THIS IS THE BIGGEST SCANDAL AND INJUSTICE OF OUR TIMES.

IT STILL NEEDS ITS MANDATORY REQUITE ATTENTION. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP IT GET THAT. THIS REALLY DOES NEED TO BE OFFICIALLY SETTLED AS TO WHAT’S WHAT AT ALL OF ITS MANY SOCIETY WIDE RELEVANT QUESTIONS.

This an Australian matter of the Federal/Commonwealth Law in the Federal Invested Jurisdiction of theat.

I am 33+years still waiting for my chance to know the one same charge for my defence chance to prepare a defence(which includes whether pleading guilty or innocent).

As far as I know this has only been supplied as not knowable or useable for everyone else everywhere at all too. The other sides are totally acting out many times over called into question that all is satisfactory in that aspect.

But even if they are right I still need an explanation of the charge to the same effect as the statistically supplied data as it.

The charge is under C/wealth/Federal Law in the Invested jurisdiction and as I know it from the System onus to adequately supply the one same charge it is only supplied as conflicting and derelict items made out as High Court itself data needing that further definition to meet adequate requite system onus as such and that only the HC itself can affirm and state and this all it allows for anyone else at all too as the one same charge thing from that angle.

I would have thought of any honest society at all its many society wide points in question would mundanely produce a society wide enquiry including Australia, USA, England and other to officially settle what’s what at all here, further than just Australia’s prima facie relevance of them, even though the Strict Liability Law is the only one necessarily in question of being the same Law for all that use it.

Like the other many such society wide points in question here include literal words by themselves (pieces of paper within their 4 corners as Australia’s Law and shared community ism terms it). The scopes for procedure of them towards a letter. Mens Rea of our Law. Strict Liability of our Law. If Strict Liability attempts to represent Mens Rea. The Federal Invested Jurisdiction of our law. The one same Charge Law, Postal usage and many others.

By “any honest society at all” I mean like Nero of Rome was some sort of honest society at all as in Nero was subject to some law and there were many society wide uniform requite operation aspects.

Whereas for example Mexican bandits during the wild West period did not conform to such at all.

If you get the drift.

These are all supposed to be Uniform relevancies not capable of being in question distinct from that to the degrees increasingly distinct from it that are involved of this matter.

Up until this matter any derelictions, anything and everything for the centuries of these society wide elements was only using them and subject to them of their relevance.

It’s only the going the worldwide suck trying to interfere with the relevance and process of this matter that and with the crazy instances involved trying to subvert this.

If these attempted differences to these things are to be allowed then that is setting their crazed law and ratios for everyone and everything as they are not available for anyone otherwise.

Is this to just pass and purport its crazed differences are all that’s ever been as its differences are actually trying for?

All society wide points I would have thought any honest society at all on sight of them needing to be officially settled as to what’s what, as here, on a public platform in view of the 2 sides and as they weigh out would have the society wide commission type thing to officially settle this.

But since I for the first time in its 32+years put it 3+ years ago in such public platform view there is no such interest. Anyway following is the matter in this article view.

For those who don’t know and perhaps a reminder to some who do the one same charge law runs as follows.

-cite-

A Charge is must be one same charge for one and all so the Defence can have its chance to prepare a Defence to it and have everyone else pertain and subject to it.

The charge wording must be 100% unambiguous to prevent shifting ground.

The charge wording applying to one charge in one count.

Amendments beyond the count are a Nullity.

The police brief surrounding the charge sets the situation and nature of the charge.

-uncite-

In this matter the charge is in the Count of Strict liability representing Mens Rea of the then Australian 1914 C/wealth Crimes Act section 85s(b).

(For more details see article “The Charge Sheet” in my X profile.)

The Charge is in the Count of Strict Liability attempting to represent a Mens Rea Law and in the Federal Invested Jurisdiction.

(For verification of this please see Australia’s official actual thing of this ie the Strict Liability Law which is prima facie the finalised 1893 SL Law as the one same thing all who use it use since, ((Australia, USA, England among others)) which Law allows no interpretation distinct from its made out as other than the distinct attempt is null and void and unable to be abetted as other than that.

While Australia’s current usage successfully not distinct from it is “Law – Strict Liability may only be created by Parliamentary Legislation.”

Far from what the case law and other claiming to attempt crazily many times over distinct from it is claiming and being ignored by vast amounts of the legal and associated system in my matter so far.

For SL rep MR when you get to that in the curriculum it says SL rep MR is a Nullity with no amendment available. When you check that out in the official thing it affirms this and as the particular defined Nullity SL rep MR is.

Australia’s current Law expresses it as being – ” Invalid to the extent of the inconsistency with never being there at all or ever diminishing in time as the Nullity it is.”)

That is a Nullity at all and that all it supplies for anyone or anything at all and cannot be abetted as other. System onus only to supply as that. A Court has no other availability than to uphold it as that. Nor does anyone else.

Here is how and why that is.

Any Charge in the Count of SL rep MR no matter how made out that rest of charge is/would be and/or how proceeded with, is only a Nullity of the entire extent. Any carryon distinct from that is just further Nulity and cannot be abetted as other. That is all it can supply as the one same Charge requite for everyone involved.

It is Mandatory of being upheld as its made out factors ie the particular Nullity it is, but here is 32+ years derelict of that with those differences to all we are here for different again from each other every sentence or few everywhere at all in relation to this matter.

Each and every such difference is dereliction that significant ie not the Charge we are here for.

Its factors never diminish in time or able to be abetted of any diminish in time attempt so all that contrary carryon and any more of it is just that futilely wasting more of our time.

In 1991 when I was charged as such it was in NSW at Dareton Police station to be heard at Wentworth Court. Both small 1000 people towns just on the NSW side of the Murray river in far southwest NSW.

Luckily after that living in Mildura just across the border in Victoria I was able to do a basics of legal practice law course at Sunraysia college there to try and help address this charge. For me who knew practically nothing of legal specifics it was a very effective course. It traced the evolution of our law through the centuries both of our prevailing Statutory law and the case law aspects and their relevances.

Also a main part of it was teaching the Strict Liability Law component and its relevance through the centuries to the present day.

So with that and taking my study wider to try to know this Strict Liability representing Mens Rea charge in the Federal Invested jurisdiction it was totally useful.

For those who don’t know the English originating law has for more than a century now State Law and Federal law with the Federal and/or C/wealth law prevailing over State law.

The Invested jurisdiction which Australia, England, USA and others use is defined as “The allotted Uniform amount of the Federal Law to the States and Territories.”

This is primarily to ease the burden on the Federal system of such things like Family Law, Postal usage etc and any other reasons such Invested usage might apply.

Its Invested jurisdiction Law is ” requite in operation with no State or other individual opinion distinct from it or anything made out by it” eg a charge in the invested jurisdiction is something made out by it and that is an aspect of the one same charge thing for such matters.

The Strict Liability Law has always been the same Law through its centuries through to today and never diminishes in time.

It’s the same law in that through its centuries any attempt to interpret it distinct from itself was always ratified to as the distinct purport was null and void of its extent.

Because of this by about 1870 the law lords started to think in terms of “well is there any point of having the interpret distinct from scope at all” and it looked like it might finalise with no such scope available at all and in our Law’s way of that.

In 1893 it did finalise as that as the one same law all that use it use since then. Some of they that use it are England, Australia and USA.

So before 1893 it had some sort of basis of position to interpret distinct from it sort of like the Nullity in the Charge Law. Whereby amendments beyond the Count of the Charge are a Nullity but may have basis of position for a Judge or whatever until ratified to as it being a Nullity sometime down the track.

But since 1893 SL does not have this and has no exemptions available for anyone or anything anywhere at all.

So it wouldn’t much help these clowns that have carried on the 32+ years of this radically distinct from the charge we are only here for and different again every sentence or few everywhere at all since. With those differences mainly not available in each other either.

Of their righteous little that many purports to interpret SL rep MR distinct from its made out or as our law terms the phenomena purports “to create Strict Liability.”

So what are we still 32+years doing here with these crazed increasing amount of gibbered differences to it?

Up to 2000 at least all this was available prima facie and at the fingertips at all to any depth needed but now none of that or the 15 or so other laws relevant in this matter have transferred over to the internet. Or at least I from considerable attempts cannot find them and a lot purport to neve have existed at all.

So that along with the refusal to acknowledge them from the vast legal credentiallity that has contact with this matter makes me think there is a vast cheap mindless worldwide suck because of this matter.

For example the matter has had over 100,000 views on LinkedIn from very legal qualified people who refuse to acknowledge any of it. One lawyer in a longish message conversation we had grudgingly acknowledged it is a Nullity but refused to deal in terms of the particular Nullity or the relevance of it being still derelict of being upheld as the Nullity it is.

But maybe that lack of interest and action is for some other reason.

To Specify a bit – The Charge is in Federal Invested Jurisdiction of Australian C/wealth/Federal Law and is of Strict Liability representing a Mens Rea Law and is then the charge sheet wording applying to a “piece of paper within its 4 corners” namely an envelope and letter allegedly posted in it in alleged postal usage.

The charge claiming Strict Liability you did drive through a red light irrespective of intent etc is a such natureless degreeless yes/no question that the letters literal words irrespective of its criminality or otherwise in its circumstances or circumstances at all would be regarded as offensive in a charge claiming a public viewing arena of postal usage.

The letter has words of underage girls in it with the charging decision not even knowing of their existence or otherwise. I was never asked at all by the charging decision anything in the direction of the hows and whys of the letter or its circumstances.

In a 12 page interview with me the nearest thing in those directions is I was asked if I wrote the letter. I was not asked if I posted it in the envelope involved.

Also none of the Charging decision had ever met or heard of me before this and my record is just a few small fines for things like arguing with police with the last of them 15 years before this matter and a 1000 districts removed from it.

The envelope and letter was brought to the Police there by a woman whose name is not on the envelope or in the letter and I still do not know who she is or what she is supposed to be to this matter.

That is the entire Police brief as was sent to the C/Wealth Prosecution office for them to make the Charge and it also was all that was given to me for my chance to know the one same charge and prepare a defence for it.

So in our Australian law and availability at all the Charge wording applies to as our law terms it “a piece of paper within its 4 corners”. A supposed public viewing arena of Postal usage. A third party arena irrespective of the within or outside the law in its circumstances like is possible of a sporting arena for example but postal usage very much does not have the scope.

Our Australian Law on these points at this 1991 time is for pieces of paper within their 4 corners –

– quote – ” Any question anyone or anything asks or might try to ask of a piece of paper within its 4 corners they must find the answer not against what they are asking the question of ” – unquote.

This with the meaning that any answers attempted against are not against, are null and void of their extant and cannot be abetted as other than that.

Whilst also our law for procedure of a piece of paper within its 4 corners towards a letter is –

quote – “For procedure in the direction of a letter the parties to the letter must be established and the circumstances of writing of the letter ie available to write the letter from as etc must be established from the parties and if any discrepancy between this at the very least 2 crosschecks must be made.” – unquote.

With our lead case citation of this saying – “This must even be supplied by junior Police in operation at all.”

In the now 32+ years of this it has resulted in carryon radically different to that one same charge all we are here for and every sentence or few different from previous differences everywhere at all of this matter and them mainly not available in each other either.

Resulting of the names in the letter in children and sex crimes against them being made up and gibbered out at that rate and involving 1000’s of elements of this and also of general child sex charges. And in this Strict Liability basis charges of intent(mens rea) danger of reoffence etc just baselessly at all made up.

Very much not what our law allows and particularly in the Federal Invested Jurisdiction this matter is in.

All 150 lawyers approached to take this across the entire 32+ years have mindlessly refused to take it and most refuse to deal with iin terms of any charge at all and insult me.

All I want to do is take a question of Law of the Nullity to Court and after that ask the Court to hear for damages.

This is worth a made out $8-9.6 Billion in damages made out by the 1000’s of differences enacted not available in the Charge I am there for or each other and them being the damages equivalent of the differences the Court has no other valid availability than to uphold as made out of each and every one.

So any adequate lawyer would have that good chance of getting between $40million to $12billion. I would open asking for $12billion.

Because it is High Court itself data that only the HC can affirm/reaffirm the parameters and also state which directions the 32+ years derelictions go it is available for damages in the HC potency law saying” In certain circumstances the HC may hear for damages of which result no appeal is possible.”

Which potency at least includes derelictions of Federal law HC itself data as here because also only the HC can state the directions the damages instance go. And that law may well be only for such instances but obviously at least includes them.

The matter is mandatory of legal aid. That significant of pro bono. Also that significant of no-win no fee in that lawyers could take up to 40% of damages if damages are won.

Due to my 43 year permanent back injury I am restricted to those above scope for my chances of legal asistance so would appreciate it if the legal assistance trend so far would totally reverse some time.

These differences radically different and not available in the Charge we are here for are also for the entire 32+ years of this matter different from and generally not available in each other occur every sentence or few everywhere at all of this matter.

So they are either adding those differences to the Charge and not supplying them to system onus supply the charge requite and faking it is my onus to supply that for the matter or those differences are all dereliction that significant and system onus to redress as its made out.

So it is a simple and effective redress the system dereliction to take a question of law of the Nullity to Court and ask the Court to hear for damages in or that near to it but as I said above all the lawyers so far refuse the matter.

So what is the one same Charge supposed to be for me to have chance to prepare a Defence in relation to?

For example there is no public viewing arena irrespective and exclusive of circumstances of postal usage like there can be of say a sporting arena.

For example in a sporting arena a guy says “Lets go for a fuck.” He is charged as this charge I face irrespective and exclusive of the legality or otherwise in its circumstances or circumstances known or involvable at all.

Eg he says “Lets go for a fuck” to his girlfriend it is legal in its circumstances but to an underage girl would be illegal.

And there is very much no availability of these enacted differences to the only charge we are here for.

What is the one same charge thing here supposed to be for the defence to have that chance to prepare a defence to and have everything else pertain to and subject to otherwise?

The Charge was made under –

– Australian C/wealth Crimes Act 1914 – Section 85s – subsection b –

– That section saying saying –

– ” A person shall not knowingly or recklessly use a postal or telecommunications service supplied by Australian Post in such a way that will be regarded by reasonable persons as being in all the circumstances Offensive.” –

Totally a Mens Rea Law.

Charge wording being – “Did use a postal service in such a way as would be regarded by reasonable people in all circumstances as offensive”.

With that applying to “a piece of paper within its 4 corners” namely a posted envelope along with a letter allegedly posted in it. That with nothing established or known of its circumstances at all. Not even the existence or otherwise of the names on the envelope and in the letter.

In that a woman whose name is not on the envelope or in the letter brought them to a Police station 100’s of miles from where the envelope had arrived.

I still do not know who she is or what she is supposed to be to this matter as that is all that is listed of it and its never even figured that much since. As the police information sheet of that says it is the first they know of her and all it says is she gave them the letter and envelope.

Also a 12 page police interview with me asks me no questions at all or even vaguely in the direction of elements of circumstances how and why etc.

That is the entire Police brief setting the situation and nature of the Charge.

Thus in our law and availability at all making the charge wording applying to just the literal words themselves in alleged postal usage and public viewing arena of it as the one same charge for one and all.

The Charge claiming a public viewing arena of Postal usage distinct from the letter’s within the law or not in its circumstances.

Any and every difference to those elements is dereliction that significant. Viz a viz such differences are not the Charge we are here for. Yet there are 1000’s of differences this 32+years and them claiming to be this charge.

If any interest see other articles in my profiles for full details of these.

Absence of the word “Knowingly” connotes Strict Liability is our universal longtime law never diminish in time on the point.

That Charge is a Nullity at all. Any difference attempted to that is just further Nullity and cannot be abetted as other than that. All it allows everywhere.

In the curriculum when you get to if Strict Liability attempts to represent Mens Rea it says “It is a Nullity with no amendment available”. When you check that out in the official actual thing you find that it’s so and also the defined particular Nullity at all it is.

It is the System onus to supply it as that and ensure everything operates with no difference to that.

(lately I found the below enclosed from a bing search “what if Strict Liability attempts to represent Mens Rea” but remain convinced of what my law course and study told me of its specifics namely “if SL reps MR it is a Nullity with no amendment available” and also of the further specifics of that.

Aspects of the below are vague seeming maybe a bit to leave open interpretations and amendment distinct from the one same SL Law but as I was taught such interpretation distinct are not validly so at all.

SO has the dereliction od SL rep MR this 32+ years of my matter caused the system to try and fake not a total Nullity?? I would think so but here is the quote.

Where the quote is from is now defunct as its Law Schoolers site but probably could be traced back if need me. Note at the end the claimed “generally” distinct from the Total Nullity at all with no amendment available.

– cite –

“Strict liability is a type of criminal liability that does not require proof of mens rea for one or more elements of the offense. Mens rea is the guilty mind or intention to commit a crime. Strict liability offenses are usually created to protect public safety or welfare, such as environmental or traffic regulations.

If strict liability represents mens rea, then it would mean that the accused is presumed to have intended the criminal act, regardless of their actual state of mind or knowledge. This would be contrary to the common law principle that mens rea is an essential ingredient in every offense, and that criminal liability should be imposed only on persons who are sufficiently aware of what they are doing and the consequences it may have. Therefore, strict liability and mens rea are generally incompatible concepts in criminal law.”

Learn more. en.wikipedia.org2. alrc.gov.au3. dpp-law.com4. lawschoolers.com)

-uncite –

Of the simple and effective adjust to that system onus dereliction ie to take a question of law of the Nullity to court all 150 lawyers approached across the 32 years of this matter have refused to take the matter at all.

So if can anyone help address that of the situ now involved it would be appreciated thankyou.

Of matter in profile. Recent other enquiries made –

– To the Federal Attorney General for no relevant reply – I need to know where Statute Law up to 2000 at least is- “Strict Liability may only be created by Parliamentary Legislation” as I can no longer find it.

Also back in the day before 1893, attempted differences were nowhere near the babble attempting distinct from the SL Law in my matter are righteously claiming.

As also distinct from the 1893 finalised SL Lawit would seem are the recent attempted postal usage law in the cth 1914 Crimes Act a copy of which laws attempt is enclosed below.

Which involve c/w crimes act section 85sb being vanished since my matter and replace in 2018-2019 with the enclosed below.

Are these further interference with attempts with my matter? Sure looks like it.

The inner charge of that the charge wording applying to a piece of paper within its 4 corners only, viz a viz a posted envelope and a letter.

The letter with words of underage girls in it. The charge applying to its literal words in postal usage view regardless and exclusive of its within or outside the law scopes and nothing known of them by the charging decision, not even the existence or otherwise of the names in the letter and on the envelope.

Of which for the 31+ years of this matter all has carried on distinct from both elements and their combination and over 99% different from all previous.

With these differences making up children, sex crimes involving them and many other without any purport in those directions at all as all we are here for.

Any and every difference to any of those Charge elements is dereliction that significantly ie inter alia(among other things) it is not of the Charge I and we are here for.

What reason or chance have I ever had to prepare a defence in any of these added terms?

At the 1991 start of this matter stage Australia’s law of pieces of paper within their 4 corners was – “Any question anyone or anything asks or might try to purport to ask of a piece of paper within its 4 corners they must find the answer not against what they are asking it of” –

And Australia’s Law for any scope of procedure from a piece of paper in its 4 corners in the direction of a letter – “The parties to the letter must be established. The specific circumstances available to write the letter in from as etc must be established from the parties. If there is any discrepancy between this at the very least 2 crosschecks must be made” –

This has with it our lead case citation saying – “This must even be supplied by junior police in operation at all” –

The carryon in my matter has made up 1000’s of new law, child sex charges and specific children elements with none available in the charge or each other at all.

Thing is its only since 2021 I have put had this matter on these public platforms in view of the 2 sides as they weigh out that this denial of the law relevant has occurred on the public platforms in view of the 2 sides and as they weigh out as all previous babbled behind the scenes in inverted one way convo for those denials.

On sight of the Nullity of its entire extent matter in these public platform views there is no scope for anyone other than to uphold it as its made out ie the Nullity of its entire extent along with the arrest and prosecution of the since 1991 any and all differences to the made out.

Any attempted difference to the Nullity at all is just further Nullity and cannot be abetted as other and this particularly in the Invested Jurisdiction.

It is the System mandatory only availability onus to supply this.

Its only since 2021 that any denial of that Law involved here is being attempted on a public platform in view of the 2 sides as they weigh out.

Nothing for them like the under 2 years only existence contrary purporters try to act out of their carryon.

When I was studying Law in relation to this matter in the 90’s I knew off by heart all the major c/wealth criminal law acts relevances in relation to my matter.

Below is a quote from the present 1914 cth crimes act. (omitting some surrounds). I do not remember this being in the c/weath crimes act in the 90’s.

And seeing as in my youth till whenever if ever it ended there was copious ads in many papers and magazines for prostitutes dressed as schoolgirls and things like “nappy sex” you would think I would have noticed these laws that now disallow such things when I studied the Cth Crimes Act fully in the 90’s but be that as it may.

What does it look like in relation to the trying to fake my matter as other than it is?

Surely our laws of such at the time of my ’91-’94 matter were not radically different though.

So why of the Strict Liability(you did drive through a red light regardless of intent just the act)representing Mens rea Crimes Act law 85sb) charge sheet wording “Did use a postal service in a way as would have been regarded by reasonable persons in all circumstances as offensive” applying to a piece of paper within its 4 corners viz an envelope and a letter by itself, nothing known of its circumstances not even the existence or otherwise of the names on the envelope or in the letter, not even any postal usage, as a woman I still do not know who she is, took the envelope and letter allegedly posted in it to a police station 200 miles from where the envelope arrived and that is all there is for that, ie a police info sheet saying that and no more and a ten page interview with me not asking any questions at all even in the direction at all of the above cited criteria for any procedure from piece of paper within its 4 corners to letter –

As was all that was sent to the C/wealth prosecutors office for them to make the charge of and all that was given to me for me to have the one same charge for all for my chance to know that charge and prepare a defence to it.

Why have I had any reason to prepare a defence for anything else.

– WHY is this charge I face supposed to be these 1000’s of child sex and other elements as has been enacted and including the prosecution, judiciaries and associated making up the names in the letter as specific children and circumstances of??

Really suggests that widespread attempted interference behind the scenes with my matter to me but where do they get their carryon at all at least.

– cite – from current c/weath crimes act – (minus some surrounds)

Crimes Act 1914 (legislation.gov.au )

Federal Register of Legislation – Crimes Act 1914

Volume 1. An Act relating to Offences against the Commonwealth Part I —Preliminary -1 Short title -This Act may be cited as the Crimes Act 1914.

3 Interpretation

child abuse material has the same meaning as in Part 10.6 of the Criminal Code.

child sexual abuse offence means:

(a) a Commonwealth child sex offence; or

(b) an offence against section 273.5, 471.16, 471.17, 474.19 or 474.20 of the Criminal Code as in force at any time before the commencement of Schedule 7 to the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Act 2019; or

(c) an offence against Part IIIA of this Act as in force at any time before the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Act 2010; or

(d) a State or Territory registrable child sex offence.

Commonwealth child sex offence means:

(a) an offence against any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code:

(ii) Division 273 (Offences involving child abuse material outside Australia);

(iia) Division 273A (Possession of child‑like sex dolls etc.);

(iii) Subdivisions B and C of Division 471 (which create offences relating to use of postal or similar services in connection with child abuse material and sexual activity involving children);

(iv) Subdivisions D and F of Division 474 (which create offences relating to use of telecommunications in connection with child abuse material, sexual activity involving children and harm to children); or

Commonwealth child sexual abuse offence means a Commonwealth child sex offence, other than an offence against subsection 272.8(1) or (2), 272.9(1) or (2), section 272.10, 272.11, 272.18, 272.19, 273.7, 471.22, 474.23A or 474.24A, subsection 474.25A(1) or (2) or section 474.25B or 474.25C of the Criminal Code.

– uncite from current cth crimes act.

Now put that together with the fact that then section 85s(b) is now gone from the cth crimes act. Suggesting people trying to fake valid pertaining to the act while abetting and interfering with my matter.

Cite from back appendix(repealed deleted etc sections) of 1914 cth crimes act –

s. 85S………………………………..

ad. No. 63, 1989

am. No. 59, 1997; No. 24, 2001

rep. No. 9, 2002

Does anything in our so perfect proclaiming legal system investigate this matter?

No they just stop me being able to have the charge they want me to face, because if I, it and Australia have it, then all those seeming interferences, and all the other known interferences like the forged trial transcripts, mass wrong treating the matters relevancies etc would have to come up.

Can anyone help get this High Court itself data matter, of which only the HC can state the directions the derelictions involved go to, that its made out one same thing for everywhere at all, to the HC for this and stop wasting my and Australia’s time with the interferences with the matter this ridiculously faking off as its relevant facts and law?

Its nothing I face, or sayable at all as any legal or financial onus on me. But look at what its faking as such.

Could we deal in its relevant common to all facts and law at last please.

Hoping to hear from these relevant aspects.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Matter is worth $au 8-9.6 Billion in damages.

The Charge is in Federal Invested Jurisdiction of Australian C/wealth/Federal Law of Strict Liability representing a Mens Rea Law and is then the charge sheet wording applying to a “piece of paper within its 4 corners” namely an envelope and letter allegedly posted in it.

The charge claiming Strict Liability you did drive through a red light irrespective of intent etc natureless degreeless yes/no question that the letters literal words irrespective of its criminality or otherwise in its circumstances would be regarded as offensive in a charge claiming a public viewing arena of postal usage.

Nothing even established or known of of its circumstances at all not even the existence or otherwise of the names in the letter and on the envelope,

So what is the one same Charge supposed to be for me to have chance to prepare a defence in relation to?

For example there is no public viewing arena irrespective and exclusive of circumstances of postal usage like there can be of say a sporting arena.

And there is very much no availability of these enacted differences to the only charge we are here for.

So any adequate lawyer would have that good chance of a high damages settlement I think of between $40million – $12billion.

Eg Law firms can take 40% of damages won.

It is also among other things Mandatory of Investigation with a view to prosecution of the interferences with Trial process and Federal law which are if so as seemingly, 100’s of 1000’s times more serious than those going of interferences with Trial processes and Federal Law recently. Which recent ones are treated very seriously and conform to our normal ratio of such.

Which of my matter if so is also High Court itself data that only the HC can affirm/reaffirm the derelict parameters and also state the directions any such derelictions of interference go and thus the matter having to be referred to the HC for these aspects.

Any such legal, investigative, reality tv, media interest please contact me.

This really does need and Mandatory requite to be officially settled as to what’s what of its many society wide relevant questions at all still.

This Is The Biggest Scandal And Injustice Of Our Times

THIS IS THE BIGGEST SCANDAL AND INJUSTICE OF OUR TIMES.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

THIS IS THE BIGGEST SCANDAL AND INJUSTICE OF OUR TIMES.

Share this:

Leave a comment Cancel reply