The Solution

Estimated read time: 1:20

Summary

In this lengthy discourse, YuWay passionately addresses issues surrounding the legitimacy of Australian elections, emphasizing constitutional law. He contends that political parties and electoral processes have deviated from the original constitutional framework, rendering recent elections unlawful. The speech highlights perceived inconsistencies in how electoral laws were enacted without the people’s consent, asserting that the current governmental structure lacks legal authority. YuWay urges citizens to recognize their supreme authority and challenges them to hold politicians accountable, fostering a return to constitutional adherence.

Highlights

YuWay critiques Australian political parties as operating outside constitutional bounds. 🎤
He claims recent elections are invalid due to lack of constitutional compliance. ❌
The discussion underscores the importance of referendums for constitutional changes. 🗳️
YuWay calls on citizens to question politicians' legitimacy and hold them accountable. 🙌
He warns of treason charges for political figures not adhering to constitutional law. 🚨

Key Takeaways

The Australian electoral process is heavily criticized for deviating from the constitutional framework. 🗳️
YuWay argues that political parties have no authority under the constitution, questioning the validity of recent elections. ⚖️
He emphasizes that only the people through a referendum can alter the constitution, not the parliament. 📜
YuWay challenges citizens to question and hold their representatives accountable, suggesting that current governance operates unlawfully. 🚨
The narrative stresses that constitutional adherence is paramount for lawful governance in Australia. 🇦🇺

Overview

YuWay's speech revolves around the assertion that Australia's current electoral process is unconstitutional. He delivers a detailed critique of the political framework, arguing that the power lies solely with the people and not the political parties or the parliament without a mandate from the public.

Throughout the speech, YuWay references historical details and constitutional provisions to substantiate his claims. He dissects how political figures and systems allegedly violate the nation's foundational legal document, emphasizing the necessity of a referendum for any changes.

Urging citizens to awaken to the realities of what he perceives as government overreach and legal breaches, YuWay passionately appeals for accountability and civic action. He frames the discourse as a fight to restore lawful governance as defined by Australia’s constitution.

Chapters

00:00 - 03:00: Introduction and claims of treason The chapter begins with a morning scenario where a statement is made about Albanesei's claims of being the government. The focus is on the audacity of claiming the government as his own, which is depicted as an act of treason and fraud. The chapter sets a tone of controversy and conflict surrounding political assertions and legitimacy.
03:00 - 10:00: Preferential voting and constitutional authority The chapter explores the theme of preferential voting and its relation to constitutional authority by discussing voter turnout and first preferences by party. The conversation involves accusations of deception, prompting a breakdown of turnout data by state and an analysis of how these preferences distribute across parties. The narrative hints at underlying tensions and conflict regarding the interpretation of this voting data.
10:00 - 15:00: State laws, voting laws, and the Constitution This chapter discusses the intersection of state laws, voting laws, and constitutional provisions, with a focus on Australian politics. It highlights a statement which invokes the Constitution as a rebuttal in the discourse around voting preferences and federal election results, pointing out the complexities and tensions between constitutional interpretations and electoral processes.
15:00 - 19:00: Issues with the electoral process The chapter discusses the governance and regulatory issues surrounding the establishment of an Electoral Commission outside the constitutional provisions. It highlights the problem of not adhering to constitutional authority, quoting Page 346, which clarifies that only laws passed in line with the constitutional authority are binding. The chapter questions the legitimacy and power that the extra-constitutional Electoral Commission holds and implies repercussions for the validity and acceptance of such enactments.
19:00 - 24:00: Voting and parliamentary legitimacy The chapter focuses on the concept of voting and its significance in establishing parliamentary legitimacy. It highlights the constitutional authority held by states or the people, even if not explicitly mentioned. It questions the introduction and timing of preferential voting, which was not requested but implemented in 1973-75, implying there is no use in referring back to that period.
24:00 - 30:00: Historical context and constitutional adherence The chapter discusses the historical context and constitutional adherence in Australia during the time of Billy Hughes in 197. It highlights how Hughes introduced conscription, preferential voting, political parties, and allowed states to change their constitutions, despite these actions not being lawful or authorized by the constitution. The chapter suggests these changes occurred regardless of their legal standing.
30:00 - 33:20: Constitutional authority and political legitimacy This chapter discusses the source of constitutional authority and its role in determining political legitimacy. It scrutinizes the claims made by politicians and political parties about representing the people, arguing these claims may not align with the established laws on governance. The chapter challenges the commonly held beliefs about political representation and authority, suggesting a disconnect between political rhetoric and legal realities.
33:20 - 38:20: Allegations of treason and constitutional violations The chapter discusses the allegations of treason and constitutional violations. It emphasizes the limitations of power, explaining that while certain powers are granted by the constitution, these powers are bound by constitutional restrictions. The narrative criticizes people who erroneously believe they have unrestricted authority, labeling them as uninformed individuals who persistently spread falsehoods. Additionally, there is a strong assertion that these individuals are viewed as criminals within the context provided.
38:20 - 45:13: Indictments against political parties and processes The chapter discusses the actions of political parties that led to their own exclusion from government. The narrator suggests that political parties are deceitful and implies that they lost their right to govern due to their own actions. The narrator claims to possess a document, sourced from the AEC, which supposedly proves these accusations, and sarcastically refers to the political parties as 'lovely people.'
45:13 - 46:40: Conclusion: No lawful election The chapter titled 'Conclusion: No lawful election' appears to discuss issues related to the legality of an election process. It highlights the creation of a letter based on legal grounds, indicating that there is a significant problem, possibly suggesting issues of legality or fairness in the election. The discussion involves confidence in the legality of actions taken, with hints of skepticism towards the voting system.

The Solution Transcription

00:00 - 00:30 Yeah, it is. Good morning. It seems that Albanesei has claimed he is the government. It's his government. Everything else, no, it's not. It's blatant treason. It's fraud. It's
00:30 - 01:00 deception. You're lying as usual. Now, first I'm going to explain this nonsense. Turn out by state. Who turned out? Well, we know people turned out obviously. First preferences by party. WA that's got all the preferences to party preferred by
01:00 - 01:30 WA first preferences by party apparently federal there's that many people in it's not funny then it says national two party preferred Yeah. Well, I refer you to a section of the Constitution says you're full of crap, which annihilates the Australian Electoral
01:30 - 02:00 Commission. Who told you you could have an Electoral Commission outside the provisions of the Constitution? Page 346 says, "Not all enactments of the Parliament are valid. only those passed pursuant to in accordance with and under the authority granted by the constitution. Do you know what authority means? And those laws only are binding on the courts, judges and people of every state. All other laws are either rever
02:00 - 02:30 referred to the states or the people have the authority. doesn't say it in those words, but that's exactly what it's saying. Now, where is your problem? You never asked for preferential voting. It didn't come in in 197375. That is the reason I said there's no point going just to there.
02:30 - 03:00 It was already done according to Billy Hughes in 197 when he introduced conscription, preferential voting, political parties, and the ability for the states to change their constitutions if they saw fit. None of which was lawful. None of which was authorized by the constitution. But it wouldn't matter.
03:00 - 03:30 systematically over a period of time. I've given you all the law in relation to how this country is going to be run. Not think about it, not might be is going to be run. If you step outside of there and claim, which you all do, you politicians from political parties, you represent the people, no, you're lying. You don't have this great array of
03:30 - 04:00 powers. You have powers granted by the constitution subject to the constitution. You do not have plenary power to do whatever you like. That is stupid morons who continually repeat the same lies they know. Yeah, they're all criminals in our
04:00 - 04:30 government. What I'm about to show you how the political parties threw themselves out of government that they had no right to be in. And they did it for us. Aren't they lovely people? How did they do it? Very, very simple. I have a document here which proves it. Where did I get it? Apparently the AEC put it out. Sent it to me. Aren't they nice? They even told me that they were lying, thieving
04:30 - 05:00 traders. Now, there's a big problem now, but not for us. You see, I put together a letter. What was the letter based on? Law. Our law. Can we make that? Yes. Can we do what I did? Yes. They claim voting is
05:00 - 05:30 compulsory. Apparent apparently according to the AEC. And it says on the front, voting is compulsory. Here it is. under my above my thumb in blue got around a bit. Voting is compulsory. Doesn't say that in the constitution. They expect us for all Australians o age 18 years and over. Now they want to reduce that because they
05:30 - 06:00 want the younger vote that have their heads full of garbage taught by liars in schools. Unfortunately, that's how it is. Now, for the House of Representatives, you got to tick eight boxes cuz if you don't remember, num number every box to make your vote lawful or count, you got to vote for everybody on
06:00 - 06:30 there. Number of the lot. Why? Here it says number at least six boxes and they're all political parties above the line for the Senate. Number at least 12 boxes below the line for the Senate. So is those are these instructions lawful? No, they're not. So let's look
06:30 - 07:00 at what the instructions are because this is instructions given to them at how they can set up any laws. So if you put in the Australian Electoral Act in the place and you did without the permission of the people, the problem being this electoral act wasn't only for Western Australia. It was for every
07:00 - 07:30 state. It is how you're going to vote. It says Western Australia at the top. Every single state was given a method of voting. There were state laws. But even if that wasn't so, every single state had to put its constitution in place in its original form due to the legislation. Is that correct? Yes. Did
07:30 - 08:00 they do it? No. There's no evidence to show that any of them did. But but Western Australia did not. It had previously removed 32 sections and claimed Queen Victoria did it. She if she did, it wouldn't matter because in the 29th of October 1900, remember the Constitution Alteration Act of Western Australia is
08:00 - 08:30 18 99. On the 29th of October 1900, Queen Victoria put every state's constitution in place with a letters patent in its original text. Read it and weep. And the person who decided they were going to
08:30 - 09:00 override our laws. There wasn't one. There was too many. They're called political parties. Are they authorized by our constitution? No. Now have a look at your state constitution. go back to the original one that was put in place which with its original text any alterations are
09:00 - 09:30 removed automatically. How do I know that? Section 51 subsection 38 and annotated constitution explains that clearly. So where was the problem with the voting according to the Australian Electoral Commission? Even if we had a lawful federal parliament, which we didn't, so they couldn't have an Australian Electoral Commission, we never gave you in our
09:30 - 10:00 Constitution permission to have preferential voting. To get it, you needed a referendum. Billy Hughes decided he could give it to us whether we wanted or not because England had it, so we're going to have it whether you like it or not. No. No. Doesn't work that way. Our constitution is indesolable. Binds the crown to what? Laws made pursuant to our
10:00 - 10:30 constitution. It wasn't granted in there. The laws in England in relation to preferential voting were flawed in law in their country. Whether they've objected to them, I don't care. Now for the Senate, the qualification of electors of senators shall be in each state which is prescribed by this constitution or by the parliament as a qualification for electors and members of the House of
10:30 - 11:00 Representatives. But in the choosing of senators, each elector shall vote only once. Now, I've already showed you Western Australia has this document. So, in Western Australia, anything made outside of this would be invalid. Now, we'll go to the next one. So, it's clear. I'm just doing it slow and precise so that you will comprehend. You've been lied
11:00 - 11:30 to. Absolutely lied to. Now section 30. Until the parliament otherwise provides the qualification of electors of members of the house of representatives shall be in each state that which is that which is prescribed by the law of the state as the qualification of electors of the more numerous house of parliament of the state. But in their choosing of members,
11:30 - 12:00 each elector shall vote only once. Once for who? The issue then becomes for who? Now because you have never adhered to it, there was the parliament of the Commonwealth has no say in elections because you don't have a lawful federal parliament. How do we know this? Simple. I've told you enough
12:00 - 12:30 times. You need six states to create the first federal parliament. You only had five. August 192, New South Wales removed its constitution, replaced it with another one. They admitted that a couple weeks ago when they admitted to changing magistrates to judges under that unlawful act. So you only had four. I'm
12:30 - 13:00 not going to go through the whole lot because by 1975 there were none. No lawful constitutions of any state. Therefore no lawful parliaments of any state. They are created under their constitutions. The big problem we have in dealing with people is to try to get them to comprehend what we put out, what the Constitution says, which
13:00 - 13:30 is what I'm talking about. Not what I say, not what you say, what our Constitution says. They have had ample opportunity to correct the problem. They've been told that many times. When I went to the court here, I said to the magistrate, "You have no jurisdiction according to the papers I've supplied." In fact, I said it this way. Have you read my papers? Yes. Then you
13:30 - 14:00 know you've got no jurisdiction. The contents of those papers were never um debated or objected to by anybody in any place. The high court refused to look at them using their rules made under the 1979 act which is totally unlawful. But bearing in mind there was no parliament to make that act. Now I'm going to address all the things that make this a joke.
14:00 - 14:30 The the uni droid treaty of Rome Goff Whitam signed it under what authority? There's no such thing as a prime minister. There was no lawful federal parliament. If there was, prove it. And you can't. You cannot prove what I'm talking about. The Constitution is clear. You needed six states. There were
14:30 - 15:00 no electoral boundaries. And yet you've created them. What does that say? The laws protanto invalid. Who said that? Sir Samuel Griffith HCA 39 of 1915. Start at 148. Here you find the state constitutions and all laws made pursued to it are subject to the overriding authority of the Comwalth Constitution. Fact. You
15:00 - 15:30 really are sitting your necks out there ready to be charged with treason. And I'm talking about everybody, the sheeple who refused to listen and voted for the political parties. Does that vote stand? No. Can any single one of the politicians sitting in parliament now sit there? 42 of the Constitution says every senator and every member of the House of Representatives before
15:30 - 16:00 taking their seat must swear the oath contained in the Constitution. Not on the Quran, not on the Book of Mormon, not on the Jehovah's Witness book, not even on what you think, only the oath contained in the Constitution with regards to heirs and successes. Did you do it? No. Is the parliament now lawful? No. The oath you are trying to swear, we
16:00 - 16:30 want to see what it is. The Australian Bulldust Club cannot have breaking news. It either puts the votes out or gets the hell off our f our TVs, our computers, whatever, so that we can see who votes for who, what oath they take. Does it comply with our constitution? No. Now erupts another problem. We have a proclaimed traitor calling itself
16:30 - 17:00 the governor general. I don't care who she is or where she goes. You used to work for the WF. You've been there several times. That means you're a traitor to this country. The second you took up with them, you became a traitor because the WF is there purely and simply to take over control of everything in this country, which
17:00 - 17:30 Albanesei thinks he's going to give to the banks or anyone else. No, you're not. You don't have any authority. Even if the election was lawful, which it was not. Even if it was, you have absolutely no authority to propose a law. The constitution is clear. The governor general or the governor, the governor general at federal level must select 10 from the
17:30 - 18:00 lower house, eight from the upper house to form the executive council. He must select an attorney general. They hold all the portfolios. Nobody else. Not your cabinet, not your political parties, not anything. You have removed our parliament according to you. But you haven't because you can't remove our constitution. If you could, you would
18:00 - 18:30 have done it. And you haven't. So you can't understand what you are talking about, you clowns. No political party, no purported government operating as a under the authority of political parties or even involved with political parties could ever put a law together. But we don't really have to worry about that. Simple. Why not?
18:30 - 19:00 We've never had one lawful parliament since federation federally. Not one. Until you go back way back before 1972, 1973, the nice little people who sit in our parliament that are Catholics or Freemasons or whatever or both try to get the idea that they have
19:00 - 19:30 authority to tell us what to do because of the uni droid treaty. The uni droid treaty was an act of treason against the crown of England. you sign it, you automatically were incapable of sitting in our parliament. So even if you were sitting lawfully if you were I'm referring to the thieving traitor called Goff Whitetam he had no power to sign anything. He had no position in the constitution. If so where is the prime
19:30 - 20:00 minister? Doesn't exist. The people who go into the federal parliament if they were lawful would have to put every the wish of all the people to the par to the executive to put the laws together. That's called separation of powers. Is there a distinct line? No. Because of that fact. Page 791 explains not not neither
20:00 - 20:30 the federal nor the state parliament are sovereign bodies. There are only legislators with limited authority. What's a legislature? A group of people in two different position. The House of Representatives and the Senate. The legislature is there to take bills that come from the executive, debate them, and pass them according to the Constitution. If there's any correction, make them. Send it to the Senate. The Senate
20:30 - 21:00 presents it to a lawful governor general, which we don't have. And if it complies with the Constitution, he signs off on behalf of the crown, binding the constitution or bonding the crown to an authority, a law made pursuant to the constitution. Now, the clanger is how do you hide things? You do it right here. What have I done? put it
21:00 - 21:30 right here and you didn't see it. You didn't see it for two reason. You didn't want to. The only lawful people who voted were the people who filled out that letter, even compliant with your garbage rules because they're not law. I, Wayne Kenneth of the Family Glue, attended a polling booth on the 3 of May
21:30 - 22:00 2025 to vote. Did I go there to vote? Yes. How do you know that? I said, so you don't get to make the decision whether I went there, but if I in fact I attended there, I completed that part of it. There were no lawful candidates. Why? This says so. Candidates must present themselves
22:00 - 22:30 to the governors of the states. The 1918 electoral act is no is has no value in law. There was no parliament to make it. You can't speak it into authority. They can't speak it into authority. The fact is elections have to be carried out by the states and they can't. Western Australian election was carried out by a foreign company, not by the government of the
22:30 - 23:00 state. Even if you say this was only for Western Australia, it said so. But every state got one. Has anyone looked for them though? Why not? We've got the 18 the 1918 Electoral Act, but we didn't have a government to make it or approve it. We didn't even have a lawful parliament to do it. Why? Because the with the absence of the six states, the
23:00 - 23:30 six to create the first federal parliament. Western Australia was never lawfully constituted. So, Western Australia sat then and now in limbo with absolutely no authority to do anything when Kirby said no parliament by preamble assertion can speak an authority into being when none exists in law. Correct. You cannot speak an
23:30 - 24:00 authority into being in this country. It must be made pursuant to in accordance with and under the authority granted by the constitution. Hopefully there'll be enough people there where this fact will sink in. We've never had a lawful federal parliament. Therefore, we cannot speak one into being. Only the authority granted by the constitution can put it there.
24:00 - 24:30 Did it any of them comply? No. Even if you set up state parliaments, the boundaries act no longer applied. You can't have boundaries. Why? For the very reason I took the governor of Western Australia to court in this state to show cause. why he allowed the removal and manipulation of the boundaries of this
24:30 - 25:00 state to benefit the political parties. And that's what happened. The biggest problem we have is you. I put the law there and you're not listening. Why? Oh, I don't like him. He's too old. What would he know? Silly old bugger. No, I'm not silly. I'm not an old bugger. I'm here for you as I always
25:00 - 25:30 have been. You need to comprehend what I'm saying and understand the ramifications of what I'm saying. The ramifications are prot. They're automatic when you break the law. The constitution restricts every single thing that the parliaments in this country do. It doesn't restrict the people. The supreme absolute and
25:30 - 26:00 uncontrollable authority remains with the people. The state constitutions continue subject to the constitution, the will of the people. Is that a fact? Yes. I just explained it. Understand it. The Commonwealth is the truth. Is it Constitution the truth? No modification can be done to the Commonwealth
26:00 - 26:30 Constitution by referendum, act of parliament, or anything else without the express permission of the people. Alteration, not change. If you can't comprehend the difference, too bad. Work it out. Read your dictionary. You didn't have a federal parliament to propose it. It can't exist. You know, people are stupid. I listen to some of the garbage, but I'm not going into that. They are stupidly,
26:30 - 27:00 blindfoldedly following the rhetoric. We have several people that give us information. They load it on our computer. I check it out. And some of it's humorous. The people are getting abused. Why are they being abused? Not because they're wrong. Not because they're wrong. Because people don't want to face up to the truth. Now, you come into this country,
27:00 - 27:30 I don't care what you believe. You cannot break our laws in the name of your religion or anything else. We are not passing laws against anyone's religion. Our constitution demands you follow our customs and beliefs, assimulate into our society or get out. Get out. Doesn't mean you can stay, you can argue it in court. We have a quo
27:30 - 28:00 warto sitting in the high court since November last year. Have they answered it? No. Why? Because they can't. It requires them to prove jurisdiction. They haven't got any since the implication of the 1979 act. That didn't exist anyway. So, we literally have no courts in this country. Why? Because of the constitution. All courts are part of of a federal judicial system with a high court at its summit. There's no high
28:00 - 28:30 court until it proves jurisdiction. It's got no authority whatsoever. People are running in and out the courts saying, "Oh, I did this. I did that." No. They've led you to believe you did it. The problem we have now, I'm a Comwalth public official. By way of swearing a lawful oath in the situation I put
28:30 - 29:00 myself, I just did. Now I have to reveal indictable criminal offenses. I did. Every time after that that any politician goes into our parliament, federal or state and sits in any capacity, you're a tainted of treason automatically. Because I'm telling everyone, you are traitors. You are not following our
29:00 - 29:30 will. You're not which is our constitution. You are in law traitors. You are in law now a tainted of treason. Why? Because I can say that every single thing you are doing is treason. So in relation to the purported election, there wasn't one. Was it a selection? Who cares what
29:30 - 30:00 you call it? But until you comply with this, there is nothing that you can do to change it. You people that are already politicians and in political parties or even independents that are following political parties or following the Australian Electoral Commission, you are all sitting in treason. There is no excuse.
30:00 - 30:30 I told you told you point by point by point the constitution restrains everything that we do. Now back to the letter because this is the most important thing. Everyone thinks just a letter because I didn't want to vote. No, it's not. It's not. It is the one document that wipes out every single part of every election ever held in this
30:30 - 31:00 country. Yes, it is a lawful oath to the Bible first. Of course, it is. That comes out of the constitution. It doesn't it's we're as the people. We humbly rely on the blessing of Almighty God. We the people. The politicians are our servants. Now, let's get going. Wayne, what is that document? That is the the how the
31:00 - 31:30 electoral system is run state by state. It's concealed. Believe me, you're going to be pushing to find it. I found it because I got mine a long time ago. I already did. The quo warrento for people who ask the question is a demand by us as subjects of the queen that these people who sit in our courts prove they
31:30 - 32:00 have the right to sit there. None of them can. No crown, no authority, no right. We join together under the crown of England. We've never changed it. Now, I know that document is so important, but I can't read it because it'll take too long. The purpose of what I'm doing today impossible for them to do so. No,
32:00 - 32:30 it's not. Still nothing changes. No, that's not correct. It's now up to the people of this country to tell your politicians, "Get out of our parliament. go back and have a lawful election. Somebody's put a document to them. Other people have put documents to them. Now, it's up to you. You look at who has the authority. Whereas the people of New South Wales,
32:30 - 33:00 Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, and Western Australia, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, joined together in one indissoluble federation of the Commonwealth of Australia can't be dissolved. They know that. That's why Yeah. Hawk sat in treason. We know that. Well, I don't agree because um his treason wipes out everything. So, don't put that out, please. You're trying to
33:00 - 33:30 detract or you are detracting whether you're trying or not from what I'm trying to put to people. You must understand when you I went in there and so did 53,000 people in Western Australia apparently voted my way. They presented a letter. They went there with a full intention of voting on that day and it's stated on the letter. The next line says there were no lawful candidates. Why?
33:30 - 34:00 Because they put there by political parties when it can only be put there by application from each person who wanted to go there to the governor of the state. That is what this document says. You don't need to explain it. If you want a copy of it, let me know later. We can get it to you. In the meantime, I'm not reading it out there and no detracting from what I'm
34:00 - 34:30 saying. Comprehend this. The only question of law on the letter I wrote is why not? If you want to have a lawful election before you can make a decision on are any of those people able to be selected, voted for or anything else. You have to ask us what is wrong with
34:30 - 35:00 the candidates the access. They weren't selected by us. the people that were selected by political parties. There is no authority for political parties in this country. There's no two party preferred. There's no four parties. There's no 50 parties or whatever there is. None of it exists before we give our permission to have
35:00 - 35:30 it. We haven't. We were never asked. We never gave it. It doesn't exist. Comprehend what they did. They wiped themselves out by this election. Why? Because they know. They know. We've told them. I don't care if the politicians aren't awake. Everybody who exercise authority throughout the Commonwealth must be able to show in the Constitution
35:30 - 36:00 where their authority comes from. It's not a oh maybe. It's must means you're required to show where it comes from. Can you know? No, you can't. Why? Because you never asked us. We are sovereign and supreme. We're not sovereign citizens. We're sovereign subjects of the reigning
36:00 - 36:30 monarch. We are. You can't change it. If you could, the Labor Party would have thrown our Constitution out ages ago. Oh, they tried with a stupid green piece of garbage. Thanks, Diana. I hope it sinks into everybody. What I'm saying right now is understand what took place with the fitting of that letter. Did I explain it fully? No. Do I have to? No, I
36:30 - 37:00 don't. Why? Because it contains our law. We can only vote for one person once for both houses of parliament. The preferential voting wiped that out, did it? It can't wipe out anything. It cannot nothing the pol political parties do can wipe out anything without the permission of the people. So what we had for an election, we didn't have
37:00 - 37:30 one. The people who submitted that letter are the only ones who voted lawfully. We went there to vote complete the thing even if it was law and it's not. The election was unlawful. What did we do? We never got the chance to vote because there were no lawful candidates. The question now in law is why not why haven't you given us an an answer? You knew before before the election.
37:30 - 38:00 I broadcast it for weeks before. If you got a brain in the head, if you were a lawyer with any intelligence, you would have seen international criminal courts have nothing to do with this country, nor do international agreements and laws. Sorry, I'm will explain that again. You cannot go outside of this country to international courts until we have a referendum which removes us from being a
38:00 - 38:30 self-governing colony of England under the provisions of clause 8 to the constitution. Comprehend what I'm saying and understand it. Elbow can be referred to international criminal courts for war crimes. That is for what he has authorized with Penny got it Wong to interfere in a war in another country without any authority. That's the war crimes and he's doing it from our country. People still can't see the
38:30 - 39:00 political car parties racked up $1.2 trillion in debt. Oh, we're going to have to pay it and how much it is for each person. No. Did they have permission to borrow that money from outside of the country? And 2 million people like that say, "Oh, they could do it. They got a right under this the high court rule." No, none of that is lawful. They need our permission to swap from our system. What
39:00 - 39:30 was our system? The Trans Australia Railway they created from the wealth under the ground 1 million pounds. They built the railway right across this country. At the end it was worth3 million pounds. So they realized and constructed an asset of £3 million above the ground. We still had what was sitting in the ground.
39:30 - 40:00 We do not need nor can you go outside this country to b borrow money. Whitam tried to borrow it from China and got sacked by Ker. Why didn't he stand trial for treason and fraud? Why wasn't he jailed and dealt with then? Oh, he was a member of the Labor Party, the Fabian Society or whatever else group he belonged to. The big big
40:00 - 40:30 problem is you people have to comprehend comprehend. The only people who actually attended and lawfully voted were people who filled out that letter. Not because I wrote it, because you attended there. You went there for what reason? to vote and informed them that you could not vote because there were no lawful
40:30 - 41:00 candidates. No one has put up or proved there were any lawful candidates so they don't exist. So no election took place. We only ask one question of law. Why not? Why weren't there lawful candidates? Because there wasn't. Unless our constitution says you can have political parties. the election. There were no lawful candidates. The big problem is you, not me. I already know what I'm talking about. I've read the Constitution. I'm trying to relate to
41:00 - 41:30 you. Albani can't even go into our federal parliament. If he does, he has to be arrested. It's time for the federal police who required to be Commonwealth police. They're employed by us through the Governor General, not by the Parliament. Sorry, Paul. International law could not be implemented. The the High Court ruled
41:30 - 42:00 against the Constitution. International law has no bearing in here. If so, you show me, Paul. I'm not attacking you. I'm saying what you've said is incorrect. Kirby said, "No international agreements of any kind can be implemented in this country without first going to the people." That's a fact of law. It was never put to us. They stopped the Franklin Dam. I knew I was around at
42:00 - 42:30 that time. I watched it carefully and I watched the ruling of the court that they could use it. No, international law is not constitutional law. It's not in our constitution that we obey laws outside this country except those that come from England. We were never instructed by England to follow international law. Nor can they because the constitutional
42:30 - 43:00 constraints. Understand what you're saying. I'm not knocking you out to prove you're silly. You're not. Your question is actually very good because this comes up all the time. Why don't you go to the international courts? Well, David Walters went to the international courts and told they couldn't handle it. Colton went to the high court of England told they couldn't handle it. Lords made pursuant to the constitution bind the crown that bound
43:00 - 43:30 the high court of England international law. We are not we didn't sign up to anything. We don't have an England. No, we have a United Kingdom and and Northern Ireland in place of Ireland itself. But it exists. That statement is a little bit misleading with the qual registered corporal corporation.
43:30 - 44:00 No, they are a registered ABN company. There's a difference. But who owns them and runs them? The political parties. When you go understand Australian business number is whoever trading as a corporation or a CN is a body corporate. That body corporate is an entity under itself. It must have a human board running it. That is the
44:00 - 44:30 difference. A BN is we'll say the Labor Party trading ass. So whoever's in power takes control of those companies. Who gets the profits? Do we see them? No. Do we know how much? No. Now Cookie, if you go on um the web pages we're using, you'll find reference on the top of videos how to reference
44:30 - 45:00 it. And that is in there. That's how um our friend got one. Those those documents are all there. We can't email to everybody. I'm not knocking you out. So, you can take your email address back down. I wouldn't leave it there. Some clown will get it and play games with it. We can if you can't get on to those videos, it's got it above the actual thing. Yeah, there's a link there. My
45:00 - 45:30 wife put them there for that purpose. So we're not sending millions of emails. Paul, I do not vote consent or contract. You're not consenting on by contracting by refusing to vote on the grounds there were no lawful candidates. All I'm saying is save yourself the trouble of going through a court or being fined for not going on the register or anything else. That's okay. The way I see it, simplistic. The constitution works up
45:30 - 46:00 and not down. It's a people law to hold the this country together and hold the politicians to account. That's what you haven't put there, Stephen. Apart from that, you're correct. It is the parameters set by us as how to govern this country. At Frank, when our lovely little judge let out and said this country is law lawless, he's correct. Except for the fact that the constitution sits
46:00 - 46:30 there. Yeah. The way I see it simply the country works. Yeah. All right. It's the law to hold this country together. Yes. But it only controls the parliament, not us. We are controlled by the common law. Can I ask something, TJ Bolton? Yes, you can. Go for it. In the meantime, I want people to look at the fact that that was not an election. It wasn't a selection. It was
46:30 - 47:00 an absolute treasonous fraud on the people. Absolute. So, I'm waiting for you to if you're going to ask a question or I'll just continue. The object of today is to tell you there was no election. There was no federal lawful federal parliament to put it up. There was no lawful states to hold the elections in until they put
47:00 - 47:30 their constitutions back. I don't need to teach you anything else except the fact our constitution s stands supreme. How do you know that? Even big mouth Penny Wong and blabbermouth Albanzy called for a referendum or a plebside to get what they wanted under the provisions of the constitution. Obviously, it exists.
47:30 - 48:00 Yeah, correct me. Fraud vidiates all contracts. It vidiates everything. Wipes it out at inception when it begins. All right. If you want to ask me questions, um, you can PM me or add this and I'll answer it. How many Lords of England are still on board? All 800 of them because they want the money they get. They're part of the British Parliament when you look at how it's done. Jody, u It really was. The media
48:00 - 48:30 basically had said Labour won the day before the election. Yes. And they said it shortly after. Who do we get to enforce this Wayne? Iris McMar was all the truth, all the evidence. When does it end? Right. That's that's what I've just answered. I said, you go and tell all of you, take a group of people, go to your local politician and tell them this act. Get out. If they don't, stop paying
48:30 - 49:00 them. How much do you adore your wife? Embarrass her and tell her and I think you're so cool. Good job, bro. All right. I always tell her how good she is. She knows that. I don't have to tell her. I show her that. So when the actual election election of now if is they only want people to register as it really well I couldn't read it disappeared
49:00 - 49:30 again. So is as it really means consent. So bots really is an ambush. Yes it is. So, we ar ambushed them with a letter. We're playing your silly game. We didn't contract with you because we didn't get our name signed off, which is what I asked you not to do.
49:30 - 50:00 Yeah, I'll answer that one later because I can see what you're getting at, but it's too long. Elbow trigger factor insurmountable. Look, you the only thing you have to remember right now is you
50:00 - 50:30 can't vote in that election. We told them so we wouldn't get prosecuted. We asked them the question, where's the lawful candidates? Because they weren't there. Did I go there? Yes, I did. I went to the corner of Hall Road and Chapman Valley Road, Wagraine to the Wagraine School, Geraldton Perth, Western Australia to vote. There were no lawful candidates. Everybody else who filled out their forms went there to vote. the forms I gave him. They came up
50:30 - 51:00 with a form for objection. It's not a lawful form. It was put there by the AEC. You put your block letters name in there, you become contracted to them. They can or cannot accept your explanation. They don't have to answer if there were lawful candidates. So, I made it the other way. You answer because before we do anything, I went there to vote. I don't
51:00 - 51:30 have to fill your forms out. I don't have to contract with you. I don't have to have anything to do with you until you prove you had lawful candidates and the election was lawful and you can't. No lawful states in this country that created as states so they exist. Is a lawful commonwealth is created which is us. We will renew that. We're here. But they don't exist under the
51:30 - 52:00 provisions of the constitution in in reality to govern for us or over us. They have no authority whatsoever. Now, all the professors can say, "Oh, that's wrong. Times change." Nothing changed. You cannot change or touch the Constitution except by lawful means. And you've never done it. Understand? when you demanded to know where the lawful candidates were,
52:00 - 52:30 you wiped out everything they're doing. The election didn't happen. As I said, now it's time for you to stand up, turn up at their office, and demand that you comply with our constitution. If that idiot in Victoria thinks that she's going to take over from that clown that was there before and start shooting at the people, I'm not advising people to do it. But you have the right to defend yourself. You have the right. You choose the way. Magna Carter
52:30 - 53:00 says you have the right to defend yourself. If they are shooting deadly weapons one in the throat and you can't breathe and you'll die, a rubber bullet. If you have a bad heart and you get hit with that ray they use in CRA. They claim they didn't. They did and it affects you and it did the people who went there. That is deadly force. You
53:00 - 53:30 need deadly force applied to you before you can put that onto us. It wasn't. We went there to protest against you idiots and you took it. I'm advising every military force in this country, every police force in this country. Take off your badge and uniform and stand up for the people. Stop being so gutless when you go home tonight. Look in the face of your wives and your face of your kids and say, "Oh, daddy's
53:30 - 54:00 not going to do that because the politicians want me to break the law." That's exactly what it is. What I put together was the only way at this stage we can take them out. You asked for an answer, I gave it and turned it where? Back on you to stand up and take this country back. It does not belong to politicians. It does not belong to a loudmouth [ __ ] who states he owns it
54:00 - 54:30 and it's always been his. No. No. put up the documents or shut up because you got none. You've got none. Where we came from is not your business. You were born here this before after me actually. So I'm asking you to state to me where you came
54:30 - 55:00 from. Oh, I look like an Aboriginal according to you. You do. I don't. You say the L O R E. There's no such thing. The law. If what you said the other day, I'm guilty of the sins of my fathers, then you're guilty of rape, child abuse, sexual abuse on kids, theft, every single thing that your
55:00 - 55:30 nation is doing, you're guilty of it. If you're guilty of your forefathers of your your forefathers, they committed those crimes against your own people that you call your people and the evidence is there documented evidence that that took place under the traditional constitutional framework of the non-corporate. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not going to answer that on here. I will answer it after because
55:30 - 56:00 it's taking up too much time and you're taking away what I'm doing. I didn't come on here to answer questions about the validity of the constitution. If I had to would be after they tried to remove it and they can't. So now wait and I'll answer that after. I'll have a look at your page and see if I can go and talk to you straight away in relation to that. So just wait. Thank you. Now the big problem is what will the referendum do then
56:00 - 56:30 please Glenn Wayne can you please explain to the beginners why they need the referendum only if you think it's worth explaining. Yeah, Bill. A referendum grants access to the constitution of the government subject to the pro provisions of the constitution. We can only grant an alteration to the constitution if it
56:30 - 57:00 cleans up a particular issue in the constitution. We cannot add to it. They're trying to say or the parliament's trying to say you can completely change the constitution, remove it and create a republic. You can't. That's a lie. All a lie. This whole thing. Yeah. You asking questions I'm not going to answer on here because you're going outside of what I'm trying to say. The fact of the matter is the election took place.
57:00 - 57:30 the fact they admitted in their own documents which are here from Australian Electoral Commission that there's preferential voting and there's none in our constitution. There's no federal parliament. There's no state parliaments until they put all their constitutions back in place. Now the big problem you have now is what are you going to do against what they did? Stop asking all these asking all these questions that have nothing to do
57:30 - 58:00 with what the election was. They have now taken control of this country. And while you are asking questions about things that have taken in the past and you've done nothing about, and I brought this up before, so I'm asking you to stop asking questions that take everybody away from here. So they burnt thousands of votes. So what the votes that are made according to their law is invalid.
58:00 - 58:30 Totally. It's wiped out. Gone. See again you're going into a different subject. No, I'm not answering it. Sorry. You have to wait till after when I will. The issue is now we put a question to them. Why didn't you have lawful candidates? That's all they need to know. Until they explain that, they can't say they had an election because they didn't because they didn't provide
58:30 - 59:00 lawful candidates. Who said we did? Supreme absolute uncontrollable authority remains with us. We demanded you tell us if they're lawful because we said, "Why not?" Understand what? What that did? Just wiped the whole lot out. The whole lot. You then have the right to do whatever it takes to bring them back under our constitution. Magna Carta does it exist?
59:00 - 59:30 Yeah. You've got to understand, stop calling up little things because they take away from the only issue. Was the the election lawful? No. Because there was nobody to make it lawful. No federal parliament and no state parliaments. I keep telling you, you do not go back to 1975. If we never had a lawful federal parliament, that's when everything starts January the 1st, 191. But it goes back farther further
59:30 - 60:00 under the Union Great Treaty to 1650 in the revolution in England where the Roman church, the Catholic Church or the bishops then told Rome to go to Bugary, get out of our country. We are protesting at everything you're doing. Come back archbishops. Comprehend that. Go look it up. Go back to what I said. The election was unlawful.
60:00 - 60:30 And now you've got a problem. You figure it. You go out and tell your politicians, "You're not lawful. We're not voting for you. We're not going to serve you in our businesses. You're not going to buy food. You're not going to get fuel. You're not going to get anything." We can do that. That's what you can do. You can shut down their businesses. You can haul in a line. They have no authority to have a business. They're not sovereign and supreme.
60:30 - 61:00 They have no validity in law. Treat them how they're telling you they're going to treat you. Time to wake up. That's the end of it. Understand there was no election until they answer where are the lawful candidates that comply with our constitution. There are none. They can't pass an act to change that. Even if they could, they would have to be made lawful to be able to do it, and they never been lawful. There's nothing else to explain
61:00 - 61:30 except the election was wrong. Thank you. I'm not discussing guns. They can't touch it. We have a right to carry arms for our defense, defense of our wife, the defense of our children and our property in imperial law which is law in this country under clause 5 and the decision of the high court HCA 44 of 2010. Understand it, comprehend it. I answer that question just so you'd know.
61:30 - 62:00 So, thank you for your time. Understand there was no election. All you have to do now is don't serve these idiots. If you can't give up a couple hundred dollars worth of food by not delivering it to Albania and all these idiots, then you are not an Australian. They are taking everything you got and saying you're going to do it or we're going to take everything off you. Wake
62:00 - 62:30 up. Digital ID. They can't have our ID. They need our permission. We didn't give it to them. They can't change our currency. Our constitution says our constitution and you're sitting back saying, "Oh, he's got a mandate." There's no such thing. All lies. Have a lovely day. I'll answer your questions later.