You are on page 1of 10

Youve been summoned to a Court Mention attend and say I DO NOT plead guilty nor not-guilty I am here today

ay at their request I do not believe I have committed any crime as I have injured no one then Your Honour, I request I ask for a Hearing date to seek legal advice to prepare my defence then prepare your Affidavit to be given to the accuser and filed in the Court at least 7 days before the Hearing. RESPOND TO THE INFRINGEMENT BY AFFIDAVIT EACH SITUATION IS DIFFERENT AND NO TEMPLATE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE LEARN HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS AND BE ABLE TO DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST A SNEAKY ADVERSARY. DO NOT COPY AND PASTE THE SUGGESTED AFFIFADAVIT BELOW The items shown xxxxx are essential to be part of your Affidavit. You need to establish in your affidavit the following things: 1. That you are the agent for the legal fiction (YOUR NAME IN CAPITALS) 2. That you are made up of flesh where blood flows within a living soul 3. You are a man under God's covenant of Man and a Man/Woman on the land and not upon the Sea of Commerce. 4. You therefore reserve all of rights without prejudice Under UCC 1-207 revised 1-308 5. You rely upon Common Law as defined by Legal Maxims and the definitions of Common in the Oxford and Black Law Dictionaries 6. That you are aware that Australia and all of it so-called Government Departments are sub corporations of HER MAJESTY IN RIGHT OF ENGLAND namely the CROWN CORPORATION OF LONDON all of which, are traded on the USSEC (foreign entities. 7. They must provide Validity of Claim that they have legitimate authority 8. The device used (speed camera/ parking meter) is Calibrated and calibration is not law, and does not satisfy the Weights and measurements Act of 1960 9. The bond (your car) was not asked by the Police officer/ parking officer if it consented to contract as it was not in a position to do so 10. The only way this matter can be properly adjudicated is in the Common Law Jurisdiction by a Jury of 12 men (jury of your peers) 11. They have Failed to produce a victim of the alleged crime who has suffered LOSS, DAMAGE, or HARM along with 2 supporting witnesses. 12. Advise that your Fee for Court appearance is $2500 per day or part thereof. (sadly no judge today will allow this, even when you win. )

Magistrates are aware that SPEED CAMERAS are UNRELIABLE and cannot be used as RULE OF EVIDENCE as follows:-

1. Magistrate Judge Lawson ruled that CALIBRATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RULE OF EVIDENCE at Hornsby Local Court adjourned a case, giving the RTA eight weeks to produce an expert to prove pictures from a speed camera on Carlingford Rd, Epping, that had not been altered after they were taken, he went onto say it was a matter of public interest and the RTA should be given time to back up its case, but RTA lawyers explained that they could not find an expert to be able to VALIDATE their so called RULE OF EVIDENCE & so the case was thrown out. 2. Chief Justice Ewan Crawford over rules Magistrate Reg Marron, for he had found a woman guilty of speeding, fined her $350 "without any plea and without admissible evidence". "There was no due process," he said. "The magistrate conducted a hearing in the nature of an inquisition and not in accordance with his duties." 3. Justice Crawford overturned the conviction and penalty against Eleonore Wells in August last year. He said Mr Marron demonstrated an ignorance of the usual process in speeding cases. He found that Mr Marron had erred on 10 grounds, including by cross-examining Ms Wells and by not giving her an opportunity to give her evidence in her own way. He said he did not blame the police prosecutor. "The handling of the case was removed from her by the magistrate who should bear the blame for the miscarriage of justice that occurred," he said. Justice Crawford said Mr Marron had told the only witness in the case, a civilian speed camera operator, to leave the court. 4. Judge Douglas McGill SC in a Brisbane District Court appeal of the Bowen magistrate's decision, Mustafa Al Shakarji used a Google Earth map to argue a police officer's evidence was impossible. He claimed if the speed radar device was used to the Australian standard, the officer must have been detecting another car's speed. Mr Al Shakarji won his retrial on the basis that he was "deprived of a proper opportunity" to test the credibility of the police officer in cross-examination at his trial. Judge Douglas McGill SC said in his judgment. He will get a chance to do that when his new trial is listed. In another win for motorists, Ian Colin Grice was booked for driving his Mercedes at 117km/h in a 100km/h zone on the Cunningham Highway near Warwick, on December 22, 2009. Though he claimed he was not doing that speed, a magistrate found him guilty during a summary trial in June. Mr Grice appealed, representing himself in the Brisbane District Court. Last month, Judge Nicholas Samios overturned the decision and found Mr Grice not guilty. Judge Samios ruled the Certification of Authorisation, which police claimed showed authorised the traffic branch officer to operate the radar device, was inadequate. "It merely says the police officer attended the course. It does not say he successfully completed the course nor that he is authorised to operate the radar device," said Judge Samios. 5. Judge Samios overturned another man's speeding conviction after the motorist appealed on the grounds that there was no proof the speed camera used was accurate. Andrew Gregory Morrison had been charged with doing 73km/h in a 60km/h zone on Sandgate Road, Nundah, in July 2009. He denied the charge but after being found guilty by a Brisbane magistrate in March last year he appealed, arguing there was no evidence of calibration or testing of the speed camera's accuracy. "In my opinion the magistrate should have dismissed the charge on this ground as the magistrate could not have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt the device being relied upon by the prosecution in this case was producing accurate results," Judge Samios said. 6. Deputy Police Commissioner Ian Stewart said in a statement the withdrawal was ''embarrassing'' for Queensland police. The speeding notices are being withdrawn because testing of the eight speed cameras did not comply with legislation. Every time a speed camera is operated it must undergo a manual test under law. However, the cameras in the Clem7 used an automatic testing process. Deputy Commissioner Stewart said there is no fault with the technology itself, but the police will have to adjust procedures to comply with legislation. ''What were not convinced is that automatic testing covers the legislation, so weve gone back to manual testing,'' he said. The state government spent $2.5 million installing the cameras, which were placed in pairs at four points along the 6.8 kilometre tunnel. ''If there is an element of doubt, then we have to give motorists the benefit," Sergeant Danny Baade from the State Traffic Support Branch said. There are currently nine other fixed speed cameras spread across the state. "The new digital camera ... system used within the Clem7 tunnel is the only one of its kind operational in Queensland," police said. "No other speed camera site is affected." The speed limit along the Bowen Hills to Woolloongabba cross-river link is 80kmh. Gold Coast criminal defence lawyer Bill Potts said he believed the digital speed cameras were not properly calibrated. ''The tunnel as I understand it has all sorts of metallic things in it, signs, plumbing and the like. It may be that the calibration of this has not been properly done,'' Mr Potts told ABC Radio. ''Digital camera technology ... has to go through a very rigorous method of being set up. It may just simply be that that particular set up is not being done properly or accurately as it could be in the tunnel.'' He said any demerit points should also be waived as a result of the recall. ''If the fine is being given back, or the ticket waived, then no demerit points should apply,'' he said. ''However where people have doubt they should bring those doubts [forward].''

SAMPLE ONLY
AFFIDAVIT As a society of decent people for the most, we need bona fide Policemen and women who are Peace Officers, and not revenue collecting Policy Enforcement Officer agents for private companies pretending to be lawful Government. To travel on the Queens highway is a right and not a privilege. I know of no one intending to have an accident nor to harm another road user. Traveling within the flow of traffic with attention and common sense does not constitute a crime under Common Sense Law I am xxxxxxxxxxxx of the Family name xxxxxxxxxxxx from the Beit Daveed - House of David, on this day xxxDAY xxxTEENTH DAY OF monthxx, TWO THOUSAND and TWELVE Man On The Land, that the CORPUS knows as being 10 xxxx street, in the said State of xxxx 1234, being duly affirmed before a representative of Her Most Excellent Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, in the Common Law Jurisdiction, hereby make oath and say as follows:1. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, RESERVE ALL RIGHTS Uniform Commercial Code 1-207 revised 1-308 and 2. I refer to Common Law Jurisdiction, whereby confirmed by LEGAL MAXIMS that defines the term COMMON, and 5. CHOICE OF LAW upon the Sea of Commerce, therefore refers to the Uniform Commercial Code 1-109 and 1-302 (a)(b), 3. Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 has NO Royal Assent. Your employer, the Police service is a security agency to a foreign Company STATE OF QUEENSLAND. Under the Public Seal of the State, this Police service is Personating Authority they dont have. Yours so called laws are copyrighted State of Queensland. The People of Queensland are NOT between the Seal and the Copyright as per the Corporations Act previously stated Your Company belongs to a Private Company (STATE OF QUEENSLAND) part of C.O.A.G = COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS. All in C.O.A.G are under the Company
THE AMERICAN COMPANY

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
For Foreign Governments and Political Subdivisions Thereof

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA. UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington D.C.20549 Business address CIK: 0000805157 1610 MASSACHUSETTS AV NW Company Name: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA File Number: 333-163307
WASHINGTON DC 20036 C/O AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY

4. In your correspondence dated xxxxxxxxxxx You have failed (a) To rebut my correspondence dated xxxxxxxxxxxx and are in dishonour. Thus your letter is from an individual man or woman . (unnamed please provide) (b) To provide any evidence to prove the alleged offence No xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (c) To provide any VALIDITY OF CLAIM (d) To provide two witnesses as required by law (e) To provide any Medical Evidence pertaining to any physical injuries requiring Compensation to anyone within Common Law (f) To provide any evidence that I am an employee of your Company, thus being subject to your Company policies (g) To provide verification of the camera's accuracy according to the Weights and Measures Act 1960 (h) To honour the contract dated xxxxxxxxxx with payment as per Invoice No xxx (j) Above all, you have ignored the Bill of Attainder which is an attainment of Treason .. A Bill of Attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) can carry life imprisonment for the individual responsible in this case, the one who ignored the warning. 5. Only a Court of Common Law jurisdiction before a Jury of 12 good men can adjudicate any alleged offence I require you to bring to the court all the above in addition to1. Authorised King James Bible 2. Oxford Dictionary 3. Blacks Law Dictionary 7th Edition 4. Uniform Commercial Code (COMMERCE) I remind you of my Fee Schedule already in your possession now in force which includes $2500 per day or part thereof PLUS EXPENSES for any court appearance that will be made forcible by my application to the Supreme Court for Judgement, as your Business House trading as xxxxxxxxxxxx has DISHONOURED, thus removing my infallible rights as a Human Being under Common Law Jurisdiction. Deponent (Your signature) Before me xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Justice of the Peace INCLUDE ANOTHER INVOICE OVERDUE PLUS $250 FOR THIS LETTERYOU MAY WANT TO OFFER THEM TO WAIVE IT OIF THEY DROP THE CHARGE - UP TO YOU

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This was sent to me by Paul


On Oneday at 6.45 pm, knock on door and who should be there but local constabulary with summons to attend local court next day at 10.00am. Item number xxx on list, failure to pay speeding fine camera offence. When the matter was called I appeared, the Magistrate asked was I Mr. Surname I said I am the party known as Paul of the family Surname Well Paul! How do you plead? I said, I am here by special appearance and I have not come to testify but I do have a question. As the plaintiff and its representative are claiming aggrieved status by contracting a third party to issue a fine for an alleged offence should we not be hearing from them first? A fellow called Fred Nerk from the Crown Solicitors Office represented the State Debt Recovery Office was the Prosecutor. He went through the detail of time of alleged offence; the kms per hour recorded and had a 10x8 photo in his hand. He held it up so the Magistrate could see it and said This is Mr. Surname's car your worship. I said, I have not been presented with any material facts or evidence that that is my car and the unfinished part of my question is, is the plaintiff in court? The Magistrate says to Nerk who is the real plaintiff in this matter? Before Nerk replies I pipe up and say Is it not that the Camera is the real plaintiff in the matter and I further ask - is the Camera going to testify? Nerk has a bit of a stutter and stammer and without lifting his head Magistrates raises one eyebrow and looks at me and says case dismissed. Nerk yells out what about costs your worship. Mag says I dont think we should pursue this matter any further Mr. Nerk He was in the foyer as I went out talking to what appeared to be other solicitors, he pointed at me and they all looked around. I said to myself - checkmate. (note) The Mag knows well that costs should have been awarded to Paul that is why he said - I dont think we should pursue this matter any further Mr. Nerk

This was sent to me also Please respect their privacy


Form 7B (version 1) UCPR 14.3

DEFENCE

COURT DETAILS
Court: Registry: Case number: Local Court of New South Wales. Parramatta. 152434/001/3

DETAILS OF PROCEEDINGS
Prosecutor: Defendant; ZAHI ALAMEH. ANTHONY GEORGE WILSON.

FILING DETAILS
Filed for: Contact name and telephone; Anthony George Wilson. Anthony George Wilson

PLEADINGS AND PARTICULARS


1. 2. 3. There is no guilt attached to my guilt to my parking my car on a public street. ie; I have done no wrong. The issuing of a COURT ATTENDANCE NOTICE to me is wholly unlawful. There are no grants or promises of fines or forfeitures unless I have been convicted by the lawful judgment of my equals, ie: trial by jury, because I am a free man; I am a sovereign human being created by God and have the inalienable right to trial by jury as guaranteed and entrenched in constitutional and, more importantly, common law. Should I be denied my legal right to trial by jury, I shall immediately challenge the jurisdiction of this court to proceed summarily when I have not consented, either orally or in written form to be without a jury. The person, ZAHI ALAMEH, endeavouring to prosecute me is of a Department/Organisation: Parramatta City Council 10150 and I, Anthony George Wilson, have no contract with either that PERSON nor that Department/Organisation. If there is such a contract, of which I know nothing, then I demand that that contract be produced before the court. I am under no obligation to this person nor to the Department/ Organisation : Parramatta City Council 10150.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

The Department/Organisation: Parramatta City Council has no standing and no validity because it is wrongly held to be a Local Government Entity trading as PARRAMATTA CITY COUNCIL with an A.B.N. of 49 907 174 773. However, the National Referendum held on the 3rd day of September 1988 to alter the Australian Constitution to include a new section, ie: section 119A, with the proposed wording of: Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State, was Not carried, ie: it was the Will of the People of Australia that local government be neither established nor continued. Local Government entities, such as the PARRAMATTA CITY COUNCIL, are illegal. There is another entity included in the DETAILS OF COURT LISTING that being the State Debt Recovery Office that has an A.B.N. of 77 456 270 638 that, in a letter to me dated 20 May 2009 in regard to penalty notice 3016049300, wrote that We confirm the penalty notice was legally issued and conclude that the penalty still applies. Hereto annexed is a copy of that letter and marked A. The State Debt Recovery Office is a STATUTORY BODY and, as such, has no entitlement to act judicially and has no jurisdiction to be able to say the penalty still applies. No penalties can be imposed upon me unless I have been convicted by the lawful judgment of my equals, ie: my right to trial by jury is inalienable. I am under no obligation by way of any contract with the State Debt Recovery Office. If there is such a contract that is unknown to me, I demand that that contract be produced to the court. The COURT ATTENDANCE NOTICE states that an Offence has occurred. An Offence is something that offends or displeases; a violation or breaking of a social or moral rule; transgression; sin; injury; harm; hurt. I have hurt no one. I have not trespassed by parking my car on a public road. CIVIC PLACE PARRAMATTA is a public place and is not the property of the illegal Parramatta City Council A.B.N. 49 907 174 773 that I have to pay for the privilege of either I or my car being there. The Parramatta City Council, A.B.N. 49 907 174 773, has acted unlawfully and the person, ZAHI ALAMEH, has committed a mischief by vexatiously endeavouring to prosecute me. This charge against me must be dismissed with costs awarded to me.

SIGNATURE
Always put your signature on the RIGHT Signature: . Capacity: Defendant and Sui Juris Date of signature:

AFFIDAVIT VERIFYING
Name: Address: Occupation: Date: I say on oath: 1. 2. 3. 4. I am the defendant. I believe that the allegations of fact contained in the defence are true. I believe that the allegations of fact that are denied in the defence are true. After reasonable inquiry, I do not know whether or not the allegations of fact that are not admitted in the defence are true. Anthony George Wilson. ..

SWORN at . Signature of deponent . Signature of witness Name of witness . Address of witness Capacity of witness .

FURTHER DETAILS ATHE PARTIES TO THIS ACTION


Filing party:

Name: Anthony George Wilson. Address: Capacity of filing party: Defendant and Sui Juris Address for service: as above. Telephone:
Prosecuting party:

Name: ZAHI ALAMEH Address: c/- Parramatta City Council, 30 Darcy Street, Parramatta, NSW 2150. Capacity of prosecuting party: Prosecutor. Address for service: as above. Telephone: (02) 9806 5000.

THIS WAS SENT TO ME AND IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE USE AT YOUR

DISGRESSION FURTHER IDEAS ON How to defend yourself, when you enter Court under Maritime Jurisdiction in Australia as most Courts are now. Judge; DO YOU HAVE AN OATH OF OFFICE? [Possible case dismised] There is a way to win and a way to loose. So learn this information well. Things to Remember in their Court. 1.The courts are a third party to a commercial dispute. Their purpose is to witness and facilitate security transactions and they do require the consent of both parties. Before they can perform. They are offering a service. That service is to bear witness to the dispute, Pass judgment and give orders- But you do not have to avail [consent] to this service. They are offering you a benefit which you are FREE to waive or decline. 2.Do not obey any orders, and dont follow any requests. If you do anything they ask of you, you have granted jurisdiction to them /her /him. So the WAY to get around this, once again to respond with your questions, or requests or to conditionally what is being asked of you. 3. The language they are speaking is Legalese it sounds like English yet some words have Very different meanings. There are ONLY two official recognised Languages in the Australian Constitution, namely Irish & English. Feel Free to remind them of this and you may insist on speaking in Plain English only if you wish. 4. It is Interesting to note, that the Judge, the Prosecutor and, if you have a Solicitor, the Defence, not to mention many other justice officials are all members of the same society The Law Society of Australia. This is a society that has its own Codes rules and language. You are Not a Member of. So how could possibly Understand [ Stand-Under] it? With all this in Mind do you believe you possibly get a FAIR Trial? 5. When you enter Court under maritime Jurisdiction it is accepted that you have broken a rule of society aka a Statute, and you are going there to receive your punishment or charge. You [or rather your Straw Man] are Guilty until proven innocent and YOU must defend yourself from the accusations. So NOW, lets reveal the way to defend ourselves from these people who sat on the Judgment Seat in the Court room. All the Officers of the Court must swear an Oath Of Office including the Judge. However the judge is not necessarily acting on his oath when he sits on the Bench. When he is not acting On his Oath he is merely giving his opinion. This holds so much weight in court because people are not told that the Judge is after all, just another man and has NO Authority over them. YES You need to GET THE JUDGES OATH ON THE RECORD ! To do this you can Simply ask the Judge ; SIR or Judge, DO YOU HAVE AN OATH OF OFFICE? If he answers NO. To this Question you yes YOU the defender can then Instruct Sheriff, baliff or Court Duty Police office to arrest the IMPOSTER on the Bench. For this reason they will most probably say Yes at which point you ask; Is your Oath here today Judge? Is it on the RECORD?
Now this is where you will see It gets interesting because you will find that it most probably is NOT! You must state Clearly and unequivocally- For and on the record I am accepting your Oath of Office It Is

Now On the Record.

What Does This Do?


A Judge must swear an Oath to uphold the Law [not statutes], practice impartiality and to administer

justice fairly and without prejudice. When the Oath is On the Record the Judges role now changes,,, He /She [MUST PROTECT YOU] if your rights are being infringed upon. HE is BOUND to UPHOLD THE LAW [ I. e. The Common Law] and becomes an UN- Interested party whose role is to Ensure Justice prevails based on the facts only. What also happens IS that you are now INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and it is now to the prosecutor to prove your guilt. .. Its important to point out that ALL Crown CORPoration COURTS are All registered companies TRADING FOR PROFIT in a big scale. Here in the Australian Corporation this can be verified by going to Business.gov.au these entities are attempting to claim against you in a Commercial Capacity by Enforcing Statutes that ONLY ever have the Force the Law by CONSENT?