This Is The Biggest Scandal And Injustice Of Our Times

Of the 33+ years of this Australian matter all 150-350 Lawyers approached to take it have refused to. Can anyone here help reverse that trend and get the matter started on its Mandatory requisite process journey?

This Details The Other 3 And Some Life History.

For full enough details of the entire matter from my angle see also articles in my X profile titled – ” The Charge Sheet”- and – “Biggest Scandal and Injustice”.

There are also 4 other Lawyers in relation to this matter so far of which 3 were asked for asides opinion of the matter and all totally support what the matter has told itself to me as its relevant facts and law along with its one same Charge relevance.

Yet all approached to take the matter totally deny these relevancies.

1/- First Les McPherson from Mildura.

As you might have guessed from the above the piece of paper within its four corners central to this matter has words of underage girls in it.

The above is a letter from Les McPherson Solicitor from LJ McPherson & Associates Solicitors Mildura Vic in relation to my time at Vic Corrective Services Mildura where people from the near NSW side of the border are sent for NSW orders.

This from Les McPherson was because Vic Correctives had started making up any sex crimes and elements they liked while point blank refusing on my request to deal with the charge I was there for or even any of what I had been sent to correctives for. Which was the Court and its attempted making up children and child sex charges elements, of which elements and such charges we are here for has none of.

For this Correctives extensively behind the scenes made up I was refusing to co-operate and likely to reoffend etc on the grounds I was offering to pertain to and deal in the relevant aspects. So I saw the above cited solicitor for the above letter. Sorry I had to photo and only a partial photo it for here but the FOI correctives data won’t copy any other way I could find.

But the solicitor and his letter is valid and I have the rest of it ie the header and bottom signature if need be.

As you can see of the above letter in regards of this asides question of the matter the solicitor mundanely of the matters C/wealth Law factors seeks counsels advice and counsel says we are not here for any child sex charges of this charge applying to a letter and envelope in postal usage view exclusive and irrespective of the circumstances at all. Which is in the charge count Nullity of Strict Liability representing Mens Rea.

Yet the 150 lawyers approached for the more important direct including the Nullity aspects entire questions of the matter refused this mundanity of refer to counsel and refused to treat the matter as anything at all. If you get the drift of that.

Crazed world wide suck or some other reason for that mindless dereliction?

Actually the Nullity SL rep MR is no legal or financial onus on me at all. It is a Nullity at all and not available as a charge or to be abetted at all.

If you study the Strict Liability Law progression though its centuries as I was able to by doing a Basics of legal practice course at Sunraysia Technical College in Mildura 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 this out in the actual official thing ie the Strict Liability Law itself to see how that stacks up you find it’s so and as the particular defined Nullity SL rep MR is.

It is Govt system onus to supply this. However it is derelict despite 1000 repeat ever widening requests for the system to supply this.

This matter never diminishes in time. Out of time law only apply to things valid under the section. Nullities are null and void of validity and are never out of time.

The seeking a lawyer aspect here is the otherwise simple and effective deal with that system dereliction and take a Question of Law to Court of the Nullity and its associated relevances.

According to the associated system so far this matter for it and my situation does not exist yet it purports to exist from the charge angle as what it has enacted.

My situation is a permanent 40+ years back injury that totally shot down my career and financial scopes.

So my get a lawyer scopes are legal aid that this matter is Mandatory of. Pro bono it is that significant of. Or no win-no fee of which it is worth a made out $8-9.6 Billion in damages that lawyers can take eg 40% of damages won.

Yet none deal with the fields my matter is in of the 32+ years of this matter. So it can never have the legal assistance it needs and is Mandatorily requite of from legal aid for such as me avenues.

It is that significant of pro bono. Also it is worth a motza in made out damages so that significant for no win – no fee too in that lawyers can ask for example 40% of damages won.

If you go to the Australian Pro Bono home page and go to “legal help for individuals” for where I am living now ie Victoria Australia it lists as the options Legal Aid, Community Legal centres, Every day Justice organisation per Mills Oakley legal firm, Justice Connect organisation, Law Institute of Victoria with their “find a lawyer referral scheme” with it saying ” contact this service if there is no free legal help available.” Legal help in Court. Whose fields don’t cover my matter. And self help legal info whose fields don’t include my matter.

I have tried all these and more many times over and they refuse to look at out of the prima facie fields they cover explanation. But none of those fields cover my matter. The LIV referrals scheme supplied me 20 lawyers all who refuse to treat the matter as itself or any at all. I contacted them about this and asked them to deal with the individual relevant facts and law of my matter but they just say it doesn’t fit it our fields so we do not look beyond that. 

I also tried 20 such referrals from similar organisations in NSW and also doesn’t fit so go somewhere else. But there is nowhere to go for it.

Solicitors and any other legal system relevance is supposed to refer such matters to Counsel/ Barristers or treat its individual relevance and this matter exists as its above cited ratio as that. 

But none of that extent will do that. If you try to approach a Barrister they say you have to have solicitors/other such refer the matter to Barristers. 

When you try to approach Barrister through their lists they also block such approaches and that they cannot entertain any exceptions like my matter.

Go figure.

2/- Lawyer Emma Turnbull Lawyers PTY LTD Ballarat.(I think but at least a lawyer.)

After 1992 my mother living in Ballarat approached Emma Turnbull on my behalf for some advice. I think it was Emma Turnbull with apologies if I am remembering wrong. But the Law Firm our family uses there only does Wills, Real Estate etc and Emma Turnbull being dead center in the Ballarat CBD I am most likely recalling right. The advice given, with the data it used just a general basis significantly away from the further in that direction specifics was –

– “Whether you are guilty of the offence depends entirely on the circumstances leading up to the writing of the letter.

It is immaterial to the case whether Vanessa’s parents, or Julie, or the Police, or anyone else are offended by the letter personally, unless they know the circumstances under which it was written.” –

At the advent 1991 time of this Australia’s law on “pieces of paper within their 4 corners” as our shared community Law terms it is –

-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 the question of. ” – unquote –

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

Whilst our law for any procedure from pieces of paper within their 4 corners in the direction of a letter is –

– quote -” The parties to the letter must be established. The circumstances available to write the letter in as from etc must be established from the parties and if any discrepancy between that at the very least 2 crosschecks must be done.” – unquote –

Whilst our lead case citation of this is – ” This must even be supplied by junior police in operation at all.” –

I am a non pedofile all my life leading to this matter. A non pedofile through this matter at all as the procedure is exclusive of such elements no matter what they are, and a non pedofile after this matter for the rest of my life too. So I very much resent all these child sex charges and elements being just made up and gibbered in my direction.

Also the letter was only written totally properly within the law and as far as I know still is 100% successful as such at angelic pristine totally normal relationship rates along with normal prima facie letter rates. Even if I am mistaken there still, in its circumstances any mistake would be that, as above, unintended, and in its circumstances totally inconsequential.

You see the Charge I am there for is just of the piece of paper within its four corners. Its legality or otherwise and/or its circumstances of the entire ranges is not in question at all or has any purport in those directions.

A woman whose name is not on the envelope or in the letter allegedly posted in the envelope brought them to Police 200 miles from where the envelope had arrived. That is all that is in the Police Brief from that aspect. The Charging decision did not even know of the existence or otherwise of the names in the letter.

I was never asked by the charging decision how and why the letter was written or of its circumstances at all. A 12 page interview with me asks me whether I wrote the letter. It does not ask whether I posted the letter in the envelope.

It asks nothing whatsoever further in the direction of hows whys and circumstances. That was all that was sent to the c/wealth prosecution office for them to make the postal usage charge. That was all that has ever been given to me fro the one same charge requite thing for the defence to know the one same charge and prepare a defence for it and have everyone else subject to it.

So also of the one same charge is that the charge is in the Count of Strict Liability representing a Mens Rea C/wealth Law in the Invested jurisdiction.

Strict Liability “you did drive through a red light” natureles degreeless irrespective of intent circumstances etc type thing.

The charge is claiming a such thing of a supposed public viewing arena of Postal usage. A third party view irrespective and exclusive of the letters legality or otherwise in its circumstances and exclusive of its circumstances at all.

This public arena third party type view is possible of eg a sporting arena but very much not available of Postal Usage. That is you are free to send through the post with the same right as you have with things in your own home or other such spaces.

But Strict liability if it attempts to represent Men’s rea is a Nullity at all and any carryon distinct from that is just further Nullity and cannot be abetted as other than that.

That is what it always has been of the centuries of this Law and it never diminishes in time. Some of what it also supplies as the one same charge thing if attempted as a charge and particularly in the Invested Jurisdiction.

If you study the Strict Liability Law progression through the centuries when you get to if SL reps MR the curriculum says – ” It is a Nullity with no amendment available” –

When you check that out to see how the curriculum holds up in the official actual thing ie the 1893 finalised SL Law as the one same thing we use since, the official thing affirms it is that Nullity and as the particular defined Nullity it is as such.

In one longish message conversation I did manage on Linkedin with a lawyer Ken Mckenzie there he grudgingly acknowledged SL rep MR is a Nullity but he refused to deal in terms of the particular Nullity it is or address that here it is 32+ years way beyond the parameters derelict of being upheld as the Nullity it is.

A court nor anyone else has no other availability than to uphold the nullity it is.

However this charge has carried on radically different to that and then different again every sentence or few everywhere at all of this 32+ years of the matter.

And this has resulted in the making up of the names in the letter as specific children circumstances of child sex charges of along with general child sex charges with these including intent danger of reoffence etc and most of the 1000’s of such elements not available in each other either.

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

HOWEVER through the time of this matter what few people have ever considered that all we are only here for one same charge relevance, they sometimes try to think the letter is only available at proper normal within the law rates if it’s a consensual relationship between adults, or a letter for a film or book idea, or a not posted letter.

BUT the letter is mundanely available that properly within the law at the ages and stages of the names in the letter if they exist as people. They could have been talking in the terms in the letter way beyond the letter and along its lines totally proficiently within the law, and the letter then is that mundanely properly normally within the law.

Also there could be/have been video and audio proof of this and of the letter not being posted in the envelope involved. Of which, among other things, I have had no reason to prepare any case along those lines.

So why should this matter just gibber 1000’s of charges and elements of those excluded legality and/or circumstances terms purporting as the Charge I am there for and finding me guilty of all of them?

It’s the procedure to the exclusion of those elements that has totally corrupted any chance of establishing procedure in those element’s direction but then turned round and attempted to crazily baseless at all just gibber them. Not anything I am validly culpable of. Far from anything I am to blame for.

It’s because of the Charging decision procedure exclusive of the letter’s circumstances and/or within or outside the Law elements we are here for this.

Its now turned into, of these elements, just my claim of a piece of paper within its four corners being within the law, which cannot be attempted to be disproved and/or contended. So why again all this against me.

And ditto for the names on the piece of paper within its four corner if those names exist as people of their angles of such.

So I really do resent the 1000’s of child sex charges and elements I have been baselessly found guilty of here.

3/- Lawyer Peter Moloney of Gallagher Ryan and Moloney Solicitors Deakin Ave Mildura.

Solicitor I initially had for the matter through Vic Legal Aid.

(last year when I tried Vic Legal Aid and told them it was a matter in the Invested Jurisdiction with NSW exercising it the Legal Aider gleefully triumphantly slammed down “We don’t do them” and left the conversation.)

Back then in 1991 Vic Legal Aid had no problem supplying for the Charge that is only a Nullity at all. But now with all these added elements of just further Nullity still not upheld as that they over and over refuse to supply legal aid funding and assistance and say it is not in their fields.

I had never met or heard of Peter Moloney before nor him of me.

I saw him 3 or 4 time in the lead up to Court and then as the Trial started he announced his withdrawal. This was the first I had heard of this and know of no valid reason for it.

I asked for an adjournment because of this and the May 1991 Magistrates Court Trial was adjourned to August 1991.

I didn’t bother about getting another Solicitor because by this time the one same Charge thing had told me the Count of the Charge made the Charge a Nullity of its entire extent no other availability for the Court than to rule it that. But it didn’t.

So as is also explained fully in the rest of my profile here data I decided to appeal that Nullity via Question of Law appeal, again not considering I needed a Lawyer for that.

I applied for this question of Law appeal using the word appeal in relation to a C/wealth Law matter and NSW supplied that appeal in the District Court.

Apparently Question of Law appeal is only available in the Supreme and Higher Courts.

But the law then at least was “appeal prima facie used in relation to C/wealth law matters applies as any appeal.”

That 1993 Appeal was opened started and adjourned mid Trial then set for recommencement the next 1994 yearly District Court sittings in the far South West NSW place Wentworth.

In 1994 a different Judge, Taylor, was told this but forced himself and a Denovo trial on it and purported to amend Strict Liability representing Mens rea of the 1914 C/wealth Crimes Act Postal Usage Section 85s Invested Jurisdiction of to Mens Rea via add “Knowingly”

He then purported to gibber me guilty of 1000’s of child sex charges and elements not available in the Charge or each other by making up answers to questions he was asking of a piece of paper within its four corners against what he was asking of, also purporting to create Strict Liability of that many New Law instances too for this one same Charge thing basis, and sent me on a Corrective Order.

Unless deceased the same Judge must hear the started Trial process particularly in the Invested Jurisdiction. The Initial Judge Wall was alive and I heard was that day sitting at Broken Hill which over there is just up the road from Wentworth.

At the opening of this 1994 Trial the Lawyer Moloney was at the Prosecution desk fiddling with some papers trying to fake he was Prosecution involved. So God knows what that means. I told the Judge that and at least we didn’t see Peter Moloney trying to fake prosecution relevance there anymore.

After that until 2000 I mainly tried the System onus along with 45 lawyers, as the One Charge basis told me it was System onus to not allow this a Charge purport at all and deal with it as made out. But such system onus is still not forthcoming.

The System cannot allow This Nullity and so here with the System derelict of its onus and abetting the Charge dereliction I am only seeking the simple adjustment to address the matter and take a “Question of Law Appeal of the Nullity” to Court. A simple and effective adjustment to the system dereliction but it is refused by that spread of lawyers so far.

In 2000 my permanent 20 year back injury collapsed again and seriously so I moved to Ballarat where I had friends and relatives in case I needed that sort of help with a back injury collapse.

In 2001-2 it did collapse again but just needing to build a stronger alternate support system than I had because of its 1992 collapse needing this remedy. I put all my case data in an old army carry bag with a broken zip in my back shed on a dirt floor. I then spent 8 years doing 9-10 hours training 7 days a week of which I achieved over 98% at that rate.

This worked well for an alternate support system and about 2012 I decided to try my matter again.

I had always been under the impression that SL rep MR never diminishes in time or any purport of it and still am so if anyone was stupid enough to attempt it as a Charge instead of the Nullity of its entire extent, then I had anytime to appeal it.

BUT when I went to my data it had been under a big roof leak and was destroyed. I gave up on it then. But by 2020-21 I decided that seeing it never diminishes in time I would regather what data I could and recommence trying to get requite process for it.

So here we are with most system contacts not too friendly since my recommenced interest.

Thus as has been enacted that totally the 30 plus years this Linkedin and now here on wordpress and X since 2021 showing of the matter is the first time it has been on a Public platform in view of the 2 sides and how they weigh out.

On sight as such in question there is no other availability than to uphold it as made out but that mundanity totality has still not eventuated.

So if anyone can help of the High Court itself data the matter is, with how I go about taking the Nullity Question to the High Court first and at least, and also I want to seek damages, such aid in any form would be appreciated thanks.