A section of my submission for court. Yes it is different ; Please remember to pray for me to be inspired Christian brethren and sistren. Should I be locked up the following consequences would arise ; My wife, having had hyperparathyroidism for approximately 15 years now has a limit to how long she can stay awake at the wheel. Therefore she would not be able to attend any of her medical testing appointments due to the distances involved and it could only be anticipated that her health would suffer. Should our generator stop, which supplies all our electricity, our food storage, lighting, communication etc would all be lost, and she is physically unable to start it again. One income cheque would be suspended , thus an already very difficult financial situation would be made impossible, probably affecting her ability to attend centrelink apointments and thus costing her income as well. This would result in loss of food, electricity and mobility causing her great hardship. She would find herself alone in the bush and subject to facing whatever fears or threats that may arise alone. Since she has been exposed to violence as a child, it could be reasonably expected to cause her considerable insecurity and stress. She would not be able to visit me due to the distances that need travalling and the fuel cost as well as her inability to stay awake for extended driving periods. She would effectively be getting punished for no offence. For myself, I would suffer the obvious degradation of loss of liberty as well as the health detriments of an altered stress filled lifestyle with an unsuitable diet. I could easily suffer serious injury and certainly would experience stress that was detrimental to my health. I would be costing the tax payers money for no good reason. Why lock me up? Why do I contemplate this possibility? Because it is in my experience a realistic possibility. To trust in the integrity of a court after the experiences of my life so far, would be naïve bordering on foolish. Yes it is true, there should be no risk of me being locked up if I have done no harm. However, another factor weighs heavily into reality here. Rome, via , western roman law, presumes itself to be the ruler, the law in our society. Through an authority other than, and opposed to Christ the true head of the true commonwealth, police enforce parliamentary rules, inconsistent from state to state, and presumptious in their power to impose on the free choice of the people who make up the true commonwealth. Commercial law has usurped the position of justice, and rules in the area of penalties and fines for infringments generated that generate revenue for the state. An economic model has been placed at the head of the state’s legislature, so that, a poor man finds himself a transgressor at every ordinary step of modern life. Would you like to travel? Pay your fees to rome Would you like to marry? Register it with rome Would you like to have a child? Register it with rome When people cannot afford to pay any of these fees, they find themselves in controversy with an entity that purports to be public service, but actually is an enterprise unto itself. We have regular occurances in this country where people are routinely having their rights violated and the people violating their rights, supposedly being law officers, evidently do not know that they are violating rights. Whose responsibility is this? It has to fall to the commissioner of police, that one who puts them into service and to whom they look for direction in their mission. The police are obviously not being adequately trained to perform the task according to the charter. If in service to the queen, then they must be in service to the people and if in service to the people, then they must understand that their service to the police corporation is only required when it is in service to the people. Otherwise it is the waylaying of public officers in their duty on behalf of a corporation. How can there exist then, this conflict of interest between the duty of the police and their service to the most needy and vulnerable of the public’s people, whom they are sworn to serve and protect? The vision of the free commonwealth land where the young parent may travel in order to better prosper his family and their welfare is in stark contrast to the state practice of suspending drivers licenses for non payment of fines. For a corporation to assert itself over private lives like this is not becoming in any true christian nation. It is an incroachment on the freedoms of ordinary people in penalty very often for their lack of financial resources. When legislation was formed to bring about this habitual injustice, it seems obvious that the intention was to better threaten people with effective reprisals if they didn’t pay their fines. That vision was untempered with charity and was a significant step towards draconianism. Now I expect I may be ‘punished’ for no real, actual offense, punished for a ‘theoretical offense’, without a victim of any description, by being fined. I cannot pay the fine so what next? Suspend my driver’s license? What social benefit is there in that? Imprison me? Again ; What benefit is in that? The problem is that the legislation is wrong, not legislatively incorrect as such, but quite simply, morally wrong. It imposes a ban on a certain plant in direct contravention to the principles of the bible, that book that the court claims to hold in highest regard. Over the years I have considered many times on this illegality of cannabis issue and it seems to me (and many others) that the only real advantage gained out of illegal marijuana, is the gain made by those who reap the rewards of it’s high price due to it’s prohibition. Criminals, both uniformed and otherwise reap a reward from illegal marijuana, and no one else does. There is no neeed for it to be illegal other than to benefit those who are prepared to work illegaly. It creates a market for unsavoury entities to exploit and it creates a means by which police may manipulate those in that market. Legalise pot and the only ones hurt are crooks. In time I am certain it will be legalised/decriminalised and of course on that day it will have to be officially recognised that there have been many harsh penalties for minor or even no offences in the past. Although they will not be too easily compensatable, my case is an exception. I have notified the authorities in advance and warned them of my fee schedule. I developed the fee schedule to protect me from unreasonable treatment, and to ensure I was adequately compensated when I was hindered or harmed in the pursuit of my free and harmless life. If I am encarcerated I intend pursuing payment for the offense, the very real, actual offense. An analysis of my situation in relationship to law, true law. “A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitutional power where none exists.” Michael Kirby “Justice and judgment are the habitation/foundation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.” Psalm 89:14 The last day or so I have contemplated the court’s demand/request for a medical certificate. The reality upon calculation is that if the 110 kilometers necessary to get the certificate is traveled, then the fuel budget will be exceeded and the means of being certain to get to court 200 kilometers away, frustrated. We just simply cannot afford it and can only do what we can through cutting doctor’s appointments and delaying ultrasound proceedures and then still only being able to do it because we have chooks and can live off eggs, thus being able to convert food money into fuel for the 400 kilometer round trip to court (which shall be drawn out further through the failure of authorities despite several requests, written and otherwise to bring all matters to court on the same day, thus causing many hundreds more kilometers to be travelled and drawing out the court proceedures over a longer space of time.) I had stated in court that I wished to question all the officers involved and as will be demonstrated all officers need to be present because I have some questions and some complaints/charges to lay concerning their treatment of me and some questions about the circumstances and conduct of myself also to ask them. The officer who delivered the summons for cultivating plants, in company with another officer, was also the officer who booked me for driving an unregistered vehicle and not only did I want to question him about the driving incident, I have a trespass/invasion complaint against him and his companion which I want most certainly to come to the notice of the commissioner and premier so that this does not happen again and for very good reasons. What to do? The medical certificate ; Clearly the court’s directive for the medical certificate is a standard proceedure in many instances, but irrespective of what powers parliament confers or purports to confer on public servants, there is no power that is superior to the common law requirement for justice and the presumption of innocent until proven guilty as an essential element of that. Therefore if a penalty for failing to produce a medical certificate is applied as should only be expected on some presumption of guilt guiding that order, it clearly would be wrong to enforce it, particularly as I have made early my notice that I will consent to nothing that is not transparent in it’s execution or intention. no contractual situation can exist, (other than the already existing contractual situation with regards to the state enforcing detainment or incarceration on me and my schedule of costs) and therefore a common law/constitutional principle will have been violated, since I had no opportunity to consent to or contest this order and I stand at present convicted of no crime, no offense worthy of removing my free human birthright of self determination. (I trust this alone should deal with the lacking medical certificate) My defence for providing no doctor’s certificate is somewhat based in the reality of our financial situation and the principle that it is inconsistent with mercy and truth for justice and judgment to work together to bring a person ‘undone’, particularly when the statutory authorities know or should know of that person’s prevailing financial hardship. Financial hardship is precisely what could be expected as a consequence of increasing my requirements to travel and as I am a member of the public who the courts exist to serve, it is entirely incongruent for the court to impose foreseeable hardship on me, as if to test my resources, or else to question my honesty and possibly to even do both. I have stated in earlier correspondence to the state via the commissioner of police via the expiations office, that for an entity that purports itself to be the public service, and funds itself from the public purse with a charter to administer lawful and just proceedures, including in matters of financial strategy, to pursue a case using public funds and make it costly to the point of hurting a member of the public over a matter that it knows it will lose (because it is actually unlawful), is very wrong and I believe it is something that should not be tolerated. As a member of the public I protest to the strategy of financial/circumstantial bullying. No person should gain advantage over another purely because of circumstantial or financial strength and of course this argument extends to the commonwealth/common law right to travel without having to pay a fee for that travel. It is immoral to use licenses to hamper the public’s freedom without due cause. “A “license” as you must know, is permission to engage in an act which would otherwise be illegal.” (a quote from the pope’s personal attorney.) Although this definition of a license would make it seem to be illegal to travel without licensing, it is not. The Canon Law of the Catholic Church is not the highest law and the true commonwealth law under the Lord Jesus Christ via at present the british monarch is superior, claiming it’s authority and power from The Highest, to Whom the queen owes her vows. I am not stating a complete rejection of the licensing system, I am challenging the notion that the poor will lose their rights simply because they are poor and that the court which is meant to serve justice will instead be intentionally serving injustice if it removes/abrogates that common law right and will thus also be acting in fraud due to using it’s financial and human resources for active and intentional handicapping, even persecuting, of society’s most vulnerable people, being then in controversy with it’s own charter. Considering the substantial equity represented in the secretive cgv trust financial operations, (see sample letter from pope’s personal attorney to the archbishop of Chicago as an exposure of this manipulation) facilitating our huge national debt, (the Commonwealth of Australia being a registered corporation operating these trusts via presumably the treasury) it is actually appropriate that third party insurance cover should be paid by the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ for every driving entity under an adequate income threshhold in order to allay the fears of those public members who are concerned about insurance. Also, concerning two charges for one offence. It flys in the face of the principles that allow dismisal on the grounds of ‘double jeapody’ in that it is essentially charging someone twice for the same thing. It is possibly even fraudulent and many fines should be refunded if this is a standard practice. It was precisely because of financial hardship that the unregistered car was used to go to town. There was a set amount of fuel in our licensed vehicle to take one of us to Whyalla for medical tests for a serious condition that were long over due, years over due in fact. The unregistered car had enough fuel in it for the trip into town for food because it had a small engine, so it was used in order to ensure the registered car could take us for the long trip to Whyalla. I remind the court that the constitution exists to protect our common law rights, it is higher than parliamentary enactments and statutes and in fact Justice Michael Kirby has quite rightly declared/ruled that ; “A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitutional power where none exists.” Moving on to cultivating offences, again the first point in consideration is ; “Does this legislation oppose my rights as a free common man?” and the answer is “Yes.” There are various reasons, not the least of which are my many serious physical injuries and the effectiveness of cannabis (I think a better legal term is flax) in reducing pain, assisting with sleep and appetite stimulation and for me most importantly, helping me be reflective and constructive with the very real and many stressors, and stresses of my life. I submit as authentic evidence of one of the most major of these tressors, a transcript from a supreme court case involving myself in 1989, where I believe the abuse of my trust is quite complete and is only now being made transparent. I also believe this manipulation was extremely contemptuos of the court and it’s intended charter and claimed authority. Having had this experience I therefore feel justified in declaring that I am not at all consenting to anyone other than myself operating as either executor or administrator of any trust or similar thing in my name, other than myself. I will not be acknowledging myself to be the NAME, for honesty as well as defence reasons. I would like the trust withdrawn from use by the treasury or any other government/private corporation. I do not want any of my represented equity to be used in securing the national debt, financing war or in the support of the illegal (although ruling) corporation ‘Common wealth of Australia’ or any other treacherous entities as I may perceive them to be. Malicious use of my name, eg for fines, prosecution or imprisonment of me where I clearly have brought no harm to any property person or principle will be counterfined at triple the value, or estimated value of the attempt to punish. My only option is defence. I submit to proper/common/commonwealth law. I would also like the court to acknowledge the apparent extreme abuse of court procedure revealed in the supplied extract of transcript from the supreme court of Western Australia as an unresolved crime of corruption with need of urgent investigation and satisfactory correction. I require to both view and take possession of this trust and I also require that the court be completely honest, transparent with me as to the other uses this trust or any similar document bearing my legal copywrite name is being used for. I withdraw all consent to these non transparent, evidently secretive manipulations. Will the court please confirm or categoricaly deny the existence and use of this trust strategy for effecting prosecutions and the treasuries use of these trusts for it’s own financial purposes. I also take this opportunity to announce that whilst being loyal to the true commonwealth, and holding the land I reside on and use in that understanding as a loyal subject of the true commonwealth, that I am in controversy with the present entity that claims itself as the australian government, that entity being the corporation known as ‘The commonwealth of Australia’. In my view it is treasonous and dishonest, having allowed the states to legislate acts and directives that resist the freedom of the common man and also using the property/trusts of the people of the true commonwealth deceptively and unfairly. Because of this, I believe it is my lawful right and duty to announce to the states, particularly at the moment the state of South Australia, that they and or their agents are not permitted to enter that piece of land on which I reside without my express written permission. Breaches of this will be categorised as an invasion as well as trespass and will be subject to penalties requiring compensation to be defined by myself according as the breach may have been executed and according to the general intent of the breach, be it ignorant or aggressive. I am fully supportive of an orderly, lawful free society such as our’s is supposed to be. I am a peaceful person, wishing and planning no harm on anyone.
Posted on: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:14:50 +0000