ATO problem ? + Parking ticket ?

1 – Is the ATO harassing you ?   see video 3 on  https://larryhannigan.com/government-federal/29-tim-dywer-speaks/

2 – End times sermon  NEW MESSAGE!!!   There can be no revival until there is sincere REPENTANCE.

https://larryhannigan.com/sermons/23-end-time-now-jonathan-cahn/

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

3 – Giants Being Discovered Everywhere — Can’t Hide This      https://larryhannigan.com/giants/17-giants-being-discovered-everywhere/ 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

4 – Again  The teenage WORLD SAVER 

3 short clips  –  They haven’t lived long enough to know anything

5 – Parking tickets – why pay ?  – read and learn

Hi Larry – The friend who sent the court story below saw and applied the letter on http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com/pages/About-Traffic-Fines.html  They are doing a good  job teaching people.

This is sound evidence that as we become more experienced, we can ensure that the law is followed. Depending on whether you have continued your studies, you will eaither know what happened, of at least see that the Creditor was successful. Of course such success is made far more certain when we come from love and not fear. It shows that we always have a remedy. And of course, if none is supplied, we have the right to create our own remedy. 

You will note from the Magistrates remarks, it is best to direct most of our questions to either the Prosecutor, a lawyer or witness, not the magistrate. We don’t want to dishonour them as they are just the adjudicator – an independent observer who is desirous of determining who has the senior record. Indeed, it’s often quite rightly said, “It’s all about the record!” So anytime there is a sniff of anyone offering to have us part with our assets or funds, keep perfect records.

Cheers

Dennis

PS: At the very end I include a court precedent.

Here’s the letter – do not attempt without preparation !

July 2016 

Gday fellas, 

I thought you might like to hear what happened to me in court yesterday re an alleged parking infringement notice I was challenging.

I was well prepared and had a detailed script prepared to challenge both constitutionally and contractually. My affidavit was submitted with references to the 1919, 1988 and 1999 referenda and had a full quiver of arrows ready with quotes from Forge V Australian Securities and Investments 2006,  Wakim 1999 such as  … “A legislature cannot , by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitutional power where none exists.” and quotes from various justices like Chief Justice Latham… “A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all

Other arrows in my quiver were sections from various statutes like The Criminal Code (section 590AB), Acts Interpretation Act 1973, the Corporations Act 2001, Transport Operations Road Use Management Act  (TORUM)  (commencement), Corporate Bodies Act 1960… and evidence in the form of US Securities and Exchange filing information, Gold Coast City Council’s ABN, etc.

As usual the trial started with the parties identifying themselves, beginning with the prosecutor stating his name, which law firm he was from and who he represented. The judge turned to me and said, “and are you Mr X? Is that correct?” I answered with, “I am the beneficiary to that estate, Your Honour, and I reserve my rights, is there any objection to that?“, turning to the prosecutor (There was no objection). 

Then the prosecutor began his summary of complaint. The Judge seemed to immediately be ‘on my side’, asking the pro to repeat himself many times so she could keep up with her notes. Asking him to say what a ‘ticket vending machine’ is, etc…  (Afterwards I wondered if this was because she knew from my identifying as the beneficiary that even if I lost the State would be liable, not myself as I cannot be both Beneficiary and trustee at the same time.)

As soon as the witness took the stand and started describing his statement she stopped him and asked him exactly what the sign said, which was vague at best.

By the time the TORUM Act came up I objected that despite multiple requests (referring the court to my affidavit) no Certificate of Proclamation had been provided. She said “Hold on a minute we will get to that”

It was then she pointed out a potential ‘technicality’ in his claim… something about him not providing the original copy of the ‘Instrument of Delegation’ for viewing by the court and questioning its authority without it. 

“I’ve never been asked for that, Your Honour” he said.

“Well, I’m asking for it.” she replied.

He said he had never needed it before. She said that in her experience it was required and later in the proceedings told him she would not be accepting it as evidence because the court had not viewed the original … basically giving me an argument for dismissal in my own summing up : )   I added it right away to my notes, ie; ‘No Instrument of Delegation has been presented to the court.

Then she went back to my objection asking for clarification of my objection. I pointed out that in Section 2.2 of the TORUM Act, The Commencement, it states “The remaining provisions commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation” and then discussed how I had asked for it in my affidavit and the failure to provide it was a breach of the Criminal Code, Section 590AB.

She began looking for section 2.2 so I offered her a copy (I had printed 3). After reading it she said, “This appears to be a repealed copy of the act”.

After some discussion about the importance of proclamation, me asking things like “Do not all acts HAVE to have proclamation to be law?” and she answering, “It is not for me to answer that” she eventually then asked the prosecutor what he had to say about my objection.

He said he had no idea what I was talking about, only saying it was an enacted act which is judicially noted and under the QLD constitution as “a valid act”

I asked to comment on that, about to go into the illegality under the constitution, quoting supreme court judges, and she replied, “Not at this stage” (The ‘witness’ was sitting there through the whole thing, wondering what the hell was going on. We had still not gotten through his statement so I left it for my turn)

When it was my turn I got into questions about his employer, was stopped for ‘relevancy’, to which I pointed out that the GCC Council was a corporation and does not a contract between a corporation and a man demand a wet ink signature? She pointed out that she was not there to answer questions and asked me to direct them to the witness (who didn’t have a clue and could not answer).

“Are you aware of, and have sighted a contract binding my estate to your corporation?”

“No”

“What evidence are you relying upon to claim there is a sign in the area near where my vehicle was parked?”

“There are signs everywhere on the streets.”

“Did you notice the sign on the door to this courtroom?”

“Yes”

“What did it say?”

“It said ‘Court 6”

“I’m not talking about that sign. There is one right on the door to this court room, you would have walked right past it?”

“I did not notice any other sign.”

(This was gold. He claims the signs are visible, noticeable and binding without proof I even saw them, yet does not even notice a sign right on the door asking for mobile phones to be turned off! I wrote this down to add into my summing up)

He did not comprehend so I said very slowly “You claim there was a sign 3 meters from my vehicle. I am asking what evidence you have that I saw such a sign, if it indeed exists, AND that I agreed to its terms and conditions.” Of course he had none.

I continued, “Does said sign state terms and conditions on it?” 

“It just says Pay and Display and the times”

Me: “So… it’s just assumed that anyone seeing that sign would know what it meant?”

“It’s a Pay and Display machine, It’s a Pay and Display machine.” was all he could say.

“So it’s just an assumption?”

“mumble mumble… assume whatever… mumble mumble…”

Me: “Your Honour, Is the court here to hear facts, or presumptions?”

“Arm, I don’t answer that… questions… I am not here to answer… please direct your questions to the witness”

So I turned back to the witness… “So, in your opinion, does said sign form a contract which binds my estate to the GCC Corporation?”

“I can’t answer that.”

“No more questions, Your Honour.”

The pro then proceeds to try and save him with more questions, to which the judge buts in.. “Are there no photographs of the sign or the machine?” 

“Er … no”

She asks me if I have anything to add. I see from her questioning of the witness she is going to hand it to me so don’t bother going into the constitutional arguments I had prepared and simply state that I will leave anything further I have to say to my summing up.

Prosecutor begins his summing up and she almost immediately interrupts and proceeds to point out that without the photographs is that not hearsay that a sign exists? Tells the Prosecutor what my argument will be and dismisses the case without me even having to provide my summing up. 

In hindsight it appears right from the start she was ‘on my side’, possibly in order to avoid my constitutional arguments supporting the need for proclamation of the act for it to have any force or effect… OR in order to avoid the State having to pay up as the declared trustee of my estate?

Regardless, thank you for the info on aussiespeedingfines and the radio show. Darryl really helped a lot regarding the need for proclamation of acts. 

Kind Regards,

Wolf – QLD 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

The spirit of voluntary capitalism was expressed in this famous Supreme Court case, which reads:

 “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.

Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47  (1906)

 

 

 

 

 

6