FULL DOCUMENTARY by Scott Bartle
A probing documentary that dares to ask vital questions:
Is Luxury Car Tax lawful?
Is Goods & Services tax lawful?
Are they pretend laws?
Which Parliament did those laws come from?
Which Commonwealth do those laws belong to?
Why is there a Commonwealth of Australia registered in Washington DC?
Questions raised in this documentary are of vital concern for every Australian and indeed anyone searching for liberty, freedom and justice.
Why was “Government” billed millions for a 50 year old car?
The accompanying video, provocatively titled “WHAT THE FUQ,” dives into a highly contentious area of Australian governance through the lens of one man’s struggle to import a classic car. What begins as a personal account of navigating import approvals, environmental regulations, and customs duties quickly escalates into a far-reaching challenge against the very legitimacy and operational structure of the “Australian Government.” The video’s central claim posits that the entity currently operating as the Australian Government is not the legitimate, constitutionally-defined Commonwealth, but rather a corporate impostor.
The narrative highlights how initial frustrations with what appear to be standard bureaucratic hurdles — such as import schemes, air conditioner licensing, and luxury car tax – soon uncover what the presenter describes as “fraud from top to bottom.” Key pieces of evidence presented include the “Commonwealth of Australia” being registered as a “Non Registered Entity” with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC), and more significantly, as a corporation (CIK# 0000805157) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington D.C. This forms the backbone of the video’s argument that the government operates as a corporate entity, complete with registered national symbols and emblems as trademarks, raising fundamental questions about who truly holds power and where Australian taxes are ultimately directed.
For readers encountering these claims for the first time, it’s essential to understand the complex interplay between constitutional law and administrative practice. While the video suggests nefarious corporate capture, governments, including the Commonwealth of Australia, often register entities or make filings with bodies like the U.S. SEC when participating in international financial markets, such as issuing bonds or other securities. These registrations are typically for specific financial purposes and do not inherently transform a sovereign government into a private corporation in the conventional sense, nor do they supersede its constitutional foundation. However, the video’s focus on trademarked national symbols and the alleged lack of public servants willing to “swear the truth” about the government’s true nature reflects a deep-seated distrust in official narratives and a call for greater transparency.
The implications of these “frequently unanswered questions” extend beyond mere administrative curiosity. The video challenges the very basis of legal authority, suggesting an “unjust court system” and “pretend laws” enforced by entities masquerading as public servants. This perspective, common in certain anti-government movements, demands that citizens critically examine the nature of their governance and hold those in power accountable to the foundational principles they claim to uphold. Whether these claims are ultimately substantiated or dismissed, they undeniably provoke a necessary conversation about public trust, governmental transparency, and the perceived disconnect between the people and the institutions that govern them.
