Is one compelled to observe the written law, and obey the written law? Or can one operate in a belief under a “General Acceptance?” The Australian Government believes we no longer observe or obey the written law but alternatively operate under the term of “General Acceptance” such as we now owe an allegiance to an adopted title known as the Queen of Australia created outside of what the law provides in conflict with Clause 2 of the foundation law of Australia to be the Queen in the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom. With a slide of hand and a twist of fate your allegiance (Which cannot be transferred) was transferred without your consent to a pretended title created outside of the law making boundaries of the Commonwealth Constitution. And magically by matter of agreement it shall be so. Do you operate by the written law or with the Australian Government based on a “General Acceptance?”
Hereinafter does not mean "use interchangeably"
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 1
The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament , or The Parliament of the Commonwealth .
Not an Australian Parliament, have you fallen for their scheme?
FOI16 183 signed decision letter
If you can spare a few dollars for the creators of this website to continue their research to bring you more great content, any amount, no matter how great or small, would be greatly appreciated.