Rohan Lorian Hilder

Rohan 

Further to the above N.S.W. police are a body corporate (Workcover Authority N.S.W. (Inspector Keelty) V. N.S.W. Police As Crown in Right of New South Wales, [2001)] the police are a body corporate, and as you pointed out above in the Corporations Act 2001 Section 57A(b) a body corporate is a corporation. A body corporate can only contract with another corporation pursuant to the maxim “dissimilar thing ought not to be joined” (King James Bible, 2 Corinthians 6:14) and the Maxim “similar with similar” (Black’s Law, Volume 4) the only way for a body corporate to get jurisdiction with a woman or man is to have them incorporated and offer them and equity contract. There is a U.S. Precedent n this I cant put my hand on directly.

There is no way this system can act against a man as no jurisdiction can exist without consent. This is why the cartel uses this fraudulent grammar to appear to be a legitimate government when it is extended joint criminal operation. McAuliffe v R [1995] HCA 37; (1995) 69 ALJR 621; (1995) 130 ALR 26; (1995) 183 CLR 108 (28 June 1995). Given the maxim “fraus meritur fruadem”(Fraud merits fraud), the cartel needs each man and woman to hold the fraudulent grammar to obtain the jurisdiction, You cant prosecute a crime if you part of the crime. When this fails the cartel policy officers simply resort to slavery to assume consent (Criminal Code Act 1995, Section 270) and R v Wei Tang 2009 23 VR 332. This is what Rom and I have experienced, forced onto contract.

Just my thoughts. regards Rohan

Freeman Delusion

(1) Again you attempt an abstract speculation, “this equals that so this must be that” etc, as I already mentioned, it’s a great way to end up in a false conclusion, like “this is why the cartel uses this fraudulent grammar” or that one has a “constitutional right to go on a shooting spree” lol.

I made no such claim that “a body corporate is a corporation”. If you actually read the provision, under 57A(2) any “public authority” is an “exempt public authority” and NOT a corporation for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2001. NSW Police are clearly exempt from the definition of a corporation.

“Neither of the following is a corporation:
(a) an exempt public authority;
(b) a corporation sole.

Now look at the definition of “exempt public authority” in s 9:

“exempt public authority” means a body corporate that is incorporated within Australia or an external Territory and is: (a) a public authority; or (b) an instrumentality or agency of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, in right of a State or in right of a Territory.”

NSW Police covers both elements of this exemption, so again your argument fails.

(2) Verses from the Bible have no place in a legal discussion, nor has it since the Revolution of 1688 when the supremacy of parliament was established.

(See BarrettLennard -v- Bembridge [2015] WASC 353: “The position in that respect is crystal clear. None of the Bible, God’s law or the coronation oath overrules the laws made by the Parliament of Western Australia. In England, that has been so since 1688. In what became the State of Western Australia, it has been so since the advent of the Parliament of Western Australia. In British Railways Board v Pickin, Lord Reid said as follows: “In earlier times many learned lawyers seemed to have believed that an Act of Parliament could be disregarded in so far as it was contrary to the law of God or the law of nature or natural justice, but since the supremacy of Parliament was finally demonstrated by the Revolution of 1688 any such idea has become obsolete.” This passage has been cited with approval in various courts in Australia. Any moral principles derived from scripture do not detract from the sovereignty of Parliament. Nothing in the coronation oath detracts from the supremacy of Parliament or from the efficacy of laws passed by Parliament.

Pickin v British Railways Board (1974 -U.K.) HL 

Barrett-Lennard -v- Bembridge [2015] WASC 353 

(3) Similarly with your Blacks Law Dictionary, it is not only a foreign law dictionary that has no application to Australian law, law dictionaries are not even used by a court, they are a general reference tool, and not applied to the interpretation of legal terms. There are clear rules and procedure for the interpretation of terms in legislation. This is divided into what is known as intrinsic evidence and extrinsic evidence. “Intrinsic evidence” is information contained within the Act itself, namely the definition section or glossary of the Act. This is relied upon before ALL ELSE whenever a court finds that to apply the ordinary meaning of words in a statute would lead to an absurdity or an ambiguity. “Extrinsic evidence” is information which is obtained from outside of the Act itself, an example would be a publication called Hansard. This publication, which does not form part of the Act itself, is a record of debates in parliament concerning that legislation. The Interpretation Acts allow the courts to refer to these parliamentary records whenever a court believes that it is necessary to find out the intention of parliament in enacting a statue. However, the Interpretation Acts only allow the courts to use these parliamentary records when all else has failed. Similarly with your “US precedent” it is unintelligible, you may as well be citing a case from Saudi Arabia, which is equally inadmissible in an Australian court.

(4) I don’t see any relevance to McAuliffe v R [1995] HCA 37; (1995) 69 ALJR 621; (1995) 130 ALR 26; (1995) 183 CLR 108 (28 June 1995) or R v Wei Tang 2009 23 VR 332, the crime of common purpose implies a crime has been committed, which you fail to establish with your assumptions and misconceptions.

(5) I’m very familiar with the Sovereign Citizen theory you are proposing, but it is one that has no basis in law, and has been rejected by the courts consistently, including in the US and Canada. Being within the territory of a sovereign state is all that is required for jurisdiction. (See Vattel’s Law of Nations)

(6) The attempt to use s 270 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 is likewise unintelligible, as s 270.12 of the Criminal Code clearly provides that section 270 is

“not intended to exclude or limit the operation of any other law of the Commonwealth or any law of a State or Territory.”

I think I’ve covered all your speculations here, and thoroughly refuted them with facts. Amazingly, each one of them are already covered in various parts of my E-book, and on the website you’re commenting on. So before you continue to waste my time making me repeat myself on things already refuted, and prematurely thank me for my work as you began this interaction, do us both a favor and actually read it.

WEBSITE INDEX

Rohan 

Thank you, could you confirm where in the “any” styles manuals you found full caps is a proper name? You happened to overlook that one.

Regards  Rohan

Freeman Delusion

Styles Manuals is not really my interest, but law. I realize of course that the main point of the contention, is to attempt to validate the Sovereign Citizen all-capitals name theory of capitis diminutio maxima, media, and minima, to ultimately arrive at a double/split personality so that one can “unshackle” their all-capitals name from their lower-case name, thereby hopefully avoiding criminal liability or jurisdiction.

Yours is a desperate search to establish that all capital lettering means something. Like a form of reverse-engineering, you start with a hypothesis, and seek confirmation of the hypothesis, instead of starting with a confirmed fact, and then seek extrapolation on that fact. This process itself is a logical fallacy better known as confirmation bias. Example: “Rohan walked in and said: I found something in the: Chicago Manual of Styles, that identifies the all uppercase text as a “GLOSSA” and from that find, we found Justinian, of 530 AD, and the GLOSSA, that now gave us the ability to place a name with the all uppercase text.”

Instead of looking for questionable confirmation of a hypothesis, you’re better off looking how the law deals with the particular ratio decidendi or question of law, especially since it has been dealt with many times in the courts. The main question really is, can one separate oneself from the all-capitals name, and thereby avoid liability? One of the best judgments regarding this point is in a Canadian case Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123, which is not a binding non-obiter precedent here, although it may be considered as a persuasive authority.

“In Meads v Meads this concept is reviewed and rejected at paras 417-446. Rooke ACJ concludes that in Canadian law the double/split person concept is entirely unfounded in any sense, and has been systematically rejected every time anyone has ever raised it in a Canadian court. He then goes to evaluate the documents that the respondent, Dennis Larry Meads, had filed in the Meads v Meads action. Rooke ACJ explains at paras 432-439 that the Meads’ documents are meaningless because they attempt to invoke the double/split person concept, and concludes at paras 438-439: [438] … everything good and of value attaches to the physical person of Mr. Meads, while all obligation and debt is allocated to the unfortunate DENNIS LARRY MEADS, corporate entity. [439] Of course, that does not work. Mr. Meads is Mr. Meads in all his physical or imaginary aspects. He would experience and obtain the same effect and success if he appeared in court and selectively donned and removed a rubber Halloween mask which portrays the appearance of another person, asserting at this or that point that the mask’s person is the one liable to Ms. Meads. Not that I am encouraging, or indeed would countenance, the wearing of a mask in my courtroom.

This means that ACJ Rooke’s conclusion that the double/split person “Strawman” is a myth is not obiter. He used that conclusion of law to reach the result in Meads v Meads. As a consequence, that conclusion is binding on me. To be explicit, even if that were not the law I would come to exactly the same conclusion. Gauthier’s claim that distinguishes an “individual human being” from the “person” is entirely meaningless. They are one and the same. Gauthier’s apparent belief as to the legal meaning of the word “person” is entirely false and incorrect.

I note that the “Strawman” double/split person concept was also rejected by the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal in a recent judgment, Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 (CanLII) at para 20: This notion of treating a named individual as an “estate” that is somehow separate from the person who is subject to the law and that is free from governmental regulation is also a concept unrecognized by the law of Canada. It is just nonsense. Chief Justice Green concludes the “Strawman” is so obviously and notoriously false that he directs that anytime a trial court encounters “… the fractionating of human personality to support claims of not being subject to law …” that the litigant who made that argument should be presumed to have sued in a vexatious and abusive manner and only is appearing in court for an improper and ulterior purpose: paras 39-40. The “Strawman” is therefore not merely a myth. It is litigation poison.’

Rohan 

You said “In any style manual I can find….” I cant find this. I am not using the Mead’s argument at all. I am more along the line of fraud upon the court. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.

Please don’t assume what my arguments may or may not be. The law comes from language and the courts do consider this (The King v. Casement.) Mead’s v. Mead’s did not put in any of the facts we have found and predates our research. You have resorted to the torts of deliberate ignorance and willful blindness. the facts is you cannot answer the question after making your statement.

I agree with a lot of the information you present. The fact is that full caps is not a word or a name and that fact is found in any style manual, this is opposite to your claim yet you cannot reference any precedent, legislation or style manual to support your claim, and in this failure you are in excellent company with the highest offices in this country failing to adequately do the same.

I was simply presenting some known and published facts. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, unfortunately you cannot reference yours as I can with mine. The alleged government itself defines a name. The precedents to which you refer are corrupted by the grammar. Even the blue book says a name is a proper noun. 

https://www.legalbluebook.com/ 

so other than deliberate deception and fraud what is the reason for the full caps? I refer to the maxim “those skilled in the art should be believed.” The linguists and grammarians who authored the style manuals, dictionaries and encyclopedias disagree with you and any judge using the all caps is instantly an interested party and cannot function impartially, they are sitting whilst interested.

You should be interested in the language as law does not exist without it. The questions I pose have not yet been before a court in conjunction with the evidence we have found, this is currently in the International Criminal Court so I guess that will settle the contention.

I will take it then that your comment “In any style manual you can find…” is your personal opinion that cannot be verified by precedent and academic reference and you hold this blatantly in the face of numerous counterfactual academic publications from the styles manual and dictionaries and encyclopedias to the academic text ‘Learning to read a write for ages 4 to 6, Schoolzone Press, 2012. I do not wish to waste any more of your time so please do not feel obliged to reply. Thank you for the debate.

Respectfully Rohan

Freeman Delusion

I don’t assume your intention, I’m quite aware of the intention of the premise, and that is a separation of “living man” status as opposed to the alleged “strawman” all-caps name. Both your and Romley’s writings make this very clear, that by denying this all-caps name, one can escape jurisdiction. It isn’t a secret, it’s the same concept, and this concept that one can somehow separate themselves from an all-caps name is rejected consistently in law, as Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2017 ABQB 123 makes very clear.

Your denial of the effect of precedent due to merely repeating the rejected concept is quite amazing. When the courts are obliged to precedent or they would themselves be acting contrary to the rule of law, it shows how unintelligible your approach is. Expecting a court to break the law just because a defendant believes elves paint the grass green at night, for example, is expecting the impossible. They are obliged to uphold the decision whether they personally agree or not. And there is the huge difference between us. I cite the precedents that overrule your contentions, and quite absurdly, all you can do in response is reject the precedents, which is pointless. The decision is still binding, whether you agree or not. I have no opinions, I just cite the judgment authorities used to reject your contentions.

Your “International Criminal Court” claim is even more ridiculous, as I’m quite aware they have no jurisdiction over a sovereign nation, and cannot become involved in matters of domestic law. They can make recommendations all day on serious matters (like treatment of refugees and indigenous people) but our government can simply ignore them completely and there’s nothing they can do. Since this is not even a question of law but of alleged use of improper grammar, they will obviously reject the filing itself as frivolous and vexatious, and a waste of their time, and quite likely get a laugh from it.

From Roger Elvic and Winston Shrout, to David-Wynn: Miller and Heather Anne Tucci Jarraf, to Eldon Warman and David Kevin Lindsay, to Russell Porisky and Robert Menard, to Dean Clifford and Mary Croft, to Malcolm McClure and Frank O’Collins, to Arthur Cristian and Mark McMurtrie, to Santos Bonacci and vexatious litigants like John Wilson, Wayne Glew and Brian Shaw, and dozens of others including yourself and Romley Stover, NO COURT has ever upheld the notion of a separation of these two types of legal personality, since the Posse Comitatus first invented it nearly 50 years ago. That speaks for itself regarding it’s applicability in law, and ultimately it remains the final word in the contention.

Citing all the style manuals in the world can’t help you with this point, when the decision is binding on the court in a non-obiter capacity. You are merely banging your head against a brick wall due to a belief it will change something, while it is established it achieves nothing at all.

“The whole notion of their being a second capacity distinct from the one of a natural person or human being is a pure fiction, one which is not sanctioned by law. One can describe nothing in any terms one wishes; it still remains nothing. Cory Stanchfield’s attempt to argue before this Court that his body comprises two persons which act in different capacities is of one of two things: (1) an inadmissible division of his indivisible entity, or (2) an attempted creation of a second entity in a fashion which is not recognized by law, the result of which amounts to nothing in the eyes of the law. It is an attempt at the impossible and the respondent cannot do the impossible. Therefore, “Cory Stanchfield (the Respondent)” and “Cory Stanchfield, in his capacity as a natural person (the Witness)” is but one person, with one single capacity.” – Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99

“Defendant is apparently a member of a group loosely styled “sovereign citizens.” The Court has deduced this from a number of Defendant’s peculiar habits. First, like Mr. Leaming, sovereign citizens are fascinated by capitalization. They appear to believe that capitalizing names has some sort of legal effect.

For example, Defendant writes that “the REGISTERED FACTS appearing in the above Paragraph evidence the uncontroverted and uncontrovertible FACTS that the SLAVERY SYSTEMS operated in the names UNITED STATES, United States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and United States of America . . . are terminated nunc pro tunc by public policy, U.C.C. 1-103 . . . .” (Def.’s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 2.) He appears to believe that by capitalizing “United States,” he is referring to a different entity than the federal government. For better or for worse, it’s the same country.

The Court therefore feels some measure of responsibility to inform Defendant that all the fancy legal-sounding things he has read on the internet are make-believe. Defendant can call himself a “public minister” and “private attorney general,” he may file “mandatory judicial notices” citing all his favorite websites, he can even address mail to the “Washington Republic.” But at the end of the day, while sovereign citizens and Defendant cite things like “Universal Law Ordinances,” they are subject to both state  and federal laws, just like everyone else. For the reasons stated above, no response is required by the Government.” – Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge (12th February 2013)

Freeman Delusion

Hey Rohan, I watched your video about “hidden foreign military” and your definition of a wordmark being all-capitals. I came across this well referenced study in my research regarding wordmarks, which you may find interesting.

It’s called “The effects of uppercase and lowercase wordmarks on brand perceptions”(authored in 2017 by Xiaobing Xu of the Department of Marketing, Business School, Nankai University, Tianjin China, and Rong Chen, & Maggie Wenjing Liu, of the Department of Marketing, School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing China.)

The main point this study makes is that a wordmark doesn’t need to be in uppercase at all, such as the lowercase wordmarks Citibank, BestBuy, and Walmart. The study explores the consumer perceptions in comparison to uppercase wordmarks such as SOUTHWEST, SAXX and FOURSQUARE. It found that lowercase wordmarks were perceived as more friendly and less authoritative, among other things.

If we were to use your theory, there is no reason why “Rohan ” couldn’t be a wordmark, even though it is in lowercase. Back to the drawing board lol. Have a read.

Rohan 

I have not ruled out “Rohan” being a word mark either. Maybe instead of brand perceptions you should study grammar and law. How does your well referenced brand marketing book overcome the custom of a proper noun and all the styles manuals? I am still waiting for you to disprove those facts. If you cannot answer the question just admit it. The maxim ‘trademarks cannot sue or be sued” wipes out any court case using trademarks uless equity is involved. You refer to the High Court of Australia but it is in fact the word mark “HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.” I have asked the ICC to consider if this is the constitutional court (S.71) or if it is a U.S. one. This would effect the precedents you rely on. I am only after the truth, if I am wrong so be it. You seem hell bent on disproving every proposition. You find something wrong with everything. I am sure some of the research we do is correct. Your position seems to be disprove at all cost rather than to consider what may be a horrible reality. You refer to decisions of judges, I am saying these judges are criminals and of course they would say these thing because they have the authority to protect their own arses.

You said in Mead v Mead……I say that Mead v Mead is an equity case where consent was given by the man claiming to be Mead by turning up and saying “yeah I’m Mead.” Further I am saying “Mead” is fraud upon the court and by being “Mead” a contract agreement was entered into by “Mead.” This is where the irresponsibility of the judiciary can be seen because they placed the law system in equity. Given mead v mead is now contractual to be able to use the precedent all other case must be contractual.

A legal fiction such as the one upon which you rely which is “a name can be written in all capital letters” is a known false proposition accepted to be true. Legal fictions can only exist in equity (Legal fictions, Lon L Fuller, 1967). As such anything in equity requires consent of both parties i.e. a contract. The courts can consider a number of factors in determining if a contract exists. these are

1. Will theory
2. Consent theory
3. behavior of the parties (did they act as if in a contract)
4. consideration being received
5. acquiescence
6. Tacit consent and so on…

In Mead V Mead (I’d put money on it being MEAD v MEAD), consent to the jurisdiction was establish the second “Mr MEAD” walked into the court. I’ll put more money on MEAD opening the mail to “MEAD” before the case and established a contract pursuant to the merchant conformation rule and the postal doctrine. In Australia it is 10 years in prison if you open someone else’s mail. It is also 10 years in prison for sending a false postal article (i.e. to MEAD) (85N Crimes Act 1914). So if the fact remains that a name is a proper noun, and a proper noun is written with initial capital letter and the remainder in minuscule text. A legal fiction becomes a lie (false) when it it not agreed to by one or both parties.(Legal Fictions) This is why all the mail must not be opened and is returned with 10 business days. Opening the mail is when you consent to the contract. If you then try to disagree you are a criminal under 85Q crimes act 1914 for opening some ones mail. This is the equity system at work.

Given the precedents you rely on all have this legal fiction then there must be some sort of consent as listed above. Unfortunately for this debate the precedents don’t state if the matter has any elements of equity. When I question this in the courts they ignore the question and give stupid verdicts like “frivolous” or “Unproven” despite compelling evidence sourced from the alleged government itself. The irony of all this is you are saying the government is correct in precedent and wrong in legislation and style manuals that is authored in its very name (word mark). I note the police in Queensland will not hand over an infringement noticed, they post them to ensure a contract.

This is a direct quote from legal fiction, Lon L Fuller when referring as to why a legal fiction would be employed.

The motivation of policy. There was no doubt in Bentham’s mind about the purpose of the historical fiction. It was a “willful falsehood,” having for its object the stealing of legislative power, by and for hands which could not, or durst not, openly claim it, and but for the delusion thus produced could, not exercise it…(Page 57)

You are saying the judges have decided against our arguments, and in this you are correct, this they have done. I am asserting that they were never de jure judges but in themselves legal fiction, cleverly disclosed so as not to be noticed by any other than the most observant. The Judicial Act 1986 NSW (I think) did say all NSW Judiciary are corporate, a legal fiction that must be agreed to, hence the Question in every judges mouth….”Are you Mister Word Mark?” May I ask do you refute my allegation of equity?

I await your counter factual evidence to the style manual, As you stated Rohan May be a word mark as well, very true, but there is a possibility it could be a name. There is no evidence that all capitals is a name and thus no possibility of it every being a name. If the case of the letters was so interchangeable as you assert surely the courts would not care if the name was transcribed to initial capital letters, what harm could that do? They refuse this, the police style manual orders police not to do this, why? they must get you to accept the trademark to ensure the contract is in place to end the rule of public law and put you in an equity arrangement without disclosure that a contract exists (and possibly a fraudulent contract). This works right up till the party refuses to consent, then if force is used slavery is committed. In The King v. Casement the position of the comma was considered so your statement that the court would not consider grammar is wrong, they do.

A trademark can be anything, I am not disputing that. A name can only be a proper noun and until you produce evidence to the contrary I cannot accept your claims. They are baseless. You can accuse me of circular logic and whatever else but you still have not refuted the fact. I certainly admire you passion and conviction but the brand marketing book failed to trump all the styles manuals and customary use in my humble opinion. I cannot make the system work any other way. In equity it makes sense, in law it does not. Professor fuller warns us of this crime and I believe we are well and truly in the grip of it. I accept you do not agree and I am sure you will offer a dissenting opinion. I could certainly accept your premise if you could evidence you claim on the majuscule Unicode. Rohan

Freeman Delusion

“I have not ruled out “Rohan” being a word mark either.” It’s not something you can actually “rule out” since lower case lettering is very widely used as a wordmark.

I’ve no need to study grammar any further than I do daily home schooling my kids, my main interest is LAW, and your style manuals unfortunately DO NOT form part of the law. There is no need for me to disprove your presumption in this area, since the courts have already done so succinctly, and that DOES form part of the law.

Your maxims are also meaningless in the face of unambiguous precedents and provisions, so any abstract speculations you’d like to base on them are pointless drivel.

“You refer to the High Court of Australia but it is in fact the word mark “HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.”

LOL… You’re embarrassingly contradicting yourself. BOTH can be wordmarks if one happens to be, so your point is moot. Same response with all your other upper-case contentions.Yes I do rely on the rulings of the courts, mainly those non-obiter decisions from the higher courts that make up the body of precedent known as the common law. As I already stated, my interest is law, not grammar, which is very irrelevant to the law, as cases in the last 40 years with the all-capitals name contention prove unequivocally.

“I am only after the truth, if I am wrong so be it.” Me also, and you can prove me wrong in law, if you are so able, but you are not. You seem hell bent on disregarding precedent, for whatever reason you can invent, although you know from experience it gets you nowhere. This is a very self-defeating and self-destructive behavior, and shows you do not at all accept it if you are shown you are in fact wrong.

Meads v Meads is not an issue of contract. It is a precedent, which relates to any future decision of the same or similar ratio decidendi. You may want to educate yourself on the hierarchy or pecking order of the courts that exists in every legal system with an appeals process, and the difference between obiter and non-obiter decisions.

Similarly with your presumptions of equity, as it only exists in civil matters in a contractual capacity. As typical of OPCA theory in general, you are attempting to deal with criminal law in a civil capacity, which is unintelligible and has been repetitively rejected. Yes, when you put this question to the courts they ignore the question and give mandatory verdicts like “frivolous” or “vexatious” because they cannot disregard precedent. They are obliged by law to recognize that the contention has been dealt with in a court higher than their own, and they are obliged to uphold that decision. You can pretend you live in a powerful bubble where these precedents don’t apply to you all you like, but the courts cannot. Unfortunately for you, they are bound by law, not grammar.

“I am asserting that they were never de jure judges but in themselves legal fiction…” Well you can assert that, I prefer the frivolous contention that Thor and Odin didn’t assent the legislation, but it will equally be rejected due to precedent. For arguments sake, your contention is already overruled by the defacto officers doctrine and the presumption of regularity, which was used in Nibbs v Devonport City Council [2015] TASSC 34to refute this very contention.

You’ll be waiting forever to any further comment regarding the style manuals, because as I’ve already made clear they do not form part of the law. They can change willy-nilly as custom dictates, and are not subject to some referendum or the like, as the Constitution is.

“There is no evidence that all capitals is a name and thus no possibility of it every being a name.”

Well that is your presumption, well really, not actually yours, but borrowed from the white supremacist Posse Comitatus over 40 years ago. I can equally say there is no evidence that all capitals is not a name and thus there’s every possibility of it being a name.

Enjoy the new year ROHAN, oops, sorry, Rohan, oops, I mean… mate. 

In Michael Nibbs case, there was $1,091.67 in one years unpaid rates, along with costs of $749.50 for the Magistrates Court case, and then after losing the appeal, I assume the respondent Council would of also applied for costs in that case, which would be in the thousands.

You can say “They never got a cent out of him.” all you like, but that just exposes your lack of logic, and extreme gullibility at his word. You certainly know you can’t offer me evidence of it, as it’s mere hearsay.

The fact is, the Local Government Act 1993 allows for three years in unpaid rates and then the council auctions off his house for arrears. And why wouldn’t they, considering they won both the primary case and the appeal. That period of grace is well and truly expired here in 2018, so basic deductive reasoning shows Michael has entered a payment plan. It takes a fool to believe shit like that, and I’m not such a fool.

With Romley Stover, whatever the fines or penalties relating to his minor case, would be forwarded onto SPUR in Queensland, and dealt with according to debt collection procedure. If he is on the dole, his payments can be garnished by Centrepay, and if all else fails, assets seized as repayment. If he has nothing valuable to sell, it makes it a bit hard, and as he doesn’t have a licence or rego there’s nothing to cancel. Either way, eventually the debt will be collected. I preferred the old system back in Queensland myself, I regularly used to go to the watch house and “cut out” commitment warrants at $100 a day. 

The rest of your comment is mere speculation and theory, nothing provable, well, the whole comment was really. I generally deal in provable facts, but in both cases, my deductive reasoning far outweighs your speculation and conspiracy theories.

See ya bloke. 

Rohan 

you don’t deal in provable facts, you don’t have an iota of proof of you position, not a jot, not a third of a poofteenth. I belted you with a right hook that is the word mark, you admitted I’ll be waiting for a long time for you to respond to that because you cant, you got nothing. Hit me mate!!!! show me the evidence, no you can’t can you? fail, fail fail. I know the weak spot to go for now. You say the style manual is not part of the law, the style manual is how to write shit down, FYI the laws are written down, that’s language. You are proposing that you are illiterate and I agree with you, you cant read at all. I have heard that you are not a man but a lawyer or group of lawyers. A real non insane farther would not mention his children on a website where he has been threatened as you claim, leave you children out of it for their own protection if you are in fact a man. Rob Sudy or is that ROB SUDY the one hit wonder. Get up off the mat, take at least one swing. Answer the question, “What is a name Rob Sudy?” what is it???? Do you know??? are you going to keep ignoring the meaning of the writing??? Are you relying on Chinese branding study’s that says lower case is more friendly??? I’m not arguing that, its irrelevant. On my Birth certificate the word “Name” is next to Rohan so I can confidently say Rohan is my name and not a word mark. Whats yours Rob SUDY? DO you even know you own name??? No you don’t. you are desperate to keep this information down. If we are right, and you cant refute us, you and your mates are in serious trouble. The first question I asked you Rob SUDY is can you prove Rom wrong. No you can’t. you cant get over the first hurdle. I was considerate enough to provide you the evidence, You can’t so you jump into ad hominem insults. I’m so great because I have “Deductive reasoning.” Well I have evidence, factual, academic, referenced evidenced Rob SUDY. Mate I am disappointed. I found your stuff and though I had better have a look. you have nothing, actually nothing would be an improvement on your current position. hey Rob SUDY, refute this;

1. A name is a proper noun with initial capital letters; Style Manual, Sixth Edition, Wiley Publishing, page 121.

2. A name is a proper noun with initial capital letters; New Oxford Style Manual, Oxford University Press 2012 chapter 8.3.

3. A name is a proper noun with initial capital letters,;Chicago Manual of Style, Sixteenth Edition, Chicago University Press, 2012.

4. A name has initial capital letters, How to read and Write for ages 4 to 6, Schoolzone press, 2012, page 20, how to write the name “Jason.

5. The blue book, A guide to legal citation, Harvard University, 2018.

6. All capital letters is a word mark, Style Manual, Sixth Edition, Wiley publishing, Page 291.

Come on mate, give me something. Are you saying all these scholars are wrong and the 5th grade educated Rob SUDY is right? I would refer you to the maxim “Those skilled in the art are to be believed.” Are these grammarians and linguists all wrong and you without a shed if evidence are correct? Are you Rob? Does your 5th grade education override these publications, come on mate, talk about reaching. Contradict me, I beg you, please, one piece of evidence is all I ask, doesn’t even have to be big, refute the children’s book I included for you…that can’t be that hard surely, I want you to beat me Rob, I would love to be wrong, prove it,not with your unsubstantiated claims but with evidence as I have done, Don’t disappoint me mate, take me down hard. Disprove the facts in the above number points 1 to 6. I look forward to an academic flogging that I so deserve.

I’ll get you started mate, Rohan you are a delusion freeman, this is why, the Australian Government Style Manual, the New Oxford Style Manual, the Chicago manual of style, the Harvard guide to citation are all wrong and I am right because…………..

I’m on my third Corona but fuck me Stanford University got it wrong as well….These pricks think language is crucial….WTF Rob, glad we have your 5th grade grammatical expertise to call upon to save the world from us delusion freemen.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-language/

The use of language is crucial to any legal system, not only in the same way that it is crucial to politics in general, but also in two special respects. Lawmakers characteristically use language to make law, and law must provide for the authoritative resolution of disputes over the effects of that use of language. Political philosophers are not generally preoccupied with questions in the philosophy of language. But legal philosophers are political philosophers with a specialization that gives language (and philosophy of language) a special importance.[1]

Philosophy of law can gain from a good philosophical account of the meaning and use of language, and from a good philosophical account of the institutionalized resolution of disputes over language. Philosophy of language can gain from studying the stress-testing of language in legal regulation and dispute resolution. And philosophers of language can gain from the reminder that their task is not only to account for what people share in virtue of the mastery of a language; they also need to account for the possibility of disagreements over the meaning and use of language, and for the possibility that there might be good reason for resolving those disagreements in one way rather than another.

Freeman Delusion

I can tell you’re on you’re third Corona lol, because you’re still carrying on with irrelevant crap, that has no basis in law, and has already been dealt with by the law, according to law. 

The all-capitals name theory is not new, as I’ve repetitively stated, it goes back to the Posse Comitatus over 40 years ago. There’s been literally hundreds of cases in the higher courts since then, not a single one of them have ever succeeded. For some reason you think you can bring something new to the table and change all that? That is very delusional. You admit yourself that it got you nowhere, and I can assure you it never will.

As I’ve already repetitively stated too, I’m not interested in debating grammar, and if you are at all taking notice, neither are the courts. This tired old all-capitals argument is done and dusted, even with the very mention of it in a court the magistrate is instructed to treat the defendant or applicant as vexatious and abusing the processes of the court. These are the FACTS I deal in, and I can cite as many cases as you like to confirm my position in this regard. The law does not recognize your contention, and that is undeniable after 40 years of litigation on this ratio decidendi.

You don’t seem to realize that you don’t even have an argument to refute, and you’re behaving like that Black Knight off Monty Python that still wanted a go after his arms and legs were cut off lol. 

Belted me with a right hook with the wordmark? Well you must of hit the air because I clearly refuted you on that point as lowercase can equally be a wordmark, and is widely used. And that is really the extent that I want to research your contention, as it provably has no basis in law. If you want to debate grammar, go find someone in that field, because it isn’t me, I deal with pseudolegal contentions, and how the courts respond to these contentions. And that is something you don’t have the ability to debate me on, the only thing you can do is ignore precedent, which ultimately makes engaging any further with you very pointless.

You can cite all these studies that show the importance of language in law, but none of them agree with the all-capitals contention either. It’s like raising the importance of paper in law, simply because the constitution is written on paper.

Let’s say for arguments sake you are correct, and this all-capitals name theory is completely valid. What good will it do you, when the courts are obliged to reject it? It’s me like telling a court that Thor and Odin didn’t assent the legislation so it’s all invalid, which they are also obliged to reject. You’ll be here in another 40 years still insisting on it’s validity, after losing everything of value in your life, being periodically locked in a cage, and still get rejected each time you raise the contention. You obviously want to seem intelligent, but that is not very intelligent at all, it’s a waste of your life.

“But no! The courts are all corrupt because they don’t recognize Thor and Odin! This is proof they are all corrupt!”

I could spend the next 40 years raising that contention too, but I’m more intelligent than that. I’d much rather enjoy my life. In actual fact, I don’t think anyone has ever attempted it to be rejected in precedent, unlike your all-capitals contention. It is very old news.

Have another Corona bloke, I’ll be doing the same tomorrow night. 

Take a step back and observe this interaction as an outsider, you will notice one thing. Neither myself nor the law accepts your grammar argument, and neither yourself nor the all-capitals theory accepts binding precedent in law. If I could draw an analogy…

This is like a scientist being asked to debate a creationist using nothing but “The Bible” as proof, because the creationist only accepts the Bible as evidence, and a creationist being asked to debate a scientist using nothing but “The Evolution of Species” as proof, because the scientist only accepts The Evolution of Species as evidence,.

The debate will never proceed beyond petty bullshit, and is therefore completely illogical and pointless. 

Rohan 

Its your attitude that is the problem, cant win so don even try, that’s why they get away with it. I am in the ICC, file number OTP-CR-371/18. There is evidence they must consider that is the truth. You will excuse me if I don’t lay down just yet to take it up the ass.

Regards Rohan

Freeman Delusion

Interesting that you think my attitude has some bearing or influence on the facts of law presented here. I’m flattered you would think whatever I think has that much power and authority in the face of binding precedent to the contrary, and although I hate to admit it, whether I agree or not doesn’t magically change the perception of the law. 

Good luck in your case though, I wish you well. Unfortunately, even if by chance they agree with you, any sovereign government has the prerogative to ignore it completely.

Well you’ll excuse me if I don’t blindly and naively accept your contentions as being valid and legitimate just because you quote some number lol. 

I know very well that the International Criminal Court will complement, not supersede, the jurisdiction of national courts. In addition, the accused and interested States may challenge the jurisdiction of the Court or admissibility of the case. They also have a right to appeal any related decision.

As you may well know, the procedures of the ICC are governed by the ROME STATUTE, which I already know you lot are quite superstitious about, but nevertheless, if you want to enter that jurisdiction you may want to familiarize yourself with some basic principles mandated in relation to any ICC case.

(1) The ICC can only prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, the crime of aggression, and offences against the administration of justice. Under Article 7 section 1. the Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of the Statute, which was 17th of July 1998.

(2) Article 70 covers offences against the administration of justice. Section 1. outlines the types of offences when committed intentionally: (a) Giving false testimony; (b) Presenting evidence that the party knows is false or forged; (c) Corruptly influencing a witness, or, tampering with or interfering with the collection of evidence; (d) Impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court; (e) Retaliating against an official of the Court; (f) Soliciting or accepting a bribe as an official of the Court. The contentions you raise are none of the above, but relate to conspiracy theories regarding PROCEDURAL issues, which are well within the jurisdiction of the domestic court.

(3) National courts will continue to have priority in investigating and prosecuting crimes within their jurisdiction. Under the principle of complementarity, the ICC will act only when national courts are unable or unwilling to exercise jurisdiction. If a national court is willing and able to exercise its jurisdiction, the ICC cannot intervene and no nationals of that State can be brought before it, meaning that even if your application is accepted as valid, your case will be HEARD IN AN AUSTRALIAN COURT. Under Article 70 section 2. The principles and procedures governing the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction shall be governed by the domestic laws of the requested State. Under section 4 (b) the State Party shall submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

(4) The grammar contention has already been heard and rejected by our domestic courts. Article 17 covers issues of admissibility. Under section 1. a case is INADMISSIBLE where: (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned; and (d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

(5) Similarly to here, officials in the pre-trial chambers review the tenets of the proposed action to PREVENT VEXATIOUS, frivolous and otherwise resource-wasting cases being brought before the Court. Under Article 53 section 1. the Prosecutor will not initiate an investigation as there is no reasonable basis to proceed as 2. there is not a sufficient basis for a prosecution.

(6) Under Article 25 section 1. the ICC can prosecute individuals, but not states or organizations, so WHO EXACTLY are you prosecuting? Under Article 33 superior orders and prescription of law relieve that person of criminal responsibility as (a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question; (b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and (c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.

So as I was saying when you first raised the ICC to me in the start of our interaction, as well as many other OPCA adherents like Sue Maynes and David Walters have also done, and proven to be unsuccessful in having heard, I don’t believe you know what the hell you’re talking about. Seems you spend too much time reading style manuals and too little time studying the law in relation to the obligations of a court.

The Rome Statute: Enjoy. 

Ever watched that movie “The Lawnmower Man” where he succeeds in uploading his consciousness into the computer mainframe, and then tries to look for an exit point to gain access to the net? In the scene he’s surrounded by thousands of metaphorical doors which he tries to enter with his advanced and expanded knowledge.

But each time he tries to enter he gets…

“access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied”.

I’ve looked into so many of the proposed doors to exit the system and gain supralegal status, and each time I find I’m blocked with…

“access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied” “access denied”.

You may be feeling a little like the Lawnmower Man yourself right now.

Happy new year bloke 

Rohan

Just something interesting I have found Rob,

Have a look at the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 Section 2(c)1. In Australia a person is a body politic or a corporation as well as an individual. So a corporation as well as an individual is a corporation sole.(I note it does not say corporation “or” individual). So any reference to a person in any law in the Commonwealth of Australia is either to a body politic or a corporation sole. So if you are neither of these you are not a “person” and therefore jurisdiction does not apply.

There is some validity in the might is right argument. Fraud is fraud and there is no requirement for any man to be a body politic or corporation sole. The courts are winning as they are corrupt. They are committing the offense of slavery by forcing us to hold the corporation in the form of the word mark. I have not come across a statutory requirement to be a corporation sole.I have been corresponding with some M.P.’s who are looking into this. I’ll have to wait to after the election as they are all busy. As for the second birth certificate my Aunt has hers and as Rom stated it is in the Christian name only. So there are two birth certificates. In N.S.W. the registry entry is the beneficiary deed. We may not get anywhere with the courts but now the people are waking up the most common reaction is a desire to from a lynch mob, this is how you can tell they get it.

Cheers Rohan

Rohan commented on another post regarding the “Queen of Australia”:

Rohan