~ Open letter to the Law society of Tasmania ~
Legal Fact and Criminal Conspiracy
Dear Mr Matthew Verney, associates and friends, you may be interested in assisting me with some information. Information around the issue of the civil right to live according to ones conscience according the rules of engagement of the Constitution of the institution of the Australian government you 'fellowship' with and support by vote and funding.
I am a 77 year old man who is trying to get the police, prosecutors and 'petty court' magistrates to see that 'cases' involving the issues of belief, faith, conscience and religious ideology can only be legally 'heard' in the High Court. (As understood by me and requiring your clarification please)
In many cases prosecutors and police are placing 'Freedom of Religion' cases onto the 'plate' of petty court Magistrates who I believe do not have the legal authority to hear them, and said magistrates also publicly state that they are not interested in 'what' the Constitution says or otherwise, nor are they interested in 'listening' to ones 'belief' or ideological views of the person before them so they simply fine or jail people.
My intent is not persecution or punishment, but solely education and enlightenment and a better life for all. I would be very grateful if you could respond to my 'asked questions' below so that I can forward this email with your LEGALLY backed answers to the persons who in truth are in need of EDUCATION as I see it for presently, they are engaged in the causing of harm as well as imposing emotional trauma on peaceful members of the community.
I believe that many peaceful people are living according to THE superior constitutional LAW and I also believe that the interference into their lives is illegal, criminal and treasonable. I believe that the intent of the 'interferers' is an attempt to 'thwart' and sideline the Freedom of Religion Acts clause of the Constitution. If you Matthew or one of your associates with the 'free' (Pro Bono) time available to assist Tasmanians and all Australians I ask:
1) In your considered opinion, is it a legal and thus lawful FACT that people of Australia have the RIGHT to have 'opposite' or therefore conflicting 'faith or beliefs,' being matters of conscience or religious ideology that differ to those held by other mortals?
In your considered opinion, is this right enshrined within the constitutions of Tasmania and Australia given below in this document?
In your considered opinion, is it a legal and therefore lawful FACT that the RIGHT to live by ones personal conscience, faith belief or religious Code of Conduct ideology or actions is dependent upon obedience to the words: "As long as one is not disturbing the peace and not committing an immoral act" as stated within the Constitution?
In your considered opinion, is
this right enshrined within the Constitutions
of Tasmania and Australia given below in this document?
In your considered opinion,
the Constitutional Sovereign Power or Authority guarantee protection to a peaceful and moral person having this religious ideology which also
grants them immunity from persecution?
In your considered opinion, if there is a difference of opinion between two persons because they are of opposing religious ideals, faiths or beliefs, and one seeks to have the conflict settled in a court, is it a FACT that said 'Freedom of Religion' Acts apply and a 'complainant' must place their complaint before the High Court?
In your considered opinion, if
the complainant, having the knowledge of the Freedom of Religion Clause, seeks to sideline the High Court procedure of “hearing and Judgement” and instead places their complaints on the 'plate' of a Petty Court Magistrate, is the complainant guilty of an offense and if so, is the offense a criminal and treasonable activity?
In your considered opinion, if a petty court
Magistrate has been given written advance notice advice that the case placed before him is a matter of faith, conscience, belief and religious ideology, and therefore a 'Freedom of Religion’ case
'conflict' which is a matter for the High Court only, which the magistrate ignores by going ahead, judging the case and imposes a punitive judgement factor upon the defendant, is the magistrate guilty of treason, anarchy and criminal action?
In your considered opinion, if
a Justice of the Peace signs a
'Notice requiring attendance'
summons for a defendant to appear and be judged by a petty court magistrate, on a KNOWN 'Freedom of religion' matter, is the Justice of the Peace guilty of collusion?
In your considered opinion, if the summons is delivered by a police officer
or a 'licensed process server' to the premises of the defendant demanding that the defendant appear in court or be arrested and, the police station commander knows that this is a Constitutional matter, is the station commander and/or
the serving officer complicit and therefore also guilty of anarchy and treason for their own defiance and rebuttal of the orders of the Sovereign Power of the Constitution?
It appears to me to be a case which is deliberately presented to a 'Petty Court' magistrate by the ACTIONS of a highly placed official in an attempt to set a precedent whereby with the collusion of a magistrate giving a lowly court punitive judgement would NULLIFY the Constitutional Powers.
If this precedent is 'set,' it would result in thousands of peaceful citizens, citizens who presently have the ideology of absolute pacifism being LEGALLY interfered with, coerced, intimidated and persecuted so as to force them to 'fund' and join and SUPPORT an 'opposite to their 'belief' punitive and warring ideology.
It is in my opinion a FACT that all persons complicit to 'holding the court trial under such circumstance are guilty of a criminal and treasonable conspiracy to overthrow the Sovereign Authority of THE Constitution.
12) Further, if a summons to appear has but a 'scrawl' of a signature upon it with NO 'name' printed thereon identifying any 'person' as being the 'JP,' as there is NO way of checking if indeed the penned 'scrawler' is a registered 'Justice of the peace,' can I conclude that the summons is an illegal document and advise my 'client' so?
13) In the event that your answer to all the above is 'Yes,' I BELIEVE that my spiritual counsel to her would be that it was NOT in her best interest to attend an obvious 'kangaroo court' for she would also be aiding and abetting a criminal, illegal and treasonable ACTIVITY. I ask if your 'legal mind' would agree with that?
If my advice to the defendant is such then I would advise the Court Clerk accordingly as well as the Police commandant so that the police do NOT ahead arrest the defendant and drag her to the court and themselves become complicit to this criminal activity.
Please advise me
'who' upholds the
Sovereign authority of the Constitution and to whom must a complaint of ‘foul play' and
'criminal illegal and treasonable conduct’ be submitted to by me.
15) This case is not dissimilar to that of the Bali nine. In that case the consequence of defiance of and criminal conspiracy to defy the
'legal' system's authority which led some to their death, deaths which could have been avoided if the Federal Police had in ‘thought and deed’ had the interest of Australian citizens to the fore. Instead, the Federal Police did the opposite thereby letting the now deceased Bali men become entrapped.
16) In this case however, it is the Tasmanian Police force and their northern commander who will be disgraced and dis-honoured because their officers will have colluded with a mainland complainant to the detriment of a peaceful citizen of Tasmania
resulting in a miscarriage of Justice for the sole purpose of setting a precedent affecting multitudes of others and rendering the Freedom of Religion clause of the Sovereign Authority of the Constitution as INVALID.
17) Since this case is to be heard in August, everyone involved in the conspiracy, whether knowingly or unknowingly, needs
to be educated and this process needs to be halted before the
final judgment and subsequent proving of the guilt
of the magistrate and all by my pen publicly.
This case came to the attention of myself, a humble servant of God, when the victim (defendant) approached me for my spiritual guidance and advice which was given. On looking into the matter raised I realised the incredible enormity of what was attempting to be achieved by the
complainant and presumably their Prosecution counsel.
I state this because as I see it and BELIEVE, the Freedom of Religion Clause of the Constitution was a God given SURETY given to man that: - “Any persons who showed their God their TOTAL OBEDIENCE to His peace and love and mercy and compassion and forgive thine enemy command, would receive His protection and the protection of those earthlings who
LOYALLY uphold the Constitution.
If this case is permitted to continue on by being heard and judged in a Petty Court by an ignorant magistrate who thereby sets a precedent whereby THE PEACEFUL could or would be persecuted, intimidated, harassed and punished, that would constitute a CONTRAVENTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, then for sure CIVIL UNREST will follow via a total collapse of society. The complainant in this case is using a Petty Court magistrate to 'challenge' the Sovereign Authority of the Constitution of the institution they are both paid a wage to SERVE judiciously
Why a collapse?
Because all will see that the police, who are paid a wage by the people to be upholders of the peace, had become lackeys for thieves seeking to enslave, subjugate and steal all their money. If that is to be the case then the police are being illegally used to now go forth and disturb the peace of the peaceful.
If you can answer the above questions to the AFFIRMATIVE then you are assisting me in my INTENT to assist the Police Service back into their original PRIMARY and honourable role to ONLY uphold the peace of the land by ONLY hauling in those who have disturbed the peace or intend to so do or, are of immoral 'habits' such as drug dealers and thus causing harm to others.
I enclose the below I have found on line as it may assist you.
Constitution Acts. Acts which authorise and LIMIT the actions of public servants who work for the institution of government:
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 (Tasmania) - State Constitutions apply to all states
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
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.
Politicians have failed to take into consideration their own mandate to legislate, in that no legislation applies to the peaceful of moral standing who believe that they are entitled to live as absolute pacifists according to their own God-given conscience. It also follows that they are NOT TO BE VICTIMIZED by armed men.
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 that give 'someone' the 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. Clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act says:
Operation of the Constitution and laws [see Note 3] This Act. - 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.
It follows that the 116 'Freedom of Religion' Clause giving immunity and protection to those who wish to live by their conscience or peaceful ideological belief clearly overrides any latter day ACT.
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. This is an Act that is only 'valid' to those who have not disturbed the peace of the land and have their God as head of house rather than mortal man.
In the Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, Section 330 titled "Its Interpretation," John Quick and Robert Randolph Garran say:
"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."
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.
The role of the Judiciary is to:
- apply the law as made by the Parliament
- where necessary, interpret the laws made by Parliament and
- Ensure that laws comply with the Australian Constitution
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 of the High Court of Australia (The case of Church of the New Faith V Commissioner of Pay roll Tax (Vic) 1983 154 CLR 120) 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.
I Terence de Malaherre 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 and IS ones 'religious' belief:
"Go your way in peace and love one another and be merciful and compassionate and forgive your perceived enemy."
Note: Australia's own Macquarie dictionary – page 835 (Compact version)
Religion = - - - - the quest for the values of the ideal life - - - the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, - - - a system of belief in the worship of a supernatural power or God' or the recognition by man of a superhuman power entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship.
Religious = - - - - scrupulously faithful, pious, devotion - - - this means that ones 'religion' is not any named 'Church' organisation, but it is the policy of ones daily code of conduct interaction with other children of God. (Peaceful or controlling)
It has become a 'common' ERROR of belief by the 'warrior' tribes on earth who use force of arms to interfere, control, enslave, subjugate, extort money and punish or wage war that, - - - the RULES they raise UP as text in books somehow legitimises their ACTIVITIES and somehow nullifies or voids or avoids the LAW OF GOD 'factor.' The factor being THE Law of EQUAL RETURN of the benign or malignant energy used.
It is my 'pen' to now somehow bring to the attention of all mankind that God's LAW reigns supreme and is immutable and is inviolate as will be seen as man now PAYS for his 'folly' in the manner revealed by ME.
"As you sow so shall ye reap ~ what you do unto others will be done unto you on an EQUAL and thus 'eye for a eye' basis"
It is simply the LAW of ENERGY IN MOTION
'For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction' at the time and in the place the intelligent spiritual energy so decides
Never interfere in the life of another child of God unless you wish to educate them if they are 'offensive.' If you or your servants interfere in the lives of others for the purpose of their control, subjugation, enslavement or punitive correction then you will regret it forever!
So sayeth God's Sage
There are only two
ideologies or beliefs
held by those 'faithful'
BELIEF in ones RIGHT
extort money, steal
property, banish, evict,
dispossess, cause harm,
excommunicate, kill or
destroy their OPPOSITION
BELIEF in ones RIGHT
to be totally
obedient to the
Command of their God
at all times and in all
situations and thus they
who ONLY condone,
fund or monetarily
ACTIVITY even if
they are persecuted unto
Sincerely - Terence
The Devil's RULE or
God's RULE ~