List of rate letters Pindari Herb Farm
www.pindariherbfarm.com
A Resource Centre for Self-Responsible and Harmonious Living
Home
 

Statement by Submission - K. J. Atherton

TASMANIA

MAGISTRATES COURT (CIVIL DIVISION)

FORM 4

DEFENCE

ACTION No.  M/2011/3270                 

MAGISTRATES COURT
Address: 73 Charles Street , Launceston
Phone No: 63362605    Fax No: 63311538

CLAIMANTS           Mayor, Councilors and Electors of the  Northern Midlands Council
                                    P O Box 156 - LONGFORD 7301

DEFENDANT           

Kenneth John Atherton - 200 Norwich Drive
LONGFORD 7301

SOLICITORS FOR DEFENDANT:  N/A

AMENDED PARTICULARS OF DEFENCE (2nd August 2011)

In regards to the Council's "Overdue rates and charges" Action no M/2011/3270, dated 3rd of June 2011 and signed by Maree Bricknell, Corporate Services Manager for and on behalf of the Mayor, Councilors and the Electors of the Northern Midlands Council (NMC) against "Defendant" Kenneth John Atherton 200 Norwich Drive LONGFORD.

This document is my defence to the above claim and is dated the 2nd of August 2011.

I am ‘Kenneth John Atherton’ a human being, an individual child of our supreme Creator who I will forthwith call God. I am, as I believe are all, first and foremost, ‘subjects’ of God and I now state as follows:

My defence is based upon 4 pertinent questions being:

A - The Constitutional legality or otherwise of the NMC’s action against me in respect of my Constitutional 'Freedom of Religion' belief, my Rights contained therein, and my protection under that Act?

B - Is the ‘Rates tax’ revenue raising demand within the State Local Government Act 1993 valid in this case or is it overruled by the 'Freedom of Religion' Act within the Constitution?

C - Is Section 116 of the Australian Constitution Act (9th July 1900) and Constitution Act 1934 (Tas) being ignored by the Council, Judiciary and enforcement agencies? If the answer is “yes” then a state of anarchy exists with illegal rule by force of arms having taken its place.

D - Is the State issued Rates tax payment receipt a ‘permit of permission’ to live without Council harassment? If “Yes,” then the ‘Freedom of Religion’ Australian Constitution Act (9 July 1900), section 116 applies in my case, as does the Tasmania Constitution Act 1934, and both give me immunity from persecution and prosecution. I state this because it is my belief that it should so be, and is summarized as follows:

 1 – I am an absolute pacifist, and since the institution you serve has the opposite and thus ‘contra’ ideological belief in the use of force to control, interfere, regulate, fine and punish using the Court backed by ‘arms,’ I believe that it would be a contravention of God’s ‘Peace & love & mercy’ Command for me to support it through ‘fee or tax’ and it would be against my religious belief and conscience and:

2 – I further believe that the “NOT IN MY NAME” policy must by me be strictly observed and adhered to because I cannot pay the wages of others (paid state and federal servants) who then go forth operating on my behalf and in my name doing interfering, taxing, fining, dispossessing or ‘injurious’ things to others. These are actions in absolute contravention of my religious ideological doctrine of ‘PEACE, compassion, mercy and forgiveness’ at all times and in all situations and:

 3 – I give you the depth of my fervent religious beliefs as Annexure 1 of this submission to which I add that my internet web pages also prove my religious ideology to be as declared by me over the last 20 years. Refer: My personal web site http://www.pindariherbfarm.com

 I do know that every magistrate I have appeared before believes that they are only required to uphold State laws but I find that to be an invalid assumption and I therefore refer you to: "Responsibility of Magistrates." (Extract from: http://www.peo.gov.au/faq/faq_23.html)

 23.1 What role do the courts play in Australian governance? Australia's system of courts is the third arm of Australian governance and is known as the Judiciary (page 8) - The role of the Judiciary is to:

I make a ‘Not Guilty’ plea because my innocence from 'guilt' only becomes apparent when we compare the differences between your belief system and mine as well as on the true meaning of the word ‘religion,’ a belief which is the overriding ‘ruling’ factor within the context of the Tasmanian and Australian Constitutions. 

 Point 1 - The belief system of the State rules is predicated upon a ‘belief’ that my ‘freedom to live’ unhindered is contingent upon payment of an annual fee based upon a valuation that you place on my ‘freehold title’ land. The demand of an annual ‘rate tax’ is simply a 'political' edict and has no bearing upon the fact that NO services are supplied nor were any asked for.

 Point 2 - The issue at stake is whether or not I am a person who is required, by law, to make such a ‘fee or tax’ contribution to state coffers or not. Taking into account my ideological belief I must not fund any person or ‘institution’ that is proven to have a conflicting ideological belief to mine.

 I do believe that within the Australian Constitutional Acts/Law that ‘mandates’ and authorizes your decisions, that I have immunity from persecution and prosecution in this matter and, within this document of defence, I will do my best to so prove to your satisfaction.

 I also contest the belief of the Council staff who believe that because I have not paid the demanded fee tax to the institution that I am punishable within its statutes. I can only deduce that they are ignorant of the immunity granted by the Constitutional powers to certain persons.

 I shall seek to prove to you that the State Local Government Act 1993 Section 120 (Liability for Rates) is not applicable to me and that within the protection granted unto the 'peaceful,' that I have immunity from persecution and prosecution from the ‘application’ of this State Act.  I also believe that prior to judging my case it is your task to first check the act used to 'charge' me against the Constitutional Law Acts, to establish if it is applicable or not.  

Point 3 - I base my defence upon the RULING Acts in the Australian & Tasmanian Constitutions (Annexure 2 page 53) (Annexure 3) and the validity or otherwise of the claim against me hinges upon the interpretation of the word 'Religion' as well as the interpretation of the following Australian and Tasmanian Constitutional Acts:

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act ( 9th July 1900 ) section 116

 "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  Constitution Act 1934 (Tas)

 This document includes a legal guarantee of the religious liberty and equality of Tasmanians. Every citizen is guaranteed freedom of conscience and the free exercise of religion under Section 46(1) of this Act.

 Part V - General provisions - Religious freedom

 46. (1) Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

(2) No person shall be subject to any disability, or be required to take any oath on account of his religion or religious belief.

NOTE 1: The NMC and the State courts have and continue to deny me my freedom of religion even though it is guaranteed under these Constitutional Acts.

NOTE 2: "Public order" may be defined as living in peaceful co-existence (refer annexure 4 - Oxford Companion to Law by David Walker Clarendon Press, Oxford 1980, page 1015.) and "morality" as living righteously according to God's Commanded Code of Conduct. Both of which I do aspire to in spite of the Council's ongoing attempt to have me fund their punitive ways and thus have me deny God’s Command and have my code of conduct be ‘otherwise’ and contra to my chosen peaceful ideology.

Point 4 - I do live in peaceful co-existence within my community despite the NMC’s continuing harassment of me through their extortion demands, authorized theft of cars, threatened sale of my fee simple property, my home as well as attempted public humiliation. Their ongoing attempts to have me fund their punitive and ‘war like’ acts are an attempt to have me deny my God and fund their dark, punitive and controlling contra-God’s Command ways.

Point 5 - Proof of the sincerity and adherence to my religious ideology may be found in my previous court appearances where I like wise have declared my freedom of religion under Section 116 of the Australian Constitution Act (9th July 1900) and Tasmanian Constitution Act 1934 Part V Rule 46 (1) and (2), only to have the magistrate deny me my Constitutional and God given rights. I have proved myself to be an absolute pacifist having on four separate occasions spent a total of more than 20 days incarcerated in state prisons rather than pay the fines imposed upon me for heeding my God’s Command.

Point 6 - It is contrary to the Command of God for the NMC to persecute me and prosecute me for simply conforming to God’s command. This is religious persecution and as said, is contra the State and Federal Constitutional rules and of a human beings fundamental human rights.

Point 7 - In order to 'prove' and 'Judge' the case at hand one way or the other, one first needs to understand the meaning of the words 'Freedom of Religion' and how they are applicable to citizens of Australia and every land mass on earth.

 Equally important to understand and accept is that on this ‘material’ level, the overriding power of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act ( 9th July 1900 ) section 116 supersedes all subsequent legislation.

 Section 116 of this Act is a general prohibition applying to all laws and subsequent legislation, under whatever powers these laws have been made.  It does not compete with other provisions of the Constitution and it prevails over all laws and limits all provisions which give power to make laws.  Accordingly no law can escape the application of s 116 and all legislative powers are subject to the condition which s 116 imposes.

 Equally, Constitution Act 1934 (Tas) and its Part V - General provisions “Religious freedom” applies to every State of Australia. Section 117. I seek to assist you in determining whether or not the Local Government Act 1993 Section 120 (Liability for Rates) is a valid law * in this case.

 Note: valid law * - The implication being that State law is valid unless it is overruled by a Commonwealth Law such as the ‘Freedom of religion’ Act, an Act that is only 'valid' to those who have not disturbed the peace of the land.

It follows that the 116 'Freedom of Religion' Clause giving immunity and protection to those who wish to live by their belief, as long as they do not disturb the peace, clearly overrides any latter day Council Act that of itself  is simply an annual tax. It is the issue of ‘tax’ that is the point in contention.

Point 8 - Clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Annexure 5 page 8) says: Operation of the Constitution and laws [see Note 3] This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State.

And: In the Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, Section 330 titled “Its Interpretation,” John Quick and Robert Randolph Garran (Annexure 6) state:

"In the exercise of the duty of interpretation and adjudication not only in the High Court, but every court of competent jurisdiction, has the right to declare that a law of the Commonwealth or of a State is void by reason of transgressing the Constitution.

This is a duty cast upon the courts by the very nature of the judicial function. The Federal Parliament and the State Parliaments are not sovereign bodies; they are legislatures with limited powers; and any law which they attempt to pass in excess of those powers is no law at all it is simply a nullity, entitled to no obedience."

 Point 9 - I believe that in order to satisfy my God and His command that I must only contribute to the benign aspects of societal provision of services because I believe that if I contribute 'tax' money to the ‘General Rates’ section of State coffers that I would in fact be paying the wages of staff who raise up rules and laws that affect other community members in a negative manner and that to me is unconscionable.

 This would not only make me complicit to all the suffering that Council members impose upon others in the course of their duty to the ‘rules of engagement’ dictating their actions, but would result in me automatically placing myself within the punitive aspect of God's Law: "As you or your servants do unto others will be done unto you," and God would see me as a 'faithless' mortal for seeking the protection of men rather than from Him.

Summarising the facts given - I cannot deny my belief in 'Peace at all times and in all situations' being the basis of my religious ideology. I would also be denying my conscience.  This I would surely do if I funded the coffers of an institution having the proven contra ideological belief in “control, interference, extortion and punishment. Given my beliefs, I should be neither ‘coerced’ nor punished using the prescribed Act.

 Point 10 - The question of today is 'What is the meaning of the word 'Religion'?

 The right of and importance of Religious freedom for the citizens of Australia has been clearly affirmed by the rulings by the High Court of Australia (The case of Church of the New Faith V Commissioner of Pay roll Tax (Vic) 1983 154 CLR 120) (Annexure 7) where:

Justices Mason and Brennan, in a joint judgment, stressed the importance of the case in determining fundamental questions of religious freedom in Australia and the extent to which an individual is free to believe and act without legal restraint.

Justices Mason and Brennan said, "Freedom of religion, the paradigm freedom of conscience, is of the essence of a free society. The chief function in the law of a definition of religion is to mark out an area within which a person subject to the law is free to believe and act in accordance with his belief without legal restraint."

The definition affected the operation of the religious-freedom guarantee under the Constitution and many other laws granting religions special benefits.  "Protection is accorded to preserve the dignity and freedom of each man so that he may adhere to any religion of his choosing or to none," they said. "The freedom of religion being equally conferred on all, the variety of religious beliefs which are within the area of legal immunity is not restricted." The judges stressed the importance of the "Actions of the adherents" rather than the dogma itself.

Point 11 - I Kenneth Atherton believe that the word ‘Religion’ is the belief in a superpower entitled to be revered and obeyed and, IT IS THE IDEOLOGICAL CODE OF CONDUCT POLICY as Commanded by the Sovereign Power (God) that is to be obeyed.

Australia's Macquarie dictionary (Fourth Edition) – page 1197 (Annexure 8  – page 1197.)

Religion = - - - - the quest for the values of the ideal life - - - the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal,… recognition on the part of humans of a controlling super human power entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship.

Religious = - - - - scrupulously faithful; conscientious, pious, devout.

The above means that one’s 'religion' is not any named 'Church' organization, but it is the policy of one’s daily code of conduct interaction with other children of God.

Australian Legal Dictionary (Butterworth) (Annexure 9 - page 1527)

Religion = A system of ideas and practices, usually involving a belief in the supernatural

 Right to Freedom of religion = The right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of religious belief:  International Declaration of the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religious Belief 1981.

 Blacks Legal Dictionary (American Dictionary)

 Religion = A system of faith and worship usually involving belief in a supreme being and usually containing a moral or ethical code............

Point 12 - I believe that the Tasmanian and Commonwealth CONSTITUTIONS are 'The Sovereign Ruler' giving ITS ruling decrees unto ITS (His/Her) ‘servants.

I believe that persons such as myself who do ‘conform’ to Constitutional ‘rights’ granted to me and all who do obey the “Do not disturb the peace of the land and be of moral standing” rulings of God, man and the Constitution, do have the right to live as ‘free men or women’ and go about their business without ‘Let or hindrance.’ I do adhere to all the God given policies of ‘conduct and directives’ and I do pay for services rendered and I do freely donate funds to assist the general community.

This matter is of critical importance for me since being able to live my life in peaceful co-existence heeding my Creator’s Command is essential for my spiritual ‘wellbeing’. I believe my acts do decide my spiritual destiny when I leave my physical body and funding a proven intrusive & controlling organization such as the NMC via any ‘rates’ profoundly puts that in question.

Because it is my wish to live peacefully within my community and to pay my way and contribute funds to those in need where I am able, I have endeavoured to support the NMC which is a major community service provider in my region, even though I receive no direct services. But my request that my freely given funds be only used for benign activities has been denied and two substantial donations of fuel either refused or returned.

It is thus that I am now faced, because of my religious convictions, with defending my place of living and income for my family and self.

 ~~~~

Point 13 - From the above, the answer to the earlier questions is:

 Question A. - The above sections of Commonwealth and State Constitutional Law prove the illegality of the NMC’s actions against me as I endeavour to live in peaceful co-existence in my community.

Question B. - The Tasmanian Local Government Act 1993 is clearly not valid in this case, it being overruled by Section116 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (9th July 1900) and the Tasmanian Constitution Act 1934 Part V Rule 46 (1) and (2).

Question C. - Section 116 of the Australian Constitution Act (9th July 1900) and the Tasmanian Constitution Act 1934 Part V Rule 46 (1) and (2) have been ignored in the past by the Tasmanian Judiciary and enforcement agencies in my case and thus a state of anarchy does exist in this the State of Tasmania were illegal rule by force of arms has now become the norm.

Question D. - Is the State issued Rates tax payment receipt a ‘permit of permission’ to live without Council harassment? It is simply an annual tax and I cannot pay it as to so do would be to deny my conscience and my God.

I have been persecuted for my religious belief in absolute pacifism, with the magistrates committing Treason against the overriding Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and of the Constitution Act of 1934 of the State of Tasmania , as well as it being an “activity” that defies the Command of our Creator.

Point 14 - There is no contract for services, written, verbal or implied between the corporate institution named the NMC and myself. Any assumed ‘contract’ based on past precedent was cancelled in my letter to the NMC dated 4th of August 2006 (Annexure 10). If the NMC believes otherwise I ask that the contract between the NMC and me be tabled for the court and me to view.

Point 15 - I have made it quite clear in the past and do again repeat that I am prepared to fund “sections” of the services provided by the NMC institution namely those I deem to be required by me. I have also in the past made freely given donations to my local community through the NMC whereby I have specifically advised the NMC that none of the “monies” I contributed were in any way to be used for the purpose of litigation against others because I would be complicit in such a punitive 'action.'

 Point 16 - It is an act of insanity for me to fund any organization so that the given funds can be utilized by them to take punitive “action” against me. It is my fervent ideological belief that any person or person employed by any institution who finds 'reason' to send armed men to the property of an individual such as has occurred on my property, where armed men came and stole my motor vehicles, or as the 'police' official (bailiff) on behalf of Council officers has done, that all complicit are guilty of a criminal offence.

Point 17 - It is my fervent ideological belief that 'Councils' are supposed to be a community service provider, and that they should not force people to pay for services they have neither asked for nor want nor received by utilizing the 'Court' to back their false claims with forceful means.

Point 18 - The provision of services to me, being the basis of the NMC monetary claims, were not supplied. It is my fervent ideological belief that I do not have to pay monies for services that were not supplied.  There was NO service provided to my property in respect of the monies claimed.

Point 19 - I receive no direct services from the NMC and thus have no moral, ethical or legal obligation to fund the NMC and I state: I do not believe that I "owe" others anything simply because they say I do.

Point 20 I am being persecuted, dispossessed of property, harassed and victimized simply because it is my fervent religious belief that it is unconscionable for me to give in to 'extortionist' demands that arise simply because Council individuals exceed their mandate as granted within the Australian Constitution.

Point 21 I am being persecuted for my religious belief in absolute pacifism, and that is Treason against the overriding Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and of the Constitution Act of 1934 of the State of Tasmania , as well as being an “activity” that defies the Command of our Creator.

Point 22 – The NMC ‘officials’ through their attempts at extortion and other punitive acts against me are thus proven to not abide by God’s Command of “Peace unto all,” and are “self-proven” to be of an “extortionist and punitive” doctrine and thus demonstrate that they have a contra ideological religious belief to mine.

Their “religious” ideological belief, being their ‘dogma,’ is “dictated” by the book of rules which includes the “Local Government Act 1993“ and which “dictates” a code of conduct policy to its employees “mandating” that they must commit acts which deny God’s Command. I cannot condone these activities because they are activities “backed” by force of arms which is against my own religious belief.

Point 23 – The ‘bailiff’ has already seized two of my vehicles and sold them.  This is not only an infringement of the 'Freedom of religion' clause but is an action that has caused me to suffer deprivation (disability) which is also an infringement of Constitutional policy.

Point 24 – I have chosen to heed God and in that choice I endeavor to live within my community peacefully as commanded by God’s commanded “peace unto all” doctrine. The NMC is a principle service provider and I have in the past paid for those services I chose to receive from Council.

I have also been inspired by God to provide, through the NMC, a freely given donation as a contribution for the benefit of the local community.  I have included with this donation a clearly stated request that my freely given funds were only to be used for the positive benefit of the needy.

Point 25 –The NMC’s denial of my request and their on-going persecution of me resulted in my dismissal of the NMC as my service provider (Annexure 10). In this correspondence I informed the Council of my rights as granted by God and by their Constitutional rules.

Point 26 – It is my ideological belief that I must have God as my “head of house” and “bow” in submission to His “Go your way in peace and be kind, merciful, compassionate, and forgiving” Command.

Point 27 – It is contrary to the Command of God for the NMC to persecute me and prosecute me for simply conforming to God’s command. This is Religious Persecution and as said, is contra the State and Federal Constitutional rules and of rulings of the United Nations.

Point 28 – It is error on the part of the NMC employees to try and steal funds from me for services they did not give on the pretext that I am within their "Council" jurisdiction when I have clearly in the past shown beyond doubt that I am not.

Point 29 – It is unethical and discriminatory for everyone in the community to be charged the same ‘rate’ for services when some, as me, do not receive the service. In no other organization are service providers so illegally permitted to charge for services not provided and if they did they would be hauled before the courts of man.

Point 30 – I believe that as a peaceful person owning fee simple ‘freehold property’ an individual has the right to live in isolation on their ‘Oasis’ if they so wish without armed ‘invaders’ trying to steal their money or seize their property for any reason. The ways of ‘demands and coercion’ is not the ‘brotherhood of man’ required by a civil society.

Point 31 – I contest the assumed ‘right’ by the Council organization or any other ‘authority’ to have the facility to legislate their own ‘terms & conditions in respect of the way in which they conduct their interaction with the people. For what is the ‘rightful’ legality for any person in any institution taking it upon themselves to impose rules enabling their control, interference, coercive behavior and punitive actions using a ‘Court’ backed by armed men?

 There is NO ‘Right’ as such and therefore any such interference in the lives of others must be deemed unlawful in the eyes of God and every sane person.  Only the ignorant or ‘bad’ people seek to control, enslave and interfere in the lives of others.

 What ‘Right’ has any sane person to ’claim’ to have ‘text,’ written in a ‘book’ by others, that supercedes the ownership RIGHT of freehold Title to the point that, if the land holder refuses to give in to the ‘Mafiosi’ extortion demands that they can be ‘legally’ evicted or ‘legally’ have their property seized? IF any such texts exist then it is the RIGHT time to now abolish said text so that man can become a HUMAN being of Light.

 The assumed ‘Right’ to attempt extortion or, to forcefully evict, is a false one born out of ignorance set by precedent. The precedent was set a long time ago when an ‘invader’ seized control of a land mass by force of arms and stated that: “By force of arms I hold and own every part of said land and anyone wishing to live in peace thereon are by me required to pay to me an annual TAX for that privilege or, be banished.”

Due to the above land ‘seizures’ which took place in every land mass on earth, there has been an ongoing established belief that the invasive ‘power’ now has legal tenure over said land mass and, that its ‘officers’ now have legal jurisdiction* over all mortals thereon with the RIGHT to ‘decree’ and legislate, and by these rules enslave everyone, with any non-conformity being punished.

 Note: legal jurisdiction – Within the mind of peaceful men and within the “Peace, love, mercy” Command of God there is NO ‘legality’ for any activity that is backed by dictated rules and force of arms.

 I can but add that irrespective of any ‘ownership’ beliefs in ‘precedent’ set by other mortals and, irrespective of any legislation drawn up by other mortals, it is my belief that I am a free man entitled by God to live as I believe I should as long as I do not disturb the peace of the land. It is also my belief that I do not have to ‘bow’ to the demands of any ‘invaders’ be they past or present ones and I rely solely on my God for my protection.

I can but ADVISE all persons seeking to steal my money or goods or land that if they so persist then by their own FREE WILL CHOICE & BELIEF they defy the ‘rules of their own institution Constitution, they defy God, they defy ‘reason,’ and they place themselves into a dark morass of suffering within the precepts of God’s LAW “As you do unto others will by others be done unto you.”

 As it is my ‘task’ and wish to elevate the consciousness of mankind so that we can all go forwards in a better way without having to ‘steal’ our pay each day, I simply place this document on line for the world to view so that everyone who truly believes in peace, truth, and honesty can decide whether to continue funding the ‘extortion’ of money from others in the community VIA the institution or, whether they would rather simply pay for the services they wish to use.  People can simply also freely GIVE a donation to institutions that are helpful to others.

Point 32 – I believe that it is now the time for every ‘Council’ to amend its operational mandate from ‘Local government’ to ‘Public Works department’ because I do not believe that community members need to be ‘governed’ either by distant rulers or by other local community members imposing their ‘strictures’ upon everyone else via ‘Council’s’ use of force to back up their punitive strictures.

I believe that it is error for any ‘public’ organization providing services to impose their own demands upon individuals. It is now time for the organization named ‘Council’ to become a true community service provider who ‘offer’ services at a ‘rate’ or ‘cost’ that is equitable so that those wishing to make use of said services may do so without being coerced or interfered with in any way. (Ref ‘The Council Blueprint’ document on line at: http://www.the-testament-of-truth.co.uk/web/blue01.htm)

Point 33 The 'claim' against me is stated to be ON BEHALF OF the Electors of the Northern Midlands Council.  This is a false statement as there are members of the electorate who have signed a statement to the effect that they did not give 'council' management permission to use their names in said controversy and they do not wish to bring any complaint against me. Statements so stating are available. 

Point 34 –  If Council staff and others named on the ‘complaint’ continue to pursue me with the intent to punish after having been fully advised of the circumstance of my religious doctrinal belief as well as the immunity granted to me with the Constitutional Sovereign Power, as well as the prior Points 1 to 33 then, - - -

It is my fervent religious belief that their ‘actions’ will by God, man and the Constitutional ‘Authority’ be seen as 'Guilty' of:

Note: (Coercion* - being the punishment factor I am subjected to.) Coercion is using the forceful court of man as the means to cause me embarrassment, mental, emotional and possibly physical duress, and material loss and loss of my freedom if I am incarcerated as the result of your personal ‘additional’ complaint to my long ‘history’

Point 35 – I await God’s judgment upon me through the mind of the person who takes it upon themselves to judge me, and I can state quite truthfully that within the precepts of God’s immutable “As you sow so shall ye reap” Law, that if any ‘restriction, eviction, fine or theft’ of my property takes place then everyone ‘listed’ on the ‘complaint’ sheet is complicit, and they and the ‘judge’ will suffer the same ‘loss and injury’ at a later time – that is also my fervent religious belief.

Note:

I am advised by THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY that: There is now to be a "No tolerance" attitude taken towards anyone of the public or any state official having any racial prejudice or religious INTOLERANCE.

I am advised by THE  SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY that: Any 'official' or person inciting civil unrest in matters pertaining to the Constitutional "freedom of religion" Act will be very harshly dealt with.

I am advised by THE  SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY that: Any 'official' or person found disturbing the peace of the peaceful for any reason will be very harshly dealt with.

I am advised by THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY that: Any 'official' or person unlawfully interfering in the lives of the peaceful for any reason will be very harshly dealt with.

I am advised by THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY that: Any 'official' or person found to be carrying out any unlawful arrest – transportation – detention or punishment due to their disregard of the religious beliefs of others - not disturbing the peace of the land - will be very harshly dealt with.

The end of my submission to the court.

~~~~

Annexures.
Annexure 1 – My Religious ideological belief.
Annexure 2 - Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act section 116. (page 53)
Annexure 3 - Constitution Act 1934 (no 94 of 1934) Part V Rule 46 (1) and (2).
Annexure 4 - Oxford Companion to Law by David Walker Clarendon Press, Oxford 1980, page 1015.
Annexure 5 - Clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. (page 8)
Annexure 6 - Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, Section 330 titled “Its Interpretation,” John Quick and Robert Randolph Garran.
Annexure 7 - Church of the New Faith V Commissioner of Pay roll Tax (Vic) 1983 154 CLR 120.
Annexure 8 -
Australia's Macquarie dictionary (Fourth Edition) – page 1197.
Annexure 9 - Australian Legal Dictionary (Butterworth) page 1527.
Annexure 10 - Letter dated 4th of August 2006, to Mr. Monsour, Maree Bricknell, Manager Corporate Services and the Mayor, Councilors and employees, electors and financial contributors C/- Northern Midlands Council. This letter may also be viewed as letter 29 at: http://www.pindariherbfarm.com under "Spiritual Truth on Local Council Charges, Rates & Taxes" on the front page.  

To access the linked 'annexure documents' you will need to go on line to: http://www.pindariherbfarm.com/ratelet/letter60.htm  

Further correspondence around this defence may be found at letter61.

To top of page Home