14/11/2016:
Dick Yardley is a well known and respected researcher in relation to the validity of true de-jure governments of Australia and their foreign quasi political copies. I put a question to Dick in relation to treason, relating to the UNIDROIT Treaty of Rome, signed by Whitlam in 1973. The United States, signed their sovereignty over in 1964 just after the Kennedy Murder. I will include the first part of his email, my question and than his response backed up by some disturbing facts.
Special thanks to Dick Yardley for the years of research and devotion he has made in order to shed light onto such deceptions perpetrated against normal working Australian people by a corrupt deceptive judiciary.
My Response to this statement:
Isn’t it funny how the UNIDROIT Treaty of Rome was also signed by Whitlam in 1973, giving the equity of Australia a the Private Contracting system of Rome… Could anyone involved with their foreign Courts and their false corporate foreign registered governments be deemed as treasonous? …
It appears that the lies by the Judiciary and their quasi foreign administration companies passing themselves off as Governments, in order to hide such a deception against the Australian people, will end badly for those that have knowingly upheld such a deception.
Re: Grammatical Deceptions:
In relation to Gramma, I am not sure who underlined some parts of the sentence, however, the underlining grammatically “italics” such underlined text. Italics removes such text from the page, (Stand out, or from another source) rendering such a sentence as having a different meaning that what may be assumed by the ignorant. Were the underlines added to the constitution after it was written? because by adding an underline under parts of the text grammatically changes the text from the original meanings by grammatically removing such underlined words. If a man is not aware of the grammatical difference, such a man may not “notice” such a grammatical change and assume that such a constitution has not been altered. An added underline will grammatically change a sentence, so the question would be, who and when were underlines added to the constitution, for such underlines may be a cunning way to deceive the masses in order to gain a false impression of a true fact.
Could this be a way to murder the ignorant but to completely dismiss the one who holds the ability to be aware of the grammatical difference between the true fact and the ignorant presumption?
