Ivan Bortic refused a breathalyser, arrested, demanded compo in gold… and walked!
He countered the charges in a 29-page document sent to the court, where he claimed he had a “free right to travel” not only challenging the charges but also accused police of committing serious crimes.
Ivan Bortic was stopped by police on a routine check, 1 and asked to produce his licence and provide a breath specimen for analysis, both of which he refused. He was also refused to provide a breath or blood specimen when he was taken back to the police station. As a result, he was charged with one count of contravention of a police direction or requirement and two counts in relation to failing to provide breath or blood specimens.
These included deprivation of liberty for “forcibly” taking him to the watch house and detaining him, sexual assault for touching his body including his “nipples” and “genitalia” in a body search and stealing, amongst other things, his finger prints.”
He wrote he was prepared to reach a settlement to “resolve the unlawful act”. Police would have to withdraw all the charges against him and destroy all its evidence, including his “stolen” fingerprints. Police also had to “provide compensation for every action crime or offence”. This included, but was not limited to, “deprivation of liberty, extortion, fraudulent activity, sexual assault, unlawful search”. The debt owed “to the Living Man for suffering harm” was determined as “one troy ounce of 24 carat gold per 15 minutes” This totaled 28 troy ounces for the time the “Living Man” was detained, which equates to about $39,141.
It detailed how he was first stopped by police “carrying a sidearm” who initially inquired about his number plates. Identifying himself as “the Living Man” in the court documents, he argued he was under no legal obligation to “register property”. “As I am aware there is no legal obligation to register my property” and his number plates were “also my property to do with as I see fit. Again, I would ask what laws compels a man to register property…”
He also refused to hand over his driver’s licence, claiming it was a “fraudulent document”, a “legal notice identifying my name and address, and my understanding according to law I am not obligated to do so”. He also referred to police as a “corporation” into which he was entering a contract, and said he…“informed the person I do not consent to actions and there was no contract between us” …when asked by the police officer to comply with requests.
“The person responded with ‘I don’t care’ and forced themselves upon me,” he claimed. “As a man, I hereby claim every action taken against me from this point was unlawful, which caused harm to me, the Living Man, loss to my person of which I am the Living Man and the principal and beneficiary”. He recorded the entire incident on his phone to be used as further evidence.
He said the police officer called for back-up and then these other officers were also implicated in the “crimes” against him. Police announced they caught a sovereign” he said he did not understand the term and “considered it a derogatory remark”. “I was laughed at and ridiculed and there are more accomplices to the crimes against me.”
When he was told at the watch house he would be subject to a full search if he did not comply, he said he was “afraid, my heart was beating. I can only assume the person threatened to sexually assault me, again”. He claimed he was kept at the watch house and requested to complete a breath analysis test and put in a “locked, cold room and deprived of liberty” and denied a phone call to “the woman I love”. His fingerprints were “stolen” under duress. He said he was “released from his unlawful imprisonment” at 8.40pm after “being deprived of my liberty for approximately 6 hours and 46 minutes”
When he received in infringement notice days later, he claimed it was: “an attempt to extort money from me, the Living Man”. “We have constitutional laws need to be upheld for the protection for the men and women of our society”. Dismissed!
Despite Acting Magistrate Dean Wilkins describing his defence against a charge of contravening a police direction as “flimsy”, he dismissed the charges because of a “slip up” by a police officer. When Senior Constable Sperling pulled him over and asked to see his drivers’ licence, Mr Bortic handed him a document and asked him to read it. A 37-second back and forth between driver and police officer ensued, in which Sen Const Sperling said “I direct you to produce your Queensland drivers licence or interstate drivers licence or you’ll be charged or arrested”.
“Mr Bortic had not complied with directions given to him by Sen Const Sperling, but the officer had not correctly warned him that if he did not produce his drivers licence he could be arrested, as was required by the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act.”
In the words used by the officer he did not say ‘it is an offence to fail to comply without reasonable excuse and that you may be arrested’,” Mr Wilkins said. “He certainly informed him he would be arrested for failing to comply; he did not mention it was an offence. And for the benefit of the defended, or his fortune, the officer by the omission of those few words has not put himself in a position to be able to prosecute this offence.”Mr Wilkins said the officer was operating under pressure.
“The recalcitrant attitude of the defendant probably did not assist the officer in choosing his words in the correct form and is fortunate that the officer has not used correct terminology when giving the direction,” he said.
All the charges against Mr Bortic were dismissed, but he will have to cover his own legal costs. When lawyer Justin Sibley asked to address Mr Wilkins in relation to costs he was shut down immediately. “I would not even entertain costs in the circumstances,” Mr Wilkins said
“It’s a very flimsy defence which you’ve got away with, or the defendant has, and it’s just a slip up on the part of the officer.”
His lawyer Justin Sibley appealed the matter regarding the costs in that Mr Wilkins refused to entertain in Bortic v Queensland Police Service  QDC 22 and the court ordered that prosecution pay the costs of the trial and appeal.
- https://jade.io/article/573226 https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/bortic-v-queensland-police-service-2018-qdc-22.pdf