RSS

“Who Are You?”

27 Feb

Australian Great Seals

Australian Great Seals

Here’s an extraordinary story.   Scott Bartel, an Australian, recently imported a 1959 Corvette from the US to Perth, Australia.  The Customs Department of Australia seized the Corvette and held it as a “security” until the Mr. Bartel agreed to pay an importation fee/fine.

Bartel refused.  He began to investigate.

He discovered that “Customs” was a private corporation rather than a department of the de jure government.  He discovered that the government of Australia was not the de jure government created by the Australian constitution.  Instead, he learned that the current government of Australia is a private corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) at Washington DC.

He began to pose questions in writing to the alleged government that essentially asked “Who are you?”  The alleged “government” simply refused to answer.

Mr. Bartel discovered that Australia has two “governments”: a de jure, constitutional government and a de facto corporate government that has apparently existed since about A.D. 1927.

Almost as important as the discovery of two “governments,” Mr. Bartel also produced the following video that explains his discovery.  That video is logical, orderly, and moving at a sufficiently slow pace to allow viewers to follow along without much strain. It’s really a very effective video presentation.

The video reveals that the current government of Australia is really a private corporation registered in Washington DC.  By implication, if the government of Australia is private corporation registered in Washington DC, then why should we doubt that the current governments of the States of the Union within The United States of America aren’t also private corporations registered in Washington DC?

By probing into the nature of the government of Australia, Mr. Bartel has provided a remarkable confirmation of many of the theories (“The State” vs. “this state,” for example) that I and others have advanced on blogs like this one.  I’m impressed.  I’m envious.  Mr. Bartel has a great talent for communication.

The video is almost one-hour long.  I guarantee it’s worth your time.

What’s happening in Australia is happening here in the US, too.  If the privately incorporated government of Australia is registered with the SEC in Washington, you can bet that that’s where the private corporations acting as the governments of The State of Texas, The State of Oregon, etc., are also registered.

video     00:52:42

 

Tags: , , , ,

44 responses to ““Who Are You?”

  1. dasanco

    February 27, 2013 at 3:13 AM

    And the really GREAT thing about corporations is … if they breach the TRUST, their corporate charters can be liquidated/revoked. We just need to start calling them to THEIR duty/obligation.

     
    • Adask

      February 27, 2013 at 6:26 AM

      If it’s true that the government of Oregon is really a private corporation (or a conglomerate of private corporations), then we should learn how to attack as corporations–in the same way we might attack a corporation like GM and it board of directors. Because the courts are just as “incorporated” as the executive branch of government, they won’t help us. Therefore, we’d have to discover non-judicial strategies for going after corporations “administratively”–perhaps with liens.

      If each governmental agency is really a private corporation, it will have some sort of Achilles heel that exposes every corporation to some sort of direct attack by private people, customers, whatever.

       
      • Doug (noone222)

        February 27, 2013 at 8:43 AM

        Regardless of the “entities” name or title if it operates utilizing “commercial paper” it is NOT the constitutionally authorized government. That’s the achilles heel. How does any judge get around the gold / silver clause and yet maintain his/her oath ? The only way is by some type of agreement on the part of the parties to enter the commercial arena and leave behind the original jurisdiction.

        I don’t care one iota what claims the murderers in D.C. make – I will not fund their worldwide genocide. No one should damn the repurcussions. (I know I’m likely singing to the choir here but it never hurts to reinforce righteousness.

        The system killing America is a fiction supported by a belief system that rivals God.

         
      • Charlie von Schlesien

        February 27, 2013 at 9:26 PM

        Statutes describing quo warranto usually indicate where it is appropriate. Ordinarily it is proper to try the issue of whether a public office or authority is being abused. For example, it might be used to challenge the Unauthorized Practice of a profession, such as law or medicine. In such situations, the challenge is an assertion that the defendant is not qualified to hold the position she claims—a medical doctor, for example.

        In some quo warranto proceedings, the issue is whether the defendant is entitled to hold the office he claims, or to exercise the authority he presumes to have from the government. In addition, proceedings have challenged the right to the position of county commissioner, treasurer, school board member, district attorney, judge, or tax commissioner. In certain jurisdictions, quo warranto is a proper proceeding to challenge individuals who are acting as officers or directors of business corporations.

        A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute may authorize a private person to do so without the consent of the prosecutor. Unless otherwise provided by statute, a court permits the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto after an exercise of sound discretion, since quo warranto is an extraordinary exercise of power and is not to be invoked lightly. Quo warranto is not a right available merely because the appropriate legal documents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify governmental interference with the individual holding the challenged office, privilege, or license

         
      • secuman

        March 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM

         
      • Greg

        March 7, 2013 at 6:15 PM

        Alfred i don’t know if you are familar with Rod Class he’s got some good stuff on Administrative Procedure. http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-724865.mp3

         
      • Mark Twang

        July 26, 2015 at 2:32 AM

        @ “Who Are You?”
        YOU KNOW !! You ain’t no dummy!! You know what’s goin on!! :-) D

         
    • Sparky

      March 6, 2013 at 10:40 AM

      dasanco,
      If you sue “SUCH” an agency in ITS corporate capacity in the FED Courts, the Fed Court will say “SUCH agency IS a Government Instrumentality. If you sue “SUCH” an agency as being a Govern-ment Instrumentality,the Fed Court says that “such” an agency IS a private corporation. Either way,your case is thrown out. This information was proven on a prior thread but right now I don’t remember which one. I have lost all my info due to a “glitch” (<?) in my computer.

       
    • Larry

      March 14, 2013 at 11:09 PM

      Nobody is addressing corporations at step 1, that I can observe.

      Why do we tolerate the existence of these multi-national corporations, that steal America blind, in the first place? Our Constitution gave no authority to any “government” entity to issue corporate charters. Corporate charters may only be granted by the sovereign (the people). An appearance in any court (ANY!) by special visitation (not “special appearance”) for the purpose of challenging the charter of a corporation may be made by anyone. If that corporation cannot produce evidence of a valid charter signed by the sovereign, that corporation is dissolved at that instant. Another purpose of a special visitation is to examine the by-laws of a corporation and determine if it is adhereing to those by-laws.

      Congress is not sovereign; and neither are the state legislatures! I will provide much evidence of these facst if anyone requires proof. Only the states (states-in-fact: the people) may grant charters, and this is proper. Consider this as an example: The new oil fields in the Dakotas – this oil belongs to us, the people, as long as it is in the ground. If someone wishes to drill for that oil, he may apply to the state (us) for a charter, which will stipulate the conditions for using our resources (maximum fuel prices, for instance) , to form a corporation in that state and drill, if approved. This process allows we, the people, to maintain control of OUR natural resources and not be robbed by these criminal organizations called “corporations” of today. If a corporation wishes to operate in more than one state it must possess a charter from each state (a true “multi-national” corporation.)

      This is extremely simplified but should get the idea across.

      By the way; let’s stop calling servants occupying our public offices of trust “the government”! We are the government and we are brain-washing ourselves by committing this act.

      Larry.

       
      • Jerry Sparks

        March 26, 2013 at 10:07 PM

        Larry,
        @ >Congress is not sovereign; and neither are the state legislatures! I

        I know you are right if you are looking at it from “the original intent” view. But Congress altered the original intent & purpose of the 1787 Constitution & the “necessary & proper clause as applies to Congress in Article 1, by Amendments enforced by “appropriate legislation.” The 11th & 12th amendments as they are called, were passed through the “necessary & proper” clause. Actually, the 11th & 12th are really the first two amendments. The 1st through the 10th so called amend- ments are actually 10 articles in addition to the 1787 Constitution. Beginning with the 13th Amendment which is actually the 3rd “Amendment” the necessary & proper clause did not “fit into the scheme of things” SO this “hurdle” was replaced with “appropriate legislation” because “necessary & proper” conflicted with the “plan.” Let me ask you this. Who has or claims “sovereign immunity? How did “they” get “sovereign immunity? “‘

         
  2. bandit

    February 27, 2013 at 6:37 AM


    something else that is within the same vein of thinking.

     
    • Doug (noone222)

      February 27, 2013 at 8:26 AM

      It appears to me that enforcement of the lien is where failure exists. The vette is still in the possession of customs is it not ?

       
      • Adask

        February 27, 2013 at 2:30 PM

        The video does not show that the vette has been returned. I presume it still remains in the hands of the “customs” people.

        Why would that be? Maybe the “customs” simply can’t dare to give it back and admit they were wrong. Maybe it’s just malice.

        But maybe it’s because Scott Bartel (Corvette’s owner) made a fundamental mistake, early on. I.e., I believe the corporate system of “this state” operates on the primary assumption that you, I and Mr. Bartel have VOLUNTARILY entered into “this state” on a day-by-day, transaction-by-transaction basis.

        If so, did Mr. Bartel create evidence that he “voluntarily” entered into “this state”? For example, long before his Corvette arrived at Perth, Australia, did he fill out something like an “application” with the corporation “customs” department that asked them to certify or approve the importation of his Corvette? Did Bartel give “customs” some sort of notice that he was going to import? Did he request that they approve his import?

        It might be that he filed some papers with the US to allow for the exportation of the Corvette. By filing with the US for US export approval, he may have unwittingly but implicitly filed a request for import approval with Australian “customs”.

        If he did something at the very beginning that essentially authorized Australian “customs” to involve itself with his Corvette, until he somehow refutes his first unwitting request that “customs” be involved, “customs” will stay involved.

        This raises the possibility that the correct “importation” procedure would’ve been to file paperwork with “customs” long before the Corvette arrives that the vehicle will be imported into the constitutional Commonwealth rather than the corporation; that he will only consent to pay any importation fee to the constitutional department of customs and not to some corporate “customs”; that he does not voluntarily agree to enter into the Australian version of “this state” for the purpose of importing his Corvette.

        Scott Bartel has demonstrated an amazing capacity to investigate and then see evidence of the corporate government. But that “amazing capacity” is not necessarily a perfect capacity. It’s quite possible that he’s overlooked some early error that he, himself, may have committed.

         
      • Yartap

        February 28, 2013 at 9:34 PM

        Alfred,

        I believe you’re right that Scott Bartel used the service of customs to place himself in their jurisdiction or authority. Like ole Joe Kennedy, a bottle of Scotch cannot come to this country without his private tax upon the bottle you purchase. To not come under the required private tax, don’t purchase the scotch, vette or social security.

         
    • Greg

      March 1, 2013 at 12:04 AM

      Not excited about posting this video B/C i dont like Their view points on the Bible and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but he has a point about the U.C.C filings of The OPPT.

       
      • Greg

        March 1, 2013 at 12:05 AM

         
    • Greg

      March 7, 2013 at 6:11 PM

      Nope its not in the OPPT , But here is some solid info . http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-724865.mp3

       
  3. Anthony Clifton

    February 27, 2013 at 7:17 AM

    define STUPOR :

    http://leftwing-christian.net/2013/02/25/jesus-words-to-his-jewish-followers.aspx

    could fraud artists, USURPERS, IDENTITY THIEVES have some HAND {left} in this

    http://www.roitov.com/articles/rovamuslemi.htm

    PERFIDY ?

    http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/2013/02/ban-talmud-as-hate-speech.html

    who can distinguish betweeen the Sacred & the PROFANE ?

    http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=798

    seriously….remember PRISONER X . . from OZ

    http://www.israelect.com/reference/Willie-Martin/

    there is no WISDOM in the second kick from the MULE…

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040214022133/http://www.hardylaw.net/waco.html

    why would {a} people deliberately and maliciously HATE TRUTH & Believe LIES ?

    Gen 49 – Deut. 32 – Rev 7

     
    • Doug

      February 27, 2013 at 2:18 PM

      why would {a} people deliberately and maliciously HATE TRUTH & Believe LIES ?

      Because most people are comfortable in their chains and see the duties inherent with liberty as an inconvenience.

       
      • Sparky

        February 28, 2013 at 9:24 AM

        Doug
        February 27, 2013 at 2:18 PM
        Doug, You got it !!! Tell it like is !!! Right on !!!

         
      • bandit

        February 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM

         
    • Doug

      February 28, 2013 at 6:46 AM

      @Adask … whenever are we going to stop this quibbling over whether “we got it perfect” concerning our futile attempts to obtain remedy/relief IN THEIR SYSTEM of law ?

      Their codes change, their judges are corrupt, and the ever present “this state-THE STATE-CORPORATE PERSON” controversy amongst other things muddies the water to such an extent that after 50 years (or more) the people attempting to rectify the problem find themselves, homeless, incarcerated or worse.

      Frankly, I think we are in a state of denial. I think we’re still clinging to a false conception of what America is or has become. I can’t tell you how many friends and aquaintances I’ve witnessed go to jail (you included), some dying there, that had attempted to work within the system by filing briefs that addressed their issues before the courts – only to be ignored. Worse yet, the opinions rendered by these so-called courts NEVER attempted to give a conclusive response but utilize sophistry that leaves the litigant in limbo or jail.

      Many, if not most of us, are incapable of comprehending the law(s) and rulings rendered by the courts to a “certainty.” This includes the Supreme Court justices usually divided along party lines. To require thousands of law books and huge law libraries to defend onesself against an ever encroaching government is ludicrous. Most of the folks participating on this forum already know that one must become a lawyer “THE HARD WAY” once coming under attack by the well funded STATE.

      In a free and open society this sort of fraud cannot exist.

       
      • Sparky

        March 4, 2013 at 12:36 AM

        Doug,
        Are you aka as Don,or,Donald,or, Don Bailey ?

         
      • Sparky

        March 4, 2013 at 12:47 AM

        Doug,
        Re: > In a free and open society this sort of fraud cannot exist.

        In a free and open society this sort of fraud DOES NOT exist. In a free and open society ANY SORT of fraud cannot exist. The system we are “up against” EXISTS on FRAUD & FRAUD BEGETS MORE FRAUD !! As you can probably tell, I’m extremely peeved about it. Temporary insanity & justifiable homicide has crossed my mind. If I knew it would work, Have Gun Will Travel,would be resurrected. I might do it anyway,even if justifiable homicide & temporary insanity won’t help.

         
      • Sparky

        March 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM

        Doug,
        I have your comment NOW on the wall in front of my computer. I will read it everyday.I do wish Al would respond to your comment. What you say makes all the sense in the world to me,because, for one thing, as you say,> Many, if not most of us, are incapable of comprehending the law(s) and rulings rendered by the courts to a “certainty.” Doug, this is putting it mildly. I will never understand their flim-flam & I’m weary of trying to understand. If I have the right to remain silent, I will. I will remain silent even if I don’t have the right. Anything I say CAN & WILL BE used against me anyway.

         
      • Jerry Sparks

        March 25, 2013 at 9:13 PM

        @ >No, I’m Doug Scheidt.
        Do you know of a,Robert (Bob) Scheidt? If so, he may very well be the same one I know

         
  4. Big Dick

    February 27, 2013 at 8:07 AM

    The following is taken from another thread on this site

    “A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgments for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from listening to or hearing arguments, presentation or rationale.” ASIS v. US. 568 U.S. F2d 284

    THE TYRANNY OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT VERY LARGELY CONSISTS IN THE ACTION OF THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES. SWIFT V. CITY OF TOPEKA, 43 KAN. 671-, 674.

     
    • Big Dick

      February 27, 2013 at 9:02 AM

      P.S.
      “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
      Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105

      Re: Murdock, BUT obviously a Corp. can convert a liberty into a privilege

       
  5. menaradi RADI

    February 27, 2013 at 10:06 AM

    Hey Al: Awesome find!!! In my foreclosure case, I did try to inquire who the court was representing based on their monetary use of FRN’s and instead of answering they dismissed my petition and others like it. I have a paper trail of this stuff, but maybe this guy’s approach is a better one, just need to keep peeling back the layers and be able to reference the organic constitution, and the differences between them and have them identify where their delegation of authority is derived from over the people. Maybe I will get my house back in the end…we’ll see. Mena

    Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:16:38 +0000 To: menaradi@msn.com

     
  6. palani

    February 27, 2013 at 11:05 AM

    Back around the time Obama took his first two oaths of office I sent 4 weeks of legal notice to the local paper informing anyone who desired to be part of my government to send my notary assistant a certified copy of their oath and bond. I got no takers so the assistant gave me an affidavit of that, I recorded the same with the publishers notarized statement. Now when approached with someone of ‘authority’ I ask why they didn’t accept my offer and inform them that it is too late for them to be any part of my government.

     
    • messianicdruid

      February 27, 2013 at 11:30 AM

      Palani, what do you feel you have accomplished with this? It seems you have set up a controversy in which the g-o-d-s { rulemakers} are at war. It also seems like an infidel would have no motivation to “leave alone” as he would naturally believe his “force” would overcome your “power”.

      As long as the people believe force is stronger than power they will act as slaves instead of free men.

       
      • palani

        February 27, 2013 at 11:58 AM

        Any accommodation that removes ambiguity and argument cannot be bad. Also, making an offer is not dishonorable while going silent or refusing an offer outright actually is dishonorable. Many people seem to be confused that they ‘represent’ someone else as part of government. Does them good to face a little reality once in a while.

         
    • Sparky

      March 5, 2013 at 8:57 AM

      @ >Any accommodation that removes ambiguity and argument cannot be bad

      Reasonable people will agree. We do not deal with “reasonable” people, at least for the most part,i.e., gov-co. BUT if it works for you,by all means do it. Why do the lawyers say,”good luck?”
      I don’t think that is an empty phrase,i.e., good luck. Maybe the judge will not have a hangover. Maybe if it’s a female judge it won’t be that time of the month. Yeah, good luck.

       
      • Doug

        March 10, 2013 at 9:16 AM

        Are you aka as Don,or,Donald,or, Don Bailey ?

        No, I’m Doug Scheidt.

        Many, even some here, cling to an ideology that no longer exists. Seeing with our own eyes does little to change the almost religious fervor of attempting to justify the outcome or ruling handed down (to us little peons) by the high and mighty justices and wordsmiths. We tend to discount ourselves while holding up these congenital liars and thieves.

        Truth doesn’t need a wordsmith and law shouldn’t either. Here’s an example of a ruling a court gave when challenged about a judge issuing a contempt order on his own without a complaint from the executive branch. They later depublished the ruling because it is so blatantly disgusting.

        “We are unable to uphold dry formalism above an exhausted fisc”. After I figured out what was being stated I asked several attorneys what they thought it meant. None offered an opinion.

        What they’re saying is, we can’t uphold the Constitution because the STATE Treasury is exhausted.

         
  7. Anon4fun

    February 27, 2013 at 11:14 AM

    This video goes a long way toward confirming the Adask School of legal theory.

    It also gives an answer to the “whatever you do, don’t vote! – hate the state and start a riot instead!” provocateurs. If you don’t think your vote matters, and you don’t feel up to persuading thousands of people to vote your way (which could, by itself, determine the outcome of local elections), then do something like what this guy did: take legal action through which you can make an important contribution to the cause of freedom. And all you gotta do is file paperwork.

    Funny thing though is how an Australian pseudo-governmental corporation would be registered in Washington DC of all places. Canberra, the capital of Australia, or London, the headquarter city of the British Commonwealth, seem like more likely places.

    Perhaps one way to get an answer to the “who are you?” question is to file suit against these corporations and get the details through discovery.

     
    • bandit

      February 27, 2013 at 11:24 AM


      the world is run by a corporate statehood.

       
  8. Gary Russell

    February 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM

    very thought-provoking Alfred. Now, how to apply same thinking and discovery to the “United States” v. The United States of America…..

     
  9. Greg

    February 27, 2013 at 3:24 PM

     
  10. medicis

    February 27, 2013 at 4:40 PM

    I was disappointed that Fiona didn’t go into her material. Would have liked to have heard her.
    Not a bad presentation but sleep dep was evident… no offense intended.
    The OPPT is, obviously, simply bait to contract. Anyone who has read The Informer, James Montgomery, et. al., would already know most of the law/legal aspects of all of this. Though they are both Christians. I believe in some of it but who knows because the Roman church originally modified the Bible. Render you know what unto you know who…… It was The Informer who did most of the checking for the original 13th Amendment here in this part of the South East. And both JM and Informer provided real history of the early united States of America.

     
  11. Anthony Clifton

    February 28, 2013 at 11:21 AM

    for Doug :

    Jesus said…”My sheep hear my voice”…

    some like to have their ears tickled,

    and behave as silly women…

    clearly “we” are not all the same,

    http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=798

    some have been chemically castrated {lobotomised} [TALMUDVISION]

    http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=144291;title=APFN

    some willfully emasculated themselves

    thinking they would “fit in” {better} with the…. “society”

    http://www.harrychapin.com/music/candor.shtml

    the KINGDOM is not a society of castrated numbskulls [willfully ignorant BRAINDEADGOY]

    http://tomkovach.us/TK-Radio/former.html

    Thank GOD !!

     
  12. Doug

    February 28, 2013 at 2:47 PM

    Thanks for your more than adequate reply. I hope all is well with you. I guess we’re still waiting to see the whites of their eyes before we act upon the countless frauds perpetrated upon an unsuspecting and gullible public.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s