Love for Life

Hello Arthur, Fiona and The Clan!

I have had a little success in dealing with the SDRO over the matter of an invoice for cruelty to a horseless carriage.

Apparently I had it "standing" for too long. ;-)

Anyway, ... (my apologies for the length of this email, but now YOU know how it feels! HAHAHAHA!!)

The original invoice had no name on it at all, so I wrote the following letter:

-------------------------------------------------

FROM: BB23LI
“A LITTLE BLUE TOYOTA HATCHBACK”
REGISTERED BY THE CORPORATION KNOWN AS “RTA” TO THE CORPORATION KNOWN AS
“NSW” ABN: 54 656 422 702 (according to the information on the “fine”)
(Entity name: BATMAN, PENGUIN ROBIN)

TO: THE CORPORATION KNOWN AS “SDRO” or
Entity name: OFFICE OF STATE REVENUE NSW TREASURY
ABN: 77 456 270 638

RE: INFRINGEMENT NUMBER: 6489105722

Dear Sir/Madam,

Being that “Fines” are only issued to PERSONS (A legal fiction, a corporation, a non-existent entity or a dead human being) and that no TRADE NAME of a PERSON other than a description of a vehicle one must assume the PERSON must be the vehicle itself. Being that a vehicle is incapable of writing a letter or defending itself in any way; I have been authorised to write this letter on behalf of the “offending PERSON” i.e. “A LITTLE BLUE TOYOTA HATCHBACK” hereinafter referred to as “BLUEY”.

BLUEY would like to know where the contract is that “he” signed which gives “Authority” to the corporation or PERSON known as “CHCC”

(ABN: 79 126 214 487) to collect revenue from “him”. Being that BLUEY is incapable of writing or signing his NAME how is it possible for him to enter into contract with “CHCC”? (NOTE; the trade mark “CHCC” is not registered, it is an abbreviation and would count for fraud when used to try to collect revenue as the TRADE MARK “CHCC” has no authority.)

Being that “CHCC” is also a fictional entity I would like to know why a living flesh and blood human being didn’t sign the PENALTY NOTICE on behalf of CHCC. I would expect to see a signed INVOICE for the alleged penalty.

BLUEY gives no consent for this matter to be heard before a Revenue Collection Enforcement Corporation (AKA Court) and he ACCEPTS the Revenue Invoice for VALUE, on the following conditions:

a. BLUEY is provided with proof of legal written and signed contract between BLUEY and CHCC that states CHCC has Authority and Jurisdiction over BLUEY.

b. Proof that BLUEY was indeed ‘“standing” in an area longer than allowed’ such as dated time-lapse surveillance camera footage. (Hearsay is not accepted as proof in a court of law)

c. The injured party comes forward itself, in flesh and blood, and make a claim as the injured party to back the “fine”. (At least BLUEY actually exists!)

d. CHCC and SDRO provide their authorisation with a writ and letters patenting it.

e. CHCC and SDRO provide all letters patent establishing office.

f. A legal sworn Affidavit that states “money” is backed by something of substance and value so that it would be actually possible for BLUEY to “pay” the alleged owed revenue.

Unless I receive the above particulars within 7 days of the date of this notice, it shall be taken that there is no such contract and that your attempts to extract money from BLUEY is nothing short of attempted extortion and solicitation. (Please show that there are not laws to hold perpetrators like you personally accountable.)

On behalf of BLUEY, I thank you for your time in clarifying this situation.

You are MY humble servant.

James of the Clan Bond
Spokesman for BLUEY and a Free MAN on the Land.

Authorised Representative

P.S. BLUEY has since passed away due to natural causes associated with old age. His remains are in a scrap metal yard located somewhere in the area known as Yellow Brick Road Harbour should you wish to take possession of his corpse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of months later the invoice arrived at my home addressed to "MR JAMES MI6 BOND". I wrote upon the envelope with out opening it something along the lines of "MAIL FRAUD: RETURN TO SENDER, INCORRECTLY ADDRESSED!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another couple of weeks later it arrives again so I put the unopened invoice in an envelope attached to the following letter:

----------------------------------------

To whom it may concern,

The PERSON (which in Law is defined as a corporate entity, a company, a fictional character, a soulless slave to be controlled by its author, which is another corporate entity known as the Government.) “MR JAMES MI6 BOND” does not reside at the address on the un-opened letter. I cannot open this letter as it is not addressed to the Living, flesh and blood human being known simply as “James” (please note the distinct appellation between the Living Flesh and Blood Human Being, “James Mi6 Bond”, and the artificial PERSON “MR JAMES MI6 BOND” see page over) if you wish to send mail to this address then kindly address it correctly. To open mail not addressed to me is regarded as Mail Fraud and you wouldn’t want me to perform an illegal act now, would you?!

All future correspondents are to be addressed to the Living Human Being known simply as “James”. As I have stated, any further mail addressed to the corporate fiction “MR JAMES MI6 BOND” will be marked as MAIL FRAUD and returned to sender. No Living Human Being residing at this address is authorised to open such mail.

Thank you for your cooperation.

James Bond
CREDITOR
A Free Man on the Land

NB: Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Edition 1968.

Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of Capitalization) In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.

Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered.

Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lesser or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or deprivation.

Capite. - Lat. By the head.

As Black's Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one's natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method, by which the State causes a natural person to "volunteer" himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn't willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used. The initial joinder is formed when a legal Birth Certificate is issued by the State, name in all CAPS. In fact, both the Certificate of Birth AND Social Security number, are for "inventory" control purposes, similar to the Amistad Schooner's manifest or those numbers or records used by legal entities or Corporations to track, account for, use and dispose of inventory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then next letter to arrive was marked "CLIENT CORRESPONDENCE" and addressed to "Mr James Mi6 Bond"

And so AGAIN I sent it back, unopened, attached with the following letter:

----------------------------------

To Whom It May Concern:

Unsolicited mail from the address on this envelope continues to arrive at my home.

The sender is unknown to me as no one residing at this address is authorised to open mail addressed to any of the PERSONS on the “TO” address.

I have previously sent correspondence to the return address correcting the attempted mail fraud from your corporation, yet still more arrives.

“Mr James Mi6 Bond” does not reside at this address. (NB Which is true, my name is Bond not Superman!)

If you wish to address James then address it to “James” as his parents did not name him “Mr” anything! James will not accept the title “Mr”.

This continuous unsolicited mail is a form of harassment. The returned and UNOPENED envelope is marked “CLIENT CORRESPONDENCE”. I wish to advise no one at this address has ever entered into a legal contract with the sender of this envelope and therefore no “client” of yours resides here. One can only assume, therefore, that you are wishing to enter into contract with James Mi6 Bond and if so his FEE SCHEDULE is $50,000 per hour if you wish to employ his services. This price is NON-NEGOTIABLE.

If you do not agree then your continued use of COPYRIGHT TRADEMARK JMB-12031936-CN JAMES MI6 BOND (which was filed at ------------ LOCAL COURT on 3rd March 2009) will incur a fee of $500,000 per use of COPYRIGHT TRADEMARK plus triple damages, plus costs. Failure to pay any outstanding amount will allow your company to be liquidated to recover fees.

You have been served notice!

Failure to legally dispute this notice within 7 days of the date above renders you liable to the terms and conditions as laid out in COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT NOTICE JMB-12031936-CN.

Legal Representative for James Mi6 Bond
Sovereign and
Free Man on the Land

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guess what?

The NEXT letter was addressed to simply "James"!

But inside the letter was the invoice still addressed to "JAMES MI6 BOND". Deception and mail fraud!!!!!!

I have attached it to this email. (Due to privacy, it is not attached in this post - Love For Life)

SO (!) I "paid" the fine and sent them this letter:

-------------------------

Dear “LWS”

Thank you for acknowledging the difference between the living flesh and blood human being “James” and the non-existent artificial person “JAMES MI6 BOND”.

However; being that the revenue invoice is addressed to the ARTIFICIAL PERSON “JAMES MI6 BOND”, and you have indeed acknowledged the difference between the PERSON and the Human Being, there is no obligation for James to “pay” the amount stated in the revenue invoice as it is not addressed to him. I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, willingly, voluntarily and intentionally.

Placing the revenue invoice inside mail addressed to someone other than the name on the envelope is regarded as coercion and fraud and therefore “service of the order” has NOT “been effected”. In the Commonwealth Government’s Fraud Control Policy, fraud is described as ‘inducing a course of action by deceit or other dishonest conduct, involving acts or omissions or the making of false statements, orally or in writing, with the object of obtaining money or other benefit.

This corporation (SDRO) was advised in my previous letter of my terms of contract and my fee schedule. Being that; regardless of my clear statements that no one at that address was authorised to open such mail, you have persisted in forcing someone else’s mail upon me. Furthermore my previous letter was NOT disputed and therefore you have agreed to my terms. I have conditionally accepted your offer of revenue “payment”. The revenue amount will be “paid” by the Living Human Being “James” and will NOT be paid “IN PERSON” but rather on behalf of the ARTIFICIAL PERSON “JAMES MI6 BOND” who does not exist!

James is held harmless and indemnified by ARTIFICIAL PERSON “JAMES MI6 BOND” and holds no liability for any actions.

By accepting revenue payment terms of contract have been agreed to by SDRO and my fee schedule of $50,000 MUST be paid within 3-5 working days upon receipt of revenue.

Failure to do so will incur a COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT infringement fee totalling $3,050,000.

An invoice will be forwarded upon completion of “payment” of revenue.

You are sincerely my servant

James
CREDITOR
and Free Man on the Land

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And so I will be chasing THEM for money!

I will be sending off an invoice very shortly and will continue to hassle them and write to Department of Fair Trading, the Ombudsman etc and chase this as far as I can go!

Love and Mushy, Gooey stuff
James of the Clan Bond

Dear Arthur,

Below is the email & info I sent to John Bauskis.

We are now all being persecuted as never before.

Tyranny is well under way and the time to use Soap Box and the Ballot Box to secure Truth, Justice, Freedom and Democracy is passed.....and, unless we can use the Jury Box, there is only the Ammo Box left. ....ie: it's fight in the Courts and exercise our Right to Trial by Jury or it's "Blood on the Wattle" (as per Henry Lawson's poem).

I see that the enemy are going to put the Sheriffs into more militaristic uniforms, ie: "The duties of court sheriffs will be overhauled to improve their ability to deal with antisocial behaviour within and near courts. They will also get new, more professional-looking uniforms: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au:80/news/threats-against-judges-double/s...

The Banksters are now in full throttle and are determined to wipe us out.

The Police and Sheriff are being brought to bear down upon us .... and these unintelligent psychopaths are only too eager to "follow orders".

Only with Juries asking "So help me God", is there any Earthly chance of survival.

So, Arthur, your website's title and catch-cry of "Love for Life" is now a matter of "Do or Die". ( http://loveforlife.com.au/ )

Either we have all law hanging on loving God and loving one's neighbour as oneself or we have the end of life.

Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au

********************************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: John Wilson
To: John Bauskis
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 6:40 AM
Subject: Knife and licence

Dear John,

As I've said before: guilty does not mean you've broken the law ....it means you have done wrong.

Re: Knife. An offence has 2 essential elements. (1) actus reus and (2) mens rea. The following is from the Wikipedia.

Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, England, Ireland and the United States. In the United States, some crimes also require proof of an attendant circumstance.

The terms actus reus and mens rea developed in English Law, are derived from the principle stated by Edward Coke, namely, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,[1] which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty"; hence, the general test of guilt is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness both in behaviour and mind.

In criminal law, mens rea – the Latin term for "guilty mind"[1] – is usually one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). The Criminal Law does not usually apply to a person who has acted with the absence of mental fault; this is a general rule.

Quite simply therefore mens rea refers to the mental element of the offence that accompanies the actus reus. In some jurisdictions the terms mens rea and actus reus have been superseded by alternative terminology. In Australia for example the elements of all federal offences are now designated as "fault elements" (mens rea) and "physical element" (actus reus). This terminology was adopted in order to replace the obscurity of the Latin terms with simple and accurate phrasing.[2]

Re: The UPMART driver's licence. The Road Traffic (etc) Act deals with counterfeit drivers' licences, ie: resembling and intending to deceive. actus reus ....the UPMART article does not resemble and driver's licence issued by any Australian (Federal or State) Statutory Authority and is not intended to have anyone believe that it is (ie: no mens rea, either).

Also, the Court has no Jurisdiction as to the Subject Matter of the UPMART article because (a) the search carried out of your bag was not done with a warrant and (b) the Court Security Act (etc) only applies to "restricted items" (recorders, guns, etc.) ... the Amendment IV of the U.S. Bill of Rights says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If Article 14 of the I.C.C.P. R. (domestic law in Australia because it is Schedule 2 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Act 1986 (Cth).) is to be upheld then an Australian is equal to an American. Here follows Article 14:
Article 14

1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;

(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;

(c) To be tried without undue delay;

(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;

(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court;

(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.

4. In the case of juvenile persons, the procedure shall be such as will take account of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation.

5. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.

6. When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him.

7. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.

Talk to you soon.

Yours sincerely,
John Wilson
www.rightsandwrong.com.au