This Is The Biggest Scandal And Injustice Of Our Times

MY STORY – THE CASE FOR DAMAGES.

As I still only know it of the entirety of this matter there is nothing available against me anywhere at all, or if attempted against, able to be abetted with any validity, in this matter detailed enough here and along with my X profile via articles there “The Charge Sheet” “The lawyers So Far” and “Biggest Scandal And Greatest Injustice Of Our Times.”

This is very far from what has been enacted totally so far.

This story and case is about an October 1991 Australian Charge attempt by NSW exercising the C/wealth Law in the Federal Invested Jurisdiction of that and what has unfolded of the Charge and in relation to it since.

WHY – The Count of the Charge is Strict Liability representing Men’s Rea ie a Nullity of its entire extent with no amendment available.

The rest of any Charge in that Count is also Nullity no matter how provable it may be otherwise and/or how it has been attempted proceeded with distinct from Nullity.

All it allows me or anyone else to have as the one same charge.

While the inner/rest of the Charge of that here is the Charge wording applying to a piece of paper within its four corners in an attempted third party Public viewing arena of alleged Postal usage. With nothing more than the piece of paper within its 4 corners established or even known of its circumstances.

Any difference to the specifics of that one same Charge is dereliction that significant as in it is not the one same Charge we are only here for.

Yet since its 1991 advent the carry on has attempted differences everywhere at all and at the rate of every sentence or few and about 99+% each difference different again from all previous differences.

(For example the C/wealth Prosecutors office said the matters law was subject to its data diminishing in time in 2 stages. The 4 year stage and then the11 year stage and they destroyed the matters specific data in those steps.

But NSW exercising the Invested Jurisdiction for this matter said and fully affirmed they are saying that it is a NSW State matter and diminishes in time in 6 years and so they destroyed the matters data there in that step.

But the rules applying on the point for both those aspects say those are their diminish in time rates unless there is a significant question of Law involved in the matter.

Diminish in time law only applies to things valid under the section. Any Nullity is null and void of validity.

While the particular Nullity of Strict Liability representing Mens rea as this matter is a Mandatory such Question of Law because SL rep MR is not allowed to exist or be abetted if other than Nullity is attempted.

Yet when I ran this by these 2 depts they both totally clammed up and would not comunicate at all since.

But even of those 2 differences to each other and both distinct from the Nullity what is supposed to be saying the one same Charge for everyone is?)

With all of those other every sentence or few differences too differences radically distinctt from the charge and associated elements at all.

This article is to detail roughly how this matter has strayed from the Charge Count, also the Charge within the Count and the combination of them, amounting to the basics of my case for innocence and for damages due to all those derelictions of the system onus process I have had to endure since Oct 1991.

The Count of this Charge is Strict Liability representing Mens Rea and in the Federal Invested Jurisdiction.

The matter is over 33+ years old and is still denying what that Nullity Charge Count and its other elements are.

With the instances of this straying from the One Charge in One Count basis in ever widening ever different to previous attempts while also straying from the charge within the Count to that effect too.

I have done a law course unit on the Strict Liability progression through the centuries to the present day and first off when you get to if Strict Liability attempts to represent Mens Rea as a Charge the curriculum says that situation is a – “Nullity with no amendment available” –

Checking this out in the official thing to see how it stacks up it affirmed the curriculum claim but perhaps different to assumptions on what it would be.

It said Strict Liability, including Strict Liability representing Mens Rea, after some centuries of its existence, finalised in 1893 as the one same thing we use since.

Some of that for SL and very much inclusive of S rep MR included –

-1- no basis of position for anyone or anything to purport to the contrary of it with any validity for the extent of the purport or able to be abetted as other than that.

That strictly SL may only be created by Parliamentary Legislation within the finalised 1893 Strict Liability Law since then.

-2- SL rep MR not available as a charge at all and if attempted as a charge is as Australia’s current era law puts it – “Invalid to the extent of the Inconsistency” and the System onus to deal with it as such if there is an instance.

-3 – some of that – invalid to the inconsistency with not being there at all – also never diminishes in time or any purport of it. –

If you were to try and treat it as a Charge other than that Nullity what would you be supposed to know the Charge as to prepare a defence to.

I have the situation being that I only have to produce this dereliction of the made out High Court itself data situation of Strict Liability representing Mens Rea to the High Court and they have no other valid availability than to uphold it as made out.

Very much Law the Court must know and supply as its own operation everywhere else too.

IE they must rule it Invalid to the extent of the inconsistency and also Invalidate the particular made out common to all – attempted differences to it/to the contraries to it/purports to create Strict liability – all of those inconsistent instances.

Those made out common to dereliction instances involved when transferred to their relevance in the damages view total a made out common to all worth of upwards of $8-9 Billion.

I am open to if I have missed anything.

I mentioned how this 33+ years matter has strayed from the Charge Count ever wideningly and different to each previous and that the inner charge of the count had too, to the same effect resulting in all those “invalid to the extent of the inconsistencies” amounting to a Damages worth upwards of $8-9 Billion.

Maybe if reading this people might doubt that figure – but I explain the reasoning here.

This is how the inner charge strayed too. When the NSW Police Officer seeking a Postal Usage Charge contacted the C/wealth Prosecutors office for the Invested Jurisdiction Charge he sent them all he had ie just a letter and a posted envelope along with Police Brief amounting to nothing established or known of the letter’s circumstances.

They sent back a “cosmetic charge” attempt of the Charge wording applying to the literal words by themselves of the letter in a supposed third party public viewing arena of Postal usage.

Applying to any words of any letter it attempting just a Strict Liability (representing then Mens Rea c/wealth Crimes Act postal law section 85s ) “you did drive through a red light type thing” totally discretionary judicial opinion exclusive and regardless of a letter’s circumstances and whether within the law or not in those views. So presumably a small fine say $50 – 500 penalty range.

I say THEN 85s because it is no longer there. I think it has been repealed but the copy of Act on the internet didn’t go into back appendage further details.

Is this 85s gone section because of my matter? – just entirely my own theory – but anyway as I still only know Strict Liability representing Men’s Rea it mandatorily never diminishes in time or any purport of it and mundanely SLAYS any such attempts to diminish it in time like eg making retrospective.

At this stage of the Officer getting that one same charge no one bothered to check it out as its one same aspect except me and the charge. And that has continued ever since.

Right from the start all other than me started assuming it was a Charge inclusive of what they had of many different times and instances groundlessly made up in their minds etc, no joke, through to the present day, instead of the total exclusivity of those elements.

Called into question this 30 plus years a 1000 repeat ever widening times over of the System onus bound to ensure the Federal Invested Jurisdiction operates requite with no State or other individual opinion distinct from the allotted uniform amount of the Federal law for it, particularly SL rep MR, but no notice taken of it’s made out elements so far.

As I have it of the inconsistencies the particular derelictions mundanely make out my claimed damages at totally common to all rates of instances.

Because also it is all just adding to the one same charge thing requiting a system onus of a commission type thing to define what they are insisting I face as this charge, but falsely saying it is my onus to provide it.

That requite commission, all that’s provided as the one same Charge relevance for anyone else anywhere at all too, would cost over $1 Trillion. Here is the reasoning of that –

– This is because the Charge attempt across that spread is insisting I face it and its added elements as a/this Charge. But to have that as the one same Charge requires an English Law wide commission to define this purported NEW LAW whose elements, 3000 in a very read down view, are alien to and /or nonexistent at all in our 807+ year old Law both Statutory and other. This requite Commission is made out by our particular Law viz a viz – “no other availability for anyone or anything” – and would cost I estimate more than $1 Trillion.

This is system onus process to supply the one charge from that angle and is falsely saying I have to supply it for the system onus of it. It is all it allows for anyone else everywhere at all as what’s supplied so far as the Charge for anyone anywhere at all.

24/7 and increasing at each stage that is all I have had to try to pertain to one same charge for my chance to know it and prepare a defence.

Compre why it’s worth upwards of $8-9 billion in common to all made out damages rates?

If it holds true that SL rep MR Charge is the particular Nullity as mentioned previously which the High Court has no other valid availability than to uphold it, also invalidate its inconsistencies and their equivalent which is making out the upwards of $8-9 Billion in damages –

– When I was studying some law in relation to this matter in the ’90’s I came across a High Court Law that seemed to say – ” In certain circumstances the High Court may elect to hear the case for damages in a matter and of which results there is no appeal available “-

I don’t know if I am right in my reading of the meaning of this but if I am I believe this matter would mundanely mandatorily qualify, and I was going to ask the HC to hear both aspects ie Criminal and Civil at much the same time in this view.

Also I was thinking of asking the HC in this to hear for damages for the names in the letter if they exist as actual people. Because if they do their rights of the one single permutation and combination circumstance of writing of the letter have been abused and are derelicted in that context to at least to some such effect as mine. For example in a more normal/standard matter and people make up children and sex crimes against children with those elements not available in the charge, and just gibber them as elements made out charges etc, then the damages value for the made up and wrongly abused used children is between $300,000 – 3,000,000.

This matter is making them up in this SL rep MR context.

I was thinking their made out damages worth would be about a quarter to equal as mine.

On further recent consideration of this aspect I now think the names on the piece of paper within its four corners if they exist as people are mundanely worth the same as me.

They have among other things just been made up and gibbered with no scope to know of them or involve them at all. It seems to me that would also be mundane available under that HC potency if it’s as I read it. But I am not that sure of the Law there and there is also the thought if I had to ask this of the HC does it impinge on the rights of these names in the letter if they exist and/or insult them? But it’s a live viable something to me.

If the 2 female names on the piece of paper within its four corners exist as people then one of them is likely an aboriginal.

If anyone reading this knows of them then they could direct them to my profile here as perhaps they might like to consider the aspects I am citing. I mean they might not have yet thought past being made up and gibbered as answers this matter has made of questions its purporting to ask of a piece of paper within its four corner and trying to make up answers against what they are asking of. Reeling them out.

Thus the matter is abusing and derelicting of the one single permutation and combination of the letter’s circumstance available to write from in of and as, while derelicting it just gibbering these names as people and it and the gibbers crazily of any basis at all.

These 2 names if existent as people now 30+ years later still might not have thought past that gibbering of them.

Once again I reiterate I am only claiming of these points as the official actual law involved has told to me so far. I just try to pertain to this one same charge thing they are across the entire system insistent I face and of these increasing added to it elements.

So this following is what the One Charge in One Count Law itself has told me its official thing is here.

Are we on the same page there? 

This entire widespread other than me and the charge as such is carrying on vastly distinct from it at all too and many ever widening different to all previous instances.

As the Charge Law official thing told itself to me is, and the following I cite is near enough to its exact Law wording and 100% to the same effect –

Cite –

” A Charge is, must be one same common to all thing for one and all. For the Defence to have its chance to prepare a Defence to one thing and have everyone else subject to within that one same thing and ditto for anyone else per anything.

 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 are a Nullity

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

– Uncite.

Now previously I claimed the charge was a “cosmetic” Charge with the Charge sheet wording applying to the literal words of a letter nothing established or known of its circumstances, excused of them that totally no matter what from good to bad they were or whatever circumstances of writing worldwide they were, with not even any or even any asides purport available in those directions at all.

So maybe people might think I am wrong on the one same Charge meaning.

Here is the reasoning.

So with this letter aspect and the Strict Liability representing Mens Rea Count of the charge, if I am wrong of the Law relevant, I would be arguing to virtually the same 100% effect as what the official thing has told me so far of the Law relevant of those 2 things.

That is, one, that SL rep MR is a Nullity of its entire extent at all, but with perhaps a purport of basis of position to attempt to the contrary until sometime down the track the Nullity ratifies itself to the contrary attempt if I am wrong of SL rep MR being the fully phrased particular Nullity it finalised as in 1893, part of that being that contrary attempts to it have no basis to attempt contrary to it with any validity for the extent of the attempt or able to be abetted as other than invalid to the extent of the inconsistency, and this as some of the one same thing we still use since 1893. 

It had such basis to interpret distinct from it up to 1893 but by about 1870 they began to think in term of all the contrary to the SL law were being ratified to with the contrary being null and void so why have such a basis for anyone at all.

In 1893 it did finalise as that and other as the one same SL law w use since and still. So the very seeming actual official thing in association with my law course told me that thoroughly anyway.

Similarly, two, on the inner charge, charge wording applying to literal words of a letter by itself, in an attempted Public viewing arena of Postal Usage, if what the official thing as I still have it is not so, I would be arguing to 100% virtually the same effect as it.

Here is what is told me as our Law of letters as such.

As our Australian Law of pieces of paper within their four corners, and to establish any scope of procedure from it re letters –

Cite – ” Any question anyone or anything asks or might try to ask of a piece of paper within its four corners they must find the answer not against what they are trying to ask it of ” – 

Meaning if such answers are attempted against they are not against, also null and void of the extent of the against purport and cannot be abetted as other than that. No other availability for anyone or anything anywhere at all.

Now to establish any scope of procedure towards a letter from this I found the Law to be –

Cite – ” to establish any procedure regards letters the parties to the letter must be established and the circumstances available to write the letter from of and in must be established from the parties and if there is any discrepancy between that, at the very least 2 crosschecks must be done” – Uncite.

There was also a lead case citation with this it saying -” this must even be supplied by Junior Police in operation at all “-

The entire Police Brief as given to me and as forwarded to the C/wealth prosecutors office for them to form the charge, is an interview with me that asks absolutely no questions even vaguely in the direction of that above criteria. Also a Police information paper that states a woman not of the name on the envelope nor of the names in the letter brought an envelope and a letter to a Police station 150 miles from where the posted envelope had arrived a week previously and that information sheet never even to that extent involved in the matter since. 

The entire Police brief.

As I only know it still the Charge sheet wording applying to the literal words only and in Postal usage. 

VERY straightforward and mundanely 100% the one same Charge thing.

If I have missed anything I would still be arguing to 100% virtually to the same effect on those 2 points.

Why isn’t the entirety of the matter under Arrest for quite some time?

BUT at least now in this Linkedin aspect it is for the first time in more than 30 years put in a Public view in the light of the 2 sides and how they weigh out at all.

From my beginnings of Law Course even a Defendant in a trial can arrest the sitting Judge mid trial process for Abuse of Process – while of the derelictions that constitute that field, any purport to the contrary of what Strict Liability representing Mens Rea is made out as, is mundanely in that field.

(part of what Strict Liability finalised in 1893 as, and as the one same thing we use since and still) 

It seems the Count of this Charge is Strict Liability representing Mens Rea in the Invested Federal Jurisdiction under the 1914 C/wealth Crimes Act per its Postal Services sections. Specifically Mens Rea section then 85s (but nowadays that 85s section is no longer there.)

Also SL rep MR it is not available as a Charge with any validity for the extent of the purport and only allows that as the one same Charge thing for anyone if it is ever attempted as Charge Count. It has at most till the first Judicial appearance to be ruled Invalid to the extent of the inconsistency with not being there at all.

That it is High Court itself data and can be taken to the High Court before the first Judicial appearance otherwise, and if it should get past the first appearance is Mandatory for anyone everywhere at all on contact with it to refer the dereliction and/or abuse of process that is to the High Court, and arrest it if it involves dereliction to crazed degrees like in this matter.

Next I refer to the mentioned in previous parts of this presentation …

… this of my claim of ever widening ever distinct from all previous still adding to the charge and in the made out situation of that. I will now cite some more of what has even just recently been involved as such. 

…  I have it that SL rep MR mandatorily never diminishes in time or any purport of it … 

The C/wealth Prosecutors office in response to my 2021-22 request for the Charge sheet and Police brief said they could not supply that because the Law was Federal Law that diminishes in time and that data was destroyed in 2 segments. One after 11 years and the other after 17 years.

Also 2021-22 Dept of NSW District Court Transcripts in response to my requests for the tapes of the three (’92,’93,’94) trial processes said it is NSW Criminal Law and the tapes were destroyed after 4 years. This I called into question 5 times and their answer they affirmed at their highest echelon and refused to supply their claimed Statutory basis when asked. 

What one same Charge elements are these?

Local Magistrates Court level apparently agrees with me that it never diminishes in time because they made an attempted whole matter PDF which they said could only go into District Court level noting the statistical event and bare results of the ’94 third Trial process but not even noting anything of the second ’93 Trial process.

It the ’93 Trial also does not appear to now exist anywhere else either except for a faint appeal papers note in the PDF that the appeal was filed in October 1992 and set for the next yearly Wentworth Court District Court settings the following May 1993.

The magistrates trial claimed 100’s of elements not available in the charge as I know it.

The transcript of the Magistrates trial was forged hideously with vast babblings of the data also vast omissions and total forgery of statements. 

No notice was taken of this despite my wide complaints across the related system.

And not going into here the specifics of that added charge data that totally ongoing in the trial process even so .. 

The 2nd and ’93 trial process was my Question of Law/revue type appeal that NSW had supplied in the District Court. Apparently question of law/revue appeal can only be in the Supreme Court or higher. It was specifically opened and started and then the Judge adjourned it mid trial to recommence before him again the next year at the yearly District Court hearings of this place. 

The next year a different Judge was told this but forced himself and a Denovo trial on it and purported to amend it to Mens rea via recharge. 

SL rep MR is a Nullity with no amendment available. What one same charge element is this? Another Nullity within a Nullity?

The same Judge unless deceased must hear the started process particularly in the Invested Jurisdiction. 

The original Judge Wall was not deceased and I heard he was sitting that day at Broken Hill Court which is just up the road out there from Wentworth. I could tell from the ’93 trial that he was a bit of a stickler for the Statutory Law. So was he shifted in case he upheld the Statutory Law involved in this matter? And this other cheap gibbering bod Taylor sent in by higher ups to gibber no matter what as he that totally that crazily attempted to enact? Just a personal theory of mine.

This also was totally ignored despite my wide complaints across the related system.

That amendment makes no difference whatsoever to the cosmetic charge I have cited.

It merely changes it to you did deliberately write a letter in the ‘cosmetic charge thing.’ 

viz a viz (LOL) – ‘Strict Liability you did drive through a red light type thing’ would be total judicial discretion of any literal words exclusive and regardless of its legality or otherwise in its circumstances deliberately intended to incur guilty and would be found guilty cosmetical chargely.

But Taylor seemed to think that meant he could just gibber 1000’s of different Mens Rea charges in different counts and just make up circumstances and people involved to any degree and amount of times he wanted.

What one same charge element is this?

The Transcript of that process was also forged to the same extent and way and both have been reforged since, in fact the ’94 one at least 4 times and the last forgery I so far have spotted very total – just a Forger having itself a time Forging out all the parts. 

Also no notice has been taken of my complaints of this widely across the relevant system.

That’s a brief summary of what has been added to the charge and only allowing that for anyone at all. 

Which is saying its the Charge they want me to face and it to be at all for anyone as supplied so far as the charge. 

But the system onus process to supply the one same charge has supplied this as it with all these things needing a commission type thing to define this to system onus level. 

You see this matter leaves me stranded in middle ground on 3 points so far.

One the made out relevance of seeking redress from the system for the system onus which is derelict and falsely saying it is my onus in this. For that system dereliction of its job to about turn and institute the made out requite of this matter through to conventional completed. But that is refused totally throughout.

That means I have to try and deal with it otherwise.

I have a permanent back injury for 40 years that totally scuttled my career scopes and so have had to exist on a pension and some small amount of casual and part time work.

This is some of what we pay the extensive legal system to provide legal assistance for.

But its refused throughout so far despite this matter rating it fairly and mandatorily.

Also to hire a Lawyer starts at $50,000 retainer I do not have at hand.

So here we are at the over 30 year stage.

Again on the Charge wording applying to the literal words of a letter nothing established known involved or purportable in the direction of its circumstances.

Of which I said the one same charge was an attempted cosmetic Charge claiming a Public viewing arena of Postal Usage with a totally discretionary opinion of any words.

Here is the reasoning with some examples of charges that will allow you to see how I form and hold my view.

Explanation of a “Cosmetic Charge” and specifically this one. –

– Cosmetic charges of Rome (as I heard) – you shall not sit on the steps of Rome – you shall not wear a mini skirt of such and such inches above the knee on the steps of Rome – 

 – Situation at a football match – guy say “lets go for a fuck”.

– He is charged Strict Liability you did drive through a red light regardless of intent, circumstances rights etc third party type thing with “would be regarded as offensive” in the third party public football match arena with this irrespective and exclusive of legality or otherwise of his action and exclusive of the circumstances involved.

For example to his girlfriend it is legal whilst to an underage girl it is illegal.

For that there are precedental Offensive language and such things for some guidelines of what constitutes the Offence type and findings range. –

The attempted Public arena of Postal Usage of this Charge against me does not have such Public arena as the example football Public arena. You are free to send any mail you like if it is entitled in its circumstances – SO – the one same charge thing of it is – ?

Another of the one same Charge applying to any words at all –

– if a letter in such question is – “I did go to the church dinner with Amy then afterwards we went to the gardens and brought some flowers” –

BUT what if the sender is on a total AVO with the recipient and so the letter is illegal in its circumstances – so that legality or otherwise doesn’t matter, and is not involved or involvable in the charge.

The Charge is just total judicial opinion/discretion exclusive of the letters legality or non legality.

And here is the rub, if anyone was stupid enough to proceed with the Nullity within a Nullity Charge, ie the cosmetic “any opinion of any words” charge as it would seem that extent I have cited is still attempting to proceed with it, BUT if so proceeded until the Judiciary validly affirms that the charge is the cosmetic charge and so no relevance of its within or outside the law or circumstances at all, until validity of the cosmetic charge is established, if it is not valid, any claim by the Defence whether true fictional or combination of regards a letter within the law and/or our pieces of paper within their four corners law, makes out the Defence case (viz – a circumstance it is not regardable as offensive of the requite “all circumstances”.)

So when the charge attempted to proceed this was where and why I was talking claiming a letter within the law.

This Charge is very much not valid in the Count of SL rep MR in the Invested Jurisdiction while we also very much do not have any such Charge anywhere else.

Also I do not see why, in the judicial and prosecution mistaken view of a charge of the letter being within the law or not as its circumstances, why when I say its properly written and successful within the law they think they can claim to disprove this to any degree and/or contend the circumstances, making up people who are not there and whatever circumstances of writing that they feel like, including specifically those alleged people, along with 1000’s of charges and charge elements.

Very mundanely on the point, of Australia’s law and availability at all, fully incarnate World Wide for two centuries and the rest of this era too, no matter what the what of the situation, a person’s claim of a persons piece of paper within its four corners cannot be attempted to be disproved and/or contended of its circumstances. Particularly this is the law a Court must supply as its own operation and also in association with Court aspects for anyone. Very mundane that is of the aspects.

Case Law is prevailed over by Statute law and so is State and/or individual opinion distinct from the allotted uniform amount of the Federal Law for the Invested Jurisdiction.

Please someone help begin to end this dereliction of the relevant facts and law farce that has that wrongly been and still being involved here.