It all comes down to going backwards. People claim the law is this and the law is that. But when you understand the Constitution which was brought in in 1901, you realise no major changes (i.e. changes going against the constitution) can be made without a referendum. The 1901 constitution is effectively based on Common Law principles. And the reason why we are/were called the 'Commonwealth' is we share the wealth of the nation. It does not belong to anybody.

Basically speaking, common law practices are very simple, do no harm. You cannot be jailed or fined for 'hate speech' or for doing a U turn where the roads department say you can't or for J walking, etc. unless that action causes harm.

The way I like to put it is there is one Law - don't be a cunt.

"Legislation" has been brought in after the Government was replaced with a Corporation pretending to be a government in 1973. A fictitious 'Queen of Australia' was created, so whenever an oath was sworn after that change, the oath was being sworn to the imaginary Queen of Australia instead of the legitimate Queen of the Commonwealth. Our constitution states any member of the Commonwealth (British, Canadian, etc.) can run in parliament, so the whole dual citizenship scandal from a few years ago is a load of tripe. However the fictitious Constitution of Australia which is what people are unknowingly swearing their oaths to says only Australians can run in their corporate parliament. Parliament members are for this reason nothing more than a corporate board of directors and we do not have a sitting government at all.

I know I'm all over the place here, but going back to using language to fool people. The Government of Queensland I believe is the correct words representing the Commonwealth Constitutionally Accurate governing body, whilst the Queensland Government is the name given to the unconstitutional corporate agency pretending to be the Government of Queensland.

So yes, did a referendum take place in 1973 or before allowing the corporation (or the government) the power to create laws in conflict with our 1901 constitution? No.

In the 40's I think it was after the war, additional powers were given to the true government to make laws outside of the boundaries of the British Royal family oversight, however it was stated whichever extra laws were made could not contradict the 1901 constitution. So effectively, everything comes back to the 1901 constitution and that is the true law of our country until a referendum changes it. What the corporation really wants to do is to make Australia a Republic, this way the Constitution is instantly abolished and we become a full fledged dictatorship with no laws to back us up.

The 1901 constitution is not perfect and some parts of it are outdated but it's the best thing we have right now and it's a shit ton better than the consent based dictators trying to rule our lives.

I've been listening to more and more YT videos from this channel.

Let me give you a run down of my brief history in this department - a bit of a timeline.

1 (about 10 years ago). I watched a documentary called 'The Corporation'. This gave a very good run down of the role of corporations + who they are legally obliged to look after. This went well along with various others like America: From Freedom to Fascism, Mad As Hell, Zeitgeist, The World According to Monsanto, Angels don't play this H.A.A.R.P., What in the World are they spraying, The Great Global Warming Swindle & the Police State videos among others.

2 (earlier this year). I was told to listen to Wayne Glew. I had a listen and couldn't really understand what he was talking about but it all sounded great. The reason I couldn't understand was my brain (like everyone elses) is so in tune with what we believe to be law/legislation.

3. I was shown the Strawman notion. This to me made complete sense but I didn't see it as a resolution since unlawful rules can still be physically enforced by police, etc. who think they are doing the right thing when they're not.

4. I listened to a conference type thing on English and Latin language. This further emphasised the Strawman fallacy we've all been fooled by along with how language is used to fool us into consent each and every day.

5. I joined the Commonwealth Common Law FB group.

6. I came across the likes of Tom Barnett, Fanos, Zev, Matt Lawson, Monica, etc who are involved in the protests and fighting the unlawful fines. All this time, I listened to the odd Wayne Glew commentaries but never took them 100%.

7. I attempted to join some Common Law meetings/groups in Australia but it was still very difficult for me to grasp and there seemed to be a lot of in-fighting taking place.

8. I joined the Class Action Lawsuit by Advocate Me. I didn't learn a lot from here, but every little bit has helped in some way.

9. I was informed by the same person who first told me to listen to Wayne Glew that people like Wayne Glew are not the answer because THE ONLY WAY you can be free of the slavery is to denounce your citizenship, so you are no longer under maritime law. Otherwise if you attempt to beat the system from the inside, then you are consentually still under their corrupt jurisdiction. I was told Wayne Glew is too stubborn to denounce his citizenship. This is a very important point to remember for later.

10. I came across the Australia One Party, attempting the political route. Once again, I was told this is a waste of time because of the maritime law jurisdiction/consent. Something felt right about it though and I found it was put well listening to Riccardo say a military approach is best, where you tackle the one problem from as many angles as possible. He stated that he doesn't believe the Strawman people will be successful but he hopes that they are. He stated he believes the Wayne Glews, etc. won't be successful but he hopes they are. He gives full support to each of these movements because every movement is tackling the same enemy. To me, this felt like the most worthy cause I had came across. It felt like the most similar approach to a Trump presidency but an Australian version. Though I also felt like the hope was very low since Australians are nowhere near as awake or Patriotic as Americans.

11. I checked out Jesse Perez / Earth United and continued to learn more things from videos Chris of Masters has posted. Everything seems to align with previous understandings from both the Wayne Glew side of things and the Strawman side of things.

12. I joined the Perth Patriots group, which is an offshoot of people who are A1 supporters but not solely A1 only. They are doing other things in their own ways. Potentially I see the Perth Patriots group as a good local support group for me.

13. The Perth Patriots Group mentioned the Aussie Patriots Roll to me. I looked into this and realised it's a group coming together with walks from all areas. I.e. A1 party has joined. Advocate Me has joined. Fanos has joined. There is no specific commitment other than a commitment to take our country back. Anybody who joins (which should be everybody) can continue doing all the other things they are separately doing and there appears to be no ramifications for joining, since the information is stored offline. I came to realise people like Wayne Glew have not denounced their citizenship because they are one of very few true constitutional officers, who have swore the legitimate oath prior to the 70's. Anybody who has become a police officer or judge or politician, etc after 1973 has sworn an oath on an unlawfully altered constitution. If Wayne were to take the Strawman route, he would be sacrificing something very powerful in an attempt to take care of himself instead of trying to take care of the country. Whilst what he's doing might not be the single best approach (though it also could be) it is still tackling this issue from one important side.

Thank you for posting this as a story, good sir.