|
|
| Back |
From: Alan Keam At this point I would like to thank everyone who assisted me in this matter. I will give a brief overview of the events. ... It all started when in August 1999 I decided to ascertain if in fact the "Local Government of The City of Tea Tree Gully Council" ; was a legal entity. I wrote to the council seeking documents that would show they were a legal entity. The reply which came from their legal advisors was less than encouraging, only stating that they had the authority to charge rates under the "Local Government Act"; and if I did not pay the rates, what action would be taken. I had requested the following information: 1. Head of Power 2. Authority 3. Jurisdiction 4. Head of State and 5. A Valid Constitution written and approved by the Sovereign Citizens of The Commonwealth of Australia. So after a few more letters and me not paying the rates the council advised me that they would hand the matter over to a debt collection agency which they did. The collection agency Austwide Collection Services Pty. Ltd. Contacted me by mail saying that I should pay the debt or legal action would follow. I wrote and asked them since they were dealing with this matter could they supply the above documents as the council was unable to do so. Despite two letters I never received a reply other than a demand for the money through document from the Holden Hill Magistrates Court saying I had 28 days to comply or submit a defence stating why I did believe that had to pay. As I failed submit a defence a judgement was found against me in my absence and was order by the court to appear at a hearing to determine how I was going to pay the debt. At this point I wrote to the registrar of Holden Magistrates Court asking him for the above information also. I received a reply from a Mr David B. Wilson, Operations Manager for the Courts Administration Authority on behalf of the Registrar, saying only that the court had the authority to do what they were doing. Also saying that these facts had been confirmed by the Supervising Magistrate. I wrote back asking for the info once more plus the name of the supervising magistrate that gave this the OK. The reply was along the lines of you had better find yourself a good lawyer. I put forward a defence that as I had not received the documents requested how could I defend myself. This was rejected by Magistrate Kym Andrew MILLARD and gave me a week to submit a proper defence. At this point I submitted a defence stating that due the enactment of the Australia Act 1986, the Letters Patent that proclaims the position of State Governor was invalid as the UK no longer had any say in the matters of the Commonwealth of Australia. This was supported by the fact that according to Halsbury's Laws of England, the Great Seal cannot be used on a document that is to be used by a country other than a colony or dominion of the UK. At the second hearing Magistrate MILLARD although stating that he believed my defence was just wasting time he set aside the judgement and ordered me submit a proper defence. I did this and it was the same defence that I had just used. I was then informed that a date had been set for a determination. I attended this hearing which was before Stipendiary Magistrate, Brian Kevin DEEGAN. During this hearing he told me that I would end up with a "large amount of costs" against me. Two major statements that he made were "I do not know if you have a mortgage on your house but I would when this was over"; and "Do you think that I would rule in your favour and put myself out of a job";. At this point it was obvious to me that the outcome was already decided. He continually asked me did I wish to proceed with the matter. It was evident that he was becoming agitated and especially so when I said that I wished to continue. At this point he told that he had to notify all State Attorney Generals as it was a constitutional matter. He set a date for the next hearing and adjourned the court. As matter of interest during all my appearances the court was cleared of all other people. I believe that this an attempt to stop anyone else from finding out the truth. I then proceeded to asked the court and the magistrate for the documents previously plus a copy of his Letter of Commission and that of the State Governor, Sir Eric Neal, as I have a copy of a letter from the Governor's Office that states his Letter of Commission is not Signed, Sealed or Dated. Also stated that should I not receive the documents requested it would be deemed that they do not exist and I would not be voluntarily appearing in their invalid court. I also requested documents that demonstrated that the court complied with Article 14, of the covenant of the United Nations, Civil and Political Rights. A few days before this hearing I was informed that the Attorney General was intervening in my case saying that my defense was untenable. I requested of all documents that he would place before the court and his authority to intervene. All I received was the transcripts of four court cases. I did not appear and only found out through the lawyers for the council demanding the money as the judgement was found against me in my absence. I once again refused to pay and asked for all the documents again but was only greeted with another summons. In their haste to get me appear before the court or pay the money the summons issued to me to appear in court on the 4th of December 2000, was invalid even in their illegal system as it did not have on it the required stamp of the court or signature. They actually agreed with on that fact. So they issued another summons for me to appear in court on the 22nd of January 2001 which was duly served. The last letter that I wrote once again asked for the documents previously requested. The reply from Mr David B Wilson was I would be arrested if I did not appear and that he would not acknowledge or reply to any further correspondence and that he had instructed the Holden Hill Magistrates Court to do the same. Since I did not appear an arrest warrant was issued. My daughter received two phone calls at my home by a person only identifying himself as an officer of the court and would I please contact him on mobile phone number that he left. As a result of me failing to phone someone that would not leave his name he turned up on my door step on Sunday evening 18th February 2001. I stated to him that I go with him after I had made some phone calls. To contact people on a Sunday evening was difficult and all the time he wanted to come inside but I refused him entry. After some 40 minutes he told me that he did not have the time to hang around and that he was calling the police to force me to go with him. He consequently called the police and about fifteen minutes later two police cars arrived and all three came to the front door and as I had almost completed my calls I asked to see identification of the sheriff which he promptly did. I then asked for identification of the police officers and the most senior of the two stated that the uniform was good enough and did I think they were driving stolen cars. He then basically stated that if did not immediately come out they would come in and take me. At this point I went with the sheriff back the Holden Hill police station. The two police officers followed us back as I imagine they may have thought that I would try to get away and they waited until we had entered the station. At this point I put in a cell for the night and told that I would be appearing in court the following morning. The following morning as they were preparing to take me to the court house I was told that I was free to as someone had paid the money owing. I found out that in fact it was my wife that had paid the money. I assumed that I was to be charged with contempt of court as the warrant was issued for me failing to appear in court. If they believe that this is the end of the story their in for a shock, at least for the two police officer who refused to show identification on request, breaching the Summary Offences Act. So the saga continues. Kindest Regards, Alan Keam.
|