Unfinished Business! The myth that the settler government has lawful transnational jurisprudence sovereign authority

As a First Nations person belonging to the Bulluk-Willam people of the Woiwurrung nation from the Coranderrk Aboriginal Station, Wadawurrung in Geelong, and Monaro peoples in Cooma, I’m a duty-bound to educate not only the First Nations peoples, but the wider community of the 60,000 plus years history of the continent now known as Australia. The former British Empire and successive settler governments failed to recognise the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of the colonisation of Australia, its unlawfulness and the injustices that had been created. For the benefit of the reader, I have chosen to use the term “First Nations peoples” rather than “Indigenous people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”. I argue that First Nations peoples had lawful transnational sovereign authority, which included being the holders of citizenship rights and having a system of jurisprudence self-governance where they had entered into legally binding treaties and land rights agreements prior to the arrival of Lieutenant James Cook on 29 April 1770 (de Costa, 2006; Diamond, 1997; Kenny, 2008; Presland, 1994; Trudgen, 2000). The Act of Settlement 1700 (UK) denounced the monarch’s lawful right to be a sovereign ruler over citizens, which means it was also applicable to their vice-regal representative. I argue that same lawful sovereign authority had been given to each person from each language belonging to the First Nations peoples residing on the continent of Australia and its surrounding islands. Even the first convicts and “free settlers” held lawful sovereign rights and not their monarch. The Law of Nations under European law (de Vattel, 1844) concluded that the First Nations peoples had lawful sovereignty, a civil society, and a political system of independent self-governance. However, the unlawful acquisition of Australia was to provide both an international trading base for the United Kingdom after the end of the American Civil War and a convict outpost (Blainey, 1966; Dallas, 1978; Frost, 2011, 2013; Hawkesworth, 1774). Thus, an extinguishing of the lawful determinations of transnational jurisprudence sovereign authority (B. McKenna & Wardle, 2019) validated a self-governing colony of Australia. The extinguishment of the First Nations peoples’ lawful transnational jurisprudence sovereign authority continued when Australia became a federated nation with its United Kingdom Constitution, An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (UK). Yet, it was, and still remains, a quasi-system of governance (Quick & Garran, 1902). However, after the end of the First World War when Australia joined the League of Nations in 1920, all levels of the parliamentary systems, the Constitution and the judiciary became null and void (G. Butler, 1925). The Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2) HCA 23; 175 CLR 1 (3 June 1992) decision refuted the myth that the continent, now known as of Australia, was previously terra nullius, a land belonging to no one. Since the 1980s, federal governments, via a system of defensive nationalism and popular sovereignty (de Costa, 2006), had gifted themselves an unlawful sovereignty and nation-state independence (B. McKenna & Wardle, 2019). Finally, since 26 January 1788, Australia has had an ongoing independent sovereign nation-state identity crisis and has been suffering from internal and external haemorrhaging. Appendix A details the first action needed by going outside all domestic parliaments and courts to the Government Legal Department in London to rectify the unlawful system of governance, judiciary, and regal representatives. This was first suggested by John Newfong in 1972 at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy (Newfong, 1972). The second action lies in Appendix B, the Sovereign Australia Constitution Act (Aus).Masters of Ar