Mr. Ovenstone admitted in examination before the Chief Justice that he developed the process of what was required to be provided by any issuing authority (council, SAPOL, etc whoever issues the expiation notice) for a certificate required to comply with s. 13(1) of the Expiation of Offences Act (“The Act”) in his head.
1. advised any issuing authority (made a determination in writing) what was required to be provided to the FERO to make any enforcement determination;
2. made any written determination as required by law to be signed off by 2 Ministers and then Gazetted in order to make his determination lawful, binding and enforceable;
3. Advised what each issuing authority was required to provided in order to comply with a certificate requirement;
4. Received any certificates that comply with and satisfy s.13(1) of the Act;
5. Made any lawful or complicit internal review as required pursuant to s.13(8) of the Act despite charging all South Australian’s a fee to do so and that he unilaterally decided to restrict all South Australian’s to only 1 ground of review despite the legislation allowing 5 grounds for review.
He stated under oath it was his decision unilaterally as he was concerned that many South Australians would in fact select more than one ground of review requiring his Department to do more work within its internal review process.
Chief Justice Kourakis was very critical of this conduct whereby he went as far as publically ridiculing Mr. Ovenstone in open Court for not abiding by his obligations as required within the Act. CJ Kourakis stated to Counsel for the AGD, that should I continue to drive despite an enforcement determination being made for suspension of my driver’s license without a lawful certificate to issue, the enforcement decision is a nullity and no conviction can be made for driving unlicensed as in effect the drivers license is not suspended.
Taking this further, it means that any enforcement determination made is a nullity and has no ability for force and effect so anyone who has had a drivers license suspended, had monies garnished from their bank account or income, had property sold, had further penalties imposed for driving whilst suspended, convictions as consequence thereof, loss of demerit points and restriction of trade or business with Registrar of Motor vehicles has had a decision made with no power and therefore illegally. All South Australians who have had an enforcement determination made to date will be entitled to a refund/reimbursement/reinstatement of demerit points and the like. My investigations have found over 600,000 South Australians fit into this category.
Essentially at the moment each and every expiation notice issue by SAPOL or and council cannot be enforced at law and each and every South Australian does not need to pay for any fine as it cannot be legally enforced. I note SAPOL have undertaken a media campaign stating that over 700 South Australians got caught driving over the weekend while using a hand held device. In effect none of these citizens need to pay the fine as it cannot as a matter of law be enforced. A media campaign should be undertaken to make all South Australians aware of this immediately.
Further, over 60,000 South Australians have been denied procedural fairness as not being permitted to raise more than 1 ground of review as required by law and are entitled to a reimbursement of their internal review fees paid to the FINES unit/AGD.
CJ Kourakis was additionally critical of the AGD and the FERO in that they were put on notice by me as of September 2016 within the current Court proceedings of the FERO’s UNLAWFUL DECISON MAKING whereby the AGD admitted that it has continued to enforce fines unlawfully and deprive South Australians to only one ground of review in contravention of the legislation. The AGD has continued to act unlawfully with knowledge of the unlawful activity and consequent detriment to South Australian’s with the knowledge of the illegality. This is nothing short of a misfeasance in public office and in my view criminal as an abuse of public office.
A decision has not been handed down yet and expect an order within next 2 months.
I note that many of your members have had enforcement determinations made (unlawfully) and in my opinion should no longer make any further payments and force the FERO to make an enforcement determination. Once an enforcement determination is made they then need to ask for a certificate which it cannot provide and therefore cannot enforce, the FERO is now on notice by the Court.
I also note that some of your members had orders made by the Court regarding fines. These also require the same certification process from the issuing authority if relate to expiation notices and therefore cannot be enforced. This is contrary to advice given by Mr. ‘Ovenstone to me and a member which is now clearly wrong.
Anyone who has had an enforcement made and monies recovered unlawfully are entitled to a refund and may be entitled to sue the State of South Australia for damages in misfeasance of public office. Of course as you area aware I am unable to provide any legal advice (my suggestions only) so all members will need to seek and obtain legal advice that affects their respective rights and interests to all information I have updated above.
Please let people know this update and happy to assist further with anyone in this matter.
THIS IS INTENDED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_2_1s63.html DeLovio v. Boit 7 Fed. Cas. 418, no. 3,776 C.C.D.Mass. 1815
"A policy of Insurance is a maritime contract, and therefore of Admiralty
Jurisdiction." -De Lovio v. Boit, 7 Fed. Cases Number 3, 776
Is an automobile always a vehicle (or motor vehicle)?
ARGUMENT Federal ... "Motor vehicle'' means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property and cargo; ... ``Used for commercial purposes'' means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit[.]" 18 U.S.C. 31 "A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family." Arthur v Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 (S.D. NY 1884).
But you don't have to surrender it if using the car as a consumer good UCC 9-109(1) Once you surrender it the car is no longer a consumer good but equipment used in business UCC 1-109 (2). The proof that it is equipment is the fact you have to have (commercial) insurance on it which makes it a ship in admiralty because ALL insurance is maritime in nature, See Delovo v Boit case and the state will not give you permission to use their "vehicle" unless it has insurance on it.
This is only one small area of a much larger scheme. There is much more to learn.
Subject: YouTube - The Truth About Driver's License
Please note that the above is just an example of what others have done. If you choose to attempt something along these lines then you must address it in your own words and make it appropriate to you own situation.
In today’s deteriorating economic climate more and more Australians are feeling pressured financially by ever increasing costs of living, the additional burden of paying road tolls and its often accompanying penalties for late payment, is tipping many families and individuals over the financial cliff.
Sadly, the scenario of such financial pressure just from the road tolls issue is totally unnecessary and easily avoidable.
Let’s deal with this issue in two parts.
1. Charging road tolls is not a legitimate exercise for multiple reasons, reasons that include but
are not limited by;
a) Roads are already paid for by virtue of road taxes and excise. By virtue most road taxes and excise are not directed towards paying for road construction and upkeep does not legitimize other forms of charges to pay for road construction and maintenance, and
b) Federal and State Governments are not legitimate entities by virtue they are foreign entities trading within the land mass known commonly as Australia.
The original government under the Constitution titled “The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900/1901 (UK) was the “Parliament of the Commonwealth” and NOT “Commonwealth Government” or “Government of the Commonwealth”.
The current entity enabling commerce within Australia is the “COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA” and the recent “AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH” listed on the United States of America’s Securities and Exchange Commission as US corporations.
Registration number of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is 0000805157.
Likewise the “STATE OF QUEENSLAND” as opposed to “the State of Queensland” is a US corporation listed on its Securities and Exchange Commission as a US corporation with Registration number 0001244818.
These entities are trading in Australia – without the consent of the Australian people, pursuant to a referendum permitting by consent of the majority to allow corporate governments and authorities to be changed to US corporations without the consent of the common people – electors.
All commerce and organizations – corporations trading within the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and STATE OF QUEENSLAND are trading as foreign corporations under US (colour of) laws.
There was never transparency nor proper due process and amounts to a fraud against the people of Australia.
c) As everyone – meaning the common people, buy and sell, they operate within commerce. Therefore all transactions are commercial in nature and occur with the consent (implied or expressed) of the parties. In commerce, the rules of Equity prevail Queensland Judicature Act 1876 s5(11). Essentially equity is a principal component of contract law, since contracts are deemed “equitable” because the parties have agreed to contract. However in the situation of road tolls, it was never disclosed or made transparent, transparency being a ley component of contracts, that paying a road toll through say “Govia”, a private non government entity, was only ever an offer whereby you have the right and choice to accept or not accept the offer. None disclosure of material facts or lack of complete transparency invalidates any (implied or expressed) contract.
d) There may or may not be an implied or expressed contract pending;
i. Whether your license discloses the magical key words under your signature; “By your signature
All Rights Reserved”
Whereby you have reserved your rights when you applied for a license and didn’t
accept and replace your birth rights with the State’s “benefits and privileges”, these
being capable of being with drawn by the State any time you commit an “offense” for
your breach of contract. If your license bears these words, you are not subject to
piracy by corporate entities including police, Department of Road Transport, Govia
etc. This spells your “FREEDOM”.
ii. Whether you were operating under your license at the time of an alleged offence (not paying a road toll). If you were operating under your license at the time of the (alleged) offense, you become subject to statute (color of law) if you did not disclose the words “all rights reserved” on your license.
The contract arises when you forward to the Department of Transport your completed application for license along with the consideration (the payment, the payment being THE essential ingredient to a binding contract).
a) Prevention: If you go and “lose” your license and apply for a new one by completing a
NEW application and signing off;
“By your signature
All Rights Reserved”
The signature naturally being transferred to your license (be careful your signature
does touch the words “All Rights Reserved” as if there’s a gap, the clerks at the Office
of Main Roads or Department of Transport often cut the “All Rights Reserved” out of
the application and ONLY transfer the signature! That is evidence of the fraudulent
conveyance of a signature, that is, it is NOT your signature without the expressed
words “All Rights Reserved” UNDER your signature!
Now if you receive a road toll, you simply return it with;
i. Return original within 72 hours of receiving it with the following words written
in bold across it “DO NOT CONSENT TO CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITH YOU, NO CONSENT EQUALS NO CONTRACT, NO AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION CEDED TO YOU”
ii. A photocopy of your license, and
iii. A written letter titled “NOTICE” directing Govia or any other soliciting entity to
withdraw the infringement, fine or toll charge immediately because you never agreed to consent to conduct business with them and if they elect not to with draw it, the notice and attached documents will be used against them as well as their CEO will be brought before any proceeding to answer as to their negligence for not withdrawing their false claim.
b) As contract law prevails (rules of equity), should you receive an infringement, fine or
toll charge, see 2a(i) above, and
iii. Write a letter titled “NOTICE” directing Govia or any other soliciting entity to
provide you an opportunity within 72 hours of receiving the your notice, the
document that establishes a contract between you and them or else withdraw the
infringement, fine or toll charge immediately because you never agreed to
consent to conduct business with them and if they elect not to with draw it, the notice and attached documents will be used against them as well as their CEO will be brought before any proceeding to answer as to their negligence for not withdrawing their false claim. Direct also they send you a written confirmation the infringement, fine or toll charge has been respectfully with drawn.
In this situation you MUST send the issuing authority a second DEMAND NOTICE 21 days after the 1st Notice, directing them to do same as the 1st notice and when the issuing party fails to answer your 1st and 2nd notice or with draw the infringement, fine or toll charge, you MUST deliver a 3rd and FINAL NOTICE directing the issuer to do same as the 1st and 2nd notices. If the issuer fails, refuses or neglects to do so, your three notices are evidence of the issuers assent and agreement to an equitable estoppel and an admission they have no authority and jurisdiction in this matter. The same can be articulated in any proceedings IF the matter isn’t immediately settled privately.