This email is to inform you that the shocking injustices caused by the operation of the BANKRUPTCY RACKET is on its way to the HIGH COURT where we will be demanding that the case be by TRIAL BY JURY.
Below are 2 items you should be aware of. the first is a copy of the 78B NOTICE and the second is a leaflet on the subject.
I would like an appointment to come and discuss the situation with you and your Board of Directors because your members are heavily involved and need to be told the TRUTH.
In Australia, the RULE OF LAW is that "No free man shall be taken indeed imprisoned, or exiled or outlawed, or dispossessed, or destroyed in any way, nor shall we pass over him nor send over him, unless by the lawful judgment of his equals which is the law of the land". To confirm this, I suggest your members visit the MAGNA CARTA MONUMENT in Canberra's Parliamentary Triangle.
A "racket" is described as "anorganizedillegalactivity,suchasbootleggingortheextortionofmoneyfromlegitimatebusinesspeoplebythreatorviolence; adishonestscheme,trick,business,activity,etc. " and the way the BANKRUPTCY RACKET works is explained in the items below.
This BANKRUPTCY RACKET can be eliminated and your organization ought to be at the forefront, demanding it be done.
When a bankruptcy is voluntarily and knowingly entered into, then your members are expected to carry our their responsibilities with honesty and understanding.
But when a bankruptcy is forced upon someone through the dishonest scheme set up by repugnant and diabolical "Acts of Parliament" which are totally ultra vires and savagely imposed by the judiciary, that is intolerable.
The remedy is easily achieved simply be enforcing the RULE OF LAW (see above).
Chairman, Australian Common Law Party.
Educating People to Defend their Rights.
Mobile phone: 0401 413 650.
ITEM #1: 78B NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY: NEW SOUTH WALES
Case No: NSD1283/2013
BETWEEN: Milovan Stankovic
and The Hills Shire Counciland others
NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER
1.The Defendant gives notice that these proceedings involve a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of Section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903.
2.In these proceedings, I seek the vindication of the inalienable Right of a Freeman-on-the-Land to Trial by Jury in any action in any Court of Australia, which is of National Importance and a substantive Constitutional Matter under Chapter III of the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia Act (63 & 64 Victoria, Chapter 12) [9th July 1900].
3.These proceedings are a prosecution by me against various parties responsible to perpetrating a conspiracy to defraud me of my property at Lot B President Road, Kellyville, NSW 2155.
4.The Constitutional Matter raised in these proceedings is a re-visit to the Boilermakers’ Case, Citation: (1956)94 CLR 254....R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia. The High Court Of Australia ruled that astatutory body that is not a court has no judicial authority and cannot act judicially. An example being the State Debt Recovery Office (SDRO) of New South Wales Australia cannot impose any judgement or penalty or fines, which can only be done by a court. The SDRO is not a court, instead is a private corporation conducting business/commerce (a statutory body). So the cancelling of car licenses and registrations at the direction of the SDRO to the Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) of New South Wales, Australia (another private corporation conducting business/commerce) is unlawful.
5.This scenario is replicated here because the Insolvency and Trustee Services Australia, having an A.B. N. of63 384 330 717 is Statutory Body and NOT a Chapter III Court and had NO jurisdiction to impose any penalties or forfeitures upon me in the name of “Bankruptcy” or attach any label to my name that I was in any way a “bankrupt” person who could not pay my debts. Also, it must be pointed out that I had NO DEBT towards the Baulkham Hills Shire Council as a result of a case in the Land & Environment Court where the case brought by the Baulkham Hills Shire Council was DISMISSED without costs on 16 February 2005.
6.These injustices have continued into the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia where a Sequestration Order was made and STAYED for 21 days to allow me time to pay that wrongfully prosecuted “debt”. I did pay that money to the Baulkham Hills Shire Council on day 13 of that 21 days stay – but, when reporting back to the Federal Magistrates Court on day 18 of that 21 days’ stay, the Federal Magistrate REFUSED to cancel the Sequestration Order. I paid the Baulkham Hills Shire Council $25,420 on 25 May 2009 IN PROTEST because I knew that if I didn’t, then they would surely steal my property worth conservatively at $35,000,000 which is crazy that someone thinks they can take my property of $35,000,000 for a supposed “debt” of $22,000 plus some interest (that finally was settled as $25,420) what was AB INITIO and I paid in protest to save my 45 years of hard work in this country not to lose my property because of the baulkham Shire Council’s FRAUD and their legal representatives, Watson & Watson, and others..
7.I should also state here that Guilia Inga, the Official Receiver, violated that 21 days STAY when on 18 May 2009, she executed a Writ of Commission Appointing Trustees to sequestrate my property. This was the blatant ISSUING OF A FALSE INSTRUMENT BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL and carries a punishment of imprisonment for 5 years. However, every attempt I have made in the District Court of New South Wales, the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the Federal Court, and Federal Court of Appeal, in particularly Justices Emmett and Foster in the Federal Court not accepting total evidence what I produce in the courts to seek Justice has been rejected by those courts. By the courts and the judges doing this sort of thing, I am left with no option but to appeal to the High Court but the courts always try to stop me that I have access to the courts which I believe this is unfair and unjustifiable that I don’t have access to my courts. I am not a slave.
Name: Milovan Stankovic,
Address: P.O. Box 92, Castle Hill, NSW 2154
Tlephone: 0410 242 333
Commonwealth Attorney General The Hon Mark Dreyfus MP Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Attorney General of the A.C.T.
The Hon Brendan O'Connor Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600
New South Wales Attorney General (Greg) Gregory Eugene Smith Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place, SYDNEY NSW 2000 Victorian Attorney General Robert William Clark 1 Treasury Place MELBOURNE VIC 3002 Queensland Attorney General Jarrod Pieter Bleijie GPO Box 149 BRISBANE QLD 4001 South Australian Attorney General The Hon John Rau MP Level 11, 45 Pirie St ADELAIDE SA 5000
Western Australian Attorney General Michael Mischin 29th Floor, Allendale Square 77 St Georges Terrace PERTH WA 6000 Tasmanian Attorney General Brian Neal Wightman Level 10, 15 Murray Street HOBART TAS 7000 Northern Territory Attorney General Johan (John) Wessel Elferink Parliament House DARWIN NT 0800 ACT Attorney General Mr Simon Corbell MLA A.C.T. Legislative Assembly London Circuit CANBERRA ACT 2601
New Zealand Attorney General Hon Simon Power Parliament Buildings WELLINGTON 6160 NEW ZEALAND Norfolk Island Attorney General The Hon Craig Anderson, MLA Old Military Barracks Quality Row, Kingston NORFOLK ISLAND SOUTH PACIFIC
ITEM #2: LEAFLET on ILLEGALITY of COURT-ENFORCED BANKRUPTCIES
ALL COURT-ENFORCED BANKRUPTCIES ARE ILLEGAL
Bankruptcy means being declared insolvent or unable to pay creditors. If an individual or a corporation voluntarily declares bankruptcy, they can contract with an insolvency practitioner and sequestrate their estate over to them for safekeeping to keep possession, take the rents, issues and profits into their own hands. The agent/trustee can only execute transactions with the consent of the self-imposed bankrupt for the duration of the contract.
If an individual or corporation denies they are bankrupt and does not voluntarily declare it, then, for dispossession to occur, claiming creditors must go to Court to seek (1) a Bankruptcy Judgment and (2) a Sequestration Order. But, in Australia, there are NO BANKRUPTCY JUDGMENTS made in any Courts. Instead, bankruptcy is declared as an “Administrative Decision” by a Civil Servant in a statutory body called “ITSA” (the Insolvency and Trustee Services Australia) and a Court is only used to enforce that decision with a Sequestration Order. SEQUESTRATION is a Writ of Commission called a “Certificate of Appointment of Trustee”, to enter upon the real or personal estate of the defendant, and to take the rents, issues and profits into their own hands, and keep possession of, or pay the same as the court shall order and direct, until the party who is in contempt shall do that which he is enjoined to do, and which is specially mentioned in the writ.
The RULE OF LAW in Australia is that, “No Free Man shall be taken indeed imprisoned, or exiled or outlawed, or dispossessed, or destroyed in any way, nor shall we pass over him nor send over him, unless by the lawful judgment of his equals which is the law of the land.” (Magna Carta 1215 - which is an entrenched Constitutional Enactment and Common Law). In Australia, the People have that inalienable right to Trial by Jury. However, Australian Courts are “Kangaroo Courts” because they “act unfairly or dishonestly or disregard legal rights or disregard legal procedures”.
When DUE PROCESS is disregarded, then “the awards, doings and proceedings to the prejudice of your people in any of the premises shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example.” (Petition of Right 1627 – which is also an entrenched Constitutional Enactment and Common Law, as is Habeas Corpus 1641 which abolished the Star Chamber).
Sequestration Orders issued without the benefit of Trial by Jury are FALSE INSTRUMENTS for which the punishment is “imprisonment for 5 years” (Crimes Act 1900)…. not forgetting that every instance of the denial of Trial by Jury is similarly punishable by “a term of not more than 5 years” (Imperial Acts Application Act 1969).
A SLAVE has NEITHER the RIGHT of CONSENT, NOR to PROPERTY, and NOR to TRIAL BY JURY. ARE YOU A SLAVE or ARE YOU A FREE MAN?