Dear Maree,

Reference our meeting in the Court today 17th October 2016

It was a surprise to find out that the meeting with a 'conciliator' had been cancelled by yourself and that you were now simply going ahead with a 'complaint' to the Court that CB had failed to pay her rates and that you thus sought a judgement that would enable you to 'legally' use 'force' to steal 'something' to sell and obtain the demanded money.

What was so nice to see today was that wonderful smile you had when you turned to me, but I add that deep down within you I sensed a 'sadness' in your soul and I 'wonder' at your intense 'belief' in the ‘righteousness’ of your stance in dealing with Clemencia and myself.

Your words to me: "You should know better" struck a 'chord' as did your words: "The rates are a TAX." Why so? Because obviously Clemencia and myself and others have been living in a delusion because we 'assumed' that the 'rates' notice was a demand for payment for the provision of community services when in fact it is not.

Now you have established the 'ground rules' in respect of the 'rates' being the RATE of TAXATION required or demanded by THE INSTITUTION which in fact is simply an annual land rental fee demanded by THE Sovereign overlord, then it automatically follows that the 'matter' is a Constitutional one due to a conflict arising in Clemencia's CONSCIENCE.

Now that this has been cleared up I would hope that we can now move forward using the correct legal Acts governing the Council ACTIONS with The People of the land as per the authority granted to Council by THE Constitution.

Matters of 'faith' or belief or conscience can only be legally managed or discussed in the High Court of the land as is so stipulated within the Constitution Acts which grant your organisation a 'licence' to operate.

Both Clemencia and myself are absolute pacifists and we strongly object to funding any person, be they a 'Sovereign or other,' or institution that uses 'taxes' for the purpose of the causing of harm to others. In the case of 'Council,' if your demands are not met then you use said 'rates levy' to pay the costs of 'courts' and armed forces to go forth and steal, evict or sell up people etc., and to 'our' conscience it is unconscionable to support your activities.

Your 'office' even refused my 'ask' for me to be present to assist Clemencia. If you believe that your position of 'power' can overrule your own conscience, God's Command unto man, as well as your own Constitution then so be IT.

Madam, never again will Clemencia pay even $1 to your institution. Why? because she believes in my Testament to humanity in which it is revealed that anyone continuing to be COMPLICIT to the causing of harm to any other is to BE CONSIGNED TO THE ABYSS by THE SOVEREIGN OVERLORD, God.

I welcome your intended court 'action' as it might begin to educate a lot of people, and I simply ask that you advise your solicitor to send both of 'us' a copy of your submission to the court so that I can assist Clemencia by formulating a response.

Clemencia is an 'Alzheimer's' sufferer and requires my 'carer' support because her memory is 'short lived' indeed, and in fact on the way to the court today she was unaware of why we were going to the court. If your solicitor sends a copy of the submission to Clemencia ONLY then it will probably be 'lost' due to her mental state. I ask therefore that a copy of all future correspondence is sent to my address being at the end of this letter.

Prior to the court case I will send your office and solicitor a copy of my submission to the court.

Madam, if your solicitor advises you that it is 'in order' for this case to be presented to a lower ‘court of petty sessions,' then that is a grave mistake indeed, but 'we' here will manage it in the knowledge that our God (your God) sees ALL, and IF it is your intent and deed to circumvent THE CONSTITUTION simply to satisfy your ‘savagery,’ then that will by HIM be seen as a criminal activity because it was His inspiration to grant THE PEACEFUL immunity from persecution within the Constitutional ‘Freedom of religion’ Acts.

Addendum - The 'sovereign' who seized control of the Australian lands in the first instance on 26 January 1788 were the people at the flag raising ceremony and the formal taking of possession of the 'Australian' land in the name of King George III were the named Governor 'Phillip' and a few dozen marines and officers from the ship ‘Supply.’

Absolute pacifists such as Clemencia and myself do not 'recognise' this 'armed and forceful take-over' of presumed 'terra-nullius' lands as legitimising any annual land 'tax' rental fee owed to anyone. We thus are only 'interested' in funding the provision of benign community services and in this 'case,' Clemencia did contribute $500 to the coffers of local council to assist in the costs of road maintenance to her property.

Sincerely – Terence