Scott Duncan: The ORIGINAL people cannot be touched under law, so they get you to declare that you have LEFT the original people, making you AWAY FROM the ORIGINALS. ABORIGINAL. If you are in Admiralty, you are DEMOTED. THAT is what makes them INFERIOR. Not the name.

Gail Blackman: This video speaks of Manifest Destiny specifically as it relates to the US and the claiming of land from the Indians. It provides insight into the attitude and righteousness of those who want to be master. It's easy to see many parallels in the world today and with this understanding Scott's words "don't appeal to your rapist" make much more sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QBAqizD_7Ls#!

Im have to repost this on my wall and other native groups, see what they say hey !! Scott Duncan do give claifications on treaty and contract, i saw it as the highest form of contract / treaty (n.) Look up treaty at Dictionary.com late 14c., "treatment, discussion," from Old French trait� "assembly, agreement, treaty," from Latin tractatus "discussion, handling," from tractare "to handle, manage" (see treat). Sense of "contract between nations" is first recorded early 15c. ------------------------------------------- A treaty is an express agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, contract,convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.[1] Funny how it say actors :P

Was our post on the Etymology of Aborigine/Aboriginal deleted? Etymology: From Latin ab (�from�) + origine, ablative singular of origo (�earliest beginning, lineage, origin�). Adjective: ab origine _ From the origin; from the beginning. However, the Australian Aborigine associate, erroneously, the name with 'abnormal' and, therefore, consider it to be offensive. Reference: 2003 [1933], Brown, Lesley editor, The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, edition 5th, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-860575-7, page 6.

The green frogs of Australia Unite Their will.

Good discourse, Peter :-)

Her Majesty cannot enter into an new treaties, because Her Majesty has nothing to offer. Statute of Westminster. She is a trustee only and basically only has the right to engage in commerce on an equal playing field as everyone else. That means contract law, as in her being a Trustee. HER MAJESTY is the Crown corporation forcing everyone to abandon their rights for benefits, worthless ones, at the barrel of a gun. There is no treaty to be had with HER MAJESTY, as it is nothing more than a corporation licensed to trade securities, that is IT. They have NOTHING to offer and a treaty would be pointless. We don't need treaties, we need these assholes to start living up to their contracts and stop beating people into "voluntarily" surrendering their entitlements as the People.

OOH- better yet ChiefRock, Scott breakin' down: Treaties v. Contracts v. Covenants ..plus - maybe a handshake-deal with my fingers crossed behind my back

In accord with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, s92, a licence to 'drive' on the public road network(s) only applies to those who do so, or intend to do so, for hire or reward by way of using a motor vehicle. However, those who do not use the road network(s) for hire or reward, use the roads for 'free travel' in an 'automobile' designed for 'free travel'. Consequently, the 'free traveller' and the 'automobile' do not require licensing or registering. Try explaining that to the Corporate Police ...they are just not interested, but only want a conviction for revenue. Personally, we have only ever been issued with a 'license' to drive for hire or reward, never to 'travel freely'. This strongly suggests that the 'authorities' are fully aware they cannot license a 'free traveller' or 'automobile'. When in court, Prosecution must establish beyond benefit of doubt that the 'accused' was actually 'driving' a 'motor vehicle' and was receiving a reward of some form for doing so and violated a section(s) of an Act(s) in so doing. The Corporate Police are most ignorant of these issues.

I am always late to the party for these things. Sorry. I'll give my input when I'm finished all my Admiral-like stuff that has piled up in the last few weeks.