Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Hi everybody, welcome to my show. This is Inspired Radio, and I’m Helen Taylor. Tune in every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. Melbourne, Australia time, and Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. Central time for Canada and the U.S., for conversations and stories to inspire you.

This is the BBS Radio TV platform, and we’re going live to 200-plus outlets worldwide.

I’m just going to get straight into things today and give us all the time we can with Donna and Peter. My guests today are Donna and Peter from Corruption Whistleblower, and they are back with something fantastic and explosive to announce.

Last time we spoke, back on the 13th of May, not so long ago, they revealed their controversial 400-page affidavit arguing that Australia became a sovereign nation in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles, making the current government and banking structures unlawful under international law.

That is pretty explosive all on its own. So welcome to Donna and Peter. Thank you so much for being back on the show and sharing whatever it is you’re going to reveal today.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Thank you very much.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Thank you very much for having us.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Yes, thank you, Helen.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
You’re welcome.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
It is an exciting time. We have definitely discovered some new information that we have never heard before. Peter and I will be unpacking information about the Constitution, but just before the Constitution, the 1899 referendum that supposedly gave permission for the Constitution to be enacted.

That is only part of the document that we are getting ready, which is an endorsement for Peter and me, and others, meaning anyone who wants to sign on to endorse us to go to the International Criminal Court, present this information, and have our current occupying regime addressed on the international stage.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
So, you’re going to go to The Hague and put the facts you have uncovered in the form of an affidavit to them and ask them to investigate?

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Very much. We are very much looking for elders, the original people born on this land, to have a look at this document. Then there will be another type of document that gives voice to people from the international community who can see this error as well, and there will be a supporting document for them to sign too.

We are looking at the domestic people, the people who were born here, to have a look at this document. It is not quite ready yet, but we are well on our way, as you can see.

We will be launching a new website called UCSA, which stands for United Civilians of Sovereign Australia. It is UCSA.land. That is being built as we speak, and you are one of the first people, Helen, for us to explain this to. I will hand over to Peter, and he can start running through the document.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Just before we start, I want to let people know, because I may have a question in relation to the evidence, this document we are running through is the endorsement document. It has the bones of the argument in there, because obviously we cannot expect people to read the 400-page or 150-page affidavit with evidence, which contains the facts to show that there is no valid law here in Australia.

There will also be another document, maybe 150 pages, which will be the crimes they have committed against all the people. Then there will be another book, which will be the solutions.

This one here is a draft copy of the endorsement. However, it is not the final copy. We are just doing a little bit of a pre-launch with you, Helen. The document will be up on the web page sometime in the next 10 to 14 days, maybe earlier, but we will say 10 to 14 days. People can go there and read it, and if they believe in it, then they sign it. Then they become one of the “and ors,” or one of the filers, into the International Criminal Court.

As I said earlier, it is no good for just Donna and me to file this thing, because they are going to say, “Well, why aren’t the other people filing here? Why is it just you two saying it?”

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Can I just say something there? This whole thing is about energy and where you are giving focus to your energy. You are asking people to put their energy toward this. This is creating the new world right now. You are asking for everyone’s collective energy.

People out there, instead of looking at the system and trying to fight the system and focus on all that sort of stuff, please redirect your energy and support people like Peter and Donna. That collective energy is absolutely going to make change.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Well, it is the difference between two people filing it and half a million people filing it. If half a million people are on the “and ors,” or the others, then the ICC will have pretty well no ability to knock it back because it is an overwhelming submission.

They will highly likely, and we are told that they will, if we get those sorts of numbers, pay attention and administer the orders that are in this document.

It is a very controversial document, sort of dangerous in a way for us, but it is what it is. Like Jodie said, “If not you, then who? If not now, then when?” The time is now.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Yes, I agree. So, you have the affidavit that we talked about last time, but this is the endorsement that goes on the affidavit. I just want to put out there once again that you have the evidence to back this up.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Absolutely. We have the evidence. There is evidence of the crimes, and we also have the evidence of the solutions.

The solutions are mind-boggling, really, in relation to making this nation a full-blown prosperous nation. As we spoke about earlier today, if we are just talking in diesel terms, and we can manufacture all our diesel here, we are consuming about 100 million liters of diesel a day. If, just for discussion, we said that was a dollar a liter, that means we are exporting $100 million every single day for our diesel. That should be running our own circular economy and boosting this nation.

There would be massive job creation, and royalties could come back here instead of going offshore, like in other countries, Norway and quite a number of others, where people get paychecks every year from royalties.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Royalties for everyone who was born on the nation.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
For everybody listening out there, Peter has personal experience. He is not just throwing out diesel and facts and figures. He personally knows about that industry and is influential in making change there.

What you are talking about is what we all know, and this is what we said earlier. In our generation, our government has sold all of our resources offshore, and you are talking about needing to start getting them back.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Just the royalties for the people at a minimum, and/or, like we discussed earlier, value-adding the product. Why are we sending our raw materials, such as iron ore, overseas when we could be smelting it here, potentially using a large amount of solar or potentially free-energy systems that are coming to the forefront?

Why are we sending our real baseline raw products overseas, only to bring them back from China or other countries in the world after they have processed them? It makes no sense.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Yes, it makes no sense at all for our country and the people of the country. Once it is in front of you, you have to pay attention and start asking questions, don’t you?

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
It only makes sense for the for-profit criminal cartel that we are currently occupied by. That is what it makes sense for: their profit and their unlawful deals. We know we have original people backing us in regard to that. We know the Australian government is an occupying, foreign, militant, horrendous regime that is pillaging our nation and our people on pretty much every level you look at.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
It is abuse.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
It is definitely every level. They give us breadcrumbs and withhold the smorgasbord that is rightfully ours. So let’s stop settling for breadcrumbs.

We have a civil pathway that we want to go forward with: this document going into the international court to get a ruling. We will go through what those rulings are.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Yes, because we want to prevent civil upheaval here. We do not want everything destroyed. We do not want to have to do it that way.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Do not wait until the breadcrumbs are taken away, because at some point they are going to be. People, sit up and listen, because we need to take some action here. I know the body out there has lots of opinions and lots of things to say, but we are asking you to put that into action because then it really becomes meaningful.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Everything we have here is fully evidence-based. It is not just us saying it. We do not just think it. Everything that is in this document has full prima facie evidence, historical evidence, and it is written in all different documents and Hansards and everything like that to prove, without a shadow of doubt, that what we are saying is true and correct.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Excellent.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
I will run through this. As you can see here, this is a witness-victim endorsement for the filing of the criminal complaint against the Australian government and their officialdom into the ICC and ICJ in 2026 by the United Civilians of Sovereign Australia of the unincorporated independent nation-state.

I am sure that all the listeners will agree: Australia is a crime scene in a national crisis.

Because I have to go over there and file it myself, it is not a matter of filing it electronically, because that is not going to work. Many people have tried to file into these places, and it falls on deaf ears. We are going to go over with a small number of people, and a large amount of people will be meeting us over there, all the people who are going to sign this form. So it is not just me saying it.

It is representing the United Civilians of Sovereign Australia of the unincorporated independent nation-state. We cannot be citizens or subjects. We are civilians.

It is versus the Australian government, federal and state, and their officials in their individual capacity in the criminal enterprise of a widespread attack on a civilian population.

This endorsement submission is made under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force on 3 July 2002. As civilians, we claim protection under international law.

We run through the Rome Statute. These are the articles, basically, and we just put a little explanation under them: Article 5 and Article 25.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Sorry, just go back there. Article 5 names the crimes that come under the Rome Statute, which are crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. I am sure we can all pick out things among those articles that they have done to us.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Yes. Article 25 is individual criminal responsibility, which is also in the Rome Statute. We are not only going after them generally; we are going after them in the same capacity as the Nuremberg Trials, in relation to how following orders will not release you from what you criminally did.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
You are going after the individuals.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
That is right. Yes, for the harm they have caused. As you sign on to this document, when we do actually submit it, you become protected people under international law. This is something that is a little bit different about this document.

When you sign on, there are international protections because we call ourselves civilians, because that is what we are on the independent nation-state. We are civilians. Therefore, we get international protections against the current occupying foreign regime.

Remembering also that we are dealing with a terrorist organization, we do not know how they are going to act on this. However, we just keep moving forward in a peaceful manner and see what comes of it.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
So standing with this document is going to activate that protection?

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
That is correct. It does. But once again, we are dealing with Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, so we do not know what the outcome of that is. We do not know if they are going to look at it and say, “Yes, you are protected.”

But I believe that once it is filed and has a stamp on it, then they will really recognize it. They will not see it as gobbledygook. That is what the police do. You go to give them a document, and they say, “I am not reading that.” But when you say, “This thing has been filed, and you are on it,” then it starts to become even more recognized.

In Australian law, if you have a court case going on and you go out and harass the witness or harass the plaintiff, that is contempt of court, which carries another whole heap of consequences.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
I hear what you are doing now. There are a lot of different groups out there filing paperwork to the systems, the Attorney General, and all different sorts of departments. But what you are saying is that a lot of people are putting that to the police or putting it to a court here, and it is not being recognized at all. What you are doing is having it recognized at The Hague.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Yes. It will have a court seal, a case number, or whatever.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
And that has clout. That is paperwork that has to be recognized.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
That is right, because we have all filed enough stuff and sent letters into our government, and they just disregard it. We have a joke about it. They have a paper-log-making machine. If you have ever seen it, you get all your newspapers and make logs out of them to burn in the fireplace. That is what I believe they are probably doing with all the paperwork we have sent them.

Our courts do not recognize any of what we are saying. They brand us, slander us, and call us sovereign citizens, when we are just whistleblowers.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
I was talking to someone the other day who was renewing a gun license and had to sit the course. In the course, the officer in charge asked anybody if they were a sovereign citizen to put their hand up. Nobody put their hand up.

After that, he declared, “We have instructions that any of these groups calling themselves that, and we have the links to them and the names for them, we are removing their gun licenses.”

What I understood, though, is that a lot of the government and bureaucracy are being trained to look out for certain words and certain language. That either puts people who are questioning the narrative and questioning what is going on with their country under one of two banners: either you are a sovereign citizen, or you have mental illness.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
That is right.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
So we need something recognized at a high level.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Spot on, Helen. That is right. We are going to their bosses, basically.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Yes.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
We are going to get an order from their bosses. The truth is that they really do not practice international law or abide by the treaties in the domestic courts. The judiciary has not integrated it into the current law, despite it being ratified and going through the Parliament. So the judiciary is just doing its own thing, separate from that, and has not acknowledged the international rights.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
They are protecting the system.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Yes, that is right. We cannot go to any court here. We cannot go to the High Court. We have tried. Adam Griffin will not let anything into the High Court. You can ask him; he will tell you. You cannot go to any of the other courts because, of course, they want to keep their criminal cartel in place. So we have to go outside.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
I believe that “Albo” has already had some international court dealings by using taxation funds to fund foreign wars, so he has already got his name up on the ICC. We are most definitely bolstering that and saying, “Yes, it is not just him. It is the whole lot of them. It is the government and their officialdom that are stealing our children, raping and pillaging our lands and resources, and stealing our money.”

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Absolutely. So we will move on to Article 68. We can clearly see here it says the court shall take appropriate measures to protect the safety, physical and psychological well-being, dignity, and privacy of victims and witnesses. Everybody who signs this becomes a witness to the crime.

We are not saying everybody is going to get called up by any means, but what it does is give standing because we will be there to articulate what is going on here with the affidavit of the crimes and also the solutions. They are not going to let this thing go unless there is a solution here.

We will be asking the court, potentially, to appoint people to an interim government who have put the most into community work. There are 10 or 15 groups around the country that have thrown five or 10 years of their hard life, for free, into trying to correct the system. That is their credibility.

Once we get an interim government, because that will happen sooner or later because the population is waking up to this full-blown criminal cartel, we can hold elections through the voting app, which has already been built: the blockchain voting system. That is ready to go. We can basically hold elections every month.

You will not be charged if you do not vote. It just means you do not care about the nation. We can create laws backed by a government of we the people, or the people’s government for the people. The interim government will not be able to do anything without the approval of the people. People would just have to download the blockchain voting application.

There are a number of other very good things that come along with that, but we will not be discussing that.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Oh my gosh. I am just seeing this bigger picture at the moment. There are all these groups that have been setting up, like you are saying, for the last four or five years, or even up to 10 years, boots on the ground, trying to figure out how to create the application and how to create it.

There are pieces of the puzzle all over the place. Everybody thinks they are finding the way, or the right way, or whatever it is. But once you file this and it is recognized, it is like all those other pieces of the puzzle are going to come together.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
That is vital, because we can then say, “Look how many times the Australian government has been warned for duty, duties, and everything that people have been doing.” All the people who have sent their notices into the government and local councils show that they are all well aware of what is going on.

I would love to read this brief summary to you about what this is about.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Yes.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
It is a brief summary of certified and verifiable evidentiary cause of action, but it is not limited to just this.

The Australian government and state governments, along with their officialdom, have conspired with the royal family and the United Kingdom Parliament, which retains exclusive title over the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK. It is an act of the United Kingdom Parliament.

Collectively, they enforce a foreign occupation of a British territorialist dictatorship governing system via maladministration that lacks accountability, yet is disguised as a democracy. This system is weaponized against the sovereign civilians and others within this sovereign Australian independent nation-state. It causes harm, fear, terror, and ongoing intimidation.

This includes, but is not limited to, criminal actions of human and child trafficking, murder, slavery, torture, trespass, embezzling, and plundering individuals and national assets. All of that is at the threat of gunpoint, with the potential incarceration of civilians if we do not fully comply.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Absolutely well said.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
That is just a summary of it. They come into your house, the cops and child protection, and they are going to take a child at the threat of arrest or gunpoint. They will hold the family down and take screaming children out the door, often never to be seen again, or on hearsay gossip reports with nothing even in court.

This is tens of thousands a year, accumulating year after year, because there are less than 1% returns. They might say they are not in the care of child protection anymore, but that just means they have shoveled them off to one of their many arms. It does not necessarily mean they have gone back to the family and everything is hunky-dory at home. They only get paid when the child stays out of the original home.

That is just one aspect of how they can come in and take your children or take your home. This is the evidence we have found.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Just one statement: guilty until proven innocent now.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Absolutely. They will take your children, and you have to fight to prove that none of their evidence should be held up in court. They perjure themselves in court.

Helen, we are about to tell you why they get away with all this perjury. They do not seem to come under the rule of law. We are about to unpack why and how they have sworn on to that non-accountability.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
They are just not accountable.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Yes. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 can only be invalid and void ab initio, which means void from the beginning. When it first started, if it was void ab initio, it is redundant and defunct.

Australia is currently administered by a foreign occupying domestic terrorist criminal cartel, the Australian government and their officialdom, trapping and terrorizing the uninformed sovereign civilians of Australia. Not sovereign citizens. We are not sovereign citizens.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
No.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
We are civilians of this sovereign independent nation, which is an internationally recognized independent nation-state with its own personality since, as we were saying before, 1919, and then again in 1945. That is in their paperwork.

What happened is they had the draft bill to constitute in 1899. They sent it around to all the different states. They did round one, and people were going, “No, no, no, we do not want to.” Round one was in about 1887, and they said no. Hardly anyone voted.

Then there was 1892. They had been trying to do this for a while. Then around 1895 or 1896, they did another round in all the individual states. Guess what? They literally had 10% of the population vote yes to constitute.

Out of 3.77 million, only 1.2 million were even allowed to vote. If you were Aboriginal, you could not vote. Almost all the women could not vote. You had to be a landholder. You could not be poor. You had to be on the electoral roll, which was very stringent.

Finally, the best they could do was 10% of the population saying yes to constitute. Three hundred seventy-one thousand said yes to constitute. I forget the exact figure, but it was around 30% of eligible electors, still only 30%.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
So their behavior never changed. Throughout my lifetime, I have looked at government wanting to implement certain things and putting them out there to the public and getting pushback, no matter what it was. Whether it was about having to get a water tank in your backyard, or things on the bigger playing field, big changes to our country, they have disclosed it, got pushback or a no, and then gone ahead anyway. They have been doing it way back since then.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
That is right. Besides them originally trespassing on this land, which was not terra nullius, besides the original trespass, now we have this. Ten percent said yes. So many voters said no, and many were not permitted to vote.

It was always, “Other people voted it all in. It is the people.” No, they did not. Let us just get that first point right.

I will let Peter go on to the second point, because they did a few changes to the old 1899 bill to constitute.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
After we did not really vote to say yes, they sent it over to the UK. Number six of this document says the 1899 bill to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia was amended with significant changes. After it was approved here by 30% of eligible electors, it was sent to the UK.

During its passage through the Parliament of the United Kingdom, they breached contract law and international law and committed fraud in the factum. That is actually what it is called when you alter a contract after one party has signed it.

The words “this Act shall bind the Crown” were removed. Those words would have enforced the express accountability of the Crown and the Australian government officials who swear allegiance to it, past and present, to the same foreign occupying Crown.

Basically, when you remove “this Act shall bind the Crown,” it is no longer explicit. In the act, and when we go to section nine, you can see extracts from the draft bill that were approved by the electors. In 1899, the draft bill to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia, from the original covering clause approved by a limited number of electors, showed “this Act shall bind the Crown.”

You can see the words underlined in red: “This Act shall bind the Crown.”

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
What else does it say? Go back to it. It says, “This Act shall bind the Crown and its provisions referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.”

That was in 1899 when it was sent over there. But when it came back, what does section two say?

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
“Act to extend to the Queen’s successors.” See how they have removed “this Act shall bind the Crown.” In this one, it says, “The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.”

So that changes it from binding the Crown to inferring it. It is not explicitly said, which allows wiggle room. Now it is up to the judges to say whether it binds the Crown or not.

They have removed the accountability, the six expressed words saying they had to be held accountable, because otherwise it becomes an asymmetrical contract.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Yes. We are bound to it, but they are not. They have written themselves out. This is why they are so hell-bent on swearing allegiance to the Crown, as they very well do swear their allegiance to the King and everything, because they have another set of interests from what we have here.

It gives them their out. That is why they will perjure themselves in court. They have written this Constitution so they are outside of the Constitution, while we are all bound to it.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
It is like saying, “I am going to buy a Toyota Land Cruiser. It comes with a warranty. I want it yellow, and I want it with a V8 engine.” When it turns up, it is white and has no warranty. You just would not take the thing.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
I hope people listening right now have light bulbs going off.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
That is not the only change, Helen. They did other changes as well. They changed the contract by about 10%, enough that it should have been put to another referendum.

So we can confidently say that no one has voted for the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, an act of the UK. That is beside it only being used for 20 years, and by the time it got to the Treaty of Versailles, we were classed as an independent nation-state anyhow.

In particular, we agreed to a vehicle or an instrument that had an expressed implicit warranty, but what came back was something else. The contract is dead, and no one voted for the second thing that came back after its alteration.

We now know. To the constitutionalists, you have to eat humble pie. We have put out newspapers talking about the Constitution. We were right, and the constitutionalists were right, but now what they need to do is go back and have a look and see that the whole contract has been broken.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
The evidence is telling a very different story.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
That is right. Besides them being trespassers, besides terra nullius, and besides all of that, which are valid arguments, this actually shows the flaw in the contract as well.

I tell you, the original people are going to love this stuff because it again shows how it is null and void. Yet all of our rules are made under it. They all swear allegiance to it. It goes on and on. This is the reason why they are here.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
When this is revealed, the emperor really does have no clothes on.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Yes. They have come into this country with a cloak of regalness and “we are here to help,” and underneath they had nothing on. This is taking the cloak off and revealing that they had no standing.

This is what we want to take overseas. This is what we want to take outside this incestuous playpen that they have made here. We want to take it to their bosses and say, “Look, guys, this is all trespass. They changed the contract. It is void ab initio.”

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Let us explain this a little more. Removing “this Act shall bind the Crown,” and being silent on binding the Crown, allows for Crown privileges and the imbalance of no expressed statement that binds the Crown, granting the deliberate preservation of Crown immunity. That leads those who swear allegiance to the Crown to share in that same unlawful immunity.

So the Crown retains continuity of sovereign reign with immunity and without accountability, just like the governments that swear their allegiance to it.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
It is asymmetrical. As soon as they swear their allegiance, they have the same immunity.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Absolutely. So it is a null-and-void contract. That is the big news we have never heard anyone say or even look at. We love the constitutionalists, but they have to go back just before that, a few years before the Constitution, and see that the whole Constitution is null and void.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Those people have been instrumental in unpacking all of this stuff, and as we are, we start to get new insight, don’t we?

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Yes, because this amended version, as it says in point 12, was never put to a referendum by the Australian people, meaning the political and legal system under which Australia is currently governed has no valid lawful standing. It is without the informed consent of the Australian civilian people, both back in 1900 and now.

So we are evidencing that it is disguised as a democracy. It is a dictatorship disguised as a democracy. They are taking advantage and keeping us uninformed, and keeping this charade going.

We are blowing the lid off. We are pulling back the curtain on the crazy little man spinning wheels and pressing buttons. We are pulling back the curtain and showing him.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
What you will also see when you pull the curtains back is that we have the federal Parliament swearing allegiance to a Queen of Australia, when there is no office or Crown for that. Then you have the states’ letters patent from 1986, which were revoked in 1986 under the Australia Act, with allegiance to Her Majesty, the King or Queen of the United Kingdom.

So you have one, the federal government, swearing allegiance to a Queen of Australia, and the other one, the states, swearing allegiance to the Queen of England. People overseas must be going, “What is wrong with these Australians that they cannot see it?”

No, because people are too busy living the life that we should be able to afford. While we have not been paying attention, these rogue terrorists, and I will call them terrorists because they are, have removed our rights to this nation’s wealth, our rights to liberty, our rights to freedom, and our rights to prosperity.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
And our rights to get together in groups and discuss this. They even impinged upon rights like that. We should have the freedom of association to go and discuss this stuff, but we cannot get together in groups without them wanting to come and break us all up, throw us in jail, and all that kind of stuff.

We are pressing forward with this, and it feeds into what we were discussing last time. As we get to 1919, all of the soldiers and servicemen and women who died for our independent freedom need to be acknowledged.

That is another thing I will say to the constitutionalists: let us stop with the constitutional stuff, because we had 61,720 servicemen and women, and 155,000 wounded, for us to be a free independent nation-state. That was granted to Australia on this landmass known as Australia. New Zealand was also granted that, and Canada.

For some reason, they are not seeing that. We do hope they can see that as well and apply this to their nation too. In Australia, we are very much on par, are we not? We are both prison camps.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Canada has a Queen of Canada, and New Zealand has a Queen of New Zealand. The point I wanted to say about what happened in the First World War was that all the prime ministers who signed the League of Nations or the Treaty of Peace, one of which was the United Kingdom Parliament, signed it. The King is subordinate to the United Kingdom Parliament under the Act of Settlement.

They signed the Treaty of Peace, and Section 10 of the Treaty of Peace says that the Constitution cannot be used here in those terms.

Article 10 says the members of the League, and the Australian Prime Minister went there and signed it, and the United Kingdom Parliament signed it. Like I said, the King is subordinate to the United Kingdom Parliament. It is a myth that the King is standing over the United Kingdom Parliament. That is just not fact at all.

“The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League.”

That is basically saying the British territorialists cannot have any law here. The Constitution has not been able to operate here since 1919. It is from a foreign country. It is from the UK. It is from King Charles. Where was he born? Not here.

It is saying that every country that signed in there has the power to do something about external aggression. It says to respect and preserve against external aggression, and that is what we have here with every police officer wearing that Crown badge on our streets.

Unfortunately, there are some good ones, but minimal. The rest are aggressive, and when they come up to you for a driving offense, you are sitting in the car. What do you see when you look at them? Their gun. They are at your window with a gun facing you, and you are like, “Well, if I do not do what this guy says, what is he going to do?” It is a mental threat to have that gun in your face.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Even in our generation, they have gone from helping the people and keeping the peace, so to speak, to really just being bullies.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
That is because it has turned from a police service to a police force. That is the problem. Everything that happens to us is at the threat of gunpoint. They come and take your children at the threat of gunpoint. They want to kick you out of the house at the threat of gunpoint. They want to pull you over on the side of the road at the threat of gunpoint and arrest. Everything is at the threat of gunpoint and arrest if we do not comply with their regime.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
I just want to make a note here. Article 10 says, “In the case of any such aggression, or in the case of any threat or danger of such aggression, the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.”

This is where the League of Nations failed in its obligations under international law to prevent World War II. This is where the United Nations came and took over, and adopted all those clauses into its charter.

We can see that the Charter, Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 4, absolutely says the same thing. It says, “The organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members.”

If the Constitution Act of 1900 is here, even if we say it was not unlawful, which it was, and it was not agreed to, can it be here under the United Nations Charter? No, it cannot, because we are all sovereign. Everybody who signed that, founding members of the Charter of the United Nations, Britain and Australia, were founding members in 1945.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
I am just laughing at one word: equality.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
That is right. We are not supposed to be under another country’s rules. Sovereign equality.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Or even under other people in our own country.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Yes, that is right. Paragraph 4 says, “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

How on earth is the Constitution here?

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
That is sticking the middle finger right up at a lot of people. That is not how we are operating at all.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
That is why the next line says all Australian governments, federal and state, are hostile foreign occupiers and are offending international law. They do not want to know about international law when we bring it into the courtrooms.

That is why this evidence is a widespread attack on a civilian population, which is one of their articles, specifically but not limited to acts of terrorism, torture, slavery, fraud, child abduction, embezzlement, murder, and human trafficking by the Australian governments, offending Article 10 in the League of Nations, and it goes on about what they are offending.

This again is just a very brief overview of the 150-page, full, in-depth, evidence-based document. Every section has evidence to show that what we are saying is true and correct. It is not just our opinion.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
It has to be. We are taking it to a court, so it all has to be evidence-based.

The only hope left is for the sovereign civilians of Australia, or the United Civilians of Sovereign Australia, whichever way you want to say it, to have international warrants and arrests issued by the ICC and ICJ, directed to the United Nations Security Council, Interpol, and the Australian military and federal police.

The Australian state police are highly corrupted and compromised, being an extended enforcing arm of the foreign military occupation here. So we are looking for arrests. We are looking for the Australian government to be deemed unlawful so arrests of the upper echelons can happen.

They are the terrorists. They are the ones doing not only hate speech, but hate actions against the people here.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Some of the evidence talks about the Woods Royal Commission and the Mullighan Inquiry, and how they are protecting their own pedophile gang with suppression orders or unlawful suppression orders. It extends right up to the Port Arthur massacre, which was one of their government operations and can now be proved good and well.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
I just had Paul Modder on. I interviewed him just a week or so ago about Port Arthur. All of this is coming out into the light now, and what you are doing now is exposing that it is a criminal cartel.

We were led to believe that the mafia just hung around Italy. Criminal cartels operate exactly like the mafia, and they are worldwide. They have infiltrated everywhere, haven’t they?

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
That is right. But it is a British territorial regime that is actually the cartel.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
That is right. We go on to ask for Senator Bill Heffernan. We would like an endorsement for the documents to be produced. We would like the Mullighan Inquiry and the Woods Royal Commission suppression orders to be relinquished.

There are a hundred thousand people who signed on to another petition that said, “Yes, show us the evidence.” We also want the systematic, unchecked family abuse and separation, the for-profit child protection racket that is going on here, to be addressed.

We have one of the biggest per-capita child-snatching regimes in the world here, and it is causing horrendous problems for children who often get fed into these horrible state-care facilities and often end up in things like the Mullighan Inquiry and the Woods Royal Commission.

There are no protections. I have interviewed Rachel Vaughan, and her father was instrumental in all of this. She was part of the Mullighan Inquiry, and so on. I would love to put it out to her and the affiliates there too, to support this.

We have not been shy in saying that stuff. I hope people are brave enough to have a look at this document in full and sign on. Otherwise, I am sort of saying, “Well, stop whinging.” If you cannot even sign on, which will be quite formal at the end.

We ask for the banking stuff back and the Offer Omega Trust. We talk about the Offer Omega Trust, and we ask for immediate arrests.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Just going back to the Offer Omega Trust, people may potentially know that there are videos where Donna and I served the banks. Those assets are basically, we have been told by the banks, “We cannot find them. They do not exist.” But we have the receipts showing they were delivered to them.

Because that Committee of 300 document was signed off by 350 international figures, and they are saying they cannot find it, and some of those figures were the full bench of the International Criminal Court and the full bench of the International Court of Justice, we are making an application over there for a court order to have those monies returned, because they have stolen Australia’s prosperity by doing so.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Yes, they have.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
There is something in this document for everybody. If you have home-loan stress, you can sign it. If you have had children taken, you can sign it. If you are just a full-blown freedom fighter, you will see it all in here.

We want to unite all the groups into one. We love the constitutionalists, but you have to be prepared to leave your door open because there is so much information that comes to light. I do not want to be one of these people who says, “I know everything, and what I say is correct, and that is it. I am not looking at anything else.” At that moment, you close the door to becoming more clever at the argument.

That is what I am saying about the time we have prepared, the 150 pages. We have that fraud, and then 20 years later there is that fraud, and five years later there is that fraud. They just keep building fraud on fraud and hope we do not notice, but we do notice.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Correct. We are now following the trail and burying it all, making it difficult for people to put all the pieces together.

There are numerous others. We do not have time to run through them. But when we launch this document, there will be a number of interviews being done to say to everybody, “Right, go to the web page,” because the web page is not built yet. We are about a week away. It might be 10 days away, but we are around that time.

Then we can put this document up. But we just wanted to get it out there so people can start getting their heads around what we are trying to do.

We are not saying we want to be government. The government in the future has to be a meritocracy and remove the kakistocracy. If people do not know what that word means, they need to look it up: kakistocracy.

If we want a meritocracy, we have to put the best people in place doing their job. It is not like now, where the police minister becomes the housing minister, and then the same minister goes and does something else. They are all Mason children and Mason bloodlines, all these people.

We do not want people who are unskilled. How many people in Parliament have actually got commercial skills out in the community to see how this crazy system works, where it is just tax on tax on tax?

I read something the other day that said we are taxed roughly about 90% or 95%, some number like that. It is just nuts, especially when we are selling all of our resources and the community is getting nothing.

In Saudi Arabia, everybody gets a big check, and look at their place over there. It is abundant, but we do not get it here because of these rotten politicians, like the one who gave away $150 billion worth of gas for $2 billion. I did the sums on that, and that is six to eight thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child in the country. But he quits Parliament after he has given it away and goes and works for the firm he gave it away to.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
When they have portfolios as well, I watched when the budget was coming out and the finance minister, I cannot remember her name right now, but I realized they are all playing a game, and they know their roles in the game.

She knew she was going to come out with a bad budget, and she knew she was going to get crucified by the people. But I could imagine them in the background going, “All right, it is your turn to get up there. They are going to hate you. You have to play the game. We are going to put you out front so people throw stones at you, but we will give you money to do that. We will give you extra bonuses, and then we will move you to a new portfolio or whatever.”

It is like they retire on a cushion. I could see them laughing at us, going, “I will put my hand up. I will be the bad guy this time,” knowing in the background everyone is supporting them anyway and saying, “Good on you for taking the hits. Now let us move on.”

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Every one of them is compromised. We did hear stories of a certain premier, and I will not mention his name, who used to take video footage of people going to either child brothels or normal brothels. He would bring them into the office and say, “You are going to sign this act, and you are going to present this act.”

They would say, “No, I am not.” Then he would say, “What about this photo? What if we put you on the news as a pedophile, or someone committing adultery against your partner and your family? We will put that on the front news and flush your life out that way.”

They just end up signing the document or following orders. But as we know, following orders will not release you from what you criminally did.

There are only about 65,000 military and 60,000 police in this country, or thereabouts. But there are 25 to 30 million Australians. We do not really even know the true census reports because everything is a lie. There is no truth here, and everything is fraud.

That is where the blockchain voting application will bring honesty. Everybody will be able to go on there and see what the numbers were. It will be live. As people start voting, they will be able to see which way things are trending.

The social media side of things on that blockchain voting app can decide the questions. Do we want to send ourselves? Do we want to create a question? AI has its place. It is a very smart thing, and it can think far quicker than a human can. But it has also been designed to thwart us as well, and there are certain things in there to defend itself.

However, the blockchain voting system will give us the ability to create new laws very quickly. They will be laws for the people, by the people, and you will not be able to get out of it.

When the new government comes into play, they will all be swearing affidavits or attestations to say they did their job that fortnight before they get paid. If they did not do their job, they are going to do jail time. That applies to all of us as well, because you are dealing with money from the whole community, and that affects 25 million people.

If you commit an incremental offense against 25 million people and you add that up, you could do 10 years in jail. This is how we keep everybody honest. We have to pay them the right money. We are not going to say people get half a million, three million, or a million a year plus all these expenses and that sort of stuff. It has to be sensible. It has to be decided by a meritocracy and decided by the people.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
The truth is that the new-world people will be wealthy to a degree of having their own land, having their own home, and having a sufficient amount of money to live the life they would love to live.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Yes, definitely. This is a pathway to that.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Yes, but first we will need a new currency. We cannot keep contracting with them using fiat currency. So there will be room for a new asset-backed currency, held to the land bank of this continent known as Australia. There is room for that. There is room to step off this maritime love affair that many people are stuck in.

We are going over to the 5D. I see this as an opening and a portal that opens the timeline up to 5D. Absolutely.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
We have one minute to go. What I want to say to people is that they need to be a part of the solution right now.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Please do.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Absolutely. UCSA.land, which is United Civilians of Sovereign Australia, will be the upcoming web page that will have this document on it. We will have explanation videos on it, and it will have the other full affidavit on it when it is all done.

We are looking for a million signatures to help us go over and restore it. When we come back, we are happy to hear everyone. Everyone’s voice will be heard and championed as we press forward.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
I had a lot of people who had questions after the last interview we had, and we are going to ask people to direct their questions to that website because there will be an email that goes with that website.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Yes, there will be an email there. We are willing to give people those answers. If they would like to help, they can write to info@corruptionwhistleblower.com. If they would like to help or have any input, we would like one person to get 100 people signed, or one person to get 10 people signed, whatever that looks like.

We are not saying this is the be-all and end-all. We are just giving it a go, like Aussies do.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
That is a great way to wrap it up. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Oh my gosh. Thank you. We squeezed in as much as we could. Let’s get it out there. Come on, everybody. Be a part of the solution.

Donna and Peter, God bless you, and thank you so much.

Speaker 2 – Donna / Guest:
Thank you.

Speaker 3 – Peter / Guest:
Thank you. Bless all your beautiful viewers.

Speaker 1 – Helen Taylor / Host:
Thank you.