🚀 go-pugleaf

What happens if this Australian Federal 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 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.

Also it is the first time in a mainstream question, that the basic Mens
Rea/Strict Liability legal concepts have been ignored as their literal and
historical meaning
and Statutory effect.

  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 or
govt supplied High Court Commission type hearing, 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:  mijchael3@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.


     :It is a C/wealth/Federal Law matter, NSW attempting 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
CommonWealth 1914 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 theoretical argument about 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 as a charge, 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.
Wall then 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 has 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 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 the above of its requisite
and
basic process to be sorted out for the basic charge data angle to exist yet.

     As I see it I need the Govt or 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 3
points 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.

     :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 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
whatsoever in the letter's circumstances, 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,
total 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 ' _
_ .


    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 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 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, without explanation, 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 even. Nor
did he even 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 even within itself. 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 the equal 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, and is significant even 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 vehicle 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 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 wrongfully 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.

  And just one more of the many 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. .

   And that was one of his main basis's for the out of sync to all reality
sentence he seeks to apply. His 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. And
Taylor crazily sought to subvert and pervert
Justice on those points too.

   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 as
the 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 it with
relevance here

 - 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 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.

  And I am then unjustly 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.

    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, for him and the govt to have a scope
to claim
he is what I face for the charge I am there for.. 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. The govt has the job and onus
of
supplying Judge Wall for the trial. I am not there for anything else.

   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.

   So that is the crazy viscous circle situation the matter is, and all that
has been supplied as any basic process 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 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 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, 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.


 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.

   - 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.

  - 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.

     - 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.