Australian (Ab)Origines set to take back their continent

Australia to be handed back to the (Ab)origines, if not they will take it to the world courts and take it over with full legal rights as sovereign owners , removing the bankrupt, franchised british goverment using their own Laws and returning to tribal law.

ostf.weebly.com...

quote
The Original Sovereign Tribal Federation is poised on an intercultural boundary, rich in possibility for the development of modern Original culture as an integral part of a holistic vision for all Australians.

A catalyst for the OSTF is the discontent arising from numerous, ineffectual assimilation policies perpetrated under British Sovereign law, since the illegal settlement of Australia by Britain over 200 years ago.

Ineffectual from an Original viewpoint because the patent disregard of settlers towards the oldest continuous culture on Earth; born of ignorance, self-interest and avarice, produced tragic hardship, inequality and abasement of the physical and cultural dignity of a whole people.

Ineffectual from a settler perspective, because the British and Christianizing agendas have failed to assimilate the traditional Original culture.

Two hundred years on, intercultural relations remain generally fraught, frustrated and confrontational.
end quote

so the original inhabitants are kicking out the government by banding the tribes together (over 200 of them ) under one banner, the OSTF.

Mark McMurtrie of youtube fame and member of the OSTF secretariat, has studied admiralty law for nearly 20 years and found the amoral settlement of the continent was illegal even against british law at the time(1778).
The process included ceremonies in many locations, heres a vid about one at bondi, Sydney.

www.youtube.com.../u/4/E_HNuyema5Q

Origines, not aborigines (meaning NOT original), not indigenous (meaning of no race), not native (meaning flora and fauna), the Origines are finally getting it together in a legal, non-violent way to gain their rightful place in an equitable new society, reclaiming their sovereign ownership of the land, its assets and soon to invoice the "Australian Government" corporation for use of the land for 200 years, thats some back rent bill!


A paradigm shift to come for the lands downunder! And possibly inspiration to do the same anywhere the british colonised, India, Africa, even Canada may well follow suite.
New Zealand, home of the Maori people are doing the same if they have'nt already!
(links when I can find em)

An ultimatum to elict negotiations is just going up on youtube, more can be found on their facebook page (isnt technology wonderful!) "original sovereign" or the youtube channel sovereign10410.

www.youtube.com...

Any kiwis know about their Privy council doing the same?

Trust me my friend, it won't happen.

The elite haven't reached that point in mind manipulation... yet. Once they over exaggerated things for awhile and cause more sadness than is necessary for the natives then it could potentially be handed back to them.

But you would have to remove some 20 million citizens from such a vast island I couldn't see it actually happening. And we all know the Aussies are a lot like the American 'Redneck' in the sense that they are tough, outlaw(ish) and won't back down to the government.

So I wouldn't worry, give it about another 50 years then you can worry. But for right now nothing drastic will happen.

Since my ancestor was an australopithecine found in africa, does this mean I can own all of that country? This sounds great they have lots of diamonds and ore, now it can all be mine for nothing! AWESOME!

Stuff like this comes up in Australia now and then. Then it vanishes.

If something like this went through (and it won't) it would have ridiculous global implications. The population of native Australians was fairly small I believe before Australia was settled though. I can't imagine how they can claim they were using the whole island.

reply to post by aussiespeeder


in new zealand a tribe decided to create a soverign land inside new zealand what happened can be decribed as a raid and arrests then a media dance and release
acording to my resurch the maori are still legal owners of the land as per the earlyest treaty signed between the crown and the owners

the treaty of waitangi takes away most of the rights of the locals but because soverignty was agreed in the original treaty it cant be removed

our form of govenment requires that there is a council of citizens of high standing that over see all laws and statutes that are in parliment for passing into law

this council was disbanded in the 40s and all laws scince then have been enacted without the legal force of the owners of the land

maroi people have huis or meetings were things are decided and without representation of these tribes all laws are also invalid

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Just seeking some clarification on a few things in your reply there:

- When you're referring to raids and arrests, I'm assuming you're referring to the somewhat recent police action in Tuhoe territory?


"the treaty of waitangi takes away most of the rights of the locals but because soverignty was agreed in the original treaty it cant be removed"

- How does the Treaty of Waitangi removed 'most of the rights of the locals'?

- And in regards to 'the original treaty'...which is that you're referring to?
The Maori Version of the Treaty of Waitangi (of which there were certainly more than one being circulated) - or are you referring to the pre-Treaty of Waitangi, 1835 Declaration of Independence?

weebly.com, LOL,

Where's next; b3ta.com?

There is no chance in this world that the first people of Australia will reclaim it just now - as much as I wish they could.

This is just a silly supposition which will go nowhere beyond ATS!

It'd be nice to see it happen but we'd have to move New Zealand back to it's original position and duck when Niburi passes.

-m0r

Who's continent is it?!

Way back in August 1770, a small row-boat landed on the coastline of Southern Australia and one of the 'comedy gold' moments of human history began...

Standing on one the largest landmasses on Earth, Captain Cook stuck a flag in it and claimed it for King George. Absurd.

Way back some 60 000 years ago, a raft landed on the coastline of Northern Australia and was claimed by those who landed as theirs. Absurd.

History is a funny old thing and always repeating itself.

Originally posted by aussiespeeder
Origines, not aborigines (meaning NOT original), not indigenous (meaning of no race), not native (meaning flora and fauna),

Just a brief point about the meaning of words;

ABORIGINE comes from the Latin AB ("from") and ORIGINE ("the beginning"). So a race can be called "aboriginal" if it has been there "from the beginning". Your explanation assumes that AB is a negative. It isn't.

NATIVE comes from the Latin NATUS ("born in"). So anything that is "born in" a place can be "native". It isn't limited to flora and fauna. I'm native to a small village in England , and I won't feel insulted if somebody else points that out.

INDIGENOUS comes from the Latin INDIGES, and the important point here is that INDI means "from that place". So a people can be called "indigenous" to a place if they come from, belong to, the place in question. Your explanation assumes that INDI is a negative. It isn't.

So I see no reason whatever why the people in the story should object to any of those words. Once they understand what the words actually mean.

I've noticed this before. Whenever "political correctness" objects to a particular word, it's nearly always on the basis of somebody completely misunderstanding the meaning of the word in question.









[edit on 4-9-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by alien


there were two setelment treatys signed well before the treaty of waitangi and both gaurented that under no conditions (including future treatys and laws) that soverinty could be removed by crown

the treaty of waitangi draws an agreement between the crown and the maroi that all land transactions have to be brokered by the crown

this includes making maroi laiable to follow laws passed as part of the construct of the new nation

but all was void due to the original agreement of setelment treaty

basically all maroi cheifs or leaders were gaunteed soverinty over their land and people with the right to representation at a govenmental level

the maroi had a hui to decide policy for their tribes and the govenment had a responceability to inform leaders prior to implementing any new laws

because the maroi never keptp track of liniage all maroi are considered soverign as they may be related to cheifs

in 1940 some time the council was disbanded by a national govenment
this councils job was to stop bad policy from passing into law and to stop emergency legislation from being used as an excuse to pass laws that suited the politicians and not the people

because the original treatys promised representation as a form of gov the laws passed since then lack the will of the people to be passed into law

to get around the problem all nz needs to do is reconstitute the council and the law to inforce their decitions already exist in statues from when the coloney was set up

peoples representation is a nessecery part of passing statutes into law in this country

kinda like the law only gets power from the concent of the goverened

xploder

edit to add yes the tohoi were the tribe i was refering to

edit to add there was another less known treaty signed well before the treaty of waitangi
and all treatys are still binding in law to this day

edit to add no im not talking about the decleration of independance for new zealand
this treaty is the first known treaty between the crown and a very small group of tribes but it granted soverenty to all chiefs and royalty

the idea was the brittish and maroi would breed a mixed race and all would have soveren rights to participate in the passage of law

i am resurching for the name of the document for you

i found it while reveiwing documents related to the founding of new zealand and it is still legally binding


xp

[edit on 4-9-2010 by XPLodER]

reply to post by alien


this guy Thomas Kendall was apointed justice of the piece of new zealand by a govener in australia (who had the powers to covey such a position)
and while in new zealand in an oficial capasity (admiralty law) negotiated a treaty in absence of her majesty (on her behalf as a officer of the crown) and with the powers deligated as a notary
commited the crown to a legally binding treaty

this makes inconveniant hostory i know but it is the first and legally binding treaty made with maroi
(most people are only taught the treaty of waitangi)

The whalers, the traders, the missionaries, and the settlers who came after Cook entered a country in which there was no central authority to enforce law and order, the Maoris being politically organised on a tribal basis only. In this situation the early years of settlement were marred by lawlessness and bitter tribal warfare. Australian Governors felt some responsibility for these events and there were claims that references in the Commission of the Governor of New South Wales to “islands adjacent in the Pacific Ocean” gave some legal basis for this responsibility. Nevertheless, when Governor Macquarie in 1814 appointed Thomas Kendall, a missionary, as a Justice of the Peace in New Zealand, he was almost certainly acting without authority. The inclination of the Colonial Office in London to adopt the subterfuge of regarding New Zealand as “a Foreign Power under a regular Government” was shown by the appointment in 1833 of a British Resident, James Busby. Busby was to “claim the protection and privileges … accorded in Europe and America to British subjects holding in foreign states situations similar to [his]”. He was expected to apprehend escaped convicts and send them back for trial,

www.teara.govt.nz...

most information tryes to pass it off as unimportant but if you were to read this treaty and study the legal implecations of it

YOU WOULD BE SHOCKED as i was

im would like more kiwis to honour the agreements that together are our founding documents

the treaty of waitangi was to tidy up and consolidate power for the crown when the admiralty lawers realized they had no claim over the land or the people

thats why i said the treaty of waitangi takes away the power from the people

xp



[edit on 4-9-2010 by XPLodER]

[edit on 4-9-2010 by XPLodER]

Statement from Mark McMurtrie, OSTF Secretariat.

Originally posted by Kandinsky

Who's continent is it?!

Way back some 60 000 years ago, a raft landed on the coastline of Northern Australia and was claimed by those who landed as theirs. Absurd.



The Aborigines didnt claim the great southern land,they didnt try to own it.They respected the land and took care of it and it took care of them,they were caretakers unlike the modern human who see themselves as landlords.

A mate of mine got on to this guy and ended up making a declaration of soverienty.
He had it signed by a solicitor and has a few copies stashed here and there.
He keeps a copy on him at all times.
When he gets pulled over by the cops he shows them his declaration and states they have no right over him but advised he will choose to be helpfull at their request.

He seems to have faith in it, not sure what advantage this has if push came to shove though.

reply to post by XPLodER


Hi XPLodER,


Thanks for the information you have provided there.
I'm aware of a few prior treaties and agreements with the Crown (and indeed other countries/governments/interests - America being one of them, so too a French trading outfit also popped their nose in) pre-Treaty of Waitangi and pre-Declaration of Independence.


What I find interesting however is how a select few Maori have in some way been seen historically as being an *authorised* representative voice or power for all Maori...and thus in any way able to Treat on behalf of Maori.


Given that the select few pre-Waitangi were also made up of a good selection individuals who were not of Tuakana status...they were not even descendants of the elder lines within their own specific Hapu/Iwi.

Add to that the concept of Arikitanga - or Chiefly Authority, which even the United Tribes of Aotearoa within the Declaration of Independence barely held within those individual Hapu/Iwi.


...each Hapu, each Iwi, holds its own Tino Rangatiratanga, holds its own Mana...hence the term Mana Whenua (rulers of the Land, well, in some ways it means that but it certainly goes far deeper)...in reference to that Hapu/Iwi holding governing authority within their specific Rohe/Occupational Area.


...there is no way that a group of people - whom also were made up of Teina (younger lines) - from essentially a small pocket of Hapu/Iwi of Aotearoa has the Rangatiratanga to Treat on behalf of all Hapu/Iwi.


The Crown may think so, external interests at the time may think so, the Maori involved at the time may have even suggested so...but I suspect if you were to ask other Hapu/Iwi at the time if they were fine and dandy with someone other than their own Hapu/Iwi Ariki or Tuakana speaking on their behalf...well...the many Wars we Maori fought with eachother answers that...



It would be a bit like someone signing me - as Maori (even as a tuakana descendant of my Iwi's Ariki-line) - up to something and thinking by doing so its binding for all Maori...



...history is indeed interesting...and awesome that you've been looking into the founding of Aotearoa...its something so few within our amazing country take the time to do...




[edit on 5-9-2010 by alien]

Originally posted by aussiespeeder
Statement from Mark McMurtrie, OSTF Secretariat.

Interesting threat leveled at 12:00 or so.

I wonder what the reaction of the general population of Australia (ie non-Aboriginal) would be to this group following through and bulldozing a cemetery or "another sacred site"?

reply to post by rajaten


Only if you can prove line of descent.

Given that we don't know if A. afarensis was an ancestor of the modern human, or if it was just one of man early hominid species that didn't give rise to us, good luck with that.

However you probably have a valid claim to Ireland. Feel free to stake it out.

I find these suggestions that some race of people has a ''right'' to a country or continent, purely because their distant ancestors were their first, to be rather nauseating.

Unless they are several hundred years old, then no Aborigine, Maori, or American Indian alive today was affected by the British invasion.

Equally, every single person of another race living in these countries today, was not responsible for what their ancestors did.

An Australian Aborigine born today, is born into exactly the same society, conditions, and environment as any non-Aborigine Australian, and any historical atrocities are irrelevant.

The whole idea that an Australian Aborigine, or American Indian, somehow has more ''right'' to live in a country, purely because their distant ancestors emigrated there first, is racially biased, and rather obnoxious.

admiralty law

Anytime I see this term, or things like "sovereign citizen", I get te feeling it's either a massive failure already, or worse, it's a scam by someone who's charging money for "hidden knowledge".

I think the Aborigines should get back land that was taken though, within reason, and maybe some free land to make up the difference, and be allowed to run it how they wish. There's plenty of room in Australia for co-existence.

[edit on 5/9/2010 by harpsounds]

Originally posted by harpsounds

Anytime I see this term, or things like "sovereign citizen", I get te feeling it's either a massive failure already, or worse, it's a scam by someone who's charging money for "hidden knowledge".

Yep.

I watched the youtube videos out of interest - and the case seems pretty ill-advised. Almost to the point where I wonder if this guy is making money from it.

Aboriginals in Australia have been accepting the authority of the state, and by extension the laws of the state, for generations. Anyone who has ever done so much as pay a parking ticket, income tax, get a drivers license, received any kind of benefit from the state, and on and on - has accepted, through their actions, the authority of the state.

Turning around and declaring that this authority - which you have previously accepted, even in part, no longer applies... just doesn't work.

Think of it like this: If it were possible to opt out of law, corporations would have figured out a way to do it by now. That they haven't suggests that it just isn't possible.