Court was a 164km journey and took 1hr 50mins. i arrived at 9:45am for a 10am hearing – and around 9.55am the court sheriff came out to with a pile of slips and proceeded to go through his list of names – he asked all those waiting in turn, how they intended to plea, guilty or not guilty.
The sheriff called out my name and approached when i identified myself, he asked me the same question as he had asked the others, "how do you intend to plea" i replied "i do not, i bow to no man" he said "what? and i replied "nobody tells me what i can or cannot do , no-one has authority over me" he replied that i must enter a plea or a guilty plea will be entered on my behalf, to which i answered “if any man or woman assumes they have the right to enter a plea on my behalf without my consent, i will sue that man or woman” – he then replied "you don't have to say any more" and a big ? was written on my slip. Of the 20 or so people waiting, i was the only one that said that i would not be entering a plea.
Approx 20mins later i was invited into the court, i was asked my name - and i was told to take the stand. There was no taking of an oath or introduction as to “who was who”. A man that i can only assume was the magistrate sitting behind a large raised desk then read out an honorific title with my family name followed by the charge of driving and speeding of 60km in a posted 50km.
The man then asked what was to be said on the matter. i didn’t answer – he then addressed me the man and said "are you going to answer" and i replied "answer to what, i don’t understand what is happening". he said the charge and i replied “oh i'm not Mr xxx, that charge has nothing to do with me". i then asked "where is the jury, i asked for a jury" he replied "your not entitled to a jury" - i said "i thought this was a common law country and that i'm entitled to a jury".
looking frustrated he repeated "you are not entitled to a jury" "ok" i replied "then who's the claimant, i believe i have the right to face my accuser"? he said" there is no claimant Mr xxx regarding this matter and you will answer to the charge laid down by the witness "SA police". i replied "i'm not mr xxx."
The man then became very angry and said that he would use the honorific title when he was dealing with me to which i replied "you will not, i have no honorific title and i object to these proceedings” – very angrily he asked “why do you object” and i replied “as there is no claimant regarding this matter, no claim of harm injury or loss and no debt to settle - only an unidentified witness who works for the same employer as this court, i believe there is a conflict of interest and i have no faith in a just and fair outcome” – he then said with much venom in his words “there is no conflict of interest and you will answer the charge” – to which i replied “bullshit i will not answer the charge” – he then said "this matter is contested and a will be adjourned until 3rd March" – i replied " i object to this whole thing, the witness is committing a fraud and utilising this court to facilitate that fraud" – the man said "noted, - sheriff remove Mr xxx from the court" i replied "i told you i have no title"... he shouted “get out of my court”.
Next hearing is on 3rd of march. -
Good job man. Good fucking job!
Nice. I'm surprised you 'identified' yourself. But I think any time they lose control and get angry it shows just how out of control they really are. They are supposed to be holding the highest standard in civility, respect and honour. But that is a huge misconception. The feudal courts are only after keeping the doomsday book rolls up to date for their lord and master. Well done! I look forward to hearing how the next one goes.
The summons was for me the man, and not my person - and when called at court, i checked the name was for me the man before answering. im pretty sure that a magistrates oath is in common law in accordance with the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 - which would mean that he has no subject matter jurisdiction outside of common law - which would also mean the magistrate is unlawfully administrating his oath of office as there is no claimant.... Nothing i can do about it as they are above the law.
The summons was for the man? Astounding. I've never seen that before unless it was a criminal matter and even then it is rare. Okay then. Well done! I look forward to seeing how this unfolds.
If i had tried that i would have said the wrong thing and gone to jail...
Please look inside the cover of your British passport, it may open your eyes... when you travel in your car, you should be carrying your passport and not a driving licence... for more info check out my "brainwashed" blogs -
That was fantastic reading, looking forward to the 3rd March update :)
Thank's @eggmeister :) - We all need to stand against the corruption and nazi tactics by the police - i could have easily paid the $300 fine, but i will make sure it will cost them thousands to get it....
I wish I knew more to have the confidence to apply it if/when the need arose.
Best of luck :)
Try - John Harris its an illusion on youtube - good intro into the truth :)
Much appreciated, will do :)
More people need to know juries aren't an option. A massive check against state overreach has been discarded without anyone batting an eyelid.
Its terrifying that people don't appear to be terrified.
I agree, people need to know that they have no right to a jury trial and a request for a jury trial will be refused by the courts. This has now confirmed for me that South Australia is nothing more than a corrupt communist state - setting it's own legal rules with a blatant disregard for the treason that the court system is committing against the people. it is now confirmed, common law is dead here in South Australia....run.
Haha. Ask for the calibration certificate of the device that was used to register your speed, from the date of the offense. And I mean offense as in it is offensive you are being charged.
KANGAROO Court...
it’s a serious situation and I agree with you about the unidentified witness and same employer. I’d love to be a fly on the wall come March 1st.
They refuse to identify the witness, that way i'm unable to file a counter claim - this means the claim remains in administrative law and not common law. i am unable to seek just and fair compensation for the harm caused by them moving the false claim before the court. Without a claimant, it will always be an unlawful administrative court - they can string this out as long as they want....