ORIGINAL SOVEREIGHN TRIBAL FEDERATION PRESS RELEASE - 21 NOVEMBER 2012 NATIVE TITLE. WHO GETS WHAT AND HOW? - IN SIMPLE TERMS.

EXACTLY What Is Native Title, and what will those signing off on Native Title Be Getting From The Crown In Return for their signature ? Are the Tribes being told they will get one standard of rights and ownership of 'Traditional' lands whilst being delivered a completely different standard ? Is the Crown being open and fair in its' Native title dealings with the Tribes ? Are the solicitors and others who 'legally' represent the PBCs aware of what they are doing ? Are the Crowns' courts that hear these matters even competent to do so - or are they disqualified due to a blatant conflict of interest because the people sitting on the benches being paid by one party to the argument ? Does the Crown own Tribal lands ? Are Tribal lands the Crowns' to 'give' back to the Tribes or are they the Tribes' to give away under the Crowns' scam of Native title ?
In order to 'claim' Native Title a 'claimant group (not a Tribe) must make an application as a 'Traditional' Owner of the concerned lands. The term 'Traditional' (in a legal context - and after all we are talking in a legal context when we talk about the legal process of Native title) comes from the following legal term/s: (from Black s Law Dictionary - HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, M.A.ST. PAUL, MINN. WEST PUBLISHING CO. 1910).

TRADITION: Delivery. (the word is) A close translation or formation from the Latin "traditio." 2 Bl. Comm. 307. - The tradition or delivery is the transferring of the thing sold into the power and possession of the buyer. Civ. Code La. art. 2477.
TRADITIO: - (this is the word that the English word Tradition comes from) it is from the Latin In the civil law. It means the delivery; or transfer of possession; a derivative mode of acquiring, by which the owner of a corporeal thing, having the right and the will of aliening it, transfers it for a lawful consideration to the receiver. Heinecc. Elem. lib. 2, tit. 1, § 380.
CORPOREAL: A term descriptive of such things as have an objective, material existence; perceptible by the senses of sight and touch; possessing a real body. Opposed to incorporeal and spiritual. Civ. Code La. 1900, a r t 460; Sullivan v. Richardson, 33 Fla. 1, 14 South. 692.
So...if you are a 'TRADITIO-nal' Owner....you are someone who has traded your land to someone else. The first part of the con job.
Accordingly, and logically, if you are asking the Crown for some of that land 'back' under NATIVE title you are now asking for some of the lands you apparently 'sold' to the Crown, back from the Crown, under the terms of the Crowns' registered Native Title.
So; lets have a look at that word 'Native' and its' true LEGAL meaning.
NATIVE: (From the Latin word NATIVUS) A natural-born subject or citizen; a denizen by birth; one who owes his domicile (right to have a home) or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. (EG: the Crowns' Corporate State of Australia)
NATIVUS: Lat In old English law, a native; specifically, one born into a condition of servitude (a slave); a born serf or villain (a Criminal).

Then, also consider that under the Crowns' Native (Slaves) Title, the lands DO NOT get returned to the Tribes' people...they are merely 'vested' in a PBC - a Prescribed Body Corporate, which is a corporation registered to the Crowns Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) - and when the Crown is ready...its' Registrar will appoint an administrator who will then sell those lands out from under the Tribes via the PBC, and, HEY ! PRESTO !, the land laundering is complete.
Have you ever wondered why the two legal terms that all the Native Title legislation relies on, 'Traditional' and 'Native', are not defined in Part 15 of the Native Title Act (where everything else is 'defined') ?
Maybe it is because the Crown is committing extrinsic fraud and extortion, amongst other crimes, against the Tribes using these legal terms and don't want us to know about it ?
The reason the Crown insists upon the Tribes negotiating via its' Native Title scam is clear. Without the Tribes signing an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (think about the name for a second) there is no agreement between the tribe/s and the Crown as to ownership and occupation rights/costs of the Tribes lands. The Crown needs its' fraudulent Native Title process to coerce Tribes into giving rights over a Tribes' lands to the Crown for the consideration of 'Native' or 'Slaves' Title over a small portion of that Tribes' lands.
Why do the tribes need to give consent via the 'Native Title' process to the 'Indigenous Land Use' Agreement (ILUA) if the Tribe isn't the owner of the concerned lands to be 'used' ?
The Crown knows this. According to advice given by Dr Stephen Davis (Samuel Griffith Society Volume 9 Chapter Eleven), the issue of Sovereignty over this continent is open for contention and it the Crowns' domestic courts do not have a right to determine the arguement. The issue of 'Royalties' or, to put it simply - 'payment', for minerals etc removed from our lands, both in the past AND in the future, is one thing that needs addressing.
Have you ever wondered why one of the first things that 'Native' Title applicants are required to do, is sign off, at Point 'Q' of the 'Native' Title Application Form, and grant ownership of OUR mineral and other resources to the Crown ?
There is no part of the Native Title process which provides an advantage to the Tribes in any form.
The whole Native Title process has been designed to 'legally thieve' ownership of Tribal lands from the Tribes and hand it to the Crown. What is meant by 'legally thieve' is that this is done according to the Crowns' corporate legislation/statutes which have only ever applied to Her Majesties subjects - something the Tribes have never been.
The only claim ever put forward by the Crown in respect of Tribal lands was founded in the ancient Roman concept called 'Terra Nullius'. This particular rort was debunked as a myth by the Crowns' own High Court in Mabo (2). The Crown had to accept that its' assertion of Sovereignty, based upon a fraudulent claim that this land was unoccupied and or waste, was baseless in fact and just plain incorrect at law.
Now, let's open the legal position of the Crown up to analogy. Just imagine you get pinched for driving without a licence. You go to court and tell the court you didn't think you needed a licence because of your Sovereignty. The magistrate then decides that you are wrong and finds you guilty.
Wouldn't it be amazing if you were allowed to just walk from that court and continue to do as you did before the hearing without ANY need for restitution for your illegal actions to date AND the self-proclaimed right to bash anyone who properly questioned your right to continue in your criminal ways.
Well, that's EXACTLY what the Crown did after Mabo !!!
It just ignored the umpires' decision (even though the Crown owned the umpire that found against the Crown) and continued to 'drive without a licence', so to speak, in respect of Sovereignty on this continent.
In 1970, the UN passed Resolution 2625 (XXV), that requires:
Every [UN Member] State (eg: Australia) has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of Equal Rights and Self-Determination (ER&SD) of [Tribal] peoples, in accord with the provisions of the [UN] charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the Principle, in order:
(a) To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and
(b) To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples [Tribe] concerned.
and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples [Tribes] to alien [Crown] subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle [of ER&SD], as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the [UN] Charter.........
........The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, [or] the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people [Tribe] constitute modes of implementing the right to self-determination by that people [Tribe].
The reason the Crown forces us to go down the road of Native Title is because THAT is the option which leads the Tribes to the point of '... free association or integration with an independent State' : in this case 'Australia'.
We also have the right to establish our own independent SOVEREIGN State. But the Crown hasn't told Us that - has it ? Those who the Crown has selected to talk for us at the UN won't say much about it either. No need to wonder why.
Gunham Badi Jakamarra
Convenor
Original Sovereign Tribal Federation (OSTF)