This Is The Biggest Scandal And Injustice Of Our Times

When I was studying Law between 1991-95 to try and solve the one same charge thing to prepare a defence for this Federal Invested Jurisdiction Postal Usage Charge the Law quite clearly told itself to me of “pieces of paper within their 4 corners” that it was Cite –

– “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”-

– Uncite – with the meaning that answers against are not against, are null and void of the extent of the against purport and cannot be abetted as other than that.

Also stating itself that clearly and totally was our law of scope of procedure from a piece of paper within its 4 corners towards a letter. Namely Cite –

– “For scope of procedure towards a letter the parties to the letter must be established. The circumstances of writing ie available to write the letter in/as/from/etc must be established from the parties. If any discrepancy between that then at the very least 2 crosschecks must be done” – Uncite.

Also along with that was the presumably High Court lead case citation saying – “This must even be supplied by Junior Police in operation at all.”

Also between 1992-94 my mother in Ballarat got an asides opinion of the relevant facts and law of the matter from a lawyer there and I think she said Emma Turnbull(apologies if wrong) which said quote -– “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.” – unquote.

So that mundanely totally seeming to be our law and availability at all of opinions of pieces of paper within their 4 corners and/or scope of procedure from them towards a letter.

While also in those legal studies they said the letter ownership Law was –

– “The recipient owns the letter and the writer owns the copyright”-

So in the Ab Initio Nullity Count of the matter and as well after that at all, as the Police Brief says, the prosecution nor anyone else has any right to the letter and/or any usage of it.

Much less what the Charge usage attempted and then the 20-30 year changing all these Laws that has been involved purporting use of the letter as the basis for that aspect.

In what follows it shows in the 1995 Evidence Act(C/wealth Law) what now attempts to be our law of requite procedure regards letters. It looks very impractical considering the factors involved.

This is what GROK says that Evidence Act Law says –

Establishing Parties and Circumstances: Under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), for a document to be admissible, its authenticity must be established (e.g., sections 55–58). This involves verifying the identity of the sender and recipient and the context of the document’s creation. For example, a letter’s relevance depends on proving who wrote it and under what circumstances, often requiring witness testimony or corroborating evidence.

The whole GROK results are enclosed following below. Sections 55-58 immediate now.

can you get me sections 55-58 from the Australian Evidence Act 1995 (cth)

Below are the full texts of sections 55 to 58 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), as sourced from the official legislation available on the Federal Register of Legislation and AustLII. These sections fall under Part 3.1 – Relevance of the Act, which deals with the admissibility of evidence based on its relevance.

---

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)Section 55 – Relevant evidence(1) The evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is evidence that, if it were accepted, could rationally affect (directly or indirectly) the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding.
(2) In particular, evidence is not taken to be irrelevant only because it relates only to:
(a) the credibility of a witness; or
(b) the admissibility of other evidence; or
(c) a failure to adduce evidence.
Source:,,,

Section 56 – Relevant evidence to be admissible(1) Except as otherwise provided by this Act, evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is admissible in the proceeding.
(2) Evidence that is not relevant in the proceeding is not admissible.
Section 57 – Provisional relevance(1) If the determination of the question whether evidence adduced by a party is relevant depends on the court making another finding about whether a fact exists (including a finding about the state of mind of a person), the court may treat the evidence as relevant for the purposes of deciding whether to admit it, even though the finding has not been made.
(2) If the court treats evidence as relevant under subsection (1), the court must later determine whether the evidence was admissible having regard to the finding referred to in subsection (1).
Source:,,,

Section 58 – Inferences as to relevance(1) If a question arises as to the relevance of a document or thing, the court may examine it and may draw any reasonable inferences from it, including an inference as to its authenticity or identity.
Source:,,,

Notes and Context

• Section 55 establishes the foundational rule for evidence admissibility: evidence must be relevant, meaning it could rationally affect the probability of a fact in issue. This includes evidence impacting witness credibility, the admissibility of other evidence, or a failure to present evidence. The broad definition ensures flexibility in judicial interpretation.
• Section 56 reinforces that relevance is the primary criterion for admissibility, unless other provisions of the Act (e.g., hearsay, opinion, or exclusionary rules) apply. Irrelevant evidence is explicitly excluded.
• Section 57 allows courts to provisionally admit evidence when its relevance depends on a yet-to-be-determined fact, providing procedural flexibility. The court must later confirm admissibility based on the final finding.
• Section 58 empowers courts to inspect documents or items to assess their relevance, drawing reasonable inferences about authenticity or identity, which supports practical judicial decision-making.

Source InformationThe text is drawn from the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) as published on authoritative legal databases. The Act applies to federal courts and, with agreement, courts in the Australian Capital Territory. It forms part of the uniform evidence law framework, with similar provisions mirrored in jurisdictions like New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria, and the Northern Territory.,

If you need further analysis, commentary, or specific applications of these sections (e.g., case law or practical implications), please let me know!

Me again – Where is our law before 1995 now? And is this from 1995 new law for these factors the same as before?

Now of the internet transfer of our law and availabilities at all prior to 1995 that all purports to never have existed at all while the current law apparently now exists in a C/wealth Law 1995 Act.

The last Court appearance of this matter in question was in 1994 with the carryon very distinct from the factors of the Strict Liability Postal usage Charge made under a totally Mens Rea C/wealth Law in the 1914 Crimes Act(cth) with the rest of the Charge the charge wording applying to a piece of paper within its 4 corners namely a letter and envelope alleging it was posted in and nothing whatsoever established or known of its circumstances.

In fact, as the police brief states, no legal right to have the letter and envelope at all for any procedure at all much less what has for almost 34 years been enacted distinct from that.

Also in purporting in 1995 Sections of Strict Liability in the 1914 Crimes Act (cth) purported to transfer from it to another 1995 cth Act.

viz-a-viz in my matter all the weird distinct from SL availabilities at all carryon and then this soon after the last Judicial appearance of my matter.

C/wealth Crimes Act Law 85S(b) is repealed out of the Crimes Act

Also in 1918-19 new Postal usage laws appeared in the 1914 Crimes Act(cth) in an early in the Act Child abuse section.

They totally reflect the many seeming derelictions of the elements in my matter and seeming to try and justify those derelictions. And in my view the attempt fails pathetically as any sense at all of the Strict Liability attempting one of that section.

Also not showing of the transfer of our law over to the internet is up till the 90’s law –

– “Strict Liability may only be created by Parliamentary Legislation.” and this not available validly if attempted distinct from the Strict Liability Law itself and any current era it may have.

These people attempting in my matters direction have attempted to create over 3,000 in a read down view crazed SL instances in the Invested Jurisdiction.

Any way here is what GROK said when I asked it of Australia’s Law of procedure towards a letter.

I ask -australia’s law on scope of procedure towards letter is – ” for procedure regards letters the parties to the letter must be established. The circumstances of writing must be established from the parties. If there is any discrepancy between this at the very least 2 crosschecks must be done” – Australia has a lead case of this saying/affirming – “this must even be supplied by junior police in operation at all”

GROK _ Your query references a specific legal principle regarding the procedure for handling letters in Australia, particularly emphasizing the need to establish the parties involved, the circumstances of the letter’s creation, and the requirement for crosschecks in case of discrepancies. It also mentions a lead case affirming that these requirements apply even to junior police officers. However, the provided search results and my available knowledge do not directly identify a specific Australian law or lead case that precisely matches the quoted text or context you’ve described.

Here’s a reasoned analysis based on the information available and general Australian legal principles, with an attempt to address your query as comprehensively as possible:

Interpretation of the Quoted Legal Principle

The principle you’ve cited appears to relate to evidentiary or procedural requirements for the use of letters (or written communications) in legal proceedings, likely in the context of criminal or civil law. It suggests a formal process for authenticating letters as evidence, ensuring:

1. Parties to the letter are established: The sender and recipient must be clearly identified to confirm relevance and authenticity.
2. Circumstances of writing are established: The context in which the letter was written (e.g., intent, timing, and purpose) must be verified, likely to ensure the letter’s reliability and admissibility.
3. Crosschecks for discrepancies: If there are inconsistencies in the letter’s details or authenticity, at least two verification steps must be conducted to resolve them.
4. Application to junior police: The lead case purportedly emphasizes that even junior police officers must adhere to these procedural standards during operations.

This principle seems most applicable to criminal law contexts, where police handle written evidence (e.g., letters, statements, or documents) during investigations or arrests. It could also relate to civil procedure, particularly pre-action protocols for letters of demand or claim, but the reference to “junior police” strongly suggests a criminal law focus.

Relevant Australian Legal Framework

Based on the search results and general Australian legal principles, the following areas of law may be relevant to your query:

1. Criminal Procedure and Evidence Handling

In Australia, the handling of evidence, including written documents like letters, is governed by legislation such as the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), and the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), along with state-specific equivalents (e.g., Evidence Act 1929 (SA)). These laws outline how evidence must be collected, authenticated, and presented in court.

• Establishing Parties and Circumstances: Under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), for a document to be admissible, its authenticity must be established (e.g., sections 55–58). This involves verifying the identity of the sender and recipient and the context of the document’s creation. For example, a letter’s relevance depends on proving who wrote it and under what circumstances, often requiring witness testimony or corroborating evidence.
• Crosschecks for Discrepancies: The requirement for “at least two crosschecks” could align with evidentiary principles requiring corroboration when evidence is contested or unreliable. For instance, section 164 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) allows for corroboration to support disputed evidence, and courts may require multiple sources (e.g., witness statements, metadata, or forensic analysis) to resolve discrepancies.
• Police Responsibilities: The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) and similar state laws outline police powers and duties, including evidence collection. The search results indicate that police must follow strict protocols when handling evidence, such as recording interviews or documenting searches (e.g., Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), s 74D). Even junior officers are expected to comply with these standards, as failure to do so could render evidence inadmissible or lead to procedural unfairness (e.g., R v Tanner [2005] SASC 416).

2. Police Procedures and Accountability

The reference to “junior police in operation” suggests a case emphasizing that all officers, regardless of rank, must adhere to procedural standards when handling evidence like letters. The search results highlight:

• Police Discretion and Evidence Handling: Police officers, including junior ones, are bound by legislation like the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) and Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) to follow proper procedures during investigations. For example, when seizing documents or conducting interviews, officers must ensure evidence is properly documented and authenticated (e.g., Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), s 74D).
• Case Law on Police Conduct: Cases like R v Day (2002) 82 SASR 85 and R v Flaherty (2003) 86 SASR 300 emphasize the importance of proper evidence recording, including written statements, to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings. These cases could align with the principle that even junior officers must follow strict protocols.
• Complaints and Oversight: The search results note concerns about police handling of complaints and evidence, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, suggesting that procedural fairness is a significant issue (e.g., ALRC submissions, Redfern Legal Centre). This reinforces the need for rigorous evidence-handling procedures across all ranks.

3. Civil Procedure and Letters of Demand

While the reference to “junior police” points to criminal law, the principle could also apply to civil procedure, particularly pre-action protocols for letters of claim or demand. The search results discuss UK pre-action protocols (e.g., Civil Procedure Rules, Justice UK), which have parallels in Australia:

• Letters of Demand: In Australia, letters of demand are formal notices sent before initiating legal proceedings, often for debt recovery or civil disputes (e.g., Turnbull Hill Lawyers). These letters must clearly identify the parties and the basis of the claim, similar to the requirement to “establish parties” and “circumstances of writing.”
• Crosschecks: In civil disputes, courts expect parties to verify claims and resolve discrepancies before litigation, often through document disclosure or negotiation. The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and similar state rules require parties to exchange sufficient information to understand each other’s positions, which could involve crosschecking documents like letters.
• No Direct Police Involvement: Unlike criminal law, civil pre-action protocols typically do not involve police, so the reference to “junior police” makes this context less likely unless the letter is evidence in a criminal case.

4. International Context (Letters of Request)

The search results mention letters of request under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (implemented in Australia via the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975). These are requests from foreign courts to obtain evidence, such as depositions or documents, and require establishing the relevance and authenticity of the evidence. The Atlantica case emphasizes limiting the scope of such requests to avoid “fishing expeditions,” which aligns with the need to establish parties and circumstances. However, this context is unrelated to police procedures and likely not relevant to your query.

Lead Case Analysis

The query references a “lead case” affirming that “this must even be supplied by junior police in operation at all.” Despite reviewing the search results, no specific case directly matches this quote or principle. However, several cases cited in the results could be relevant:

• R v Tanner [2005] SASC 416: This case discusses police obligations to inform arrested persons of their rights and ensure procedural fairness, such as allowing phone calls or access to a solicitor. It could imply that junior officers must follow strict evidence-handling protocols, including verifying documents like letters.
• R v Day (2002) 82 SASR 85 and R v Flaherty (2003) 86 SASR 300: These cases address the definition of a police interview and the need for proper recording of evidence, which could extend to written documents. They emphasize that all officers, regardless of rank, must comply with procedural standards to ensure evidence admissibility.
• R v Nomchong (unrep, 10/4/97, NSWCCA): This case highlights the importance of police integrity in handling evidence and interactions with the public, suggesting that even junior officers are held to high standards to avoid undermining justice.

None of these cases explicitly reference the exact quote or the specific procedure for letters, but they collectively affirm that police, including junior officers, must adhere to strict procedural and evidentiary standards.

Critical Examination

The lack of a direct match for the quoted principle or lead case in the search results suggests several possibilities:

1. Misquote or Paraphrase: The quoted text may be a paraphrase of a legal principle or case summary rather than a direct quote from legislation or case law. Australian law often uses precise statutory language, and the phrasing “for procedure regards letters” is unusual and may reflect a colloquial or simplified interpretation.
2. Jurisdiction-Specific Rule: The principle could stem from a state-specific police manual, regulation, or unreported case not covered in the search results. For example, the NSW Police Use of Force Manual or internal evidence-handling guidelines might impose such requirements on officers, including juniors.
3. Contextual Misalignment: The principle might apply to a niche area, such as forensic procedures (e.g., Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 2007 (SA)) or specific police protocols for handling written evidence, which the search results do not fully address.
4. Historical or Obscure Case: The “lead case” could be an older or unreported decision not widely cited in modern sources, possibly from a state magistrate’s court or a training manual for police.

Given these uncertainties, the principle aligns broadly with Australia’s emphasis on procedural fairness and evidence authentication, particularly in criminal law. The requirement for junior police to comply suggests a focus on accountability and consistency in law enforcement practices.

Response to the Query

Australia’s legal framework for handling letters as evidence likely falls under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and state-specific criminal procedure laws, such as the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) or Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA). These laws require that:

• The parties to a letter (sender and recipient) must be identified to establish authenticity and relevance.
• The circumstances of the letter’s creation (e.g., intent, date, and context) must be verified, often through witness testimony or corroborating evidence.
• Discrepancies in a letter’s details require verification, potentially through multiple sources (e.g., forensic analysis, witness statements), aligning with the “two crosschecks” requirement.
• Police officers, including junior ones, are bound by these standards under legislation like the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) and internal police protocols, ensuring evidence is handled correctly to maintain admissibility and fairness.

While no specific “lead case” directly matches the quote “this must even be supplied by junior police in operation at all,” cases like R v Tanner [2005] SASC 416, R v Day (2002) 82 SASR 85, and R v Flaherty (2003) 86 SASR 300 affirm that all police officers must follow strict evidence-handling procedures. These cases emphasize procedural fairness and could support the principle, though they do not explicitly address letters.

Recommendations

If you need a precise identification of the law or lead case:

• Clarify the Context: Provide more details about the context (e.g., criminal investigation, civil dispute, or specific state jurisdiction) or the source of the quoted text (e.g., a police manual, court decision, or legal textbook).
• Check State-Specific Sources: The principle may be codified in a state police manual or regulation not covered in the search results. For example, contact the NSW Police Force or South Australia Police for their evidence-handling guidelines.
• Consult Legal Databases: Access AustLII (www.austlii.edu.au) (www.austlii.edu.au) or LexisNexis to search for unreported cases or specific regulations using keywords like “letter,” “evidence,” and “police procedure.”
• Seek Legal Advice: A solicitor specializing in criminal law can clarify the exact law or case, particularly if it’s jurisdiction-specific or part of police training protocols.

If you can provide additional details (e.g., the state, court, or year of the lead case), I can refine the search or analysis further. Would you like me to perform a targeted web or X search for more information, or do you have further context to share?

Me again – Is that the same thing as the law told itself to me in the early ’90’s? What and where is our pre 1995 Law of these factors.

Are just these I have mentioned of many others suspicious of someone trying to interfere with and subvert trial process and C/wealth Law because of my matter and crazily trying to make new law to this effect?

I would like some movement on this please. Cheers Mike.