Filling on Government

I was looking to get started with noticing the government, what is the order process of notice fillings, and should you notice the Governer Generals office first and then state government heads of departments Attorney General ,Premiers Office etc.
Then to regulatory bodies about payment?.

That is the approach I would take. Start at the top and then work your way from the bottom up when you file against a particular former govt. employee. That way you can mention, if you need to, that you did notice the employee's supervisor on such and such a date.

Would you firstly start with Courtsey notice along with Declaration of facts and Commercial bill and Declaration of human rights registered mail confermation delivery 3 times with a gap of 96 hrs to be sure.(assuming they dont responed) and prehaps sending copies of original notices fillied in washington. After that a mass mail out to heads of forclosed government deptments and opposition groups shadow ministries along with other gov sub corps police, water, power, transport that ill no longer be tolerating fraudulent claims from. then reiterate trems and conditions of further correspondence when contacted again?.

Eamonn Connaire wrote:I was looking to get started with noticing the government, what is the order process of notice fillings, and should you notice the Governer Generals office first and then state government heads of departments Attorney General ,Premiers Office etc.
Then to regulatory bodies about payment?.

As a point of clarity, you are not noticing "the government", you are noticing people IN the alleged 'government'. Same with the GG. You are noticing Quentin Bryce, not the 'Governor General'.

I don't know the exact details but FYI, we have not actually had a properly and lawfully appointed GG for many years; decades I believe, (you could look it up). All the more reason to notice Quentin Bryce (the woman) not the title.

Cheers,

Flightoffire
(pron: flight of fire)

In regards to Quentin Bryce my understanding is that our Constitution only mentions a man as
Governor General therefore at this time none of our Governments as I understand it are legal.
as there is nothing written to allow it. I don't think this was meant to be anti feminist just something that was not thought about at the time.
But of Course we Know they are not using our Constitution any how but UCC Laws.

ringer100 wrote:In regards to Quentin Bryce my understanding is that our Constitution only mentions a man as Governor General therefore at this time none of our Governments as I understand it are legal.
as there is nothing written to allow it. I don't think this was meant to be anti feminist just something that was not thought about at the time.
But of Course we Know they are not using our Constitution any how but UCC Laws.

Re male/female, yes it does say "man". So per the 'letter of the law', we can only have a 'man' in there.

Now, if the will of the people, or even the 'government' for that matter, in this day and age wishes to make our constitution (or other law books) more gender neutral, fine, ask the people of Australia (we are their employees). The very large majority would not have a problem with dropping the gender bias. This could simply be done by adding something like, "In this document, unless indicated otherwise, the reference to one gender is inclusive of the other, and vice versa." Or similar.

So sorry Quentin, you can't be there for 2 reasons. You were not lawfully appointed and you are are not a "man". Until such time as we update the constitution to include females (which most of us would be happy to do) and you (and our government) follow the LAW to get appointed, then with respect, would you kindly step down from your position. Thanks.

Even then, we have been recognised internationally for decades as a SOVEREIGN nation and do NOT answer to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth any more, so, the above paragraph is irrelevant anyway.

Re UCC. My understanding is they started using our legitimate Constitution but it only lasted for a few years. The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 placed us in a position of being a sovereign country when soon after that we should have gone through the process similar to America where we declare out adult hood (independence) and created a President of Australia. Then in 1973, Goff Whitlam wanted to make changes to our Constitution (which the government can legitimately put to us, their boss). Her majesty QEII said 'you need to ask the people of Australia first'. He did not. Since then the Constitution has definitely been invalid.

So, as far as I understand they started with legitimate constitution but you are correct that they do NOT use it now.

Scoundrels

Flightoffire

Recently I googled "When did the Commonwealth of Australia become a Company?" and what came was; http://www.peoplesmandate.iinet.net.au/Government_as_Foreign_corporation.html
which showed that Aust has been a Company since about 1934. . . take a look. . .

ringer100 wrote:In regards to Quentin Bryce my understanding is that our Constitution only mentions a man as  
Governor General therefore at this time none of our Governments as I understand it are legal.
as there is nothing written to allow it. I don't think this was meant to be anti feminist just something that was not thought about at the time.
But of Course we Know they are not using our Constitution any how but UCC Laws.

. . . and from the same source as mentioned prior there has not been a VALID Governor or Gov General since 1929...