Friday, May 17, 2013

Australian Magistrate Recognizes Courtesy Notices -- Charges Dismissed


Australian Magistrate Recognizes Courtesy Notices -- Charges Dismissed 
May 17, 2013

Big thanks to Bethany Truex for sharing this story on Facebook today. Awesome story! :) ~BK

Congratulations Brian and Karolina, well done you have, opened the way for all Australians, you should go down in the history books

Rena Iliades
Courtesy Notices to every Councillor! So exciting. Basically the magistrate almost gets arrested and the court withdraws all charges when they realized that the invoices are legal and payable!

A friend of mine Carolyn & Brian Allen have been tackling an issue where the police seem to have it out for her son. To cut a long story short, he was being harassed by some Local boys who are really bad news (burglaries etc) and he and his friends had an altercation with them because they had stolen his car and then threatened him if he went to the police. As a result of the altercation, the police decided to harass and charge the most vulnerable being her son Brandon who is intellectually disadvantaged, arrested him a few weeks ago and then released him on bail. He also has outstanding fines.

Robert Fletcher helped complete a notice giving custody of Brandon (Carolyns Son) to Brian and Robert went to court for support and presentment (without Brandon). They handed courtesy notices to the Magistrate (the so called Judge who is really the registrar who was going to hear the matter), the police and everyone got Courtesy notices.

In the first hearing, the magistrate was asked in what capacity they act and to prove jurisdiction over Brandon as a living being. The magistrate refused to answer and essentially abandoned the court saying he was going to issue a warrant for his arrest because Brandon did not turn up to court. Good job Robert!!!

The police kept coming over to serve warrants and all sorts of things, which were never delivered because Carolyn would pull out Courtesy Notice and ask them their names which she would promptly see them go back into their cars and leave. No matter, Carolyn would send them via mail.

After a few weeks of this, some started getting invoices like the Clerk at the Desk at the court and the Magistrate.

Today, they went the court because the Magistrate was going to hear the matter. Carolyn gave the Clerk at the desk, the magistrate and others another invoice and another courtesy notice.

The Clerk, as Brian and Carolyn were waiting for their names to be called and the matter to come before the magistrate, returned with an envelope and when she opened it, it was the CN's and the invoices that she had given them earlier with a cover letter from the Senior Registrar saying that they do not recognise the CN's nor the Invoices. Carolyn at this point was on the phone to the sheriffs office, explaining that she wanted a sheriff to attend the court to arrest an individual who was posing as a duly appointed servant of the public trying to impose a private contract that she had not agreed to. At this point, whilst she was waiting (for about 15 minutes for a sheriff to get on the phone) one turned up at the courts entrance!!!

The security guards refused to let the sheriffs in and refused to let Brian and Carolyn out to speak with them, so Carolyn went to the registrars desk and the registrar told her that the invoices are invalid and Brian heard this and replied that the invoices are recognised globally and that they had no jurisdiction over any of them and that they are liable to pay them and they will have them all arrested and charged. The registrar then handed them a document (a charge sheet) outlining that all the charges had been dropped against Brandon. At the same time, Brian could hear some of the argument/conversation with the sheriffs who were being refused entry into the courts and they were telling the security guards that they had no right to refuse them entry and were taking down their names and their details.

The registrar asked more than once about the invoices and Brian & Carolyn told them that since they had dropped all the charges and have striken the matter in writing, that they were prepared to withdraw the invoices and the fines!!! YAY Carolyn, Brian Allen & Robert Fletcher BEing & DOing

12 comments:

  1. fantastic news, where is this we need to use this in all cases as its set precedence... xxxlove n lightxxx la viva the revolution xxx

    ReplyDelete
  2. I couldn't be more please about this. I think the couple handled this very well. I saved this article for my own guidance.

    Yes the Courtesy Notices are real. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I couldn't be more pleased about this.

    I think the couple handled themselves very well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. WHERE IS THE DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE ADJUDICATOR[JUDGE] ACTUALLY DISMISSED THE CHARGES?! WHERE IS THE SIGNED DOCUMENT OR COURT TRANSCRIPT OR DISPOSITION? If this actually happened WHY aren't you showing the Documents and Evidence?! Why hide it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that's a fair point chief. is it a matter of not reporducing legal private documents for the world to see? if not, i would imagine they are available somewhere. some documents would be a great addition.
      other than that, well done, congratulations, the tide is definitely turning. thinking i may well have some court cases in the uk very shortly..
      peace & love.

      Delete
    2. this is the evidence we've been waiting for, once shown we now have concrete steps to follow. thanks to your courage and persistance carolyn and brian you have paved the way for all. i hope you and your son can have some peace now and feel the gratitude from all those who have some real means to not only defend themselves but put an end to this corrupt system. thankyou for daring to tell the truth.

      Delete
  5. wow this is a major step forward go Aussies go this is they way it should be the sooner they back off the quicker this world can return to peace.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's a pity that the matter didn't actually get into the courtroom and be recorded as a precedent. That would then have made headlines all over Australia. Then EVERYONE would have been privy to it in one foul swoop! The Courts would then have become defunct.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Um, sheriffs don't have power of arrests in these circumstances and they don't charge people. So this doesn't ring quite true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Victoria, and another state, Sheriffs are still LAWFUL.

      Elsewhere, they are not.

      This happened in Victoria.

      Delete
    2. You need to do your research about the role of the sheriff.... my research has revealed that he has the power to determine if a case proceeds to court or not...

      Delete
  8. Hi All,
    It appears that there are two issues involved
    1. that courtesy notices have legal standing under the law.
    2. That charges were dismissed.

    Is there available documents confirming the courtesy letters are legal and describing under what laws this is so.

    Is there any document explaining why the charges were dismissed; again if they have been dismissed for any legal reasons the judges explanation and reasons.

    I hope there are documents available as they would be precedents that can be used in other court matters.
    We are fighting for our constitutional rights and need every weapon at our disposal to fight with.
    So forgive me asking are these documents available and where can they be obtained. I would like to read and study them, see the legal proof and not rely on anecdotal comments. It is important as the "Crims" will be doing everything to discredit those fighting for justice. As we know, one weapon they use is to claim either you have no standing or that you are a vexatious litigant.
    I know of one case where an issue was taken to VCAT requesting a review of a decision from the EPA. The time was spent in VCAT trying to establish the person had no standing etc. Because the person was a layperson and did not understand how to present the case VCAT gave in favour of the company and awarded immense costs against the applicant. It was an attack on the person and the real issue of the application to VCAT was never addressed.

    ReplyDelete