NSW Passes Pagan New Federal Law!
Mike
This complicated Australian Legal matter is being denied any process.
So we're trying to get some process for it, via Magazines, films, TV, radio,
Book, lawyer, govt, media, public interest, public support, some such thing.
We're doing this because as it stands, the other side just state what they
like and don't answer to anything.
If you have time, you can read details below. If you can help you can
get
back to us at the enclosed e-mail. If you have any interest, post the matter
on to others!
I've been posting this matter for a while and have had a few posts
back querying why I am posting it so widely. And a few posts asking
why it is so long.
Why I post so widely is because I think the matter has significant
enough public interest Nationally and Internationally, of these fields it
involves of rare legal situations of Australia. And interesting situations
of letters.
I can't help the length of it, it's hard data to pertain to at all. In
that
light I'm actually doing a very good job. My justification is that I'm not
asking everyone to read it and treat it as a high action matter. Its just
a slow moving human interest matter, for some that have time for that
type things. And its only presented to them in the range as for example
a full 2 page newspaper article is often enough around the world on
items of similarly intended human interest. ANYWAY -
- What happens if this matter gets process at all, that's so far caused
the media to refuse to report it, lawyers not to take it, and the Govt to
refuse even any Charge data or appeal scopes for it?
Its supposed to have better rights than that. In fact this is the First
time in Australian history since Federation in 1900, that the basic process
levels of a significant enough matter have been denied.
I am left trapped in a viscious circle of this, unable to ever have basic
Govt onus Charge details or any approach to it so far. Because Charge
details have not been adequately supplied since the matter started in '91.
I am supposed to provide the cost and work of supplying that for the
matter at this stage. Can you help or direct me to who does help?
Feel free to send comments to: mijc...@bigpond.com
Also this is the first time in a mainstream legal case question, that
the basic Mens Rea/Strict Liability legal concepts have been ignored as
their literal and historical meaning and Statutory legal effect.
It is a C/wealth/Federal Law matter, NSW attempting to exercise the
Invested jurisdiction. It started out with what only reads as a
significantly
Null charge attempt which claims a Strict Liability charge to represent the
Mens Rea only Commonwealth 1914 Crimes Act Provision 85(s)(b).
I say that situation only reads as Null because the opening Rules of the
Crimes Act say that Law 85(s)(b) can only be a Mens Rea nature Law. And, the
total Law of Strict Liability is that only the Parliament can attempt to
create it. So on the surface that only adds to that the charge attempt is
void.
The totally senseless even within itself charge claims itself as
theoretical argument about any opinion at all of a letter's surface only,(or
' within its four corners', as is the legal term for that concept) how
people would regard that surface, regardless and exclusive of the letter's
circumstances, nothing even established or known of its circumstances so,
irrespective of them.
A point of that, is that the Law of letters says all ambiguity within
the four corners of a document must be construed against the party's relying
on the document. Here the party's relying on the letter are prosecution,
judiciary, public in that aspect. That Legal principle is called the
doctrine of Contra Proferentum.
So in this situation where there is nothing established or known of a
letter's circumstances, that relevant Law says any question anyone asks of
the letter must be construed the Defence's way, because of the ambiguity of
the yes/no answer aspect of any question asked.
But most of the govt and lawyers since '91 take very much no notice of
those Laws, and with nothing yet supplied for process details I don't know
if there's other different Laws of letters you can use too or not.
A funny point of this matter is, what do you think of this purported new
Law if it is applied to YOU or your family and friends?
That is, that now on Australian soil in Federal Law, any person can be
charged in this way for any writing on any piece of paper regardless of its
circumstances and with nothing established or known of its them, and no
matter how far within your own private property you've kept the piece of
paper, and without postal usage. And then have process enacted as I
describe.
I wonder what others would make of this new Law and details then? Will you
understand its details and process scopes better than or differently to
me and others? Put youself in my shoes, in others shoes. Anyway, details
as best as I can manage follow.
The police/prosecution were attempting to claim a Public censorship
scope for a letter's written surface alone, during Postal usage. Only as it
turns out they significantly had no scope of such a charge. They did not
even have any postal usage to use for it, but didn't realise that for months
either.
Claiming to be made under Section 85(s)(b) C/Wealth Crimes Act, The
Charge read, - that I,
-----------------" On the 11th day of october, 1991, at Wentworth in the
state
of NSW, did use a postal service supplied by australia post, in such a way
as would have been regarded by reasonable persons in all circumstances
as offensive. "----------------------------
That is the complete, exact wording and punctuation, and applying to
the surface of a letter within its 4 corners. As is the data supplied as the
police brief surrounding those charge words to set the situation and nature
of the charge, by and at the Committal hearing in December '91.
- 1 - In '92, The Magistrates penalty was a $400 fine.
- 2 - In '93, in the started trial process of my Review appeal on
questions
of Law, the Judge, Wall, ruled the charge attempt appeared to be a total
Nullity with no scope of procedure as a charge, but that the factors it
involved were complicated beyond the available charging range the
unrepresented Defendant has to face and necessitated specialist legal aid
and representation for me before the matter could proceed any further. Wall
then adjourned the matter mid Trial, until that specialist aid eventuated,
and he then set the matter for recommencement before himself one year later.
- 3 - In '94, without explanation or details, a different judge, Taylor
forced himself and a Denovo trial(different type of trial) on my started
Review appeal in Judge Wall's court. Taylor also attempted a penalty. It
was the maximum allowable 3 year good behaviour bond, the first 18 months of
which was to be served being supervised by corrective services, again the 18
months is the maximum .
Unfortunately the situation doesn't seem to be as simple as that if you
want to deal in terms of it.
Already since '91 the situation has caused me to have to spend all
the money I had trying to supply basic Charge sheet and level details
for the matter, and that as the only approach the matter allows at all
so far and still. Since '91, b/w $50 -2,500 a week, in contact with up
to 5 depts a week, for no result so far, and now I am broke. That is
something it is not supposed to ever be my legal and /or financial onus
to have to do in relation to a charge I face. Yet it still has the above of
its
requisite and basic process to be sorted out for the basic charge data angle
to exist yet.
Getting back to some details, that is not an exaggeration of what the
charge is. It very totally is that, only reads as that, was intended as
that, insisted on as that, and that is provable.
Of the relevant circumstances of writing of a letter, in this matter,
I have
never been asked yet, how and why I wrote the letter. It is not established
or known if the people and places mentioned in the letter exist at all. No
people or anyone claimed as such people have ever been present in this
charge, court or anywhere else at all in this matter.
The nearest thing to anything established or known of the letter's
circumstances is that a mystery woman, not of the same name as on an
envelope, or in the letter, took an envelope and letter to a police station
300 miles from the envelope and letter's physical relevance. This is
purportedly the same letter that 2 other people, 9 days prior to that
had taken to a Police station back at that 300 miles away place.
That is all this matter knows and has ever heard of her or them and
how and why that was. I do not know who, how and why she or they are.
As far as I know none of the Police concerned knew or know any more of them
than that.
Police then, presuming postal usage from that, and with no interest in
the letter's legality or circumstances, thought they had the above cited
postal usage letter's surface viewing charge available to them, and so
proceeded with that natureless, degreeless, peopleless, circumstanceless,
total nullity senseless through and through yes/no question and answer
Strict Liability charge attempt.
Sic, _ _ ' that people viewing the letter's written surface only, would
find its words offensive in all the possible circumstances that could
occur on the Australian National scale.' _ _
So that means that with theoretical argument the defence only has to
produce one possible circumstance where the letter's surface could not
or would not be thus regarded, and the Defence wins the case. To me
that makes the charge totally senseless. For example, seeing as its not
possible to go through all the possible circumstances, is there a set amount
of possible circumstances the defence is allowed to produce to test that? I
suppose we can presume it is more than one go at least.
So the prosecution were attempting a separate aspect of letters and
so irrespective of our other Law of letters and regardless of whether in
our other Law the letter's circumstances were good, bad, legal, illegal
or other. And, with nothing established or known of the circumstances
so, exclusive of them.
Thus from early on in the matter as I tried to pertain to the charge
I coined the phrase ' irrespective, regardless and exclusive' of the
letter's circumstances. For that detail, that seemed the best phrasing.
Actually the original charge sheet given to me had a wrong # on it. It
claimed the charge was made under Law 855 of the C/Wealth Crimes Act, and
that act only goes up to 125 or so. But the point has never had
any process yet.
Because of the wrong 855# on the Charge sheet I was unable to find the
Law the charge was supposed to represent. I presumed it was some rarely used
obscure antiquated law that must run concurrently and at total loggerheads
with our other law of letters, those factors and procedure.
At first, on those grounds, I tried to convince Police/Prosecution that
it should not be applied, because it was basically unjust. They insisted
on the charge and I gave up trying to get explanations, leaving that for
the court to provide.
The magistrate at the 1st court appearance Aug '92 refused to allow any
of the explanation necessary for the charge to exist even within itself. She
forcibly applied the prima facie senseless charge, and claimed many
contradictory unavailable elements, and met no definition of her actions
even.
Which resulted in multiplying the already extensive, complicated situation
and still we had no explanation or definition of anything to use or pertain
to.
I then Review appealed it on a Question of Law. NSW purported to supply
the District Court for this. A thing it very much had no right to do. There
is no jurisdiction in the District court for Federal Review appeal, and no
scope for the State exercising the federal power to purport there is.
At the Review appeal, in the specifically opened, started trial processs,
the Judge, Wall, upon a brief cursory look at the surface data, stated it
appeared the charge was a Nullity, because there is no scope of changing
the Charge Nature(Strict Liability) to the Mens Rea nature the Law the
charge
tries to represent, 1914 C/w Crimes Act 85(s)(b) solely is and allows.
Wall then strongly condemned the Police prosecutor and Magistrate for
their failure to notice the flawed situation, and then condemned the new
prosecutor for also trying to ignore the charge flaws, and Wall further
stated that the mess the charge data was in and the elements it involved
were beyond the available charging scopes that the unrepresented defendant
has to face and they necessitated specialist legal aid for me before any
more procedure in the matter. Wall granted adjournment till then and set
the matter for recommencement before himself again one year later.
Due to the matter occurring in a distant complicated border situation,
Legal
aid refusing to pay attention to Wall's ruling, and me having a serious
back
injury then, I could not get a lawyer in the interim year.
The next year a different judge, Taylor, without explanation, forced
himself and a Denovo trial on the matter. He refused to allow any
explanations, and did not supply any definitions of his actions even.
Nor did he manage to supply anything for the charge, as his complicated
vocal only attempts were that undefined, senseless, impossible to exist with
one another, contradictory and unsatisfactory at all. But all his attempted
widely ranged 220 counts claim are distinct from the Magistrates, yet are
also claimed by him to be the same exact charge and details as the
Magistrate used, and he rules he is only using one count not allowing of the
others, and along with the Magistrate's claims and other components are all
equally the only relevant elements for the necessary charge explanation. So
Taylor has vastly multiplied the already extensively in need of explanation
entire situation.
My right to have basic charge and jurisdiction system onus process is
being denied astronomically crazily here.
For example, to have anything yet of charge details I am left with
having to supply them for and to the matter at this stage, that the only
approach the matter has yet enabled, and with the nearest vehicle capable
of doing that, a $250,000,000 High Court hearing.
Also I am subjected to the unspeakable horror of the Judge, Taylor. The
self altering ordeal of being subjected to that many serious charges in that
way without a chance to know them first to prepare a defence. being charged
and dealt with like that in this NSW style Kafka-esque shadow court has
ruined my life.
Whereby Taylor purports to mindlessly make up 100's of serious different
charges, counts, etc, in terms of people, actions, relationships, natures
and circumstances, in this natureless, peopleless, circumstanceless
charge attempt situation and nature he forced himself and different type
of trial and charge on, and then carried on as such. There were no people
he alleged of this charge in this charge, or available to this charge, even
in
his court at all, or any such people in his court at all, or ever any people
produced in relation to the charge anywhere else in this matter either.
Taylor groundlessly and unsoundly through and through made them up. Made up
circumstances of them, charges of them and process, and faked things to
huge degrees further even of what he made up. And then of these many serious
things he made up, Taylor became inspired to crusade to totally protect
society from them and made up that further large set of elements
too, for his findings, reasons and sentence.
And just one more of the many more multiples of the undefined data is the
way Taylor did that. His grounds for making up that many different counts,
people circumstances, actions involving people, and purported prosecution
produced proven processs of them, was that I said, in relation to the
theoretical argument any opinion of a letter's surface charge that, _ _ "all
my actions were properly within the Law"_ _.
That was Taylor's purported confession of such guilt by me as to allow
him
to make up that many serious new different Charges and process at that stage
of the matter. Yet he clearly had no scope to attempt to disprove my
statement. For the rest of what Taylor made up he had no grounds at all.
And that was his main basis's for the out of sync sentence he seeks
to apply. His sole other big main reason for the grotesqely out of sync
sentence was his claim that I had during the proceedings shown I had
no remorse and refused to reform.
His sole grounds for that was that in relation to reform I said _ _ "that
in regard of the letter which had been written lucidly mundanely properly
within the Law, I had reformed on Police contact in Oct '91, from any
possible error. But, I still knew of no error, or any right of accusation of
error, and had no idea what the accusation was supposed to be, could I
please have details so as I could pertain to it" _ _
That was the 4th time I had asked Taylor for at least basic details of
the
charge and/or accusation, because as it stood it was totally senseless and
in need of explanation to exist at all. And for the 4th time Taylor
dileberately
refused to explain or allow explanation of it at all.
The charge I was there for even in Taylor's carryon, has no reoffence
elements, or any degreed natures, circumstances, people etc. The basic
Law of Charge Procedure says that so the Defence can know the charge to
prepare a case, the details of the charge as one only Count, situation and
nature must be supplied to the Defence adequately and as the common to all
one same Public aspect thing by and at the Committal hearing, which in this
matter was in Dec '91. The Law is explicit, totally saying the charge you
answer must be the same asthe one charged and no other. That even any
differences work an Injustice causing the procedure to be struck out.
This is not my opinion of what the Law of Charge procedure should be, it
is exact citing of that Law and its held meaning. Some more of that Law with
relevance here is -
- prosecution must prove the elements of criminal liability beyond doubt.
- defendant is only on trial for offence charged and none other.
- only one crime can be charged in each count, and the count must specify
the nature of the crime charged along with full final details.
- substantive charges must be particularised in detail.
- procedural Laws specify Defendant may only be convicted of the crime
specified in the count and none other, ie, the law against Duplicity.
(no crime is specified in the charge count against me here, it is totally
flawed and senseless)
- courts are not empowered to create new offences.
- there must be no discrepancy between the case alleged and the case
proven.
- Uncertainty in Law is not good and would cause things to depend on the
personal views of the the tribunal.
- It is the Law of criminal procedure that the criminal count must state
the specific offence charged, together with such particulars as are
necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature and details of
the charge.
(no such information whatsoever is supplied in the charge against me)
Basically we have these procedural Laws to enable the Defence to know the
charge prepare a case, and these Laws prevent the prosecution, Judiciary or
public ' shifting ground ' during the trial, and these Laws ensure that the
Defence, if convicted, will be convicted of the offence charged, and not
some similar, or other offence.
That Taylor incident occurred in the situation where, after the year's
adjourment, unable to get the lawyer Wall had ruled requisite, my only
preparation for the '94 hearing was study of the point law, at the stage
of it we had left off at in '93. With the presumption being that Wall would
extend the adjournment anyway.
And I am then groundlessly subjected to the mindless, out of sync carryon
Taylor tried to enact. And I am left to suffer its effects with no scope of
defending or having details at all, and of these fields where there is to
that
total degree no scope or right of accusation against me at all.
Long into his Judgement, sentence, and comments on sentence, Taylor
distinct from all previous each time, was still attempting to make up new
serious extreme charges and purported prosecution produced corroborated
process of them, with every statement he made. With that the only, and that
insufficient, details of them. But because the Charge attempt factors are a
total Nullity in all aspects, legally and scientifically, there is no right
or scope
of accusation available against me.So Taylor kept failing at every one of
his
220 attempts to make up his own new charges and purported enacted process to
any degree. It fills volumes.
Thing is, all Taylor can be read as, for details of him as part of this
charge,
and details of what he is doing in my Review Appeal trial, is that Taylor is
not
valid as a Judge, for him and the govt to have a scope to claim he is what I
face for the charge I am there for. The Law says the same Judge must hear
the started trial process. Here that is Judge Wall. In the Invested Federal
Law only the already decided Law in uniform amounts is available for the
States in their usage.The govt has the job and onus of supplying Judge Wall
for the trial. I am not there for anything else. Yet all the govt say
different. What are their details? What is what here?
So that is the crazy viscious circle situation the matter is, and all
that
has been supplied as any basic process details.
For example, if I or anyone else want to see, use, pertain to the Charge
sheet, charge, charge levels and/or its immediate details for appeal, proofs
or other, what does one use? Where does it exist? What is it? Who states
or can state that of it? What extents of anything do you need to use?
And in the Govt's view, charge and appeal scopes are adequately supplied
. So to treat the matter as that and my onus to take it further, what is
what at all? How does one know what extent of what data to use?
I don't really feel it is validly my onus to have to face those things as
part of the legal and/or financial onus of the charge I face, but the Govt
insists it is.
So what do I use for that approach? I have studied all the surface Legal
text but am yet to find any way of getting process for the matter. Can
someone please help the case and try to figure out a way of that.
For the charge details even in that view, it is not yet informed to the
matter, knowable or usable of the matter what anyone of a large number of
relevant parties is saying that Taylor occurrence is at all. That is eg,
forcing himself and his attempted vocal recharge on the started trial
process, the non-started trial, or other or what?
For example of the questions for this this angle - One of 20 clerks in
the paperwork chain in the interim 93-94 year stated Taylor should take
over?
The nsw attorney general in 97 stated it? Wall said it is the started Trial,
but a clerk said its not? Taylor said it is a trial started in Wall's court?
Etc.
Yet those details are necessary to know what charge we are there for.To
get anything of even those of the necessary details for the matter I am
supposed to pay about $100,000,000 for the High Court hearing to determine
them now.
As it stands, it is very much the Law that the same Judge must hear the
started trial process, and particularly of Federal Invested matters, with
the system seemingly having no scope to claim other than that.
Yet the system has so far, across its entirety refused any onus of
redress, and removal of the interference to my Review appeal. Which
interference is massive, significant, incredibly demeaning and offensive to
me, and also has horrific far reaching permanent hideous effects.
Also, consider this:
- I am a fully entitled citizen, with the next best thing to a 100% clean
all round record, just 3 small $100 fines for things like arguing with
police on it , the last of them 24 years ago.
- There is very much nothing behind the scenes either, that might in some
way entitle the carryon I've been subjected to. My behaviour has been that
exemplary too, through that period. No contact with police beyond a few
parking tickets. I've never been a suspect or involved as the subject of any
police or other official operations. Up till the '91 start of this matter,
none
of the police and people involved then and since had ever met or heard
of me. And there is nothing derogatry to hear.
- Since '92 the Trial transcripts have been extensively significantly
Forged, and so far all the govt has refused to deal with that. Points have
been forged to attempt to make it look like the prosecution and judiciary
had some grounds, or made some sense as a definition, where in fact in all
the process of this, the prosecution and judiciary at the Magistrate and
Taylor's court have not made one valid or even defined point. And things I
said have been changed to make it look as if I enabled some grounds against
me in some form at least, where in all the process, what I said enables no
such thing.
- However the forgeries failed to achieve any definition either, so are
only further multiples of the undefined data. The thing is, with the govt
saying all is A-OK with charge levels and appeal scopes, the charge needing
explanation to exist at all, and only vocal details supplied as it by the
Magistrate and from then on, the only explanation is the vocal details of
the purported enacted process. So with the forgeries in the way of it, even
that has been impossible to use for details yet. What do I use? Take the
tapes and transcripts to the High Court, as the only approach this matter
allows so far?
Any help anyone can give me to enable this matter to get relevant process
would be greatly appreciated. Even treating the matter as the correctly
functioning charge the Govt says it is, doesn't make sense to me. You see
if you treat it as that, then the question of flawed deficient basic process
factors is only one possibility of appeal and it is the defence's freedom of
choice if they use it or not. Or the defence can appeal on other grounds
such as severity of sentence, wrong decision, not guilty etc.
Well if anyone's wondering what I'm getting at, its this. Say I adopt the
govt attitude and spend the $250,000,000 necesssary to pertain to the matter
as
a correctly functioning charge, and roll up to the High Court for that
hearing, what does that provide? The Govt immediately says it is only a
question of deficient basic process to these astronomical degrees of these
factors as I describe above?
What, just scrub the $250,000,000, and ask for an adjournment so as
I can spend another $250,000,000, now preparing a case in regard of
deficient basic govt onus process details? Honestly, I don't understand
even that point at all yet either.
Thanks.
M.
Nick Weare
Mike <mijc...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:NCKU5.145313$e5.8...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...