Yowiehunters Forum

I have answered most of your questions, including giving you the links to my adventures in the other forum. Perhaps you should go back and read the posts there?

And you have yet to answer my questions to you... which i won't bother repeating as you obviously have no wish to answer them.

The quoted pieces above were from the discussion linked which I strongly suggest you read before commenting further. Further discussion should be continued there.

Wolf,

Of those links in those two posts of yours, only 2 work. The high court of Australia link and the charter of the United nations link. None of the other links work.

Fine, I'll trawl through years of forum discussion posts on that other site until I find your adventurous posts or threads on your court appearance high jinx. We'll take up this discussion further on your home turf.

As for precedence, in court proceedings it refers to a law principle setting a precedence for subsequent court matters.

?
I am referring to links I provided in posts you were conversing in on southernfreeman. Which ones are you talking about?

Wolf,

I've read your four? contested traffic court breakdowns. Are you sure you want me reactivating that thread? It's been dead for 3 years.

I still haven't located which matter the judge told you you had to prove your innocence or where you requested the torum proclamation and was denied.

The other forum is far more appropriate. Members from this forum don't need to know what happened or what I'm going to say.

If you are truly interested in the various legal remedies/arguments portrayed by those seeking freedom from 'soft tyranny', I suggest taking the time to read the longer thread where some very 'interesting' discussions took place.

No worries about reawakening those old threads, they were the lifeblood of that forum for a while. It's been pretty much dead since.

As I have said previously, I have backed off being a 'judicial activist' (at least for the time being)... it's far too time consuming.
(And my wife is tired of my head being buried in reading legislation, historical law, etc)

My posts in this forum referencing said court fun and games were to illustrate a point that our system has been badly corrupted, which is why I pasted some posts regarding this at the end of the preious page.

Wolf,

Ok, very well, all I will say here about your court adventures, is you must have had a lot of time on your hands and your wife deserves a medal.

Black wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 2:36 pm Wolf,

Ok, very well, all I will say here about your court adventures, is you must have had a lot of time on your hands and your wife deserves a medal.

Is not time an unfolding prophecy, whether it be spent meditating on a mountain, or building works for yourself or others, it is what it is.

Just thought I might pop in and lighten the thread up a bit.

Hi Dion,

Don't be too shy to add something constructive.

Wolf,

I've read your court adventures and I didn't think I'd be saying this, but now i know the details, i actually hold you in very high regard.

All you were doing was testing the system like you said, but your approach, resilience, determination, resourcefulness, and commitment to your cause, was really outstanding. A heck of a way to learn about court procedures, but each to their own!

Posting it all on the Southern Freeman site, I naturally assumed you must have employed Southern Freemen or Sovereign Citizen tactics. To your credit and perhaps a sign of your intelligence, to my amazement, you didn't use any of their tactics. I'm dumbfounded none of the members on the other forum took great offence to your approach. You basically snubbed all their suggestions and ideas.

This thread here has really only concentrated on the parking fine with the questioned proclamation certificate and the presumption of guilty comment made to you. If it's ok with you, I'd like to complete our discussion of this matter here.

I do have some perspectives and comments I'd like to impart regarding the other court matters, but would like to do that on the other site.

Thanks but there is really not much to discuss.
A magistrate told me I was presumed guilty. Some, like Scarts (who has disappeared after I called him out and asked him to rebut rather than insult) simply didn't believe me... but it happened, and when it did I wished I had been recording it. Yes I know, recording in court is 'illegal'... what for? What have they to hide?

I actually contemplated appealing briefly but cannot afford to lose so much money fighting a rigged system.

And the system IS rigged, as I have proven (at least to myself). There is NO equity. It is a JustUS system and recompense when a self-rep wins has been made impossible by legislation requiring costs to be only paid if one hires a 'Liar-for-hire' to represent oneself... yet more evidence of inequity and corruption of the system.

You say you studied law at tertiary level... did you complete your studies? If not, why not?
And are you related to Warren Black?

Hi Wolf,

I'm not related to a Warren Black and I completed all the tertiary studies of law I needed to at the time to enter the justice field.

Regarding the parking fine, I think you got lucky. It was pure luck the parking inspector who fined you, wasn't able to provide photos of the parking sign, the parking pay station, your car in relation to both while parked in the parking spot, or the non-display of your parking ticket on your dashboard. The magistrate had no choice but to dismiss, as the prosecution failed to prove their case. Given it was a few years ago, it's not like today where all parking inspectors wear body-worn cameras that are always recording, and it's so easy now to store large data files.

Like you, I'm a little bummed off your matter was dismissed before the issue of the publishing or non-publishing in the qld govt. gazette of the TORUM Act was taken further and resolved one way or the other. I know you were looking forward to how that played out too.

We may have to agree to disagree as to whether it was your defence or the responsibility of the prosecution. Prosecutors are paid to prove to the court all elements of an offence under an act or regulation. It's not usual practice the prosecution are also called on to prove well used Acts themselves are current. Remember, the prosecution aren't paid to prove their case to you, but to the magistrate or judge. If for some reason you were issued a ticket under the wrong Act or a repealed Act, the parking inspector would simply re-issue the ticket under the correct Act if it is still within the statute of limitations.

Now, your argument you had to see and understand the traffic sign in question, to "contract", to be liable as to paying to park there or not, wouldn't have washed. If you hold a licence, drove in a business area on the road past a number of road signs, parking signs, and meters, and managed to park in the parking spot, then you can see well enough, and as driver were obligated to check and read the signs, and if still willing to continue parking there, pay the fee.

It's a different story if someone had stolen the sign at that time, or changed the words, or the parking pay station was malfunctioning at the time and you had an important meeting.

Parking tickets are deemed to be minor traffic offences. As you discovered, other court matters took precedence over yours, and yours was left til last to be heard. Courts have to prioritize their time and matters.

Oh, you're aware all parking and speeding offences are under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Road Rules) Regulation 2009?

Black wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:09 pm Hi Wolf,

I'm not related to a Warren Black and I completed all the tertiary studies of law I needed to at the time to enter the justice field.

So why did you not become a lawyer/solicitor?

Black wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:09 pmRegarding the parking fine, I think you got lucky. It was pure luck the parking inspector who fined you, wasn't able to provide photos of the parking sign, the parking pay station, your car in relation to both while parked in the parking spot, or the non-display of your parking ticket on your dashboard. The magistrate had no choice but to dismiss, as the prosecution failed to prove their case. Given it was a few years ago, it's not like today where all parking inspectors wear body-worn cameras that are always recording, and it's so easy now to store large data files.

Right from the start (after mentioning that I was not the trustee for the 'name' and bringing up the fact there had been no evidence for the act being proclaimed presented, the Mag was looking for any other reason to dismiss the matter. She seemed grateful to me for giving it to her by my questioning the parking officer on what evidence he was relying upon that I had agreed to any contract with GCC.

Black wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:09 pmLike you, I'm a little bummed off your matter was dismissed before the issue of the publishing or non-publishing in the qld govt. gazette of the TORUM Act was taken further and resolved one way or the other. I know you were looking forward to how that played out too.

As I said above, she did not want to go down that path and was trying to avoid it.

Black wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:09 pm We may have to agree to disagree as to whether it was your defence or the responsibility of the prosecution. Prosecutors are paid to prove to the court all elements of an offence under an act or regulation. It's not usual practice the prosecution are also called on to prove well used Acts themselves are current. .

Not 'usual' because nobody questions it. If a defendant questions it the court MUST determine if the evidence exists and should not proceed until it does.

You said elsewhere that defendant everywhere would be using this argument if true. They don't because they are not aware of it. I only know of a few others (in Vic) that have used it, and used it successfully according to them.

Black wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:09 pm Now, your argument you had to see and understand the traffic sign in question, to "contract", to be liable as to paying to park there or not, wouldn't have washed. If you hold a licence, drove in a business area on the road past a number of road signs, parking signs, and meters, and managed to park in the parking spot, then you can see well enough, and as driver were obligated to check and read the signs, and if still willing to continue parking there, pay the fee.

It was a regular, 'old-school' street with nose-in parking.
I did NOT 'drive past' any signage to enter the area.
This argument I provided to give the mag a 'way out', which she took and ran with to avoid the lack of proclamation discussion.

Black wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:09 pm Oh, you're aware all parking and speeding offences are under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Road Rules) Regulation 2009?

... with NO section 2 (Commencement).

As you also said earlier, better to continue any legal discussions of theories on southernfreemen in the relevant thread.
With a bit of luck some of the 'less-deluded' members will chime in (like Kev-D or Agro).

Chris, Untamed, etc seem to be suffering from 'FMOTL tunnel vision', but there are other members who are very good and have studied in depth the system as laypeople.

Yep, ok. I'm happy to continue discussing on the other site. I only continued here because we started here, and I'm aware other members here have been following this thread.

I do understand your concerns, but it's like being pregnant. You either are or you aren't. The proclamation procedures were either carried out correctly, or they weren't. This doesn't have to be like the yowie where we might never get an answer. It's just a matter of finding the correct information.

Your point of view is the magistrate ran with your way out, rather than face the proclamation issue. That's only an assumption. The magistrate may have been prepared, you don't know.

My reluctance with the other forum is I have low tolerance for individuals who lack common sense, have delusions of grandeur and enlightenment, and unfounded entitlement. At the same time, I'm fascinated by the mythos of the radicalized ones.

My taxes have helped pay for the roads these unlicensed and registered people think they can travel on, for free. They can't seem to comprehend the basic concept a drivers licence is a piece of proof an individual is competent enough to be able to safely operate a complex piece of machinery like a motor vehicle. That's the primary purpose of a drivers licence, but to them its validation of society slavery?

Like you say, some of them are ok, but the others...