APPEAL BOOK  
breath test, breath analysis, drive whilst unlicensed, unregistered motor vehicle, uninsured motor vehicle

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA – LAUNCESTON DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS HELD AT LAUNCESTON  
No LCA 24 of 2003  
 In the matter of:  ROAD SAFETY (ALCOHOL AND DRUGS) ACT 1970 (NO. 77 OF 1970)

Kenneth John Atherton (Appellant)
BETWEEN - and
Mr. Ransom (Respondent) for the Prosecution

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

INDEX

Title	Page No.
Notice of Appeal	2
Statement by Submission.	3 - 10
Annexures	Pages	Annexure
Notice of Appeal Document LCA 24 of 2003	3	1
The “Proof of Religion” paper. (Source: The ’slave’ Citizen, Item 1, section 3 of 8, www.the-testament-of-truth.com)	19	2
The “Lie” and the lion document. (Source: “Vatican City”, page 30, www.the-testament-of-truth.com)	2	3
CDrom of “The Testament of Truth” (Source: web page: www.the-testament-of-truth.com)		4
The transcript of Magistrate Court proceedings.	1	5
Tasmanian Constitution Act of 1934 46 (1)	2	6
Statement by Submission (to the Launceston Magistrates Court 18/06/03, complaint no. 33901/03)	3	7
Definition of “Public Order,” Osbornes Concise Law Dictionary	1	8
Definition of “Public Order,” Butterworths Australian LEGAL Dictionary	1	9
Definition of “Public Order,” Oxford Companion to Law, Oxford 1980	1	10
Public Order and the “Beast,” (Source: page 5,  “Contempt of God,” the ’slave’ Citizen, www.the-testament-of-truth.com)	2	11
Constitution of Australia Act section 109.	2	12

 NOTICE OF APPEAL

 Held on 6^th day of October 2003 at 10 o’clock in the forenoon. 

TO REVIEW the decision of Magistrate Zygmunt Szramka made on the twenty fifth day of June 2003 whereby the learned Mr. Szramka

ORDERED THAT: the appellant be convicted on 5 offences being:
Refuse breath test; refuse breath analysis; drive whilst unlicensed; use unregistered motor vehicle; use uninsured motor vehicle, (complaint No. 33901/03A), and sentenced to a fine of $937.05 and disqualified from driving for 12 months.

The conviction was based upon an “erroneous” assumption that the appellant is and was, a “member” of the religion titled “The State Government of Tasmania” and that the appellant had not complied with the “subject to public order” qualification within the Tasmanian Constitution Act 1934 section 46(1). (Annexure 1, Notice of Appeal Document LCA 24 of 2003)

 STATEMENT BY SUBMISSION
by Kenneth John Atherton (the Appellant)

 ON APPEAL

I state that I have come freely and of my own volition to this place to place my appeal to you, Mr. Crawford via a Statement by Submission to the conviction of myself by Mr. Zygmunt Szramka on the said charges as laid against me by employees of the institution called the State Government of Tasmania.

 I believe that I, as are all men, am not “above” the law of the land, for it is my religious belief that God's one law “As you do is done unto you - an eye for an eye” is the supreme law of the land and is applicable to all men.

 It is but that as my “religion” and its creed is of “peace & forgiveness,” I cannot concede to either supporting or “belonging to” or condoning any religious organisation such as “yours” that has any contra ideology of “control and punishment,” and that makes any demands of compliance to its rules.

 I can therefore only comply with God's Command as I walk apart from your State Religious Institution, as is my divine right, thus its “books of rules” are not applicable to me.

 I submit “The ‘Proof of Religion’ Paper” (Annexure 2) as evidence that proves that The State Government of Tasmania is a fundamentalist religion. This paper being within the web page www.the-testament-of-truth.com which along with a CDrom of this page was submitted as evidence within my “Statement by Submission” to the Magistrates Court.

 The learned Mr. Justice Slicer at the appeal “hearing” has asked me what of the Biblical statement “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” and my reply is that it is my religious belief that it is God and not “Caesar” that should be “worshipped and adored and heeded.

 For I believe that it is folly to believe that it is a loving act to fund “Caesar” so that “he” can then fund his armies as they invade other lands and kill and destroy and “at home,” pay his enforcers who tax, steal, imprison and control the members of the community being their employers. These are obviously un-loving acts and are thus contra my religious belief.

 Further to my answer to Mr. Slicers question of me in this regards, I submit to this court, the document titled “The ‘lie’ and the lion” (Annexure 3, from the web page www.the-testament-of-truth.com) that evidences the “lie” of this biblical statement as one to be adhered to if one is to heed God’s “Only love” command.

      In regards to the State Religion’s Institutional “rules,” some are a positive code of conduct and it is my freedom of choice that some of my daily deeds do “parallel” those of your rules that do not conflict with my ideology, eg, I do not disturb the peace, I drive on the left side of the road, I drive in a safe manner and do not drink and drive for I know it is dangerous to others and myself to so do etc.

Mr. Crawford, my religious belief, being my personal Covenant with my God, is that I will walk in peace and never wield a “sword” against any other even if they wish to crucify me. I shall love them, respect them, be merciful & compassionate unto them and forgive them their trespasses against man and God. I will give any fiscal support possible to those of my local community to be used for loving, peaceful purposes only, and share my wisdom and love with all.

 It is because of this, my religious belief and my Covenant with God, that I cannot either “belong to” or support the deeds of your state religious organisation, for in doing so, I would as said, be complicit to the “negative” and punitive deeds of the State “armed” forces and judiciary, being deeds that contravene God's Commandment, and it would then follow that as they are being punitive and “anti-god” in their “treatment” of other community members on my behalf, that I would be complicit to their actions that defy God, and God would then punish me under God's one law for being less than merciful and forgiving.

 This is my religious belief, and it is this belief and my adherence to it, that has led me to be here today before a court of the religious institution that calls itself “The State Government of Tasmania,” appealing to you Mr. Crawford, against my conviction for adhering to my religious belief that God’s Code of Conduct Command is: to ONLY be loving, compassionate, merciful and forgiving, and to be peaceful at all times and, it is my religious belief that due to the “differences” in ideology, that I must walk apart from your State Institutional religious body.

 Mr. Crawford, I appeal to you to consider my case in regards to the enacted rules and regulations that you “administer” and ask you to deeply reflect on these rules and their “ways” in regards to God’s Code of Conduct Command, and that you “quash” my conviction that in my eyes and God's, is in error.

 I make this appeal to you because I do believe that if it is not “quashed,” a great injustice has been done. Not unto myself, but to all those that were a “party to” and thus “complicit to” the negative and punitive imposition upon me. For our God did say that all “pain” or abuse imposed upon another would incur a similar return due upon the “imposer” under God's one supreme and immutable law, “as you do is done unto you,” and any mandate by man “authorising” another to impose suffering does not “void” God's Law.

 Being the respected “judge” Mr. Crawford, you have the capacity to aid the “lesser” mortals to see the error of their religious persecution, and the error of their way. I can but pray that your mind stays steady on this day as this document is placed before you. For if my “appeal” is refused, then you too are complicit for sure in the eyes of our God wise.

 I detail my grounds for the quashing of my conviction in the following numbered points in reference to Mr Szramka’s reasoning.

 ~~~

(1) - I state that Mr. Szramka erred in fact and law in making his statement that: “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 is lawfully able to accede to.” (Refer annexure 5, being the text of Mr. Szramka’s judgement.)

Within the Tasmanian Constitution Act of 1934 46 (1), it states “freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.” (Refer annexure 6)

Mr. Szramka’s statement “The nub of his defence is that you cannot serve two masters,” has been taken out of context because, my statement was: “and as my ‘religious belief’ is that I must only ‘worship’ God through obedience to the command of God, I so do, as I cannot serve two masters having ‘conflicting’ ideals, and I choose to serve the one I love and adore, as is my God given right and your ‘The Constitution Act’ right.” (Refer annexure 7, Statement by Submission to the Launceston Magistrates Court, complaint number 33901/03)

Mr. Szramka has taken my statement that I “cannot serve two masters” out of the context and has then denied your “books of rules” rule relating to the guaranteed “free profession and practice of religion” within the Tasmanian Constitution Act of 1934 46 (1) by stating that quote: “As this is not an excuse or defence as such known to the law and is not something the court is lawfully able to accede to.”  This is error.

His judgement denies my God given and your State Constitution given guaranteed freedom to practice my religion, and as stated in my submission to Mr. Szramka, “I cannot serve two masters having ‘conflicting’ ideals, and I choose to serve the one I love and adore.” This is because the said State institution’s books of rules have punitive and controlling rules that defy God’s Code of Conduct Command.

This judgement is a blatant denial of “his” (Mr. Szramka's) Constitution's enacted rules, and is a less than subtle forceful demand that I follow his religious institution’s punitive and retributive enacted rules, thus attempting to coerce me by force (fine and punishment for non compliance) to follow his “religious beliefs.”

He has self assumed the dominance of his religious institution’s enacted rules over God’s Code of Conduct Command to "ONLY be loving, compassionate, merciful and forgiving, and to be peaceful at all times." This “coercion” is an immoral act that is in itself, a further denial of the enacted rule 46(1) as this provision is qualified by the statement “subject to public order and morality.”

Further to this, Mr Szramka’s denial of his religious institution’s own enacted regulations reference freedom of religion, that he is paid to uphold, is a seditious act, and his penalising of myself, an act of treason. Both these acts being crimes against the community and against public order (Criminal Code Act 1924), being his own denial of the “subject to public order…” qualification within the Tasmanian Constitution Act of 1934 46 (1), as he disturbs my peace.

Further still, Mr. Szramka’s denial of my freedom of profession and practice of my religion and his punishment of me for so doing is an act of religious persecution.

~~~

 (2) – Mr. Szramka erred in fact and law in negatively applying the “subject to public order” qualification within the Constitution Act 1934 section 46(1). For to dismiss that provision’s “guaranteed freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion,” when: “No contrary evidence was provided of myself being other than sober, orderly, peaceful and of civil behaviour,” was a wrong decision.

On the contrary it is evidenced that I was peaceful and civil:
·       As evidenced by S Bauld (Annexure 5 page 4 lines 33-39)
·       As evidenced by M. Rybka (Annexure 5 page 8 lines 7-9)
·       And as admitted by Mr. Szramka (Annexure 5, page 17, line 53)

      Further, no evidence was given or proved of any breach of peace offence by myself including any act of disturbing the peace, of public nuisance, affray, riotous, offensive, provocative or violent behaviour, nor of causing harm, actual or prospective against any person or property, as per the definition of “Public Order” provided in Osbornes Concise Law Dictionary. (Annexure 8)

      Further, no offence was committed by me against public order as per the definition of “Public Order” given in Butterworths Australian LEGAL Dictionary, as I was of an orderly and peaceful behaviour at all times. (Annexure 9) 

Further, the Oxford Companion to Law by David Walker, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1980, defines  “Public Order” as “The state of peaceful co-existence among members of the public generally in which there is an absence of breach of the peace, fighting, rioting, disturbance, or conduct which causes unreasonable interference with or disturbance to quiet living. Infringements of public order have in particular circumstances been defined by statutes as including going armed, the wearing of para-military uniforms or uniforms indicating membership of a political or other group, inciting mutiny or disaffection in the police or armed forces, sedition, and other offences.” (Annexure 10)

As I was peaceful at all times I was clearly and unequivocally within the definition of “Public Order” as within the evidence and by these three legal definitions and thus Mr. Szramka’s statement: “Public Order must be read broadly and includes at least the maintenance of the civil and safe society” is in error, as it denies the meaning of “Public Order” as given above. This is further covered in (3)

His inclusion of the provisions of The Road Safety, Alcohol and Drugs Act as falling within his “broad” definition of the term “Public Order” and his statement: “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. As therefore a law that must…. the defendant must accede to in the practice of his religion as he must comply with the law,” is an emotive justification for insisting that my freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of my religion must come under the control of his religious institution’s regulatory “rules.” This is an act of religious intolerance.  

In the “eyes” of the “State” judiciary, the words “Public Order” do not necessarily mean “Being peaceful,” for many it means: “Compliance with our rules.” Thus the “variance” of ideology (belief.) For to comply with the dictates of man, one is disorderly in God’s eyes, due to one funding a demigod punitive and destructive religious system that punishes other community members in defiance of God. (Refer: “Public Order and the ‘Beast,” annexure 11 that is within the web page www.the-testament-of-truth.com)  

The words “Public Order” have been and are used by the dark and controlling “governing systems” of man to disguise their demand to conformity to their religious ideology. Their ideology being the conformity of all men to the “ruling” requirement of the ever-changing rules (unholy scriptures) contained within their “books of rules.” (The Universal Fundamentalist Bible governing all Nations, refer annexure 2)

For even if one is conforming to the “opposite” religion of peace and love ideology as I do, and thus conforming to God’s Command to “Only be peaceful,” the “office” rules of the dark religion sees my “peaceful way” as a contravention of its demand to conformity with its nature of “orderliness.” (Compliance to its demands and punishment in default.

Its “Public Order” requirement is that all of any “religion” must comply with its “rules,” being its Code of Conduct. Being its “creed” and dogma. It’s “officers” do “disturb the peace” in their intrusiveness, as they defy God in their “efforts” to force others, such as myself, into conforming to their, and its (the religion’s rules) “view” of Public Order.

If you are to follow, as I do, God’s Command then you will be out of order in man’s view, as man’s view is that mirrored by the rules contained within the “unholy” books of rules. It is these rules that “form” and are the dark and punitive ideology of the State religion in every land, known in this land as “The State Government of Tasmania.

For myself to truly follow God and abide in God’s Code of Conduct requirement of “Peace and love and mercy and forgiveness,” I cannot belong to, or fund, or condone, or promote, or comply with any organisation that rules and abuses others by its extortion and punishment.

Further, as already stated, I was sober at the time and thus was complying with the institution’s rule not to drink and drive as has been previously stated. Mr. Szramka’s concern that in regards to my sobriety: “As therefore a law that must…. the defendant must accede to” is void, as I had not been driving under the influence of alcohol. It is also not for any “other” to demand that I prove my “innocence.”  

Further, it is a denial of justice and a hypocritical act for the judiciary to commit statutory crimes against Public Order upon myself as detailed in (1), whilst at the same time falsely charging myself with acts against Public Order, when no proof was given that I was other than peaceful at all times. This matter is furthered in section (3)  

~~~

(3) - The Magistrate erred in fact and law in his ruling, quote: “public order must be read broadly and includes at least the maintenance of civil and safe society.” - - - Clearly in my view and ideological belief, society can only be civil and safe when inhabitants individually understand the reality that God’s ONE law is: “What you do to others will be done to you,” or “As you sow so shall you reap,” and that this one law of God is unavoidable, immutable and inviolate.

Then they will as I do, conform to God’s Code of Conduct Command to: ONLY be loving, compassionate, merciful and forgiving and to remain peaceful at all times. This I do, I being guaranteed by GOD the free profession and practice of the aforesaid being my religious belief, as well as by your religion’s Constitution Act (Tas) 1934 section 46(1).

It is my religious belief to not rely on man’s laws of enforcement that do themselves deny God’s Command, for I cannot condone, or be a “party to,” a contra ideology that is a forceful and punitive one, being the ideology of the State Religious Institution.

I, being a peace loving man, say that my experience in relation to this matter at the hands of the religious institution that calls itself: “The State Government of Tasmania,” is clear evidence exposing the falsity of Magistrate Szramka’s statement that, - - - "To maintain “a civil and safe society,” - - - Public Order “must be read broadly,” and include: “The provisions of the Road safety, alcohol and drugs act and those laws which relate to the use of and qualifications on the use of vehicles on the road.”

On the contrary, under these same provisions, it is because of my religious belief and my adherence to God’s Code of Conduct Command, that I have been forcefully stopped from going about my peaceful way, abducted against my wishes to a police station, forcefully held against my wishes, released on bail on threat of fine and or imprisonment by “persons” who were dis-orderly via their acts towards me, disturbed several aspects of public order as defined in annexure 8 and 10, and most importantly, are neither aware of God's Command, nor of the “statutes” within the Constitution of their own religious organisation.

Further, the Magistrate convicted and admonished me for failing to follow the rules of his institution, forcefully penalised me by "forbidding" me to drive my automobile, issuing me with a ransom note demand, stating: “Pay $937.05 funds to my institution or be imprisoned.”  

Clearly un-loving, and controlling acts that deny my God given right to go my way in peace and your Constitution Act (Tas) 1934 section 46(1) “guaranteed freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion.” And an experience for myself where I was subject to dis-orderly and immoral acts by those employed by the said religious institution.

~~~

(4) - Magistrate Szramka erred in fact and law by disallowing the “subject to…morality” qualification within Constitution Act 1934 section 46(1). This he did by ruling that The Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 “is a law that the defendant must accede to in the practice of his religion as he must comply with the law,” (Annexure 5 page 16 lines 24–25) when in fact as stated previously, I was complying with the Institutional “rule” that forbids driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, and was complying with my own belief that one must not drink and drive.

If the “belief” of the State Religion Institutional ideology is such that a man must prove his “innocence,” then that belief is a contra one to mine and also one contra to the State institution’s practice of one being innocent until proven guilty, - - - and to punish one under the “law” of man for non compliance to a “contra” belief is itself an “act” contra the Constitution Act 46(1) of said State Institution, and this “action” defies God's "Only love & forgive" command, - - - and is a treasonable offence against God and the State Religion’s Constitution “authority,” - - - and is an immoral act, - - and is an act of religious persecution.

Mr Szramka’s statement that “you have failed to comply with road use laws that you are obliged to do so as a road user” (Annexure 5 page 17 lines 52-54), fails to take into account the legal and moral issue of the guaranteed free profession and practice of religion within the Constitution Act 1934 section 46(1) that precedes and thus supersedes the road use laws. This is error.

Further, Mr Szramka’s statement (Annexure 5 page 17 lines 60-61) insisting that “Your own conscience has to comply with the law and you refuse to do so” is an act denying the guaranteed “freedom of conscience” within the rule 46(1), his insistence being an immoral act and further, a denial of the morality provision within that rule.

Further Mr Szramka’s statement that the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) act ”is a law that the defendant must accede to in the practice of his religion” is an insistence that I must follow one set of state rules, at the denial of another preceding and thus superseding Constitution Act rule, being 46(1). This is a denial by himself of this enacted rule and its application to myself and his insistence that I also ignore a Constitution Act rule is an attempt to incite myself and others by precedence to follow. This is an act against the constitutional authority and is a designated crime against Public Order (Criminal Code Act 1924 66 (1) b).

And it is a hypocritical act as he denies my proven peaceful and civil behaviour as being within “public order” whilst at the same time commits an indictable offence against public order.

~~~

(5) - Magistrate Szramka erred in his misleading “conclusion,” where his judgement being: “the defendant must accede to in the practice of his religion as he must comply with the law. Considering all the evidence I find that the charge proved,” not only defies God's call of “mercy & forgiveness,” but it also gives incitement and misleading precedent to other men working as policing “officers” and prosecutors for the State Institution.

For it leads them to believe falsely, that it is right action on their part. It is not, for it is wrong to persecute any peaceful person of any ideology, especially those that follow a different religious belief, as it is their entitlement within the Constitution Act, and is their God given right. It is un-lawful for the police to persecute or prosecute or apprehend any children of God who walk in peace.

Thus, Magistrate Szramka’s misleading conclusion may well incite other institutional enforcers to disturb the peace of others, and thus commit immoral and unlawful acts that defy God’s Code of Conduct Command and their own religious institutional statutes. Thus bringing God's “law” into action against them at a later date.

~~~

Should for any reason or reasons, the Magistrates grounds for the application of the clause “subject to public order,” be upheld by you, then I submit that:

(6) - The Magistrate Szramka erred in fact and law under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (9^th July 1900) section 116 that states; “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.” (Refer annexure 12)

This is relevant in that: The State and Commonwealth’s Institutions assume that I, being born in Australia, am thus a citizen of Australia and thus a subject of the Queen and thus within the jurisdiction of her rules & punitive laws. If you  “judge” me thus, as being a subject of the Queen, then I am subject to the Constitution of the Commonwealth and its primary statutes.

The Constitution of Australia Act section 116 states, “The Commonwealth shall not make any law. …or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion” and Tasmanian State Constitution Act 1934 section 46(1) states similarly but has the “proviso”: “the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.”  

The Constitution of Australia Act section 109 states, “When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid." (The Commonwealth law supersedes that of the State) (Refer annexure 12)

Thus the “freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion.. guaranteed to every citizen,” stand qualified and thus applicable to myself in relation to the conviction detailed above.

I also add that it is wrong for a magistrate to use a “subject to public order & morality” clause as the reason to not only negate my “freedom of religion” living ways choice, but to then use his “armed forces” to impose his contra religious “belief” by punishing me.

For his “punitive” controlling action is itself an act contra the “subject to public order & morality” clause of his own Constitution in the practise of his religious belief. It is also an “act” contra God's "Do not disturb the peace of the land,” Command.

Any magistrate that defies the “rules” of his own Constitution in an attempt to “attain” or maintain control over the life or “morals” of another, is Iniquity and Treason.

~~~

Finally: Notwithstanding the above “items” that all pertain to me as being a member of your Institution in your “eyes,” it follows that as I am not a “member” of your “State” Religious Institution, that its rules and conduct demands do not apply to me.

And I ask that should this appeal to God and this court be upheld, that the three outstanding fines imposed by The State Government of Tasmania for which I am accused of “owing” though my adherence to my religious belief, and for which I have been informed that on non-payment, I shall be imprisoned, be quashed. For if not done those inflicting the punishment and those funding it will incur a further penalty for their punitive, un-loving and non-forgiving acts that defy God’s Only Love Command.

Mr Crawford, I put to you that the question that needs to be “answered” by you, is whether a man of peace is allowed to live his religion (belief) and to follow his conscience.
As said by God he is………
As said within the Constitution of the State he is.

~~~

I draw my understanding on the critical spiritual importance of heeding the call of the Light: “to ONLY be loving, compassionate, merciful and forgiving, and to be peaceful at all times," from what I believe is God’s Word manifest again on earth. It is my belief that the spirit of truth, being God’s messenger of truth and Light, again walks this planet and he has now written God’s Final message to humanity that is freely available on the Internet at:

www.the-testament-of-truth.com

www.the-testament-of-truth.co.uk
and is in a CDrom provided. (Annexure 4)

 It is from this message that I draw my conviction and strength to stand firm in my religious belief and peacefully face the proven retributionary and un-loving ways of the punitive “rules” as contained within the “books of man” of the religious institution called the State Government of Tasmania.

I appeal to those that would doubt this statement, and to those that seek more on the understanding of how the devil has entwined It’s darkness within all governing bodies on earth, to especially read the ‘The “Slave” Citizen’ document at the above web site.

DATED THIS……….….day of………………………2003
Signed………………………………………………....(the Appellant)

200 Norwich Drive Longford Tasmania 7301. Australia