🚀 go-pugleaf

    This unique, fascinatingly complicated Australian Legal matter is
being denied any process. So we're trying to get some process for it,
via Magazines, lawyer, govt, media, public interest, 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 in basic
justice, post the matter on to a few others, for example friends, local
MP's, media saying you think it should be reported.

   - 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?

  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 those details
have not been adequately supplied since the matter started in '91. Which is
also
the First time in Australian history since Federation in 1900, that the
basic
process levels of a significant enough matter have been denied.

   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.

    A point of this I find interesting is that what I detail below, also is
NSW
claiming to pass a Pagan New Federal law in that way. That means it applies
to YOU, if you are on Australian soil. Well therefore, it could apply
to any writing on paper at all.

   And at that ratio, behind a one year's jail maximum penalty, they could
just make up you were guilty of any crimes at all, real or made up, murders,
rapes, whatever, never supply details or process, and say it is too
insignificant to have a lawyer or legal aid.

   Great way for the bureaucrats to clean up all the unsolved crimes eh,
even just on one person. Or get a person out of the way. Anyway -

    Its a Federal Law matter, NSW deciding to exercise the Invested
Federal Jurisdiction. It started out with a charge attempt which claims
a Strict Liability charge to represent the Mens Rea only Commonwealth
1914 Crimes Act Provision 85(s)(b).

    The 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.

    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 did not have any postal usage to use for it, but didn't
realise that for months.

    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.

   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, in a charge nature of theoretical argument, out of all
the circumstances possible nationally, the defence only has to, with any
theoretical argument, produce one, 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 uncertain. For example, seeing as its not
feasible 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.

  - 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 so 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 get and/or supply basic charge details, and that as
the only approach the matter allows at all. Between $50 -2,500 a week, in
contact with up to 5 depts a week, for no result so far, and now I am broke.

  Getting back to some details; 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 alleged 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
charge available to them, and so proceeded with that degreeless, peopleless,
circumstanceless, 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 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 and/or 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, couldn't explain it anymore than that, 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
explanation. She applied the prima facie charge as it was, 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.

  At the Review appeal, in the specifically opened, started trial process,
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.

  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, that 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 the 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 Magistrate's many
alleged details, yet are also claimed by him to be the same exact charge and
details as the Magistrate used.

   Also 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 too
has vastly multiplied the already extensively in need of explanation entire
situation.

     I feel my right to have basic charge and jurisdiction Govt onus process
is
being denied 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 it, 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 seeks to mindlessly make up 100's of serious different
charges, crimes, degrees, counts, etc, in different many times over terms
of people, actions, relationships, natures and circumstances, in this
degreeless, peopleless, circumstanceless charge attempt situation
and nature he forced himself on.

  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. And, a letter could only have one
circumstance anyway.

   Taylor groundlessly and unsoundly through and through, made them up. Made
up these many circumstances, charges and process for them, and then faked
things to huge degrees further, even of what he made up.

   Next, Taylor became inspired to crusade, to totally protect society from
these very many serious things he made up, and thus still that unsoundly and
different from all previous, made up that further large set of elements too,
for his findings, reasons and sentence.

   His grounds for making up so many different things the head spins, was
that in relation to the theoretical argument any opinion of a letter's
surface charge I said, _ _ " all my actions were properly within the Law "_
_.

    That was Taylor's supposed confession of such guilt by me as to allow
him to make those things up 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.

    That was his main basis 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 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.

(no crime is specified in the charge count against me here)

 Two more points of the Procedural Law are -

 - Courts are not empowered to create new offences.

 - 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 and have a chance to 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
adjournment, 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.

   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
totally no scope or right of accusation against me.

    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 supposed prosecution produced corroborated
process of them, with every statement he made. With that the only, and that
insufficient, details of them. The prosecution actually produced nothing,
not even any vocal opinion on these points, or any other point.

   It fills volumes, but is part of all that is yet supplied for any charge
details.

   In the Invested Federal Law, all that is available for the States in
their invested usage, is the already decided Federal Law in uniform amounts.
That is our Law, so as to make sure each State supplies the same Federal Law
uniformly, and doesn't attempt to think the Federal shared Law is an
individual State possession. Among other things, non uniformity would cause
chaos.

   So to me, that is the crazy viscious circle situation the matter is.

   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?

  Remember, this is the supposedly common to all, one same adequately
detailed thing, Public aspect details at their bare minimum, we are trying
to refer to here.

   And in the Govt's view, those Public aspect 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 on me 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? The nsw court registrar in '00
said it was the started trial? Wall said it is the started Trial, but a
clerk said its not? Taylor said it is a trial started in Wall's court? The
Prosecution --? 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.

    Thing is, as it stands, 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 to answer.

    The Law, particularly of Federal invested matters, says the same Judge
must hear the started trial process. Here that is Judge Wall. So all that is
supplied as details is that the govt has the job and onus of supplying Judge
Wall for the trial. I am not there for anything else.

    Nothing further than that basic Law has been supplied to this matter as
details of Taylor. So in effect, that is all that has been supplied as
details. How do you pertain to that at all, much less as a correct
functioning charge and adequate appeal scope?

  Yet all the govt say different and refuse 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. What are the Govt details? What
is what here?

 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 had to endure. 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.

    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.

   Well that's my story, for this face of trying to get process for what
I see as an injustice. If you think this matter should have process,
things that might help include a specialist High Court lawyer, or Govt
supplied Commission type High Court hearing, or, seeing as presumably most
people can't individually cause those things, you could post this letter on
to a few others, adding your opinion that you think it should have process.

  Thanks.
M.


For any purists of a matter's details, some associated data is:

-  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?

- 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, and was publicly seen during the last election.

-  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.

   The Federal Law status of my matter 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. All Gleeson
said was, if my story was true, it would possibly mean Natural Justice was
being denied in the matter.

    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 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 in, and abetted
a Judge totally crazily interfering with the court process of a trial and
another Judge's court, then why are he and the other people concerned,
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. Taylor is the
same as eg John Laws the talk show radio host, or anyone else.

  Thanks for your time.
M.