The following article is provided as a guest post. It is republished without modification with a title provided by this website.
Native Title Exposed
There are two types of claims Tribal people can make...one of Sovereignty - the other is to beg the Crowns minions for 'Native Title'.....
The differences between the two positions is light years. Sovereignty needs no explanation, one would hope, however, Native Title needs significant clarification to distinguish it from what it is said to represent when touted publicly, as opposed to what it ACTUALLY is at law.
Native title is a form of title issued by Crown minion colonising government bodies to 'Aboriginal' groups or people over land that has been 'colonised'.
The process of Native Title requires an applicant to admit they are a 'Traditional' owner.
The term Traditional qualifying the word 'owner'. For this reason we need o properly comprehend exactly what the term traditional means at law.
The term Traditional comes from the Latin 'Traditio' which means one who has SOLD his land to another. This is the root word for other terms like trade, traded, trading, etc....
The legal implications of the term Traditio means:
TRADITIO. Lat In the civil law. Delivery; transfer of possession; a derivative mode of acquiring, by which the owner of a corporeal thing, having the right and the will of aliening it, transfers it for a lawful consideration to the receiver. Heinecc. Elem. lib. 2, tit. 1, § 380.
For added clarity I have also included the following terms - which go to proving the intent of the term.
— Quasi traditio.
A supposed or implied delivery of property from one to another. Thus, if the purchaser of an article was already in possession of it before the sale, his continuing in possession is considered as equivalent to a fresh delivery of it, delivery being one of the necessary elements of a sale; in other words, a quasi traditio is predicated.
— Traditio brevi manu.
A species of constructive or implied delivery. When he who already holds possession of a thing in another's name agrees with that other that henceforth he shall possess it in his own name, in this case a delivery and redelivery are not necessary. And this species of delivery is termed "traditio brevi manu."
Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 284
(Blacks Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.)
Accordingly, one who is a 'Traditional Owner' is one who was the owner but has sold his interest to another....This is the Crowns' ONLY means of acquiring Tribal lands, and in the manner it is employed represent serious extrinsic fraud on the part of the Crown and its' minions and parliaments.
Native Title applicants are not informed of this fact, and, due to the fraudulent usurpation of the Tribes sovereignty by the Crowns' abandoned franchised corporate parliaments, they are conned into believing they are NOT the Sovereign owners of their lands. This usurpation of the Tribes Sovereignty is in direct contravention to Queen Victorias' Order in Council of ~2 August 1875 which, in clear terms, prohibited the prohibited the UK and its' minion parliaments here from 'extending or construing to extend sovereignty or dominion' onto this continent or the Pacific Islands.
This fraud is also usually enforced through the use of ethnic cleansing, genocide, assaults, rapes, murders, etc...at the hands of the parliaments agents, namely police, the judiciary, etc...etc...etc....
On 24 October 1970 UN Resolution 2625 (XXV) was brought into eistence with Australia being a signatory to it.
This Resolution states:
By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.
Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:
a: To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States, and
b: To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard t the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned:
and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.
Every State has the duty to promote through joint and separate action universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.
The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action, in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and receive support in accordance with the purpose and principles of the Charter.
Those Tribes/peoples asserting their Sovereignty against the colonising peoples are protected in such efforts by this instrument. An instrument relied upon by Australia and other UN Member States to justify their actions against various other colonial governments in the past. It appears it is now ' Australias ' turn.
After the creation of this Resolution, Australias ' legal and judicial minions spent 23 years creating the circumstances that brought about the 2nd Mabo decision which resulted in the fraud of Native Title being used against the Tribes as a weapon of law to fraudulently misrepresent the facts at law and usurp the Sovereignty of the Tribes.
This truth is not made known to the Tribes during the Native Title process by 'their' lawyers, who are members o fthe Crowns Law Societies, BAR Association nor judiciary - nor the Crown itsself for that matter.
Australians, in allowing this to continue , should hang their heads in utter self-disgust at their taking advantage of such a monumental crime.
But will it ?
Gunham Badi Jakamarra