Ver Australian Injustice
Mike
Artur Weber <artur...@mucweb.de> wrote in message
news:3a08...@news.touch.net...
>
>
> Dear Sir/Madam
Because of a gross Injustice that I am not supposed to have to bear and
face at all, I am left trapped in a viscous circle here of this legal
matter, unable to ever have basic system onus Charge details or any approach
to it so far.
Because of and in the rare situation here caused by gross total
interference with a Federal Trial process, I need a specialist lawyer before
any charge details exist as pertainable to so far this 9 years of the
matter, before I can yet begin or pertain to the matter at all.
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
For example, I have posted it to nearly 2,000 lawyers recently and
still have no lawyer for it. Yet a lawyer and/or system onus is necessary
and in fact ruled requisite.
To fully effectively deal in terms of this matter, competence is
required in areas of Australian Federal, Administrative, Appeal, Damages and
Criminal Law. It is the system's onus to redress those deficiencies, but so
far the system and its associates have refused their onus, or to help.
In the 9 years of the matter so far, nothing adequate has yet been
supplied for Charge basic data. I am entitled to have that basic systen onus
Charge data process deficiency redressed so as, interalia, I can at last
pertain to and begin the matter as the onus of the charge I am there to
face.
As I see it I need a lawyer to take the case to the High Court on 3
points and then form a case for damages. I would pay well in bonus's from
any damages got.
The 3 points are
-1- the question of the whole '91 Charge attempt being a Nullity.
- 2 -the question of the judge Taylor in '94 who forced himself and a
Denovo trial on the started trial of my Review appeal in Judge Wall's '93
court. That question entails that Taylor is not valid as a charge and trial
I face, and, that Taylor in the Federal Law here, is Invalid to the extent
of his inconsistency with the relevant requisite law, of the same Judge,
Wall, having to hear the started Trial process.
- 3 - The point that Judge Wall's '93 ruling of requisite specialist legal
aid before the matter proceeds further, is a significant valid ruling.
Then there would be some things to sort out, things that if the above
3points were to be upheld, that would need High court statement further than
just a basic law upheld.
Then we could consider the case for damages.
:It is a C/wealth/Federal Law matter, NSW purporting to exercise the
invested jurisdiction. It started out with a significantly Null charge
attempt which claims a Strict Liability charge to represent the Mens Rea
only C/W Crimes Act Provision 85(s)(b).
Although even that is fairly arguable, b/c the # on the charge sheet says
provision 855 and the c/w crimes act only goes to 125 or so. But the point
has never had any chance of argument or process so far.
And further the totally senseless even within itself charge purported
itself as
any opinion at all of a letter within its 4 corners, regardless and
exclusive of the letter's circumstances, nothing even established or known
of its circumstances. The police/prosecution attempting to claim a Public
censorship scope for a letter's written surface alone, during Postal usage.
They did not even have any postal usage to use for it, but didn't realise
that for months.
Claiming to be made under Section 855 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, but that the factors it involved
were beyond the available charging range the unrepresented Defendant has to
face. And in fact
of that unavailability to the charging range that the charge attempt is
complicatedly so of that unavailability to a degree requisiting and
necessitating specialist legal aid and representation before the matter can
proceed any further. And Wall then adjourned the matter mid Trial, until
that specialist aid
eventuated, and Wall then and set the matter for recommencement before
himself one year later.
- 3 - In '94, the false judge Taylor crazily forced himself and a Denovo
trial on
my started Review appeal trial in Judge Wall's court. Taylor also purported
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 .
Already since '91 the situation have falsely caused me to have had 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 at all be my legal and /or financial
onus to have to do in relation to a charge I face.
As well as being worth approx $11,000,000,000(billion) in damages at
made out current Australian rates, it still has all the above of its
requisite and basic process to be sorted out for the basic charge data angle
to exist at all yet.
:That is not an exaggeration or embellishment of what the charge is. It
very totally is that, only reads as that, was intended as that, insisted on
as that, and it is provable as that and that it was intended as such. Of the
relevant such 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 at all 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
court 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.
That is all this matter knows and has ever heard of her and how and why
that was. I do not know who, how and why she is. As far as I know none of
the Police concerned knew or know any more of her than that.
Police then, presuming postal usage from that, and with no interest
whatsoever in the letter's circumstances no matter what those circumstances
were, thought they had the above cited postal usage letter's surface viewing
charge available to them, and so purported to proceed with that natureless,
degreeless, peopleless, circumstanceless, totally nullity senseless through
and through yes/no question and answer charge attempt.
Sic, _ _ ' that people viewing the letter's written surface only, would
find its words offensive, no matter what the letter's circumstances were ' _
_ .
The magistrate at the 1st court appearance Aug '92 refused to allow any
of the explanation necessary for the charge to exist at all even within
itself. She forcibly applied the prima facie senseless charge, resulting in
multiplying the already extensive, complicated situation and still we had no
explanation or even definition of anything to use or pertain to.
I then Review appealed it. 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 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 the
obvious, and said 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 prosecution purports the charge to represent, 1914 C/w Crimes
Act 85(s)(b) solely is and allows.
Wall then 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. Wall granted a one year's adjournment
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
permanent back injury then, I could not get a lawyer in the interim year.
The next year a different judge, Taylor, crazily forced himself and a
Denovo trial on the matter. he refused to allow any explanations, and did
not supply any definitions of his actions at all. Nor did he even manage to
supply anything for the charge as his complicated vocal only attempts were
that undefined, senseless, contradictory and unsatisfactory at all even
within itself. But he 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 totally, astronomically crazily here, and is significant in the
National and International Human rights criteria as operatively requisiting
redress for this particular individual matter.
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 and with the
nearest vechile capable of doing that, a $250,000,000 High Court hearing.
Also I am subjected to the inhumanness of the false Judge.
Whereby he purports to gibber 100's of serious charges in terms of
people, natures and circumstances, in this natureless, peopleless,
circumstanceless charge attempt situation and nature he wrongfully forced
himself and different type of trial and charge on, and then carried on as
such. There were no people alleged of this charge even in his court at all,
or anywhere else in this matter at all.
That 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.
And I am then unjustly groundlessly subjected to the mindless, out of sync
carryon Taylor gibbered. 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 was
still attempting to gibber new charges with every statement he made. 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 and
new charges to any degree.
All he did as he saw how each attempt would fail, was run off and come
back for another go, but he failed each time. It fills volumes.
But Taylor is not valid as a Judge. The same Judge must hear the started
trial process. Here that is Judge Wall. In the invested Federal Law no one
can state or purport to state other than that.
So Taylor is only serious total Criminal Interference to Trial process,
and he is nothing I face as my legal and /or financial onus of the charge
and trial I am there to face. My only onus is having to point out the
situation to the relevant authorities. But thus far the relevant authorities
have refused their onus.
So that is the crazy viscous circle situation the matter is, and all that
has been supplied as any details.
For the purported charge details even in that view, interalia, it is not
yet informed to the matter or knowable 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 purported vocal recharge on the started trial
process or other or what. To get even those of the necessary details at all
for the matter I am supposed to pay about $100,000,000 for the High Court
hearing to determine it.
It is very much the Law that the same Judge must hear the started trial
process, and totally so of Federal Invested matters, with the system having
no scope to claim other than that. Yet the system has so far, across its
entirety refused its 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.
Basically what it means is, that the nearest approach to any or anything
of the matter at all, is a $250,000,000 High Court hearing, which the system
is saying is my onus to provide if I want to take the matter further. But I
do not feel it is validly my onus to have to face those things as part of
the charge I face that can be validly said to be my legal and/or financial
onus. I have studied all the surface Legal text to about normal citizen
equivalent of year 2 university, but am yet to find any "shortcut way" of
getting process for the matter. Can someone please help the case and try to
figure out a way of that.
Just one thing too:
: if you say you don't understand my info, ok maybe you don't but,
all the info is logical, watertight and easy enough to understand.
: It is also just me referring effectively to that which has been
supplied
as basic process details. I do that because I am raising questions of that
basic Public aspect, one same common to all Charge data thing. In the form I
describe is all that exists as.
: So if you say you don't understand my info and/or those
details, you must agree that adequate basic process details of the systam's
onus in a matter, have that significantly not been supplied here.
: That is the only question I have raised, that those basic
details to
enable the matter to exist and be pertainable to, here of the system's onus
are that insufficient. At this stage I am not worried about the particular
case details as if they already had satisfactory adequate basic charge
process surrounding them.
Also, consider this:
- It is not a case of an injustice or claimed injustice occurring within
the legal and financial onus the defence does have if such occurs within the
met adequately, basic requisite system onus process, such as charge and
jurisdiction details, right paperwork, right judges etc. The questions here
are because of the aberrated, deficient, insufficient basic system onus
process.
- It is not my onus to have to face and deal with it as part of the charge
as such I am there for. It is the systems onus to redress any such
deficiencies, and the rest of the community and countrys' onus and
responsibility to ensure the deficiency is corrected.
- It is someone other than just me who has this onus of at last ensuring
and supplying the basic process of this matter to allow the matter to at
last start and exist at all.The only onus on me is to notify the relevant
people of this situation.
- 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.
- Involved along the way also are interesting enough situations of 6 or 7
notable enough public figures. For example Gleeson the now High Court Chief
Justice, because of court staff mistakes in his nsw court of criminal appeal
days not long before his HC appointment, accidently sat on this C/Wealth
law, High court itself data matter, whose status is only able to be read as
that it must be referred to the High Court for any statement, definition or
procedure at all. With that fact sitting at about 2+2 level on the national
legal scale, Gleeson didn't even recognise or have a clue of it. And I
wonder if Daryl Williams who has long denied process for this matter knew
that Gleeson had already sat on it when Daryl appointed Gleeson to the High
Court? If the matter does get to the HC in Gleeson's tenure he cannot sit on
it again. Also in relation to Gleeson there are a few other still live,
legally intriguing situations.
- The Federal police officer who refused to investigate or deal with the
seriously forged trial data of the matter, and wasted a year of the matter's
time, was a Martindale, who soon after that left the AFP and joined Pauline
Hansen's political party.
-This matter is not insignificant and without public interest and so able
to be passed by. The points of Federal law of this totally individual, rare,
unique matter are 1,000's of times more significant than significant enough
on the National public interest scale. That is in fact 100% provable in
light of the federal law points reported by the Melbourne and Sydney media
since 1985.
- We do not want around, the people of NSW and Federal spheres who openly
cheaply forged the trial data of this matter to any degree and have been
abetted so far. We want that aspect dealt with, and such people dealt with.
-The 2nd and final prosecutor in this matter, now of the C/w prosecution
office, is Grant Lawlor(the one who recently in a lecture to students in
Canberra, conveniently gave away the prosecution case in the politicians
rorts affair.). But up till when the false judge Taylor in may '94 forced
himself and a denovo trial on my started Review appeal in Judge Wall's
court, it seems Lawlor may not have been of the C/w prosecutor's office. At
least in that far distant Wentworth nsw(near Mildura)court, at the yearly
sittings in '93 & '94, Lawlor from Wagga was prosecuting all the other local
State matters. In all the media reports of federal matters I have never seen
a c/w prosecutor operate in any more than the one matter he/she is sent in
to deal in. Judge Wall made a point even in his short time, of pointing out
the slimy reputation Lawlor had. If Lawlors only claim to promotion is that
he participated and abetted a Judge totally crazily interfering with the
court process of a trial and another Judge's court, then he and the other
people concerned are not people we 100% want around in place of the
requisite basic Charge and all other process of this matter.
-The judge Taylor, who forced himself and a Denovo trial on the started
trial process of my review appeal in Judge Wall's court, is not exempt at
all from our Laws against interference with trial process.He is the same as
eg John Laws the talk show radio host, or anyone else. We do not want around
the people of the NSW and Federal Attorney-generals dept's who ignored and
abetted these serious interferences with trial process. It is not 100% in
our beliefs that we want the other side to mine in this matter around as
they are, no matter what and to the exclusion of any process or even
approach to this matter.
- There is NO reason for the extreme total denial of process here in
this matter at any stage or level since '91.
- Particularly in federal invested law, the only available law on that
point, to the state, system or anyone, is that the same judge must hear the
started trial process.
Thanks.
M.
>