Article V.        Definitions of words CRIMES (DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) ACT 2007

Section 1.01    Section 4 Meaning of “personal violence offence”

In this Act, "personal violence offence" means:

(a) an offence under, or mentioned in, section 19A, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 33A, 35, 35A, 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 58, 59, 61, 61B, 61C, 61D, 61E, 61I, 61J, 61JA, 61K, 61L, 61M, 61N, 61O, 65A, 66A, 66B, 66C, 66D, 66EA, 80A, 80D, 86, 87, 93G, 93GA, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 562I (as in force before its substitution by the Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Act 2006 ) or 562ZG of the Crimes Act 1900, or

(b) An offence under section 13 or 14 of this Act, or

(c) An offence of attempting to commit an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

Section 1.02    Section 5 Meaning of “domestic relationship”

For the purposes of this Act, a person has a "domestic relationship" with another person if the person:

(a) Is or has been married to the other person, or

(b) Is or has been a de facto partner of that other person, or

(c) Has or has had an intimate personal relationship with the other person, whether or not the intimate relationship involves or has involved a relationship of a sexual nature, or

(d) Is living or has lived in the same household as the other person, or

(e) is living or has lived as a long-term resident in the same residential facility as the other person and at the same time as the other person (not being a facility that is a correctional centre within the meaning of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act1999or a detention centre within the meaning of the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987), or

(f) Has or has had a relationship involving his or her dependence on the ongoing paid or unpaid care of the other person, or

(g) Is or has been a relative of the other person, or

(h) In the case of an Aboriginal person or a Torres Strait Islander, is or has been part of the extended family or kin of the other person according to the Indigenous kinship system of the person’s culture.

Note: “De facto partner” is defined in section 21C of the Interpretation Act1987.

Section 1.03    Section 6 Meaning of “relative”

For the purposes of this Act, a person is a "relative" of another person (the "other person"):

(A) if the person is:

(I) a father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, step-father, step-mother, father-in-law or mother-in-law, or

(ii) A son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, step-son, step-daughter, son-in-law or daughter-in-law, or

(iii) A brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, step-brother, step-sister, brother-in-law or sister-in-law, or

(iv) An uncle, aunt, uncle-in-law or aunt-in-law, or

(v) A nephew or niece, or

(vi) A cousin,

of the other person, or

(b) where the person has a de facto partner (the "person’s partner")-if the other person is:

(I) a father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, step-father or step-mother, or

(ii) a son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, step-son or step-daughter, or

(iii) a brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, step-brother or step-sister, or

(iv) an uncle or aunt, or

(v) a nephew or niece, or

(vi) a cousin,

of the person’s partner.

Section 1.04    Section 7 Meaning of “intimidation”

(1) For the purposes of this Act, "intimidation" of a person means:

(a) conduct amounting to harassment or molestation of the person, or

(b) an approach made to the person by any means (including by telephone, telephone text messaging, e-mailing and other technologically assisted means) that causes the person to fear for his or her safety, or

(c) any conduct that causes a reasonable apprehension of injury to a person or to a person with whom he or she has a domestic relationship, or of violence or damage to any person or property.

(2) For the purpose of determining whether a person’s conduct amounts to intimidation, a court may have regard to any pattern of violence (especially violence constituting a domestic violence offence) in the person’s behaviour.

Section 1.05    Section 8 Meaning of “stalking”

(1) In this Act, "stalking" includes the following of a person about or the watching or frequenting of the vicinity of, or an approach to, a person’s place of residence, business or work or any place that a person frequents for the purposes of any social or leisure activity.

(2) For the purpose of determining whether a person’s conduct amounts to stalking, a court may have regard to any pattern of violence (especially violence constituting a domestic violence offence) in the person’s behaviour.

Occupy the Courts 1 

Occupy the Courts 2 

Occupy the Courts 3 

Occupy the Courts 4 

Occupy the Courts 5 

Occupy the Courts 6 

Occupy the Courts 7 

Occupy the Courts 8 

Occupy the Courts 9 

Occupy the Courts 10 

Occupy the Courts 11 

Occupy the Courts 12 

Occupy the Courts 13 

Occupy the Courts 14 

Occupy the Courts 15 

Occupy the Courts 16 

Occupy the Courts 17 

Occupy the Courts 18 

Occupy the Courts 19 

Occupy the Courts 20 

Occupy the Courts 21 

Occupy the Courts 22 

Occupy the Courts 23 

Occupy the Courts 24 

Occupy the Courts 25 

(Texting conviction) 1 

(Texting conviction) 2 

(Texting conviction) 3 

(Texting conviction) 4 

(Texting conviction) 5 

(Texting conviction) 6 

(Texting conviction) 7 

(Texting conviction) 8 

(Texting conviction) 9 

(Texting conviction) 10 

(Texting conviction) 11 

(Texting conviction) 12 

(Texting conviction) 13 

(Texting conviction) 14 

(Texting conviction) 15 

(Texting conviction) 16 

(Texting conviction) 17 

(Texting conviction) 18 

(Texting conviction) 19 

(Texting conviction) 20 

(Texting conviction) 21 

(Texting conviction) 22 

(Texting conviction) 23 

(Texting conviction) 24 

(Texting conviction) 25 

Dropped charge 1) 

Dropped charge 2) 

Dropped charge 3) 

Dropped charge 4) 

Dropped charge 5) 

Dropped charge 6) 

Dropped charge 7) 

Dropped charge 8) 

Dropped charge 9) 

Dropped charge 10) 

Dropped charge 11) 

Dropped charge 12) 

Dropped charge 13) 

Dropped charge 14) 

Dropped charge 15) 

Dropped charge 16) 

Dropped charge 17) 

Dropped charge 18) 

Dropped charge 19) 

Dropped charge 20) 

Dropped charge 21) 

Dropped charge 22) 

Dropped charge 23) 

Dropped charge 24) 

Dropped charge 25) 

Texting Conviction 1) 

Texting Conviction 2) 

Texting Conviction 3) 

Texting Conviction 4) 

Texting Conviction 5) 

Texting Conviction 6) 

Texting Conviction 7) 

Texting Conviction 8) 

Texting Conviction 9) 

Texting Conviction 10) 

Texting Conviction 11) 

Texting Conviction 12) 

Texting Conviction 13) 

Texting Conviction 14) 

Texting Conviction 15) 

Texting Conviction 16) 

Texting Conviction 17) 

Texting Conviction 18) 

Texting Conviction 19) 

Texting Conviction 20) 

Texting Conviction 21) 

Texting Conviction 22) 

Texting Conviction 23) 

Texting Conviction 24) 

Texting Conviction 25) 

i) 

a. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

Section 1.06    Decision of the state, NSW police, Alex using Rachel’s position of power and authority over me from the DSP. It was not a Socialist Alliance, Resistance, Resistance Books, Green Left Weekly or mine or Rachel’s, the majority of people’s as part of the 99% decision.

1.                  In the Socialist Alliance Constitution of 2010 Section 5.11 It states, “Once decisions have been taken by the elected bodies of the Alliance all members are expected to present that decision as the position of the Alliance, both in public and in dealings with other political organisations. At the same time, individual Alliance members and affiliate organisations are free to indicate their agreement or disagreement with any Alliance decision.” As such this meant the state decided that all persons and not just Rachel from Socialist Alliance were expected to carry out an AVO on me without trial, who weren't permitted to have any say in nor did the majority of them support it, just the same as me since Nov 2007.  The CAAH constitution also reaffirms this with CAAH people put in exactly the same situation.  I have attached a copy of both constitutions.

2.                  Socialist Constitution 2010 Accountability of Socialist Alliance parliamentarians as well as members and accused persons reaffirms both leaders and accused persons have a responsibility to explain their actions to the people and to resolve any problems to find positive solutions we can all live with.  There is a serious problem in this country if both elected and unelected leaders as well as elected and unelected accused persons are not permitted to explain their actions and resolve problems together with the people with a decision we can all live with if no accountability is permitted.

3.                  There is a serious problem in this country if people instead of being able to sit down together to resolve problems with positive solutions with their people including elected leaders have to go to court to pull their own elected leaders into line if they have made an error in judgement of a person that resulted in decision which caused prejudicial acts and hate towards that person. People, especially survivors of abuse from oppressed struggles need rehabilitation not punishment or isolation and accused people in particular need to be allowed to help the people within our communities especially individuals who feel they have been wronged by them.

4.                  It was Ms Evans choice to redirect us to occupy the courts since she first lodged the application instead of letting our people and I occupy the trial through our normal political party and CAAH processes. On the 25th August 2009 at the Parramatta District Court in paragraph 10 page 5, Ms Evans stated she, "organised the court case" backed with some false accusations based on hearsay without even hearing why an sos call for help to fight for life was being made.

5.                  Ms Evans does hold a position of power and authority over me in our political groups which are being used to abuse me by APVO to accept or confess what is not true about me and our history. I have attached copies of her elected leadership in Socialist Alliance and the latest copy of Green left Activist Calender which lists her email address as the contact for the activist calendar. I have also attached copies of her elected leadership in CAAH as well as the moderator of various groups.

Section 1.07    Individual belief decisions vs.genuine majority decisions

6.                  Have you ever carried out a decision because a leader told you that’s what the majority decided even though you weren’t there? How do you know it to be true? What if their word is wrong based on a belief and not a fact? Or have you ever raised your hand to make a decision because a charismatic leader from a majority was so convincing even though what they were telling you was based on belief, a misjudgement, a personal prejudice, hearsay or complete and utter rubbish and not a fact or a balanced argument? Was it a collective decision people as individuals and collectively agreed or did you just do it cause you followed these three points, point one the boss told you to who is always right who never makes mistakes. Point two if the boss makes a mistake refer to point one. Point three if the boss keeps on making mistakes that is resulting in people’s lives being put at risk don’t complain or offer a solution keep referring to point one at all costs cause the boss is always right.

7.                  One way to determine whether what one is saying is genuine or not is whether they present both sides of the story and present a positive solution. Or are they only presenting one side of the story with a lot of finger pointing based on a belief?