Tuesday, January 31, 2017

REFUSE paying ridiculous so-called Traffic Fines which are absolutely UNCONSTITUTIONAL and in plain language, are simply a THEFT!! - ‘Parking Tickets’

The other day, somebody asked me for help with his fines, so I went to see him. After the meeting, I went back to the car and found this so-called ‘parking ticket’.
So, I wrote up a notice, sent it by Express Post though it’s a bit dear but you can locate where it is, when it’s delivered for your record. And now, I’m going to share it with you here so that you can fight back, too.

Notice of Demand

XXXXX City Council
THEIR ADDRESS
Victoria, 3XXX

RE: Your Ref: INFRINGEMENT NOTICE TICKET NO. XXXXXXX

XXXXX City Council
Proponent

YOUR NAME
Respondent

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal,
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent


Proponent left above so-called ‘INFRINGEMENT NOTICE’ on Respondent’s car windshield on XXth January 2017, requiring Respondent to pay so-called ‘penalty’ of WHOPPING $78.00 because, according to this ticket’s description, Respondent ‘PARKED - FAIL TO PAY FEE AND OBEY INSTRUCTIONS ON SIGN’. Respondent notices Proponent’s ‘officer’ altered the ‘ISSUE TIME’ obviously, since Respondent was with the car at that time plus another five to eight minutes at least. This is rather minor issue, yet Respondent believes that general public should know that so-called ‘authorities’ constantly TELL LIES.

Respondent asks Proponent if Proponent OWNS these PUBLIC ROADS to be entitled to charge people fees to park their cars. Quite unlikely, therefore Respondent demands Proponent to present a verifiable evidence to claim that is the case.

Also, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act - Section 80 states:

Trial by jury

The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.
(end quote)

There was no such trial held in court of the Common Law to the knowledge of Respondent. Therefore, Proponent needs to prove this parking ticket called ‘INFRINGEMENT NOTICE’ is truly valid.

Next, Respondent points out that 'Local Shire' and/or 'Local Government' is an absolute fraud.

In 1988, there was a referendum. People were asked if they would approve to change the Constitution to have this 'Local Government'. It was NOT carried.

Section 128 under Chapter VIII Alteration of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 states:

Mode of altering the Constitution [see Note 1]
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first‑entioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first‑entioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first‑entioned House will not agree, the Governor‑eneral may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first‑entioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one‑alf the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor‑eneral for the Queen's assent.

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

In this section, Territory means any territory referred to in section one hundred and twenty-two of this Constitution in respect of which there is in force a law allowing its representation in the House of Representatives.
(end quote)

This means nobody can alter the Constitution unless there is electors’ approval along with the Queen's Royal Assent. There again, that’s NOT the so-called ‘Queen of Australia’ the name, traitorous fraudulent criminals made up. Anyway, the Constitution says we have two tiers only - Federal and State although both have been altered into something else as shown below.

Here, Respondent also points out that the Governments in this country at all levels are Companies (attachment #1 and #2) along with the so-called ‘XXXXX City Council’ the Proponent itself.

Respondent did a COMPANY SEARCH on Dun & Bradstreet, and the Search Results showed a Company named ‘XXXXX City Council’ at “THEIR ADDRESS” which is exactly where Proponent is located (#3, #4, #5 and #6). Respondent also found Proponent’s ABN number (#7). ABN is of course, “Australian Business Number”, therefore it proves that Proponent is a Company.

Governments are paid by people and to serve people, their genuine employer. Therefore there was an expression “public servant” which is non-existent for many decades. But Companies are to make profit and please their shareholders.

Quite obviously, Companies cannot be Governments, because they are two very different entities. Therefore, Companies do NOT have any authority or power over anybody to charge fees, fines or ‘penalty’ unless both parties signed such contract with signatures of both sides with wet ink. In this case, Proponent which is a Company must have had this contract made properly with everybody in order to charge them a fee for parking their cars on PUBLIC ROADS (which does NOT make any sense to begin with), and/or charge this fake ‘penalty’. Respondent has never signed such contract, ever.

Propornent is simply trying to make profit by swindling and stealing from the public.
This is a traitorous fraud.

Anyway, we know any referendum related with so-called ‘Local Government’ was NOT carried therefore it was NOT possible for the traitors to present it to the Governor-General for the Queen's Assent. Traitors simply made up the 'Local Government Act 1989' to control, take away people’s freedom and rights, steal from them, and poison them. It is clear that so-called 'Act' as well as Proponent's entity are absolutely unlawful, unconstitutional therefore
null and void.

Demand for Evidence

As explained above, it is irrefutable that this entire thing is a sham. However, Respondent gives Proponent an opportunity to provide Respondent verifiable evidence to prove 'Local Government Act 1989' is lawful, constitutional and valid law with approval of electors majority (Sorry, non-existent!) . Along with, before Respondent takes any action suggested by Proponent, Proponent must provide Respondent verifiable counter evidence to prove Proponent’s action and statement are lawful, constitutional and valid, under the lawful, constitutional and valid de jure Government of the State of Victoria and the lawful, constitutional and valid de jure Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Please provide sufficient and verifiable evidence within 14 days i.e. by XXth of February 2017. Without appropriate evidence to prove above, Proponent is committing a serious crime and should GO TO JAIL (GAOL as you would spell) immediately.

Caution
Commonwealth of Australia Crimes Act of 1914 (with Royal Assent, not repealed) states:

3. “Commonwealth officer” means any person holding office under the Commonwealth, and includes any person permanently or temporarily employed in the Public Service of the Commonwealth, or in or in connexion with the Naval or Military Forces of the Commonwealth, or in the service of any public authority under the Commonwealth and includes an officer of the Commonwealth Bank.

75. Any person who

a) personates any Commonwealth officer on an occasion when the latter is required to do any act or attend in any place by virtue of his office or employment; or
b) falsely represents himself to be a Commonwealth officer, and assumes to do any act or attend in any place for the purpose of doing any act by virtue of his pretended office or employment,

shall be guilty of an offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for two years.
(end quote)

Respondent believes the said penalty must apply with any personator and/or false representative of any level of the Government and its entity. Take a note of what Chief Justice Latham stated in 1942 and another statement about "Concealment of Treason" (#8).


Default Position

In the absence of verifiable evidence to prove that the XXXXX City Council is a lawful, constitutional and valid de jure Government's body and Proponent’s action and demand against Respondent is lawful, constitutional and valid under the genuinely lawful, constitutional and valid de jure Government of the State of Victoria and the genuinely lawful, constitutional and valid de jure Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, Proponent acts fraudulently for Corporate Entities therefore their so-called Infringement Notice is
null and void.
Thus Respondent has no obligation to pay to Proponent at all.

Respondent has already challenged Registrars at VCAT, Magistrates Court of Victoria at two locations, a criminal Company pretending to be a ‘Local Government’ in the area where Respondent resides, their law office who never puts any name and signature of a lawyer/solicitor on their letter, who represents so-called ‘Local Governments’ in Victoria, so-called ‘Victoria Police’ and ‘Sheriff’s office’ and so forth, and demanded to present such evidence. Yet NONE OF THEM was successful to do so.

Take notice and govern yourself accordingly.

Note: The definition of all words is to be found within common English dictionaries. Respondent believes Proponent does the same with the definition of all words.

Signed this XXth day of January 2017 at YOUR ADDRESS, Victoria.


YOUR NAME
Respondent


encl.
(End of copy and paste)

Above is a sample.
You need to alter words and expressions to suit your case.
And I used Scott Bartle’s format of:
- Notice of Demand
- Notice of Fault
- Notice of Default
and above is the first one.

Like some sites of alternative medicines say, I would say everything you do is
YOUR responsibility though I will try to answer any question you may have in below Comment section (unless Blogger disturbs that).

Of course, you need to be careful and persistent in order to beat them, but
JOIN ME & DO THE SAME, regain your COMMON SENSE and
FIGHT BACK THE TRAITORS!!
not only for ourselves but for our future generations!!

if you don’t want us/them to live under Total Tyranny which is just around the corner, now

No comments: