This Is The Biggest Scandal And Injustice Of Our Times

A MATTER IN A NUTSHELL.

I don’t know why there is the total lack of interest in this matter detailed in my profile. It is nothing I face as any legal or financial onus on me or sayable as such and particularly in the Federal Invested Jurisdiction this is a matter in.

Yet 33+ years of it so far it is still claiming increasingly 1000’s of charges and elements as prima facie legal onus on me.

So could some of the actual relevant onus ie the Govt system, the legal system, the media or whole community at all to not allow it please start supplying that for the matter instead of this cheap fakery so far?

I would have thought there is huge interest of the factors involved and then the Mandatory requite interest in them not being able to be derelict and/or abetted as that dereliction, particularly in the Invested Jurisdiction the matter is in, as this matter is still derelict of. 

However the lack of interest in its relevant facts and law has not and does not change its relevant facts and law so perhaps relevant interest can emerge sometime.

The matter is viable of reality TV, media, investigation and public interest.

In case the problem is its relevant facts and law have not been realised or for this perspective itself, here I try to hone them a bit.

For full enough details from my angle please also see my other articles in my X profile titled – “Biggest scandal and greatest injustice of our times” – “The Charge Sheet” – “The Lawyers so far” –

It is fascinating never diminish in time Australia High Court itself data SO –

You Might Like To take A Look At This Matter In A Nutshell.

It is a never diminish in time Nullity and that all it supplies anywhere at all and yet 31+ years on it is still not treated as that.

It is the particular Nullity of Strict Liability representing Mens Rea.

Its nothing I face as a legal or financial onus on me or sayable as such.

Its the system/govt onus to refer the High Court itself data to the HC for them to state what directions the dereliction and interference with C/wealth law involved go to.

That system onus only lacking I am forced to try and do this through Question of Law appeal of the Nullity the matter is and still not upheld as that Nullity. But no one will take the case. All 150 lawyers appoached to do that simple and effective adjust to the System onus dereliction and take a question of law of the Nullity to Court have mindlessly refused to do that.

It is as simple as taking that Question of Law to the HC of the HC itself data it is. Of which the HC has no other valid availability than to uphold it as the Nullity.

Nor does anyone else anywhere at all.

All the data in my profile further is to detail that and it in combination with the also many times over straying from the inner Charge of the Charge Count and also gives a precis of the 33+ years of my life in relation to the matter.

There are reasons why all that has to be in an effective form also involved.

Of the Nullity charge Count the inner charge is a Postal usage charge and the charge sheet wording applying to a piece of paper within its 4 corners namely a posted envelope and a letter allegedly posted in it. This irrespective and exclusive of the circumstances involved nothing established or known of them at all by the Charging decision. So the Charge is the Charge sheet wording applying to the literal words of the piece of paper within its 4 corners as such,

When this charge was made in 1991 our law and availability of pieces of paper within their 4 corners was cite – “Any question anyone or anything asks or might purport to try and ask of a piece of paper within its 4 corners they must find the answer not against what they are asking it of” – uncite.

With its context meaning – If such answers are attempted against they are not against and are null and void as the against extent and may not be abetted as other than that.

At this 1991 time also our Law and only availability for any scope of procedure of a letter is – cite – “To establish any procedure regards letters the parties to the letter must be established. The specific circumstances of writing, viz available to write the letter from, in, as etc, must be established from the parties. If there is any discrepancy between that then at the very least 2 crosschecks must be made” – uncite. –

So the only Charge we are here for is in the Count of Strict Liability representing Mens rea and in the Federal Invested Jurisdiction with the rest of the Charge being the Charge sheet wording applying to a piece of paper within its four corners in an alleged postal usage view irespective and exclusive of its within or outside the law aspects or its circumstances at all.

The one same Charge thing.

Yet this matter its whole 32+ years has carried on radically different to that and different again every sentence or few from each previous differences everywhere at all so far and is still increasingly doing that.

Each and every difference is dereliction that significantly as in they are not the charge we are here for at all.

Hence that is what needs to be addressed and equals the big damages worth.

Now this letter and a posted envelope was taken to a Police station 200 miles from where the envelope had arrived, by a woman whose name is not on the envelope or in the letter. I nor this matter still do not even know who she is or supposed to be.

The letter has words of underage girls in it. The charging decision does not even know if the names in the letter exist as people or otherwise and has never met or heard of me before. 

As my entire police record I have a few small fines for arguing with police type stuff and the last was 12 years before this matter and a 1000 districts removed from this one.. 

A 12 page police interview was done with me that asks no questions whatsoever of the above letter procedure criteria and not just of its legal rules but any relevant equivalent at all. It asks did I write the letter with nothing about hows and whys or circumstances. It does not ask if I posted the letter.

Not anything vaguely in the direction of the criteria even to that extent.

So that was all that was sent to the C/wealth prosecution office for them to make the postal usage charge. That is, just the police information sheet saying the woman brought the envelope and letter to that police station, the interview with me and the letter and envelope.

And that charge is – “Did use a postal service in such a way as would be regarded by reasonable people in all circumstances as offensive”.

A Strict Liability charge representing a Mens rea 1914 C/weath Crimes Act postal section.

Those charge words applying to a piece of paper in its 4 corners.

That was all that was given to me as the one charge details ie the police brief setting the situation and nature of the charge of the charge wording applying to one charge in one count with amendments beyond the count a Nullity. For the defence chance to prepare a defence to the one same charge for all.

That one same charge thing is attempting a “cosmetic” charge of total Judicial discretionary opinion of any words in a public viewing arena of postal usage, exclusive of their within the law or outside the law aspects or circumstances at all. Eg I went to the church luncheon and then to the gardens and brought some flowers – is equally culpable as any other words. Just a Strict Liability, you did drive through a red light irrespective of intent or otherwise type thing.

Far from what has been enacted of it so far.

The charge wording cannot be viewed as involving any criminal elements at all. 

Because this is unlike the public arena of eg a football match where within the law and relationship and a person says “lets go for a fuck” to a girl.

To his girlfriend it is legal while to an underage girl it is illegal.

Irrespective and exclusive of the circumstances he is SL charged with the expression isregarded as offensive in the public arena. There it is precedent and some form of existent criminality involvable.

Here in this prosecution claimed public viewing arena of literal words in postal usage there is no such thing involvable. 

You are free to have postal usage of any words with their circumstances having to be established by the above cited methods for any attempt of any criminality at all. 

EG film scripts, fiction works, quoting trial transcript sections etc. Hence the “cosmetic” charge as explained above is all the charge is. 

What has happened here is this 31+ years has made up 1000’s of child sex charges, elements and specific children of the names in the letter along with specific circumstances of writing along with general such elements and then gibbered these 1000’s of charges and elements distinct at all from the charge we are here for and these ever increasing distinct from all previous differences every sentence or few everywhere at all so far,.

Why have I had any reason to prepare a defence in those terms at all?

Also what those claims are saying is actually about the next letter/letters aspects between the parties, which fields are that distinct from “I just gibber any and any amount of answers against what I am asking of a piece of paper within its 4 corners.”

The next letter/s are sacrosanct between the parties in Australia.

EG they might not write anything in any of them along the lines the gibberers gibbered.

The gibberers are purporting in the direction the relevance of would be a “sting” operation, ie setting up next letters to see if that establishes anything of the suspicions they want to investigate. 

They are that substandard to the factors at all

Furthermore according to police, 2 police stations had no other interest but the literal words involved. 

Also the C/wealth prosecutors office had no interest beyond the literal words by themselves for the charge made. 

And this despite query I made across police and Govt dept levels of the charge applying to a piece of paper within its 4 corners in postal usage.

So why have I got these 1000’s of child sex charges and elements made up against me. 

And why have the 2 names in the letter, if they exist as people, been specifically made up along with their circumstances the letter was written in, when they are not involved or involvable as themselves or in charge elements?

I think it might only be 1 police station and the forensics of the police brief support this high 90%’s. But we have not delved that yet. It is involved as this.

A month after the charge a police info sheet is made saying that from the place the envelope arrived, Condoblin NSW, a month before, 2 people whose surname is on the envelope but not of the first name on the envelope who the letter is successfully to, took a letter to that 200 mile away police station, then some short time immediately after that an officer there rang the station which processed the charge and told the arresting officers supervising sergeant something. All it says.

4 days after the envelope arrived in Condoblin the unknown woman whose name is not on the envelope or in the letter arrived with the envelope and a letter at the processing police station ie Dareton NSW.

In the police charge info sheet and data, there is significantly no mention of any previous knowledge of the matter. The sole officer involved in the charge is directly subordinate to the supposedly rung officer.

More likely they decided a month later to try and establish something of the relevant people of the envelope and letter and rang the envelope arrival place and asked them to lie.

In my opinion anyway.

Either way it means the Police stations involved and the C/wealth prosecution Office had no interest whatsoever beyond the piece of paper within its 4 corners and despite wide query I made of that situation.

This also demonstrates the total ignorance of the factors they were in and which ignorance seems to totally increasingly exist since and still. 

But be that as it may there is that no interest in any more than the literal words even if the claim of the first police station is so.

It also I think breaks the evidentiary chain of custody significantly.

So any and every difference to the Nullity and the inner charge are the that significant derelictions involved this 32+ years and have to be expressed to some degree comprehensively for relevant process, despite the simple straightforward question of law of the Nullity totality. 

Hope we can start getting this upheld as the nullity it is in motion so any help would be appreciated. Cheers all.