Article IV. The task is not to believe but read.
1.
Not since Castro has
revolutionary had to practice their profession under such difficult conditions.
Not since Castro have an overwhelming number of irregularities as defined by
Section 62 of the Local Court Act 2007 and Section 66 NSW Crimes (Domestic and
Personal Violence Act) been committed against an accused person. In this case, both victims and defendants are
one and the same from the same organisations in an Apprehended Personal
Violence Order (APVO) applied for by Ms Evans with advice from Mr Alex
Bainbridge and pursued and extended by the NSW Police, at the Newtown Local
Court on 29 August 2008 and 9 November 2011 without trial.
2.
For our people they have not
even been permitted to hear the appeal since November 2007 in the fight for
equal Socialist Alliance, Resistance, Resistance Books, Green Left Weekly, CAAH
and the replacement of the family rights with complete non-interference of the
state due to Rachel’s AVO power and authority over me.
3.
As accused since November
2007 held a prisoner as an illegal human like a Villawood queer refugeefor
refusing to acceptincommunicado and solitary confinement orders, violated inhumanely
of every single political, human, organisational, civil, legal, educational and
workplace rights for what I am fighting for in Article III, paragraph three.
Section 1.01 Upcoming Occupy The Court Dates
4.
From 23 January 2012 at the
Downing Centre in all courts for the submission of all evidence began to be
called for the appeal/revocation/annulment of the APVO mentioned in Paragraph
four.
5.
On 7 October 2009 Greg’s
charges, 16 August 2011 Paul’s charges as a result of the APVO of me was
dropped. The majority of the contravene charges as a result of the APVO have
been dropped.
6.
On 2 May 2012 at the Downing
Centre District Court the APVO extension mentioned in Paragraph four is listed
for 2ndAppeal at the Downing Centre District Court on 2 May 2012.
7.
On 23 October 2011 I was one
of the 1st of the 40 arrestees of the Occupy Sydney eviction. On 13
April 2012 the majority of Occupy Sydney Council fine charges including mine
was dropped.
8.
On 21 May 2012 the Indictment
as a result of the APVO mentioned in Article IV, Paragraph 4 is listed for
Committal Hearing at the Downing Centre Local Court to determine whether its
trialled.
Section 1.02 Legal Acts
9.
The APVO mentioned in
paragraph Three is per the Right of Appeal, Appeals as of Right, Right to
Defend Action, Proceedings to be open to the public of the Local Court Act 2007
Section 39 (2), 56 and District Court Act 1973 Section 139 and Crimes (Domestic
and Personal) Violence Act 2007 Section 60, 72.
10.
This action from me has been
in accordance with all sections and all grounds of the Socialist Alliance
Constitution 2010, CARR Constitution 2007, the Commonwealth Constitution Act,
Local Court Act 2007, the Commonwealth Torture and Death Abolition Act 2010, Criminal
Trial Procedure Act 1986, Crimes(Domestic and Personal) Violence Act 2007 in
relation to APVOs, Evidence Act 1995 as well as the core political, human,
organisational, trial procedures, methods and values of comrades, CAAH people
as well myself and the rest of the 99%.
Section 1.03 Application for variation or revocation of final apprehended violence orders
(1) An
application may, at any time, be made to a court for the variation or revocation of a final apprehended violence order or interim court order.
(2) An
application for variation or revocation may be made only by:
(a) the protected person (whether or not the protected person made the application for the
original order) or, if there is more than one protected person, by one or more of the protected persons, or
(b) a police officer, or
(3) Despite subsection (2), an application for variation or
revocation of a final
apprehended violence order or interim
court order must be made by a police officer if the protected
person or one of the protected
persons under the order is a child
at the time of the application.
(4) The application must set out the grounds on which the
application is made and, in the case of a variation, the nature of the
variation sought. This subsection does not limit the powers of the court.
(5) An application for revocation of a final
apprehended violence order may be made by the defendant
even though the order has expired. Subsection (3) does not apply to such an
application.
Note: Certain consequences result from an apprehended violence order being made against a person if it is
not revoked. For example, section 11 of the Firearms Act 1996provides that a firearms licence must
not be issued to a person who is subject to a final apprehended violence order or who at any time in the previous
10 years has been subject to such an order (other than an order that has been
revoked).
(6) A court
may make an order under this Division revoking a final
apprehended violence order even though that final order has expired
if the court
is satisfied that, were that final order still in force, it should be revoked.
(7) In applying the provisions of this Division to an
application for revocation of a final
apprehended violence order that has expired, a reference to a protected
person includes a reference to a person for whom the expired order
was sought or made.
(8) If an application is made by the defendant
for revocation of a final
apprehended violence order that has expired:
(a) the Commissioner of Police is to be notified of the
application, and
(b) the court
hearing the application must take into account (in addition to any other
matters that it is required to take into account) the effect that revocation of
the expired order may now have on the protected
person, having regard to the grounds on which the expired order was
made, and
(c) the court
may order that a further application for revocation of the expired order may
not be made by the defendant
except with the leave of the court.
Section 1.04 Variation may be made on guilty plea or guilt finding for certain offences
75 Variation may be made on guilty plea or guilt finding for
certain offences
(1) If a person pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, an
offence against section 13 or a domestic
violence offence, the court
may vary a final
apprehended violence order or an interim
court order for the purpose of providing greater protection for the
person against whom the offence was committed whether or not an application to
vary the order has been made under this Division.
(2) A reference in this section to a court
extends to the District Court
when exercising jurisdiction apart from under section 91.
Section 1.05
SECT 84
Review and appeal
provisions concerning making etc. of apprehended violence orders
(1) An application may be
made under Part 2 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001by the defendant for the annulment of an apprehended violence order made by the
Local Court or the Children’s Court in the same way as an application may be made
under that Part by a defendant for the annulment of a conviction arising from a court attendance notice dealt with under Part 2 of
Chapter 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act1986.
(1A) A person who applied
to the Local Court or the Children’s Court for an apprehended violence order may apply to
the Court for the annulment of the dismissal of the
application for the order by the Court, but only if the person was not in attendance
before the Court when the application was dismissed.
(1B) The Local Court or the Children’s Court may grant an application for an annulment made
under subsection (1A) if it is satisfied that, having regard to the
circumstances of the case, there is just cause for doing so. If such an
application is granted, the Court may deal with the application for the apprehended violence order as if the
application for the order had not been dismissed.
(a) by the defendant against the making of an apprehended violence order by the Local
Court or the Children’s Court, or
(a1) by the applicant for
an apprehended violence order (or, if the
applicant was a police officer, either the applicant or the person for whose
protection the order would have been made) against the dismissal of the
application by the Local Court or the Children’s Court, or
(b) by the applicant for
an order or a defendant against the awarding of costs under section 99 of
this Act, or
(c) by a party to an apprehended violence order against the
variation or revocation of the order by the Local Court or the Children’s Court, or
(d) by a party to an apprehended violence order against a
refusal by the Local Court or the Children’s Court to vary or revoke the order.
(3) An appeal under subsection (2):
(a) may be made under Part 3 of the Crimes(Appeal and Review) Act 2001in the same
way as an application may be made under that Part by a defendant against a conviction arising from a court attendance notice dealt with under Part 2 of
Chapter 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, and
(b) may be made only by
leave of the District Court in the case of an appeal against the making of an apprehended violence order that was
made with the consent of the defendant.
(4) The Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act2001applies to an application or appeal arising under
this section with such modifications as is made by or in accordance with the
regulations under that Act.
(5) For the purposes of
this section and the Crimes(Appeal and Review) Act 2001, an order
made by a Registrar of a court is taken to have been made by the court.
(5A) Part 6 (Interim court orders) applies to proceedings with respect to an
appeal to the District Court under subsection (2) in the same way as it applies
to an application to the Local Court or the Children’s Court under Part 4 or 5.
(5B) If the District Court allows an appeal made under this section against
the refusal to annul an apprehended violence order and remits
the matter to the Local Court or the Children’s Court, the District Court must, unless the District Court is satisfied that it is not necessary to do so,
make an interim court order under Part 6 as if an application
for such an order had been duly made.
(a) the protected person (whether or not the
applicant), but only if the protected person is of or above the age
of 16 years, or
(b) if the applicant was
a police officer, that or any other police officer, or
Section 1.06 CRIMES (APPEAL AND REVIEW) ACT 2001 - SECT 16A
Determination of appeals against Local Court’s refusal of
application for annulment of conviction
16A Determination of appeals against Local
Court’s refusal of application for annulment of conviction
(1) The District Court
may determine an application under section 11A by dismissing the application or
by granting it.
(2) Pending the determination of the application, the
District Court
may stay the execution of any sentence
relating to the conviction
concerned subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.
(3) If the District Court
grants the application, the District Court
must remit the matter to the Local
Court.
(4) The Local
Court is to deal under section 9 with any matter remitted to it
under this section as if the application under section 4 in respect of the
matter had been granted by the Local
Court.
Section 1.07
Committing
Socialist Alliance and Community Action against Homophobia Acts is not a breach
of the Crimes (Personal and Domestic) Violence Act 2007 to have warranted an
order in neither the past nor any extension or the previous order for the
future.
11.
What has been proven is there has been a
refusal of myself to accept Rachel’s power and authority over me by APVO. I
can’t acceptlegal orders, which criminally charge,and dol out guilt for committing
Socialist Alliance and Community Action against Homophobia acts using a leader’s
power and authority over new people. I can’t accept a system, which supports
punishment instead of rehabilitation of accused persons. I can’t accept a system,
which protects victims from the truth and teaches victims to punish accused
persons to death. AVOs all they do are pit people against each other to
distract people from the real enemy, whichare not each other.No place or
communication restrictions in organizing are an important part of the work of
Socialist Alliance between comrades and with others, we both work with. The
majority including myself encouraged me to continue to commit Socialist
alliance and CARR acts even though a few leaders told me not to. As individuals,
we organize campaigns as part of groups to fight for the goals of the majority
as an important part of the struggle to win a revolution. We do not organise
campaigns to fight for the goals of the individual. What has not been proven is
whether there was a breach of Section 4 or Section 13 of the act from myself
towards Rachel to have warranted an APVO in the first place or to have
warranted the police application to extend the APVO in the first place.Had the
right to rebel to unite with the majority been supported by the police no APVO
would have ever existed since 2008.
Section 1.08 I am Not a Lawyer but I know injustice and Mérida when I see it
12.
I hate being individualised
and vanity to fuel misguided egos with all my being. I hate court because of
continual use of the guilt fix method used to determine justice of individuals
to the exclusion of the majority of people. Nor is my temperament been
volatile, nor is my frame of mind incompetent, inclined towards courtroom poses
or sensationalism of any kind.
13.
If have had to assume defence
before you it is for these reasons:-
14.
Legal, human, political,
organisational, civil, educational, work, communication aid has been denied as
a result of the APVO mentioned in paragraph three since November 2007.
15.
For an appeal to be heard
from start to finish without interruption that will assist both Ms Evans, our
people and the court as to why the APVO mentioned in paragraph three has been
false, contradicts both Commonwealth Legislation and our people’s constitutional
legislation, creates a false history of a victim of trauma and torture of our
people who is a revolutionary queer white stolen generation from poverty who
never had a criminal record prior to the APVO and why the APVO has needed to be
annulled from day one for an amnesty.
16.
For the right to rebel with
civil disobedience and direct action to unite to continue to with the majority
for equal Socialist Alliance and CARR rights.
17.
I wouldn’t have had to text in
the past if Ms Evans had just let me come to work to fight for life for the
party and CARR etc. politically to recover from the nervous breakdown that
happened as a result of what happened in the SRC that I was gagged from
speaking about by Ms Evans.
18.
The APVO has created problems
while denying solutions that never happened prior to the APVO.
19.
Staying in Socialist Alliance
and CARR has kept us alive through it like they never wanted to be.
20.
While a conference would have
been better, Ms Evans organised the court case instead of through normal
political party and CARR proceedings as she wouldn’t let me go through any
other means to have the truth heard for an amnesty to be called to absolve the
order for our freedom so we can all go home to continue with the road to
rainbow liberation and the revolutionary struggle. I can’t ask for my freedom
from Rachel’s APVO power and authority over me so we can all go home and
continue with the revolutionary struggle I have to fight for it.
21.
Only one who has been so deeply traumatized,
who has seen her comrades, CARR people so forsaken, and its justice trampled
so, can speak at a moment like this with words that spring from our heart of
hearts because telling the truth has always been a Green Left Act of ours from
our very gut.
22.
There was no lack of generous
Socialist Alliance people, Resistance people, Resistance Books people, CARR people, RAC people, WAAC people, Street Level people, UWS students, Grow
people, Greens people, people from other socialist parties, anarchists,
independents, occupy people, Crave MCC people, ISJA people and concerned
citizens from all human rights struggles who wished to defend all of us with an
amnesty position. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Inner City Legal, The law
Society of New South Wales, The Bar Association. However they were not
permitted to carry out this task. As often as we tried to see each other, the
personal interests of Law Firms palmed us off to another law firm or the
judicial system or the APVO or the prosecution or honourable magistrates blocked both
witnesses, defence lawyers and myself from giving all evidence or hearing of
all written evidence like prison gates between us. Only after four years
through intervention of the court have I been permitted to speak with these
comrades of mine together with a lawyer for this appeal to be heard in response
to an affidavit where the accused who is not a lawyer in this case didn’t even
get a 10 minute meeting when it was proposed to go to court like Fidel Castro
did before assuming defence. One supposes that one has a right to receive
experienced assistance when one is inexperienced without orders being used to
block it and one supposes the right to rebel orders of tyranny to unite with
the majority to fight for life to stop injustice which is well respected
throughout the world. Except in AVO cases when the victim is made an accused
and a leader holds a position of power and authority over a person where
Australians are held a prisoner by implacable tyranny be not it legal nor has
it been humane.
No comments:
Post a Comment