Media Releases

In the current Euahlayi Peoples Republic Rates Case (QLD), all sides agree that contested sovereignty is not capable of being decided by a court. Therefore the implications confirm that Aboriginal Nations and Peoples have standing and in this respect the Commonwealth and States cannot argue they have sovereignty and dominion over Aboriginal Nations and Peoples.

Ghillar Michael Anderson reminded the Queensland Supreme Court that: "You cannot benefit from murder and that is what happened. Time does not erase murder." [node:read-more:link]

... and in another dramatic follow-up to the Euahlayi 'rates dispute' at the Queensland Supreme Court between the Balonne Shire Council and the Euahlayi Peoples, the Queensland Minister for Natural Resources and Mines presented an admission that there are no cession documents, nor surrender documents as a result of war, relating to the Euahlayi Peoples, neither are there any documents to show that the Euahlayi Peoples' Allodial Title to land was transferred to the Crown's Land tenure system.

 Euahlayi Rates Case: Charter of UN doesn't apply to Australia, claims Qld lawyer pdf

I'm claiming land title. I want to know how the invaders shifted Aboriginal law, Allodial Title from my mob to their common law system.

Land grants were made in the colonies of Australia under the authority of the English King but Ghillar Michael Anderson said the King did not have all the relevant information. He had been lied to about the acquiescence of the Aborigines and as such there is precedent English law that says the land grants were a fraud and everything arising from that fraud is invalid. [node:read-more:link]

In the "rates dispute" between the Brewarrina Shire Council and the Euahlayi Nation, the NSW Supreme Court has dismissed a subpoena claiming the Euahlayi are "oppressing" the State and the matter has been put over until 20 June 2014.

Ghillar Michael Anderson, Head of State of Euahlayi Peoples Republic and Convenor of the Sovereign Union, said that this confirms that the nature of Australian society and its laws are a fraud and that they operate a nation state on lands seized by murder and not by consent." [node:read-more:link]

The question of our Sovereignty is now raging across the country ... You can expect those same people who gave us the Native Title Act will come back out of the wood work to do their dirty deeds again.

The government knows they now have to deal with our sovereignty and they will now throw heaps of money around to employ our own people to direct us away from the real issue. [node:read-more:link]

The Sovereign Union global network

AMANDLA-GAAPP, Ghana, declares their support for Sovereign Union's path to self-determination for the First Nations and Peoples in what has become misnamed as Australia.

The endeavor is to build grassroots cooperation for Positive Action through what is known to us as "Ubuntu People-to-Peoples' Internationalist Solidarity". [node:read-more:link]

We must warn our people that the government's seemingly benign 'work for the dole' community planting program has a deceitful intent.

Minister Greg Hunt and PM Tony Abbott may claim that their Direct Action plan for Indigenous people has unintended consequences, but from a First Nations perspective Hunt's plan is an evil act, designed with intent to cheat Aboriginal people of their inherent rights as pre-existing and continuing sovereign Peoples. [node:read-more:link]

The State governments' legislation comes from a parliament that cannot establish its bone fide at English law, nor at international law, on how they acquired legal and political rights over Aboriginal Peoples' lands, waters, airspace and natural resources.

The Mabo High Court recognised Aboriginal proprietary and usufructuary rights and that Aboriginal title survived British sovereignty. Consequently, the High Court accepts in law that Aboriginal title burdens Crown title. Clearly the law in Australia, by this decision, gives us and recognises our title to lands, waters, airspace and natural resources, not as an idealistic notion, but rather a fact in law. [node:read-more:link]