04 Australian Tax Office an illegal entity? It seems so
After all, it is a private company registered in Washington (Click here) and according to a World Bank Official, tax revenue is given to the Roman Catholic Vatican (Click here). So how does the Government run the country ? Simple – it borrows and pays interest on top. Borrows from whom ? I’m sure you can work that out ? So why the continual push to raise the debt level when the Gov’t already has the power to create our own money system interest free and debt free ?
The following facts support the claim of the ATO being illegal:
All law in Australia must be passed by a Parliament in both houses (in states that have both houses) and then by law must be gazetted.
The law that established the Australian Taxation Office has been challenged in a particular court whereby the Plaintiff created the need to document the ATO’s formation to the satisfaction of the Defendant and the Court.
The Plaintiff, with the approval of the Australian National Library, brought into the court every Federal Government Gazette for the time period around when the law was passed by the Federal Parliament.
The Defendant was asked to ‘Please show us in which Gazette we will find the Legislation regarding the Australian Taxation Office’, to which the Defendant stated; ‘It is not in any Government Gazette’.
The judge of the matter then stated; ‘You have proved beyond any doubt that the law establishing the Australian Taxation Office has not been Gazetted and thus place its legality in question’ he went on, ‘But I can not permit Australia to fall into financial chaos and thus strike out this evidence’.
Further, Justice J Callinan, in Moelike v Chapman [B8/2000 (24/8/2000)], agreed that the ATO was not a legal entity. This has been validated by two judges.
Since this case, an article from the Aussie Post quotes the High Court case on May 17, 2000, where the ATO admitted it isn’t a legal personality, a view also held by the presiding judge, Justice Callinan. It goes further, stating “at the heart of the matter is the inability of the ATO to provide any documentation that proves it is either a legal entity or was established following correct procedure…”.
Further, as a response by Anthony Wallace, officer of the ATO, to Mr D Cameron on February 25, 2000, in an affidavit ii, stated that the writer and others he contacted could not identify any relevant files or documents setting up the ATO.
The Australian Government has misled the people of Australia in matters relating to taxation.
Extracts from letter, in our possession, and dated June 29, 2005, addressed to the ‘Taxation Commissioner’, Mr M Carmody, follow:
The letter stated:
As you are apparently aware, via Australian “High Court” cases and numerous other legal challenges against the “Australian Taxation Office”, the credibility of your “commission” and the status of the “ATO” have been known to be, for some considerable time, illegitimate.
Please take further notice that your “commission” is entirely dependent upon the following:
Laws issued by a legal “Australian Parliament” granting the gathering of taxes,
A legally appointed “Australian Government”, and;
A Governor General with the appropriate legal status as granted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland,
It was also stated:
Please take further notice that as it has been revealed in courts in the United Kingdom:
The ruling iii in the Chancery Division of the High Court in London,on Friday 25th June 2004 (the case was heard by Master Bencher Bowman, of the Chancery Division of the British High Court, who had previously reserved his decision on 9th March 2004), has stated that “Letters Patent, issued under ‘The Great Seal of Australia,’ by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, appointing a Governor General in Australia, have been issued incorrectly.”
That as a result of the ruling of the Chancery Division of the British High Court, that the Governor General of Australia holds no executive powers what so ever.
That as a result of the ruling of the Chancery Division of the British High Court, all current Australian Laws assented to on behalf of a British Monarch by the Governor General of Australia, cannot hold any valid or legal executive authority as the Governor General’s appointments have not been lawfully issued and are in legal terms ultra vires.
It was also stated:
I have included, as attachments to this letter, documents and letters that have been sent to various persons to acquaint them with the travesty of injustice that has been imposed upon the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia.
It was further stated:
Take Note: that as you now have both actual and constructive notice of this legal defect you have a Duty of Care Obligation to act immediately and step down from your position, once you have notified the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia.
It was also stated by the writer that shortly after the letter was delivered, Mr Carmody left the position of Commissioner of Taxation and was replaced by another and that there was no response to his letter.
Another letter in our possession, by the same writer, was sent to the new Commissioner of Taxation on or about 15th February 2006 and stating:
Please take notice: that I requested the “Commissioner of Taxation” to step-down on the 29th June 2005 as he held no legal status.
It was also stated:
Accordingly any attempt by the “Australian Taxation Office” to demand monies with menace from any Australian citizen is an illegal act and must stop forthwith. All current and pending claims by the “Australian Taxation Office” upon the Citizens of Australia must be withdrawn immediately.
I (writer of this letter) forwarded documentation to the “Taxation Commissioner” on the 29th June 2005 to acquaint him with the travesty of justice that has been imposed upon the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia. You are advised to review this documentation without delay.
Take Note: that as you now have both actual and constructive notice of this legal defect you have a Duty of Care Obligation to act immediately.
Thus, as is made clear in the above information and attachments, no current law, created in Australia after 1919 has any legality. The writer of the above letter extracts was attempting to rectify this matter with the least amount of political, financial and human suffering as possible. Rather it was an attempt to ‘wake up’ the system.
Further, we are aware of private arrangements made by the Australian Taxation Office and other persons. Many people had taken action against (or had actions taken against them) by the Australian Taxation Office. We understand that in such private arrangements, the Australian Taxation Office had dropped all legal action and paid compensation to the opposing party(s).
We further understand that in many documented cases people had entered into an arrangement whereby the opposing party need not pay any further taxation in Australia. In some cases the Australian Taxation Office has even agreed to reimburse all taxation paid by the opposing party in a further private arrangement.
Many senior political persons, in both major political parties, are aware of this and simply turn a ‘blind eye’; because they are aware of the outrage that would be felt by the Australian people, should this matter be made public.
The late Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, had written an ‘explanatory statement’ iv and a letter v supporting the conclusions reached that underpin the above statements, upon which our requests are founded.
In his statement he makes note of the fact that these conclusions are based on the historical facts.
They were solely relied upon.
There is no political rhetoric or legal opinion unless based on historical fact.
His statement goes further in confirming access to the historical documentation.
One of Sir Harry’s key findings is:
“I therefore have come to the conclusion that the current legal and political system in use in Australia and its States and Territories has no basis in law”.
We do not seek to try these findings in a court of law. Rather, we would prefer to establish common ground where this matter could be concluded out of court.