff of approximately 5 to 9.”

    “We are a privately held company in New York, NY.”

    I don’t have “a case” to prove, just asking questions. Questions nobody, including yourself, seems to be willing or able to answer.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      I have consolidated all of your comments into one single comment.

      Don’t think that by flooding this thread with a shitload of one line comments that you will deceive me into thinking that you have a large quantity of evidence. It’s the quality of evidence that matters.

      I will respond below in a few minutes.

  58. Hagen:

    Don’t think by your obvious gas-lighting tactics that the evidence will disappear.

  59. Hagen:

    All those links sourced through Dunn & Bradstreet. Quality enough for you?

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      All of the evidence you provided above is useless.
      I don’t know whether your are just a poor gatherer and evaluator of evidence, or whether you are a fraudster who deliberately providing dodgy ‘proof’.

      That is not an official company register, its just somebodys website that they’re trying to make a buck from advertising.
      Provide me with one single link from any of the official state government registers that I gave earlier and you will have proven your case.
      But no, you don’t do that, instead you waste your time with this peice of shit website. Why?

      Anyone can register any business on for free!

      Almost all those listings were created automatically, in the same way that many of these types of directory websites get their listings, they gather info from telephone directories and other websites etc.

      You can tell whether a particular listing was created by a real person or automatically because the automatic ones have a button on the listing that says something like [own this business?] or [claim this business]

      In fact the second url you listed in your comment
      had a [own this business?] on it, so I clicked it and now I own that entry, not the Australian government. You can tell that I own it because if you scroll down to the the contact details and you will see that the website is listed as

      Oh dear! That must be a bit embarrassing for you.

      Stop making a fool of yourself. Find me a listing on an official state government register.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      If the Commonwealth of Australia is a privately held company with shareholders, then those shareholders committed a very serious crime – they stole a country.
      Everyone knows that when trying to prove that someone committed a crime, one of the most important things to do is to show what the motive was for the crime.

      So what was the motive?
      Why would they go to all the trouble of such an elaborate deception?
      Why would they risk getting caught?
      Was it for money?
      Is it so the shareholder can be issued profits from their private company call Commonwealth of Australia?

  60. Hagen:

    I thought about doing the same thing … but I’m not keen on the consequences of fraud i.e. AFP taking my life apart. Have fun with that.

    And all these privately held companies are still listed with Dun & Bradstreet.

    And the SEC listing is still an American Depositary Receipt i.e. shares for sale on Wall Street.

  61. Hagen:

    Now you’re getting it.

    Motive? Profit.

    Who? We’ll get to that when you’ve finished explaining yourself to the police. You fucking idiot. Who’s the fool now?

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      If the motive is profit (seems the only logic motive to me) then, it would have to be a very big profit to make it worthwhile right?
      Because the bigger the risk the bigger the payoff has to be to make it worthwhile taking the risk.
      So it would have to be tens of millions of dollars every year, right?
      But it can’t have been just one person that is the shareholder. There had to be many people involved in this conspiracy, so they all have to be receiving profits.
      So the total amount of Australian taxpayers dollars that is being paid out as profits to the shareholders must be hundreds of millions of dollars every year, at a minimum, right?

      So your next job to prove your case is to show me where those profits are indicated in the official Australian budget documents.

      You can find the official financial statements for 2014-2015 here:

      Here’s a direct link to the pdf.

      Please tell me which page lists the entry for the hundreds of millions of dollars in profits paid out to private shareholders.

  62. Hagen:

    Seriously Lau, that’s serious shit. Remove it asap if you can. I really don’t want to see anyone getting into trouble over a face-saving argument.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Relax. It’s just a bullshit directory website, that nobody gives a shit about.
      If they ever find out and want it changed then they will contact me and I will hand it over to them. And at the same time I will point them to fraudsters at

  63. Hagen:

    Either you’re a complete idiot or you’re working for them. As I used to.

    I can assure you that they already know all about my activities, both on and off the internet.


      You need to work out what a corporation is. You make the false assumption that it is something financial – it isn’t. A corporation is merely an identity separate from the individuals that create it. This is different from a partnership where all individuals are responsible and an individual who is likely directly responsible (simplified as there are different forms of each).
      What is Australia and how does it deal with other countries, how does it pay the cleaners, who does the cleaner go after if he is injured at work? Implicit to your analysis is that only real people are legitimate – a corporate entity is simply something that represents a group of people and is independent of them. Look at body corporates for blocks of units, the Australian army, Australia etc they are corporate (non physical) entities independent of the real people they supposedly represent. Do you think we all sit down together and vote on whether to agree to some UN declaration?

  64. Hagen:

    Yeah, I’ve read everything on offer from the SEC. And you’ re reaching since the guarantees don’t legitimize shares in an Australian government company being sold on Wall Street to traders, and the fact remains that the company still exists and it is still an ADR and not a Foreign Government as one would rightly expect it to be.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      If it is being sold on wall street what is the current stock price?

      And please answer my question about were the profits are listed in the government financial statement. Don’t you think that’s an extremely big hole in your theory? It is all pointless unless they can get the money out of the government and into the hands of the private shareholders.

      How many hundreds or thousands of government accountants do you think have been involved in producing the government budgets over the last 50 years? Have they all been in on the conspiracy?
      Only a crazy person would believe that.

  65. Hagen:

    What theory? COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is an American Depositary Receipt, fact.

    And it’s adminstered soley by a lawyer, can’t remember his name off hand, it’s in the documentation.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Completely ignoring the little issue of profits showing up in the financial statements eh?
      Just sweep that inconvenient detail under the carpet and hope no one notices?

  66. Hagen:

    I don’t think you actually work for them, because your psych tricks are totally amateur.

    Do some honest investigation (you’ve revealed in the last few hours how you haven’t ever looked into the issue more than superficially) and you will uncover how COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is connected to a multitude of foreign companies, especially telecommunication companies, especially Chinese linked companies. Private company profits are not going to appear on government budget paperwork, at least not in an expected way. It’s all there on the SEC website for anyone who’s not too lazy or too afraid to find out the truth.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      I don’t think you’ve thought it through very well.

      Think about it – every cent of government revenue is accounted for, and every cent is then allocated to a department for expenditure, and every department has a budget and has to document every cent it spends.

      Every department has their team of financial people that produce publicly available accounting reports, that are consolidated into the overall government accounting reports. There are teams of accountants all over the place.

      Plus then auditors whose full time job it is to look for miss-use of funds.

      I find it incomprehensible that anyone could believe that a theft of hundreds of millions of dollars could be perpetrated, every year, for the last fifty years, and not have been detected.

      But even more incomprehensible, is that the people who supposedly planned this mega-crime, could imagine that they could get away with it, and keep all of those accountants quiet for all of these years!

      What is the probability that they would all go along with the conspiracy, and nobody would leak? And nobody would find out? It would have to be one in a million to one.

      Would an intelligent person take such a stupendous risk, to commit such a colossal crime?
      Of course not! What’s the probability that you could find, not one such stupid person, but a team of intelligent people who would take such a stupendous risk? A trillion to one!

      According to the conspiracy theory, Whitlam was one of the master criminals wasn’t he? He was one of the smartest people in Australia. Would such a smart man take such a stupid risk?
      For what?
      He was already Prime Minister.
      Plus he was a Queens Council, so he had plenty of power and money.
      And did he buy mega yachts and private jets afterward his supposed crime? No.
      So what was the point of it? Why would he have done it?

      There is no logical explanation.
      There isn’t an, even remotely plausible, explanation, and that’s why I’m confident you won’t even propose one – because you know that any explanation you suggest will sound ridiculous.

      So you’ll ignore almost everything I’ve said here, and either:
      – try to deflect to some tangential point, or
      – pick an insignificant fact that I’ve mentioned and dispute that, or
      – call me some sort of insulting name (most likely call me a shill)
      – or say that I’m beyond all hope; that that it’s pointless arguing with someone as stupid as me
      – or say nothing and disappear with your tail between your legs.

      What I hope you’ll do, is have the balls to admit that your theory has a few holes.
      And that you might be wrong.
      That perhaps you’ve been led astray by the charlatans who made up this stupid conspiracy theory in the first place.
      I hope that’s what you’ll do, because if you aren’t one of the charlatans that made up this bullshit,
      then you are a good person,
      who genuinely is against the bad guys
      and wants to fight for the rights of the ordinary people.
      I admire that, because that’s what I’m passionate about too.
      I think that perhaps you and I are very similar.
      The only difference is that you’ve been led astray by the bad guys.
      I know it’s difficult for anyone to admit that they might be wrong,
      but that’s what distinguishes the real men from the others.

      I invite you to step up to the plate, and show me who you truly are.

  67. Hagen:

    Yes it is difficult for people to admit they might be wrong … I haven’t proposed any theory, just presented facts … you’ve done all the speculation here, and all without having looked into it. For example, Gough signed Australia up to UNIDROIT.

    Address the facts, stop insulting people because they won’t pander to your theories and speculation, stop the name calling and reign in your superiority complex.

    Address the facts.

    Oh, and address the facts.

    While you’re at it, address the facts.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      I knew you wouldn’t address my main points about motive and the practicalities of getting the money out of the government and to the shareholders.

  68. Hagen:

    I knew you wouldn’t address your own main point about corporate government and instead focus on irrelevance to try to distract from your losing position.

  69. DavidBruce:

    I just did a search on “Commonwealth of Australia+ SEC” and this popped up! “Australian Government – The Treasury”

    Documents relating to registration with the SEC of the Australian Government as a privately owned American company
    30 June 2017


    Document 1 – PDF 3MB

    Attached are documents released under a Freedom of Information request seeking access to all documents that confirm the following: registration with the SEC of the Australian Government(Commonwealth of Australia) as a privately owned American company, file number:333-163307 CIK:0000805157.

    Keep up to date with Treasury

    Seems very clear to me!

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      This is a technical process to allow Australia to post our financial details with the SEC because that’s where investors in government bonds are used to looking for that type of info.

      On page 13:

      “The Commonwealth of Australia is a soveriegn state.”
      and goes on to explain that investors can’t take any legal action against the Commonwealth off Australia in foreign courts because they don’t have jurisdiction over the Commonwealth of Australia.

      Page 16 describes how Australia was formed and the form of government.

      Nowhere in this document does it say who owns this supposed private company, nor anything about the ownership structure.

      I admit that the reference to confirming that it’s registered as a privately owned company is a bit strange, but what I think is happening here is that the Australian government is the owner of that company in the USA. In other words, to make it easy to put their financial info on the SEC the Australian government created an american company, but the owner of that American company is the Australian government.
      I’ll try to contact the treasury to clarify that.

      • Murgon:

        decided to block me did you

        • Lau Guerreiro:

          I haven’t blocked anyone. I have to approve all comments so that the thread doesn’t get filled up with spam.

          I’ve emailed the treasury, let’s see if they respond to me.

  70. Murgon:

    You do that … some of us have been trying to get a response from the Treasury and every other branch of government plus the lawyer who facilitated the process for 15 years … yet not a single reply. More than a bit strange Hope you have better luck.

  71. Commonwealth of Australia registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission
    Here is a document from the Office of the Attorney-General from February 2015 stating that the Commonwealth of Australia is registered wit the United States Securities and Exchange Commission as a foreign government.

    Also later in the document it is mentioned that the terms Commonwealth Government, Australian Government and Government of the Commonwealth of Australia are often used interchangeably.

    This document is in breach of the Australian Constitution.

  72. Tash:

    Marauding of understanding between the United States of securities and Exchange commission and the Australian securities commission concerning consultation and cooperation in the administration of enforcement of securities laws Oct 1993

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Oh dear, you have absolutely no idea what this document is about do you?

      It is an agreement between the two governments to co-operate in enforcing their laws, so that they can catch criminals who break the laws to do with buying and selling shares, and bonds etc.
      It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether or not Australia is a private corporation or not.

      Has some ‘expert’ on this silly conspiracy theory conned you into believing this document was somehow related? Or are you the ‘expert’?

  73. Tash:

    From the Australian Government Treasury freedom of information page. Documents relating to registration with the SEC of the Australian Government as a privately owned American company.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      As I explained in the main article, this is so the Australian government can sell bonds on the American market and investers know who to contact for information.

  74. Tash:

    High Court writ sought to challenge Australian governments acting as a corporation registered in the US. On the 8th December 2010, a Prerogative Writ of Mandamus was filed in the High Court of Australia. In the December 8 writ the applicants demand that the executive government of Australia ‘cease all operations that are carried out under the Commonwealth of Australia ABN 122 104 616 and registered with the United States American Securities and Exchange Commission No. 000 080 5157 and further command them to dissolve their subsidiary companies being;

    The State of New South Wales ABN 066561153
    The State of Victoria ABN 054558619
    The State of Queensland ABN 066 102930
    The State of South Australia ABN 050208921
    The State of Western Australia ABN 072526008
    The State of Tasmania ABN 053201308
    The Trustees of Northern Territory Government ABN 09059854’

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Anyone can submit a writ to the high court, as long as you pay the fees. It’s a request for the court to do something.
      So what was the result? Did the court respond?
      And how do we even know that one was submitted? Where is a copy of the writ?

  75. Tash:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office :

    Generated on: This page was generated by TSDR on 2019-12-29 21:58:12 EST

    Trademark image
    US Serial Number: 89000535 Application Filing Date: Jan. 08, 1992
    Register: Principal
    Mark Type:
    TM5 Common Status Descriptor: TM5 Common Status image

    For the situation where the status is uncertain, unknown, or other than those previously identified.

    Status: This serial number identifies non-registration matter in the USPTO database.
    Status Date: Aug. 30, 2002

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      What? You don’t think that the Australian government should register the Australian coat of arms as a trademark in other countries? Do you realise that if you don’t register your trademark in another country (as well as your own), then anyone in that country can register it as their own, and prevent you from using it in that country?
      Joe Blo could register the Australian coat of arms as his personal company’s trademark, and then rock up to the Australian embassy and demand that they take his trademarked logo off their wall, or pay him for using it.
      Is that what you want to happen?

  76. hanksy:

    what a long ass read from start 2nd december 2012 all the way to finish 30 dec 2019. with the recent wildfires across Australia and the internet content out there on Agenda 21/30 yada yada. your going to get some more webclick traffic. i can only hope it brings just positive words of debate.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Wow, I salute your epic effort to read the whole lot. And feel honoured that you thought it was interesting enough to keep reading.

  77. hanksy:

    i forgot to add something that i wondered about during my almost entire day reading this article/debate. the question relates to states and public service offices having ABN numbers “proving coorparation”.(air quoted sarcasticly) it would be an idea to see when as in the date, those ABN where established, was it before, during or after the GST was introduced to the country. now im not a highly educated person just a thinkerer.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      That’s a very good point. I looked i up and you’re right. This is what the wikipedia entry for ABN says:

      “The ABN was introduced on 1 July 2000 by John Howard’s Liberal government as part of a major tax reform, which included the introduction of a GST.”

  78. Deb:

    My God! Thank you Lau for persisting with trying to help those of us who truly value an objective viewpoint on this issue. I agree that the other side have failed to acknowledge the points you have made, both logical and those backed up with facts. I also agree with your statement that the poor thinking of many people is as a result of them being disempowered and angry at something. Mind you I can’t blame them. There is a lot to get angry at in the system today that has badly let the average man and woman down. Anyway I will sleep well tonight. Thank you.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Thank you for your kind words, Deb.

  79. Truth:

    Commonwealth of Australia vs COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA…. you’re welcome 🙂

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Capitalisation doesn’t make any difference. Show me where in any law, or in the constitution, it says that the capitalisation of a name matters.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Do you believe that if you got your lawyer to write two contracts, one with your name capitalised and the other non-catpitalised, that only one of them would be legally referring to you? If so, then please get your lawyer to draw up a contract where you transfer all your wealth to me and get him to use what you think is the non-legal form of your name. Send it to me and I’ll prove to you that it is definitely legal!

  80. Cathy:

    To me these conspiracy theorists are like cult leaders & their believers are the cult members. They are personality types. Some need the power & adulation of being seen as some sort of leader/saviour of the peoples sufferings & the others, the followers have some sort of need to latch on to something or someone & have something ‘believe’ in. They seem to lack something & being in these ‘cults’ seems to fulfil this lacking. I’m so over conspiracy theories that any time someone starts to talk about one I have an overwhelming urge to throat punch them!

    • Rabbitnexus:

      That is a very shallow and biased outlook Cathy. It is never wise to judge motives and character of those who hold a different point of view from oneself. People seem to do it all the time. Whether religion, politics or science, if you’ve not been part of the other side, your analysis of others’ motives and character will always come across as self projection. It is no different from some here who jumped easily to asserting Lau is a government agent. That was ridiculous and seems to imply a very simplistic and black/white outlook. It denies the man the right to have another outlook from your own and indicates less of a desire to know truth than to arbitrate truth. Particularly foolish in a matter so complex and which does not have a definite and undeniable answer at this time. A skeptic is not someone who accepts what is said by authorities. A true skeptic isn’t going to defend an idea and ignore any challenge as unworthy of consideration.

  81. I got a 404 on the following link

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Thanks for the heads-up. He has now deleted that page, I’ve edited the text to sat that. Luckily I copied the appropriate bits from his page.

  82. Alex:

    Wow I just spent 5 hours reading this thread in its entirety and I must say it is fundamentally more entertaining then anything current offered on streaming networks. Come on ladies and gentlemen lau makes a fantastic argument based on his opinion of how ridiculous it would be for such a huge perpetrating scam to leave a paper trail that aus is a registered corp these people are far too conniving deceitful and intelligent to leave evidence like that floating around and accessible to any chimp that knows how to operate a website. The banking however is irrefutable ( the creature of Jekyll Island by Edward griffin and confessions of an economic hitman by John perkins are fantastic reads. It’s the tax havens, wars and banking that we need to divert attention to. I’ll be honest I thought this sec thing to be true but after all this i have to side with lau on the sec. The creation of wealth and banking though i don’t agree. The banking has a nefarious side used to enslave. Still it would be a fucking game changer if the government would respond to their people though

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Hi Alex,
      I’m happy to hear that you enjoyed all the comments, and that you changed your mind on some things.

  83. Joze:


    I wonder what Australia Pecker Maroo is about?

    • Mel:

      True I’d like to know about Pecker Maroo they have list of Australian names under them. So is that where Australia has been “sold off” to America?

  84. Look at `em, arguing against what they just read while thinking they are smart & know the law. AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. YOU WERE JUST TOLD.

Page 1 of 1
Leave a Reply to Lau Guerreiro Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Receive notification of future posts: By email     By rss
Receive email notifications when new comments are added to this post.