Corporations Masquerading as Government in Australia and World Wide

By Andy Whiteley

Co-Founder of Wake Up World

The Great Seal of the United Kingdom

The Great Seal of the United Kingdom, atop the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900

The Great Seal of Australia, a trademark registered with United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Vs.

Which represents real (de jure) government in Australia?

Which is seen on “government” literature ?

Would you be surprised to find a company with the same name as your country registered with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington DC? Well, guess what?! Among those listed as corporate entities by the United States SEC are Israel, Turkey, Italy, Hungary, Sweden, Finland, Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, The Philippines, South Korea, JapanJamaica, South Africa, Canada, Australia… and my personal favourite (and I quote) “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta as represented by Alberta Investment Management Corp.

Interesting! So what could all this mean? For the purpose of this article we will follow the example of Australia.

Australia…. the lucky country?

  • SEC Entity Name: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
  • SEC Central Index Key (CIK): 0000805157
  • SEC Standard Industrial Code (SIC): 8880 (UNKNOWN)
  • SEC Business Address: 1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20036
  • Fiscal Year End: 0630

Well, that certainly raises some questions!

Why is a company called ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’ registered in Washington DC? What reason could there be for a country to be registered as a company?

By definition, aren’t corporate and government entities mutually exclusive? And doesn’t government regulate companies?

Why would Australia be registered with the SEC in the United States? And why would it provide a ‘Prospectus’ and annual ‘Economic and Fiscal Outlook’ documents to the SEC? And be subject to SEC regulation?

Why is the Great Seal of Australia a trademark registered with United States Patent and Trademark Office?

Could the ‘Australian Government’ be a corporate entity masquerading as real government, for profit, and not for the purpose of governance? Does the ‘Australian Government’ truly represent “the people” and not shareholders in another country?

Why do today’s government departments have corporate mission statements like “we provide services on BEHALF of government” and “our CLIENTS include government…”?

What happened to “we ARE government”?? Does this suggest they are NOT true government, but a company masquerading as government?

If a company registered in Washington DC is falsely claiming government status in Australia, what happened to the real (de jure) government with a similar name? And when?

And are the laws in Australia therefore just rules for employees and contractors of the corporation?

Interesting. Let’s look a little closer…

Perhaps it is a requirement that the Commonwealth of Australia registers as a company entity in order to trade with the United States of America. Are all the other countries who trade with the United States also registered on the American SEC? Is ‘the United States of America’ also registered with ASIC, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission? And is Australia similarly registered with the corresponding trade regulators in other countries?

The answer appears to be NO.

International trade implies mutual agreement; reciprocity; a common method of exchange. But the reality is that the ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’ is registered as a corporate entity with the United States SEC, but not the other way around. There appear to be no comparable corporate entities registered in other countries with which Australia trades. And nations ranking among the United States’ biggest trading partners do NOT have corporate avatars registered with the American SEC. Perhaps registration in Washington DC is for the purpose of trading Government Bonds. Interesting…

… But this strange corporate entity is only half the story. Before government bonds can even exist, surely there must first be a legitimate government.

Government and the role of Governor-General in Australia

In Australia, the Governor-General is the representative of the Monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II) and the Administrator of Government. Given that the Governor-General administers government in Australia, government can only exist in Australia with a valid Governor-General. The Governor-General is reliant upon the existence of the ‘Office of Governor-General’, which was originally constituted by the late Queen Victoria in Letters Patent dated 29th October 1900, passed under the Monarch’s seal – the Great Seal Of The United Kingdom (view Letters Patent 1900).

The power and authority to revoke, alter or amend those Letters Patent was reserved by the late Queen Victoria to her heirs and successors. Given those Letters Patent were issued under the ‘Great Seal of the United Kingdom’, surely any revocation, alteration or amendment must be issued by an heir and successor under the same Seal.

So what’s the problem?

In 1984, Letters Patent supposedly revoked the original Letters Patent of 1900 and provided new provisions for the Office of Governor-General (view Letters Patent 1984). This happened under the ‘Great Seal of Australia’, which we already know is a corporate trademark registered with the United States Patent & Trademark Office in the U.S. (view registration)

Surely such an attempt at revocation cannot therefore be lawful? And if not, what Office is the Governor-General in Australia presently occupying? Is the person we call “Governor-General” truly a representative of an “heir and successor” to the late Queen Victoria?

The answer appears to be NO.

Given that the Governor-General appoints Ministers, Judges, Commissioners and Justices of the Peace, and ascribes Royal Assent as the Monarch’s representative in Australia – using the Monarch’s Seal – in the absence of a valid Governor-General, are there any legitimate government offices in Australia?

Again… the answer appears to be NO.

So let’s test the theory…

A case study

Wake Up World friend and colleague Scott Bartle documented his recent dealings with ‘Australian Customs & Border Protection Service’ in his self-funded documentary “What The FUQ? – Frequently Unanswered Questions of the Australian Government”.

This simple, concise and sometimes hilarious case-study follows Scott’s ongoing interactions with a supposed “government” entity that simply does not behave as a genuine government agency should.

And all he did was ask them to demonstrate their validity!

Documentary Trailer – What The FUQ Trailer (2:47 mins)

To view this documentary in full, Click here. I highly recommended it.

So… IS the “Australian Government” the same government the original Office of Governor-General was intended to Administer?

It’s a question that officials at all levels of “Australian Government” have seem unwilling or unable to answer. Some readers may think I’m a crack-pot for even asking the question. “Break out the tin-foil hats!” they’ll cry! But please… Before you form an opinion or post a comment on this article, ask the Australian Government the same question yourself:

Can you please demonstrate that today’s Office of Governor-General is the same Office that was constituted by the late Queen Victoria in Letters Patent of 1900?

It is your right, after all. And there are certainly some details that don’t add up. But it gets better….

That’s odd, they certainly don’t ACT like a true government.

At first “Government” may just ignore you. But since anyone claiming government status has a responsibility to prove it, their silence is very indicative, don’t you think? So push your Government a little further, and see what happens when you really start to question who’s who. Taxes & fines are suddenly waived, and miraculously, licenses & permits are no longer required! And it doesn’t stop there.

Does this sound like the behaviour of legitimate government? NO, it does not. If challenged, does a legitimate government not simply demonstrate its validity and continue to act within its lawful authority? Or does legitimate government exempt that person’s responsibilities and wave them through the gates, quickly, quietly and with a minimum of fuss? “Nothing to see here!”

Is this situation unique to Australia?

Let’s find out!

To our friends and readers from the Commonwealth of Australia, we recommend you contact your local Members and Senators and ask them one simple question:

Can you please demonstrate that today’s Office of Governor-General is the same Office that was constituted by the late Queen Victoria in Letters Patent of 1900?

To our friends and readers outside Australia, we recommend you identify the documents that established the original offices of government in your country, then ask one simple question of your government representatives:

Can you please demonstrate that today’s government is the same one as established at the inception of this country?

Demonstrating its own legitimacy is a very simple thing that every government agency should be able to do. And in a true democracy, silence is an unacceptable response of government to questions of its very legitimacy. But today the “Australian Government” appears unwilling or unable to prove its legitimacy.

Is yours?

It only takes a few minutes to write to your local member’s office. Please come back to Wake Up World and tell our readers how your enquiry was met. Silence? Jargon? Or a simple demonstration of your government’s legitimacy?

We’d love to hear your stories, so please leave a comment or send us an email

So what the FUQ do we do next?

Written enquiries made to Ministers and Government agencies, to the Office of the Prime Minister and to the Office of Governor General remain unanswered. So in the absence of a response from Government, Wake Up World supports respectfully escalating this matter to the current Monarch, ‘Her Majesty’, The Queen.

Surely ‘Her Majesty’ must know the answer; why a corporation in the United States bears the name ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’; why in 1984 her authority to amend the provisions for the Office of Governor-General was granted on a company letterhead; why those claiming to represent true government in Australia have been unable to prove that status; and why some, when challenged, may suddenly overlook one’s obligations and run silently in the other direction.

SIGN THE PETITION

     …and ask ‘Her Majesty’ for the truth.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

     …we all have a right to know.

HOLD YOUR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE

     …it is just one simple question.

In a true democracy, silence is an unacceptable answer of government to questions of its legitimacy.

About the Author

Andy Whiteley is co-founder of Wake Up World.

CC

 

Advertisements

Why Amazon’s Collaboration with the CIA is So Ominous and Vulnerable

As the world’s biggest online retailer, Amazon wants a benevolent image to encourage trust from customers. Obtaining vast quantities of their personal information has been central to the firm’s business model. But Amazon is diversifying — and a few months ago the company signed a $600 million contract with the Central Intelligence Agency to provide “cloud computing” services.

Amazon now has the means, motive and opportunity to provide huge amounts of customer information to its new business partner. An official statement from Amazon headquarters last fall declared: “We look forward to a successful relationship with the CIA.”

The Central Intelligence Agency has plenty of money to throw around. Thanks to documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, we know that the CIA’s annual budget is $14.7 billion; the NSA’s is $10.8 billion.

The founder and CEO of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, is bullish on the company’s prospects for building on its initial contract with the CIA. As you might expect from a gung-ho capitalist with about $25 billion in personal wealth, Bezos figures he’s just getting started.

Bezos publicly savors the fact that Amazon has proven its digital prowess — aggregating, safeguarding and analyzing many billions of factoids about human beings — to the satisfaction of the CIA.

The company’s Amazon Web Services division is “the leader in infrastructure cloud computing,” Bezos boasted at a September 2013 meeting with journalists at the Washington Post (shortly after he bought the newspaper). He lauded the high “rate of invention” of Amazon’s technical web team, adding: “Their product offering is far ahead of anyone else.”

Apparently the CIA agrees. The agency gave Amazon the contract for $600 million even though it wasn’t the lowest bid.

Article image

Amazon’s trajectory into the CIA’s spooky arms may be a bit more than just corporate eagerness to land a lucrative contract. In late 2010 — amid intense public interest in documents that WikiLeaks was posting to illuminate U.S. actions overseas — Amazon took a notable step. As the Guardian reported at the time, Amazon “pulled the plug on hosting the whistleblowing website in reaction to heavy political pressure.”

It didn’t take much for Amazon to cave. “The company announced it was cutting WikiLeaks off … only 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate’s committee on homeland security,” the Guardian noted.

In view of Amazon’s eagerness to dump the WikiLeaks site at the behest of U.S. government officials, what else might the Amazon hierarchy be willing to do? Amazon maintains a humongous trove of detailed information about hundreds of millions of people. Are we to believe that the CIA and other intelligence agencies have no interest in Amazon’s data?

Even at face value, Amazon’s “Privacy Notice” has loopholes big enough to fly a drone through. It says: “We release account and other personal information when we believe release is appropriate to comply with the law; enforce or apply our Conditions of Use and other agreements; or protect the rights, property, or safety of Amazon.com, our users, or others.”

Amazon now averages 162 million unique visitors to its sites every month. Meanwhile, the CIA depends on gathering and analyzing data to serve U.S. military interventions overseas. During the last dozen years, the CIA has conducted ongoing drone strikes and covert lethal missions in many countries. At the same time, U.S. agencies like the CIA and NSA have flattened many previous obstacles to Big Brother behavior.

And now, Amazon is hosting a huge computing cloud for the CIA’s secrets — a digital place where data for mass surveillance and perpetual war are converging.

Amazon is, potentially, much more vulnerable to public outrage and leverage than the typical firms that make a killing from contracts with the NSA or the CIA or the Pentagon. Few people have direct contact with outfits like Booz Allen Hamilton or Lockheed Martin. But every day, Amazon is depending on millions of customers to go online and buy products from its sites. As more people learn about its CIA ties, Amazon could — and should — suffer the consequences.

This is an opportunity to directly challenge Amazon’s collaboration with the CIA. Movement in that direction began with the Feb. 20 launch of a petition addressed to Amazon CEO Bezos: “We urge you to make a legally binding commitment to customers that Amazon will not provide customer data to the Central Intelligence Agency.”

After working with colleagues at RootsAction.org to start the petition, I’ve been glad to read initial comments that signers have posted. Many are voicing the kind of responses that should worry Amazon execs.

“It’s never wise for a business to take steps that create distrust by their customers,” wrote a signer from Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin. Another woman, who lives in Amazon’s home state of Washington, told the company: “Don’t share my data with the CIA. If this is your price, I’m afraid you’re not worth it.” And a signer in Cincinnati wrote: “If Amazon chooses to sell out their customers to the CIA, I will never visit their site again. Betrayal shouldn’t be the price of convenience.”

The people who run Amazon figured they could rake in big profits from the CIA without serious public blowback. We have an opportunity to prove them wrong.

Author pic
ABOUT Norman Solomon

Norman Solomon is an American journalist, media critic, antiwar activist, and losing candidate in 2012 for the United States House of Representatives. Solomon is a longtime associate of the media watch group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.

 

 

 

 

 

.