A Resource Centre for Self-Responsible and Harmonious Living
Results of Court Case and text of judgement.
Court case, God's code of conduct, command, only be loving, freedom of religion. public order, conscience
18th and 25th of June 2003
The prosecution presented its case and the two constables testified, I was able to ask a very few of the questions as listed but was able to establish to the court that I was at all times peaceful and civil and that I "appeared" sober and unaffected by drugs.
I was able to read all but the last three paragraphs of the "Submission" document before being stopped by the magistrate whereby I testified that I had not consumed any alcoholic beverages on that night.
The magistrate was handed a copy of the Constitution Act 1934 (46) 1 and 2 and he then stated that he would adjourned until the 25th of June before giving his decision.
On the 25th of June the magistrate handed down his decision that the charges were proven and thus I was convicted and given a fine of some $900 and disqualified from driving on "their" roads for 12 months. The transcript of the magistrates judgement is detailed below
I am examining further both the dismissal of my right to heed God's Code of Conduct Command and the "guaranteeing freedom of religion" right within this institutions book of rules act.
I am also exploring the opportunity of exposing the nature of this unloving institutional system further by bringing the matter before the High Court of Tasmania for hearing.
I will add more to this interesting story as it unfolds but if you wish to read the truth of the matter in relation to governments and their controlling and punitive ways, go to:
www,the-testament-of-truth.com/slavery3.htm and the other "Slave Citizen" documents
Trancript of Proceeds in the
Magistrates number 3 Court.
On the 25th of June starting at 12 noon.
Magistrate Zygmunt Szramka presiding.
Judgement (text taken from audio tape of proceedings)
"As per the charge with a number of charges under the road safety, alcohol and drugs act standing from his use of a motor vehicle on a public street.
In substance he submits that the complaint should be dismissed, that he is not subject to the laws of this state as:
He conducts himself according to the dictates of his God which I understand does not include the state laws to which the road safety, alcohol and drug act forms a part. The nub of his defence is that you cannot serve two masters. As this is not an excuse or defence as such known to the law and is not something the court can lawfully… is not something the court is lawfully able to accede to.
The defendant refers to section 46 of the Constitution Act of 1934 of this state where relevant sub section 1 which provides for freedom of conscience and freedom of profession and practice of religion. Now it seems that the defendant omits to have due regards to the qualification imposed in that subsection on that freedom, namely that it is subject to public order.
Public order must be read broadly and includes at least the maintenance of a civil and safe society. The provisions of the Road safety, alcohol and drugs act and those laws which relate to the use of and qualifications of the use of vehicles on the road, must be regarded as falling with…in that category. I note in particular that the Road safety alcohol and drugs act is designed to rid the state of the scourge of drink driving with all its consequences. It is therefore a law that must.. the defendant must accede to in the practice of his religion. That is, he must comply with the law.
Considering all the evidence I find that the charge proved.