The reason the Crown insists upon the Tribes negotiating via its Native Title scam is clear. Without the Tribes signing an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (think about the name for a second) there is no agreement between the tribe/s and the Crown as to ownership and occupation rights/costs of the Tribes lands. The Crown needs its fraudulent Native Title process to coerce Tribes into giving rights over a Tribes lands to the Crown for the consideration of Native or Slaves Title over a small portion of that Tribes lands. Why do the tribes need to give consent via the Native Title process to the Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) if the Tribe isnt the owner of the concerned lands to be used ? The Crown knows this. According to advice given by Dr Stephen Davis (Samuel Griffith Society Volume 9 Chapter Eleven), the issue of Sovereignty over this continent is open for contention and the Crowns domestic courts do not have a right to determine the arguement. The issue of Royalties or, to put it simply - payment, for minerals etc removed from our lands, both in the past AND in the future, is one thing that needs addressing. Have you ever wondered why one of the first things that Native Title applicants are required to do, is sign off, at Point Q of the Native Title Application Form, and grant ownership of OUR mineral and other resources to the Crown ? There is no part of the Native Title process which provides an advantage to the Tribes in any form. The whole Native Title process has been designed to legally thieve ownership of Tribal lands from the Tribes and hand it to the Crown. What is meant by legally thieve is that this is done according to the Crowns corporate legislation/statutes which have only ever applied to Her Majesties subjects - something the Tribes have never been. The only claim ever put forward by the Crown in respect of Tribal lands was founded in the ancient Roman concept called Terra Nullius. This particular rort was debunked as a myth by the Crowns own High Court in Mabo (2). The Crown had to accept that its assertion of Sovereignty, based upon a fraudulent claim that this land was unoccupied and or waste, was baseless in fact and just plain incorrect at law.
Posted on: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 08:13:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015