🚀 go-pugleaf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

What the hell is this? I do not understand.  Not only does the guy
have no idea how to spell or organize sentences, the entire thing is
just an incoherent rambling manifesto against some obscure australian
regulation.  I hate crossposters!

Brian

"Mike" <mijchael2@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:QoXW5.152078$e5.97662@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
>     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.
>
>
>
>
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOj/jAGh6IbPJvFmPEQKSpwCfVncVzmYRvsYfFfuYO40PeteECJ8AnRIu
QFQhMgirKfc6I6hE07lzmEF9
=6gvD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----