This Is The Biggest Scandal And Injustice Of Our Times

In the 32+ years of this matter the charge and associated has carried on radically different to it and every sentence or few different again. Can anyone here help it get started as its Mandatory requite process?

This is the Australian Charge Sheet.

It was made by the C/wealth Prosecutors office for the Federal Invested Jurisdiction usage by NSW Police and associated system.

The charge as processed is less the written on it “Knowingly” and section # changes from wrong #’s to right #’s. These occurred well into the matter and are explained a bit further on here.

Thus making it a Strict Liability Charge and as it happens representing a Mens Rea Law. As is detailed a bit more a little bit on too.

It was made under the then but now vanished section of –

– 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.” –

Studying the entire centuries of Strict Liability progression the only Law I found of what makes Strict Liability is ” the absence of the word knowingly connotes Strict Liability.”

Thus totally a Mens Rea Law. Making the Charge which has absence of the word Knowingly a totally a Strict Liability Charge attempt.

Also making the one same Charge thing in that part a Strict Liability representing Mens Rea Charge.

It and the rest of the Charge details apply to as our Law terms it “a piece of paper within its 4 corners” namely an envelope and a letter with words of underage girls in it, allegedly posted in it, in postal usage/alleged postal usage, and with nothing established or even known of its circumstances by the charging decision. Not even the existence or otherwise of the names on the envelope or in the letter and me never even asked of the hows and whys or circumstances of writing at all.

At the 1991 time of this Charge Australia’s Law of pieces of paper within their 4 corners was –

– Quote- ” 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.”- Unquote.-

This with the meaning of if answers are attempted against they are not against and are null and void of their extent and cannot be abetted as other than that.

While our Law for procedure regards letters then was –

-quote-“For procedure regards a letter the parties to the letter must be established. The circumstances of writing ie available to write the letter from, as etc must be established from the parties. If there is any discrepancy between that at the very least 2 crosschecks must be done.” -unquote-

And there is a lead case citation of this saying ” This must even be supplied by junior police in operation at all.”

The letter was brought 150 miles from where the envelope had arrived to the Dareton NSW Police station involved with the charging decision by a woman whose name is not on the envelope or in the letter and I still do not know who she is or supposed to be.

So the police brief setting the situation and nature of the charge is a police information sheet saying that and no more of how the police came by the letter and envelope.

Also a 12 page interview with me asking me did I write the letter and nothing further of my side of its circumstances also not asking if I posted it in that envelope and that as near as it goes in the direction of how and why ‘s of the letter or its circumstances at all.

That was all sent to the C/wealth Prosecution office for them to make the charge from and all that has been given to me for me to know the one same charge to prepare a defence to.

So the Charge is the Charge sheet wording trying to apply to the literal words of the letter irrespective and exclusive of its circumstances at all. Claiming a public arena third party viewing arena of postal usage. A Strict Liability “you did drive through a red light” type thing irrespective of legality or otherwise in its circumstances or intent etc.

Which concept is available in for example a sporting arena. For example a guy at a football match says “lets go for a fuck.” So irrespective of its within or outside the law aspects or circumstances or intent etc at all.

To his girlfriend it is within the law. To an underage girl would be against the law.

But that concept is very much not available of postal usage as you are free to send anything available within your own life and rights through the post to the same effect as in your other own private places.

For those who do not know the Charge Law and perhaps some who do it is as follows.

– quote –

A Charge is must be one same charge for one and all for the Defence chance to be able to know the one Charge to prepare a Defence to it while having everyone else pertain to it and subject to it.

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

The Charge Sheet wording applying to the one Charge in one Count.

Amendments beyond the Count of the Charge are a Nullity.

The Police Brief surrounding the Charge setting the situation and nature of the Charge.

– unquote –

So what is the one same Charge here?

Actually because of the right of postal usage being the same as your own spaces the Charge is not even the Strict Liability yes/no question irrespective of legality and circumstances as the sporting arena example is capable of.

But that is all at most the Prosecution, Judiciary or whatever had for criminality alleged scopes which is far from what has been enacted.

The Charge is attempting a “cosmetic” type Charge. One of any Judicial opinion of any words in a posted letter “would be regarded as offensive.”

This in itself is senseless again as if proceeded with any actual, fictional or combination of defence claim of a letter within the law and/or piece of paper within its 4 corners makes out the defence case against the charge requite of “In all the circumstances” by producing circumstances distinct from that.

That is all I ever knew the Charge as and where I was talking from with my claims of a letter properly within the law when the Trial was stupid enough to proceed as such.

And I don’t see why even in their wrong view of the situation they attempted to disprove my claims and make up what they liked for this and also make up people circumstances along with 1000’s of charge elements as they liked.

Because among other things very mundane total of Australia my such claims of such factors as comprise this cannot be attempted to be disproved or contended.

Also it is very much law the Court is bound to supply as its own operation and particularly in the Federal Invested Jurisdiction this is a Charge in the field of.

So when in May 1994 the Judge Taylor forced himself and a DeNovo trial on the started and adjourned mid trial process of my Question of Law of the Nullity 1993 appeal with his purport to amend to Knowingly that is very much just further Nullity and totally Tabu or able to be abetted as other than that.. 

The 1993 started trial has since disappeared and purports not to have existed.

Taylor was told it was the started trial process before another Judge but he ignored this.

I found out later that question of law appeal is only available in the Supreme Court or higher but NSW had supplied the District Court for mine here.

This was because of this C/wealth Law matter the applicable law is “Appeal used prima facie in relation to C/wealth law matters applies as any appeal” and I had only used appeal prima facie in my question of law appeal application.

Also another relevant Law is “The same Judge must hear the started Trial process unless deceased.” 

The relevant Judge from the started adjourned mid trial 1993 trial was a Judge Wall very much not deceased and I heard was that 1994 day sitting at Broken Hill which out that way is just up the road from Wentworth Court where my matter was.

But in Taylors view of proceeding other than Nullity it just amends the “cosmetic” charge to you “did deliberately write a letter that would be regarded as offensive in cosmetic charge view.”

How could anyone do that as we very much do not have any such cosmetic charge view?

However Taylor seemed to think it meant he could make up children, child sex charges against children both specific and general and the same for circumstances of writing from the words in the letter and attempting to disprove and contend my claims of a letter within the law and he gibbered out 1000’s of these and legal elements most of which don’t exist in each other or at all.

Again the Charge I we are here for is Strict Liability representing Mens Rea in the Invested Jurisdiction with the Charge wording applying to a piece of paper within its four corners in an alleged Postal Usage public viewing arena aspect for it.

So totally distinct from that and everywhere at all so far everyone has treated it as “just make up any law and gibber it along with any circumstances of the letter and just gibber them.”

So thus the carryon of this charge has carried on radically distinct from the charge and then different again every sentence or few everywhere at all in relation to this matter this 32+ years and is still going further. Can someone please help it reverse this trend and settle it as its relevant facts and law.

Each and every such difference is dereliction that significant ie not the Charge we are here for. A court has no other valid availability than to uphold that and so that also equates for the attempt at damages.

Which damages are made out at $au8-9.6 Billion. So any adequate lawyer would have that good chance of winning between $40million to $12billion. I would open asking for $12billion.

In recent years the USA and French of this ie making up children and sex crimes against children in charges where there are none of those elements both had commission type court enquiries that made the national and worldwide media for both.

Whats the difference here except this is in Federal Law and is High Court itself data?

So any interest can contact me.

It is simply a matter of taking a question of Law of the Nullity to Court which a Court has no other valid availability than to uphold and then the case for damages.

The damages case I think is available under High Court law potency ” In certain circumstances the High Court may hear for damages of a matter of which result there is no appeal possible.”

This may well only apply to matters such as this where the dereliction of Federal law can only be stated by the High Court but at least this matter must apply under that Law.

I have had a permanent back injury for 40+ years which totally shot down my career scopes so my avenues for legal assistance are legal aid the matter is mandatory of, pro bono that significant, or no win no fee with that good chance of winning damages which lawyers can take eg 40% of a win.

The letter has words of underage girls in it and they have just been made up as people along with involved in 1000’s of alleged made out Mens Rea sex crimes and elements of them along with general such sex crimes involving intent, danger of reoffence, refusal to reform etc with none of those elements involved or involvable in the Strict Liability charge we are here for.

This Charge sheet copy is taken from the 1992 Wentworth NSW Local Magistrates Court August Trial transcript which is in the Local Court level attempted whole matter PDF.

Dareton and Wentworth are two towns of 1000 people along the Murray river in far South West NSW Australia.

Luckily in Mildura across the border in Victoria I was able to do a Basics of Legal practice law course at Sunraysia technical College which was very handy because I up till then knew practically nothing of any legal specifics.

This course effectively covered the centuries of our law’s progressions of its Statutory law and how it prevails over Case law.

Also a main part of the course was tracing the Strict Liability law through its centuries of progression to the present day which I took to wider study to help me with this Strict Liability representing Mens rea in the Federal Invested Jurisdiction Charge they wanted me to face.

Strict Liability has always been the same law through its centuries of time and any time to come. In that any attempt to interpret it distinct from itself or anything made out by it, eg a Charge involving it, was found to be null and void of the extent of the interpretation attempting distinct from it.

By about 1870 the Law Lords started to think in terms of is there any point of having any scope at all for anyone to attempt to interpret distinct from its made out and it looked liked it might finalise as that. In 1893 it did finalise as that as the one same law all who use it use since.

Australia, USA and England are among others some who use that Strict Liability Law.

I also took this to wider study of our C/wealth/Federal Law in relation to State law and so the course was handy for me to know the Charge I was there for.

Getting back to the above Charge sheet copy there are the two amendments attempted through the process written on it with no immediate explanation of where and why they occurred.

First one which is amending wrong #855 to right # 85s was made by the magistrate in the August 1992 trial and is in the PDF in trial transcript.

Second one was purport to amend to Mens Rea via add “Knowingly” in the ’94 Trial process.

A further Nullity within a Nullity?

Its occurrence is not in the PDF.

It is in the transcript of the ’94 District Court appeal trial process.

Why I think the original charge as the one same charge thing is Strict Liability representing Mens Rea is because I have studied the Strict Liability progression which tells me of the same Law for England, Australia and America among others, and the only Law I found for what makes Strict Liability in a Charge is –

“.. The absence of the word Knowingly connotes Strict Liability ..”

This Charge is with absence of the word “Knowingly” while representing Mens Rea 1914 C/wealth Crimes Act Law 85sb.

The rest of the Charge and Police Brief are totally devoid of any Mens Rea elements at all too.

My studies told me that the total law of this is also containing – ” Once a charge of Strict Liability representing Men’s Rea is made it is Strict Liability representing Men’s Rea, which is a Nullity with no amendment available.”

So once the Defence has been handed the Charge details.

Any carryon attempted distinct from Nullity is just further Nullity and cannot be abetted as other than that. A Court nor anyone else has no other availability than to uphold it as that.

This now 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.

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.

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.

Here is what I see as the Mens Rea section 85s.

(or its to the same effect if I have strayed from its exact wording but this is from the Trial transcript citing of it and the Knowingly or Recklessly is at least the same which is apparently mundanely prima facie totally Mens Rea for the usage here)

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

– ” 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.” –

Are we on the same page? What is the one same Charge?

The charge is a NULLITY at all, for example from the Charge Law itself,

– ” amendments beyond the Count of a Charge are a Nullity” –

this is the Count of Strict liability representing the Count of Mens rea and so a Nullity in itself? and at all at least, and adding Count Knowingly amendment beyond the Count of the Charge so a Nullity again? BUT what particular Nullity is it?

This is all it allows as the one same charge thing for anyone else anywhere at all and particularly in the Federal Invested Jurisdiction this matter is in.

Its A SITUATION not valid as any legal or financial onus on me. Not valid for anyone anywhere at all as any Charge validity. It requites being dealt with as the made out situation.

So why the total carryon and abetted differences to it so far across the whole system? Are they valid as the one same Charge basis and I am wrong?

Invested Jurisdiction is requite in operation with no State or other individual opinion distinct from the allotted made out uniform amount of the Federal law for the States and territories to use as such and anything made out by it.

Viz a viz eg this charge here.

Which Invested allotted uniform amount forms its part of the “one same charge thing” here.

Statutory Law overrides Case Law also individual opinion attempted distinct from it particularly in the Invested Jurisdiction.

The curriculum if you study the Strict Liability progression, when you get to if SL attempts to represent MR as a Charge, says it is a “Nullity with no amendment available.”

When I checked that out in the official actual thing to see how it stacked up it said it stacked up fine but in the ilk of Strict Liability including SL rep MR finalising in 1893 as the one same thing we use since and still. Nothing available distinct from it.

(Which makes a lot of sense because if any basis could purport to interpret to any degree at all, in the SL-MR fields there would be untold 1000’s of different claims, all of which might that unnecessarily have to go to higher Courts for an attempt of what is what, also untold 1000’s of claimings of different precedental ratios.

What is our shared community made out on the point – as its law told me or these claimed enact any differences at all to that?)

With one of the parts of that being no basis of position to purport to the contrary of the finalised 1893 Law with any validity for the extent of the purport or able to be abetted other that that for anyone or anything anywhere at all.

That strictly since 1893 Strict Liability may only be created by Parliamentary Legislation within and not distinct from, for want of a better expression, the finalised 1893 2+2=4 equivalent, 1893 one same never diminish in time thing since, SL Law.

Thus the one same charge thing for one and all particularly in the Invested Jurisdiction.

Australia’s C/wealth Law on the point is – “Strict Liability may only be created by parliamentary legislation.”

Or it was up till this matter and at least a bit more. I cannot find it from the internet now.

Also Australia’s law on the point puts it of SL rep MR it is – “Invalid to the extent of the inconsistency with not being there at all and never diminishing in time as what its made out as.” –

Both those laws are successfully not distinct from the finalised 1893 SL law which nothing is validly available distinct from.

Also the Charge Sheet wording applying to the one Charge in one Count with the Police Brief surrounding it setting the situation and nature of the Charge is – “…..did use a postal service in such a way as would have been regarded by reasonable persons in all circumstances as offensive …… ” – applies to the Police Brief here ie a posted envelope and a letter allegedly posted in it with nothing established, known or involvable of its circumstances, not even the existence or otherwise of the names in the letter and on the envelope, just within its four corners literal words.

None of the Charging decision ever having met or heard of me before either, and me with just a few small fines for things like arguing with police and the last of them 12 years and a 1000 areas before this matter.

Also in my view with not even any evidence of postal usage of the letter. The reasoning –

– The Judiciaries in the ’92 and ’94 trials, both in their summaries, said the Prosecution requite prove postal usage element was made out because I admit to it in the police interview. But I do not. I say I posted the envelope and that I wrote the letter BUT I do not say I posted the letter shown to me in the envelope shown to me.

The transcripts of the 1992 and 1994 trial attempts were forged massively with vast babblings along with vast ommissions also with things not said by me making it look like I lost ground I never lost and things not said by the judiciaries and prosecution making it look like they made ground they never made.

I contacted many relevant departments for this repeat times over but they took notice and still haven’t.

The total initial forgeries of those transcripts didn’t alter that judiciaries in summary point. They hadn’t realized for a while their poor little fellow sqelchies had boobed there. Now that in the latest transcript reforgeries has been changed to “of which there is no objection from the defendant.”

Oh but not quite as the poor little seemingly ashamed remorseful reforger in the ’94 transcript left a bit of “..the defendant says so in the police interview..” as well as adding “there is no objection from the defendant.”

As well in my view of the Postal element, with this as yet unknown woman, not named in the letter or on the envelope, bringing them to the Police in this way, has totally corrupted the “Evidentiary Chain of Custody of the envelope and letter” elements. Dismal of it for the Prosecution in my view but squelchies just faked on and on.

So 32 and more years later what am I doing here at all, with seeming other than me and the charge, the whole matter acting vastly distinct from this and I am attempted to have been found guilty of 1000’s of elements not available in the charge or each other?

With it all attempting it as my financial and legal onus in place of the particular Nullity which is no or sayable at all legal or financial onus on me?

All it allows as the one same charge thing for anyone else everywhere at all too.

Statutory Law prevails over case law also any individual opinion attempted distinct from it, this particularly in the Invested Jurisdiction.

What is this one same charge here supposed to be for me to have chance to know the charge and prepare a Defence and have everyone else subject to the one same charge?