Article VI. THE APVO
Section 1.01 State AVOs without “the service and execution of the civil and criminal process and the judgements of the courts of the states” as per Section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act contradicts and is inconsistent with Section 51 (xxiv) of the Commonwealth Constitution Act.
1.
For anyone including Honourable
Magistrates, Honourable Lawyers both defence and prosecution to encourage both
victims and defendants to just accept AVO “judgement of the courts of the
states” without “the service and execution of the civil and criminal
process”that it will empower victims protection and that it will be no
admission of guilt of a defendant without fully hearing of the case of all
persons involved is a lie and a contradiction. Section 51 states “the Parliament
shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace,
order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to.” For victims it
is disempowering because they are denied the right to trial their own accused,
to hear the truth of the matter and is teaching victims to condemn without
hearing why they should or shouldn’t put an AVO in place and is putting
themselves under the obligation of the judicial system for the duration of the
AVO to build a criminal case of an accused even if they have no history of
violence towards the victim. . In cases
where the victim holds already holds a position of power and authority over a
defendant an AVO doesn’t give the victim the right to abuse their power and
authority over an accused person.
2.
No hearing of all persons involved
including the hearing of all witnesses, defendants, victims and written
submissions in order to determine whether an AVO is appropriate including,
restrictions, the length and severity of sentence or whether the matter would
be better dealt with through a community justice centre involved has occurred. Now
last time I checked the definition of the Commonwealth means all citizens of
that country including both accused persons and leaders and victims. Yet
unfortunately even those born here get treated as though we are illegal
citizens even if we haven’t done anything wrong for the simple act of uniting
to organise political protest to fight for life.
3.
Section 51(xxiv) of the Commonwealth
Constitution Act supports the right of a trial before any judgement of an
accused person is made which states “the service and execution throughout the
Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and the judgments of the courts
of the States;” AVPOs in most cases the defendant is told there is no admission
of guilt if you just accept it without a civil trial via a community justice
centre. When its legalised your told again there is no admission of guilt if
you just accept it. I was told on the day it would create prejudice if I spoke
up about the fundamental fact that this APVO would be putting my human life at
risk. It created prejudice as a result of not being permitted to speak up about
it at the time.
Section 1.02 The APVO is a double standard
4.
If Rachel communicates or
organises anything with our people that’s considered ok. Yet if I communicate
or organise exactly the same thing with our people that’s considered a criminal
act even if Rachel is not there in person. She holds a position of power and
authority over me in our groups and the APVO abuses that power and authority over
me making our rights unequal. That’s great there are no work place restrictions
on Socialist Alliance and CAAH acts but what about organising for the Equal
Marriage Campaign? What about communication? I have to wear tape over my mouth
while I cop constant finger pointing. That doesn’t really give a person a
chance to explain or defend themselves except through a court of law or get
listened to for a solution. A very good Resistance Book The Failure of
Psychiatryhighlightsthat the mental health system is not always the answer in
every case. Another Resistance book needs to be written called "The
failure of the judicial system" which will also highlight that the
judicial system is not always the answer in every case and that community
rehabilitation is often better than personal condemnation orders.
5.
It is generally agreed for
political debate without personal attacks in order to find a solution to an
issue is how we resolve situations in our groups when a problem arises. Yet
what I found is a court system which supports constant court room battles of
accusations and confessions with personal attacks and no political debate to
resolve difficult situations. What I found is a court system which supports
constant finger pointing, constant personal condemnation orders instead or
rehabilitation orders. Good behaviour bonds are a good start but in cases where
there is no history of violence but in fact the accused actually has a history
of being a victim of violence and there is a problem over communication then is
often better to refer the matter to a community justice centre then to go for
the easy option of an APVO especially in cases where it involves a common place
of work or study or community. Going to a Community Justice Centre is not about
negotiating each other’s rights away its about everyone sitting down together
to work out a mutually agreed solution to organise that we can all live with.
What happened as a result of that not being ordered back at the Burwood Local
Court in 2008? I wound up having to fight for dear life for equal Socialist
Alliance and CAAH rights through the court system. The Honourable Magistrate
Quinn agreed at the Newtown Local Court on 16 December 2008 it is unfair to
pursue an APVO without trial of a person first. I had no legal training from
comrades. All I had was 12 months of study of Communication, Law and Ethics
from University and TAFE.
Section 1.03 The Guilt Fix Method defined in Law & in politics
6.
This APVO is the guilt fix
method in this case which created a false history. As I said on the onset I
wouldn’t have had to text if Rachel had just let me come to work.
Section 1.04 Socialist Alliance’s definition
7.
In our party, Socialist
Alliance "the guilt fix method" is defined by the Organisational
Principles and Methods of the Democratic Socialist Party by Resistance Books
pages 76-77. This is it
8.
* Yet firstly, by contrast, I
want to illustrate how the party doesn't operate. This is what I call the
"guilt-fix" method. This is the method where organisations either
adopt, or are challenged to adopt, the notion that their members should cleanse
themselves from the sins of racism and/or sexism, for example. This cleansing
process may take the form of confessionals, or self-criticism.*
9.
**
10.
*This approach has many
parallels with the Stalinist method of "criticism and self-criticism"
which is a form of self-confession. Usually the method works by one or more
"leaders" taking upon themselves the role of true interpreters of
what actions are deemed sins and demanding confessions from those who violate
these standards. *
11.
**
12.
*When such an approach is
adopted the organisation turns in on itself, pitting member against member in a
constant battle of accusation and confession. Moreover, such a method is
totally counterproductive to dealing with the question under consideration.
What kind of self-confidence can new members achieve if every time they open
their mouths they are denounced? What kind of political education can new
members receive if doling out guilt is the major activity of the organisation?
At the heart of such a method is the notion that the personal salvation of each
member is necessary to make the party into the instrument for forging
fundamental social change. Instead of educating persons on the material roots
of oppression and how it can be eliminated, the "guilt fix" method
tries to make people feel guilty about themselves and their past. In the end,
this method rests on the liberal assumption that oppression and discrimination
are the result of individual prejudices, rather than social institutions.*
13.
**
14.
* The "guilt-fix"
method often leads to uncritical acceptance of others' judgment of
"sin" and their definition of how to personally take on a burden
which is in fact social in origin and nature, e.g. alienation of the social
institution. Such a method transforms potential social movements into personal
navel-gazing clubs. This method of sin, guilt and confession has been the
linchpin of Christianity and has provided a very successful method of
ideological control in "Western civilisation". Liberals have simply
secularised it.*
15.
**
16.
* Our method is radically
different. We try to educate our people to understand the social causes of
oppression and the political solution to it. The important thing is not what a
comrade thinks or whether their mind is "pure" (which in a society
based on oppression and permitted by oppressive ideas is an idealist fantasy),
but how they act. Through political education the party seeks to raise the
consciousness of its entire people about all forms of social oppression and
thus act against all manifestations of such oppression.*
17.
**
18.
* Of course, by such an
educative method the party expects its people to become aware of how racism,
sexism, etc., manifest themselves in the personal relations between comrades
and to try to change obvious racist and sexist practices, for example, in their
behaviour and language. We do this by explaining how such practices operate to
undermine and destroy the political unity and mutual confidence that a
revolutionary party needs if it is to function as a collaborative team.*
19.
41
20.
**
21.
* Moreover, the party is well
aware of the burdens and distortions of confidence that members bring into the
party through racism, sexism, class experience, etc. So the party takes steps
to encourage its members to overcome the effects of such experience on their
political activity - to take on tasks which they have been socialised by their
oppression to think are not for them. This is through encouragement, education,
thinking out ways for each comrade to broaden their experiences etc. We
encourage a team effort and seek to counter the individual competitiveness that
capitalism fosters.*
22.
In law "the guilt fix
method" is defined by the Commonwealth Torture and death Abolition Act
2010, Section 274.2 in this case. I have attached a copy.
23.
The Commonwealth Constitution
Act Section 109 states that when a State law is proven to be inconsistent with
a Commonwealth Law it must be deemed invalid.
24.
In politics if a law or
policy proposed by leaders is made and is proven to be causing injustice of
physical, sexual or mental harm to people's civil human and political freedoms
then a political grassroots human rights campaign must be organised to repeal/annul/revoke/vary
the law as determined by the people, with the people and including the people
it concerns.
25.
It is important to note the
Section quoted on Rachel's application mentioned in Paragraph nine for the
power to stay is a court error, an Irregularity Local Court Act 2007, Section
62 and the Crimes (Domestic and Personal) Violence Act 2007, Section 66 as the
incorrect section was quoted and her application can be dismissed on that fact
alone. Section 19 applies to APVO applications; Section 16 applies to ADVO
applications. Ms Evans and I never had nor wanted a personal sexual
relationship with each other, we have a comrade relationship, and not a
personal relationship prior to her AVPO mentioned Paragraph three. I note that
Ms Maine listened to amend one irregularity. The whole thing needs to be
amended because Rachel’s APVO power and authority over me creates a false
history.
26.
While it is an injustice
political adoptions or religion adoptions etc. of people can't be legally
registered with State Births, Deaths and Marriages for all comrades, socialists
and other political left tendencies who commonly adopt each other in struggle
are not legally recognised as relatives in the cases of brothers, sisters,
aunties, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, parents, grandparents and adopted
children etc. the court has legally recognised my attachment to Socialist
Alliance in the fact I see Socialist Alliance and CAAH as my replacement family
along with many other collectives on the 23 January 2012. However under the
Commonwealth Constitution Act Section 7 to 40 does recognise this which is
inconsistent with state laws of Births deaths and marriages.
27.
Section 109 of the
Commonwealth Constitution Act would also therefore deem that law in not
accepting political adoptions of all people as relatives to be invalid.
Section 1.05 The House Restrictions
28.
The only reason I went to
Rachel’s house in the past for poster runs or for advice and because she insisted
on storing my stuff at her private residential address. After I lost the
Student union job I couldn’t afford to pay the rent so wound up homeless
staying in refuges and sometimes sleeping in the activist centres or university
campuses or the streets. I didn’t ask for mental health or welfare or legal
help just political, organisational and human solidarity help to guide me into
the party and through the revolutionary struggle. She was the one who
volunteered and she was the one who insisted on storing my property at her
house until the fight was won for a house, stable income and counselling
because I was homeless. I told her I didn’t want her welfare handouts because I
knew that it be might use it against me for going to get what I needed from my
own property simply because I was homeless. It wasn’t my fault I was homeless
it was Rachel’s choice to store my stuff until the fight for a house was won. The
fight for a house was won on the 24 December 2007 I let Rachel know but by then
she had gone away on holidays. I don’t like entering other people houses when
they’re not there so they can’t blame me if anything goes missing and as soon
as Rachel returned from Bolivia I went to ask when would be a suitable time for
her so I can organise to pick up my stuff but she yelled at me. So I had to
wait for her to contact me. I tried to address a lot of things with her but she
just yelled at me and wouldn’t just listen. Where she yelled at me again to
come and pick up my stuff from her house. I don’t have a car or money so I had
to ask whoever could help and it was Luke Weyland.
29.
I could have gone during the
stay period but I didn’t and instead went straight to our place of work to
resolve this so we can all get back to work. I could have gone to her house
during the 14 months there was no legal restriction on her house yet I didn’t I
went straight to work to resolve it. Ihave my own house I have no need to go to
her house nor have I been convicted of going to her house. So is the point of
Rachel having AVO power and authority over protecting a house I’m never going
to go to unless I’m invited for a political purpose? Unless it’s for a
political purpose to help people fight for life I don’t do personal social
visits, I don’t enjoy going to nightclubs and pubs or playing sport like normal
queers do. I visit refugees in detention centres for the political purpose of
helping them fight for their freedom. I like politics in the pub because it’s
political discussion. There was a time where I did all that stuff, but I don’t
enjoy going to those places unless it’s with comrades or CAAH people. I won’t
even go to the movies or see a band unless I know that at least one comrade is
going to be there unless it’s got a revolutionary political social justice
content. I only read books of a revolutionary political nature. I don’t like
wearing normal clothes. Most of the time I live on 2 minute noodles because of
the amount of legal costs and loans I have to pay back as a result of the APVO
through court system. It wasn’t until it went to the downing centre where I got
a fee waiver for lodging of appeals and not having to pay for transcripts.
Instead of being permitted to just ask witnesses to come with a leaflet I have
to pay for a sheriff to deliver a subpoena. It cost about $500 every time I was
required to come to court.
30.
The second reason I went to
her house was because she used to invite people like myself to feed because she
knew I couldn’t afford to buy food, she would always cook extra and bring it to
work because she knew I’d work long hours in organising or writing new politics
for the people and not always have the time or the money to eat. The student
union got shut down by VSU that meant one in eight students going hungry like
myself because there was no free barbeques and no can afford to buy UWS Connect
Food regularly it is that high priced which is that low in quality it tastes
like they scooped it out of the toilet and then heated it up where students get
sick from eating it. I didn’t want to accept welfare from her but she insisted
because eating and sleeping is considered very important in activism. Street
Level, Parramatta Mission and Occupy provide me food because they know three
quarters of my pension has been taken from the legal costs of maintaining the arvo.
The third reason Rachel invited me to go to her house was because her house was
used as a pit stop for queers to make the glue out of corn flour to put
political posters up for the equal marriage campaign or any other political
campaigns in the city on weekends. We
called them cum runs because you would always end up with corn flour all over
your pants when you were done, that looked like cum. Rachel gave it that name
because she has a dirty mind who can’t keep her mind out of the gutter since
the day I met her like a number of other heterosexuals have about two lesbians
working together and focus on organising the political campaign so people don’t
have to die as a result of leaders inhuman laws the majority never got a say
in. The last time I went to Rachel’s
house was 1September 2008 the night of the APVO to talk to Blake who was also a
good queer activist friend of mine to see if he could snap Rachel out of it to
just let our people hear the appeal that would stop the order if they knew the
truth to make a common sense decision instead of based on her “belief”. A bit
of trust it’s been four years and enough is enough. If I had any intensions of
going to Rachel’s house I would have occupied it by now. I would have gone to
Rachel’s house during the stay period. A little trust I only ever went there
because I didn’t have a house; I lived on the streets and in refuges. It was
Rachel’s choice to store my stuff until the fight for a house was won, not
mine. A phone, a banner of freedom and a red bag with my birth, work, and
education right documents is still missing. There is no need for a legal order
on Rachel’s house when it’s already been proven for over four years due to
having my own house since November 2007 there has been no need for me to go to
Rachel’s house unless I am invited just the same and equally as anyone else.
Section 1.06 Communication restrictions are the Alienation of the capacity to communicate
31.
Ernest Mandel stated: “I now come to the ultimate and most tragic form
of alienation, which is alienation of the capacity to communicate. The capacity
to communicate has become the most fundamental attribute of man, of his quality
as a human being. Without communication, there can be no organised society
because without communication, there is no language, and without language,
there is no intelligence. Capitalist society, class society,
commodity-producing society tends to thwart, divert and partially destroy this
basic human capacity.
32.
Let me give three examples of this process at three different levels,
starting with a most commonplace case. How do people learn to communicate?
While they are infants they go through what psychologists call a process of
socialisation and learn to speak. For a long time one of the main methods of
socialising young children has been through playing with dolls. When children
play with dolls, they duplicate themselves, project themselves outside their
own individuality, and carry on a dialogue with that other self. They speak two
languages, their own language and the language of the doll, thereby bringing
into play an artificial process of communication which, through its spontaneous
nature, facilitates the development of language and intelligence.
33.
Industry started to produce dolls
which speak. This is supposed to be a mark of progress. But once the doll
speaks, the dialogue is limited. The child no longer speaks in two languages,
or with the same spontaneity. Part of its speech is induced, and induced by
some capitalist corporation.
34.
That corporation may have hired the biggest educators and psychologists
who make the doll speak more perfectly than any of the babble which could come
out of the child’s mind itself – although I have some doubts on that subject.
Nevertheless, the spontaneous nature of the dialogue is partially thwarted, suppressed
or detoured. There is less development of dialogue, of capacity for
communication, and therefore a lesser formation of intelligence than in more
backward times when dolls did not speak and children had to give them a
language of their own.
35.
A second example is taken from a more sophisticated level. Any class
society which is divided by social-material interests and in which class
struggle goes on suppresses to a certain extent the capacity for communication
between people standing on different sides of the barricades. This is not a
matter of lack of intelligence, of understanding or honesty, from any
individual point of view. This is simply the effect of the inhibitive pressures
that substantial divisive material interests exercise on any group of individuals.
36.
Anybody who has ever been present at wage bargaining where there is
severe tension between workers’ and employers’ representatives – I’m talking
about real wage bargaining, not sham wage bargaining – will understand what I
am referring to. The employers’ side simply cannot sympathise with or
understand what the workers are talking about even if they have the utmost good
will and liberal opinions; because their material-social interests prevent them
from understanding what the other side is most concerned with.
37.
There was a very striking example of this inhibition on another level
(because workers and not employers were involved) in the tragic strike of the
United Federation of Teachers in New York in 1968 against the decentralisation
of control over the school system. People of bad will, fools or stupid people
were not so much involved. Indeed, most of them would have been called liberal
or even left some time ago. But through very strong pressures of social
interest and social milieu, they were simply incapable of understanding what
the other side, the Black and Puerto Rican masses who wanted community control
over the education of their children, was talking about.
38.
Thus the Marxist notion of alienation extends far beyond the oppressed
classes of society, properly speaking. The oppressors are also alienated from
part of their human capacity through their inability to communicate on a human
basis with the majority of society. And this divorcement is inevitable as long
as class society and its deep differentiations exist.
39.
The only reason I texted in
the past was because Rachel wouldn’t let me come to work and gave me a gag
order that I’ve been under for 34 years based on her misguided belief I wasn’t
ready. You determine whether someone is ready or not by giving them a go. It
doesn’t matter what one thinks, feels or whether one’s mind is pure what is
important is how people act together. Putting place and communication
restrictions on every single human, political, organisational, civil, legal
rights and existence to make one an illegal human with one’s own people is too
extreme. A no texting restriction is the only restriction that should have
occurred that was considered the problem in the first place. Restrictions
should have been put on every other form of every single human legal right of
work place organisational, political and communication and human interaction
withour people between Ms Evans and me. Especially if their leader with a
position of power and authority over a person. Rachel Evans holds a position of
power and authority over me in our political party and our political groups.
The judicial system essentially legalised her right to abuse that power and
authority over me making my human existence illegal. Where on a daily 24/7
basis the right to education, work, to unite with the majority within our
people and outside of our people, to organise, communicate politics, all human
solidarity with all human people yet specifically all lgbti people and
socialists of our replacement family, the right to sleep, eat, going to the
toilet, legal, political, human, civil, organisational AID, the right to
protest, the right to be trailed by the majority of one’s own people including
the right to lodge an appeal illegal. The right to receive political rehabilitation
orders with one’s own people instead of personal condemnation orders with
complete non-interference of the state, the birth right of my name to be
legally accepted by others without being condemned, the right to stop
bastardisation, the right for no means no to be accepted to acts of homosexual
assault, the right of revolutionary advances not being discredited as personal
sexual, stalking, obsession, harassment, intimidation advances. The right to
receive political education without leader’s majority activity doling out guilt
on a person who is already lacking self-confidence. The right to receive self
confidence in the form of political social inclusion and encouragement without every
time one says or does anything it being personally condemned by those leaders
who misjudge you causesthem don’t know you. The right to give each other a fair
and equal go. The right to mutual respect without each other’s human rights
being violated. The right of both leaders and accused persons to be accountable
to the people to both have the equal right to explain their actions in order
for the best possible solution to problems for everyone and not just one or the
other. When you accuse a person you are not just putting them on trial but you
are also putting yourself on trial to essentially put everyone on trial. Now
that I am finally permitted to exercise the right to communicate this case for
this appeal to be heard as to why annulment of the order should occur after
four years of fighting for it I will not reframe from what I am going to say
but there will be no personal condemnation prejudicial attacks unlike what I
have received.
40.
The cross claim for at the
Downing Centre Local Court mentioned in RLEA paragraph one was applied for in a
face to face meeting with the Duty Registrar, a neutral witness as well as
myself that was carefully considered and it wasn't rushed into and I had a reluctance
to do as this was one of my comrades as well as someone lgbti and our allied
comrades all look up to because of her political knowledge of the struggle for
rainbow liberation. It had been agreed as a last resort if this was going to go
on for another two years with the consent of the community and Ms Evans was
informed of this in person when she came back from Mexico in 2009, if she
didn't stop abusing me, listen, let our people give us a go as well as letting
them hear the truth to resolve this situation.
41.
The Duty Registrars of all
courts now also do face to face meetings with all applicants before lodging any
application for AVOs including cross claims. They do this using the set
criteria with a thorough investigation of both sides before lodging any application
to ensure there are no frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the court system
claims as had happened in other cases since the AVO system first began long
before Ms Evans and myself both set foot into a courtroom. Throughout the
course of the struggle since Nov 2007 everyone was given strict instructions to
be humane in the struggle, no condemnation as I was already receiving enough of
this for everyone, maintain an amnesty position, political, legal debate but no
personal attacks to address the issue of violence and prejudice that resulted
from AVO leaders power and authority over me. The Duty Registrar with my
application also took into consideration the political groups, people we see as
relatives such as comrades, our places of work, study both comrade Rachel Evans
and I are attached to. It was made very clear, to not attack our party
Socialist Alliance, Resistance, Green Left or any of our political groups such
as Community Action against Homophobia.
42.
This cross clam mentioned in
paragraph five removes place and communication restrictions while minimising
the use of the guilt fix method from AVOs as an AVO by itself for people who
care about human life is already punishment enough. This allowing people the
political freedom to unite with the majority of people to continue to do the
work that they do to focus people politically outwards to focus on our true
common enemy rather than personally inwards to pit people against each other
while being trailed and tested within the community while giving victims
protection from prejudicial violence and hate while resolving any workplace
issues and allowing for any rehabilitation, rather than constant punishment.
There were lengthy discussions about this as well as extensive research done.
This cross claim really was the last resort to address the issue of personal
violence and prejudicial hate I had experienced as a result of the truth being
prevented from being heard in the first place and Rachel didn't want to do
mediation. Except for one mediation session in November 2007 that we organised
ourselves, that would have been better done at the Resistance Centre as well as
CAAH instead of Mr Bainbridge’s house with Ms Evans and myself, no mediation
session has ever been court ordered or been permitted to organise ourselves due
to the place and communication restrictions by AVO. A lot has happened since
November 2007. I never thought Rachel would finally give us a chance to tell
what happened from start to finish in response.
Section 1.07 No court ordered to a community justice centre of the persons involved choosing to work out a better solution as an alternative to the APVO has occurred.
I have raisedthis number of times as a solution before any
order was implemented. We are eligible. There has been no history of physical
violence from me towards Rachel Evans as you will read in our history. Rachel
even agreed at the Newtown Local Court on the 18 December 2010 “She didn’t hit
me over the head or anything like that.” I have attached the transcript.
There has been no conduct by myself amounting to a
personal violence offence towards Rachel Evans as you will read in our history
together. Three alleged convictions of a breach of communication restrictions
when one reads the content of the alleged messages is not proof any personal violence
offence has occurred from myself towards Rachel. While there has been conduct
from both Rachel, third persons and the police who carried out this APVO on me
that amounts to breaches of sections 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. I have attached copies of the
alleged messages which are political and calls for help to fight for life in
nature that are commonly sent out by everyone in activism. I am happy to show
the court similar text messages I have received from others in activism in
order to show it is common practice.
Except for civil disobedience and direct action to
rebel the order in safe legal ways under incredibly difficult conditions. There
has been no conduct by myself of a breach of Section 13 of the Act towards
Rachel Evans. Hearsay or I feel or might or I think or I’m scared is not proof
of obsession, stalking or unwanted sexual advance. I’m scared too but instead
of sticking my head in the sand even though I’m scared of what personal
condemnation I might receive today as a result of the APVO, I go in there and
fight for equal Socialist Alliance and CAAH rights and clean up hers and Alex’s
mess with a strategy of political rehabilitation and not personal condemnation.
There has been no conduct of harassment relating to the protected person’s race, religion, homosexuality, transgender
status, HIV/AIDS infection or disability from myself. While there has been
conduct by both the police and Rachel’s power and authority over me by APVO of
harassment relating to both Rachel’s and my homosexuality being used as a
weapon to justify a violence case on me since November 2007. While there has
been bastardisation harassment by both police and Rachel Evans power and
authority over me by APVO relating to my white stolen generation human rights
to my replacement family being comrades and CAAH people since November 2007
being used as a weapon to justify a violence case on me. While there has been
conduct by both the police and Rachel’s power and authority over me by APVO to
justify red baiting our Socialist Alliance religion and CAAH religion every
time I go to my church and when I’m in police custody. There are others but in
a nutshell if no APVO existed if the truth had been permitted to be heard our
human rights wouldn’t be inhumanely violated.
The matter has never been referred to mediation by
any court where it should have gone to in the first place to work out a better
solution as an alternative to the APVO. A meeting we had in November 2007, a
lot has happened since then considering the length. I have applied to Community
Justice Centre a number of times but all they did was write letters that never
got heard. They never used a strategy of civil disobedience and direct action.
Mediation is not about negotiation. It’s about everyone sitting down together
at a round table, hearing what each other’s got to say, political debate
without personal attack that us comrades are more comfortable with and finding
a solution we can all agree on and live with to work towards together in a safe
open environment. People involved can bring anyone they like to help and it’s
an alternative to APVOs. I don’t want to
go to a mediation meeting but if it’s going to help resolve the situation then
I’ll do it. Rachel had used her power and authority over me carrying out the
APVO so much so to the letter that except for intervention of the court she
blocked every single communication means in the entire known universe with our
comrades and CAAH people to address why this APVO has been a problem, including
the solution we can all live with and she would often use third parties to do
it. Many times she would approach me throughout the course of this struggle. It
is that overboard that I have virtually been made an illegal human to the point
where even going to the toilet or eating is considered a criminal offence. The
lifting of some of the restrictions has provided some relief but not much.
Since 2010 to expose the gag order inspired by Wikileaks I started wearing tape
over my mouth at every rally and every Socialist Alliance, Resistance, Green
Left Weekly and CAAH event in order to demonstrate that gag order since
November 2007. It links in well with every campaign because every human rights
struggle all usually say our voice is gagged while ever they keep making
decisions about our lives without our consent which continue to put our lives
at risk which is why we’re protesting in order for our voices to be heard to
win a better and just world so were no longer prisoners of this system.
I have already served a
sentence of 4 years and 4 months since November 2007. In the judicial system
since 29 August 2008 where there is no political rehabilitation just personal
condemnation punishment and torture even if you didn’t do anything wrong for fighting
for equal socialist alliance and equal CAAH rights for life 3 years 7 months
because I can’t ask for my freedom from this prison I have to fight for
it. Except for three
alleged communication convictions that simply because a person writes it with
mobile phones unless you see the person send the messages anyone can pick up a
mobile phone and send someone else’s message because mobile phones don’t have
passwords to access them unlike email accounts do in terms of time served it’s
already been 4 years. Rachel’s APVO application and my appeal from 29 August
2008 until 27 July 2010 except for court there has been no breach of both
communication and place restrictions from me specifically and directly with
Rachel Evans. That is 23 months. If I didn’t go through court and lodged an
appeal to revoke it and to let the court and our comrades and CAAH people know
that my human rights are being violated as a result of the APVO by use of
Rachel Evans power and authority over me I faced arrest. If I went to court I
faced personal condemnation while the truth is denied from being heard. The only alleged charges were of
communication with Rachel which obtained convictions were text messages of
which there were only three convictions and the magistrate said they were at
the lowest end of the scale and if you read the content there is no violation
of any of the sections of the act. All other charges were dropped or didn’t
even make it to court that was clearly abuse by both the police and Rachel’s
APVO power and authority over me of the APVO system. The three convictions took
place 27 July 2010 to 12 October 2010. From that time until present except for
court charges in which if I didn’t attend court I faced arrest. That is a
further 18 months sentence already served. 23 months plus 18 months is 43
months. Now if you add in December 2007 until the beginning of March 08 in
which Rachel told me I could finally speak with her about resolving this
situation and then she reneged it when began to tell her what happened and that
our people needed to hear an appeal. That is another 3 months which makes 46
months sentence already served. Then add in from March 08 until April 08 where
I made no communication with her as per her request that is another two months.
That makes 48 months of what was only supposed to be for two months from
Rachel. Then told another 6 weeks from Rachel. Then told another two years. Now
told another two years where I can now legally go to work, but don’t dare I
help organise anything with our CAAH people as part of the equal marriage
campaign and don’t dare I speak while our people continue to be denied the
right to trial me through our normal political party and CAAH trial processes.
While our people continue to be denied the right to hear the truth in order to
call it amnesty.
Prior to the APVO I never had a criminal history. If
a leader asked me to leave a group I belonged to because they found out I was a
homosexual, a white stolen generation born from adultery, a revolutionary, born
from poverty or cause they wanted to lobby because they didn’t support
campaigning. I just went to escape the injustice I received because I was told
to by a few leaders even though the majority disagreed. When I found that party
there was no more places left to run too. I had to face it and defeat it
otherwise I would be running for the rest of my life for what wasn’t my fault
that I have been made to pay the price for 34 years where I’m made to be sorry
and apologise for doing something about stopping it for our people and myself.
Nobody ever shows me and active apology for misjudging me or treating me like
garbage even though I don’t treat others like garbage and I’m always the one
who has to clean up the mess that leaders make. Even though I might not like
what a person is doing I still treat them like a human being.
CRIMES
(DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) ACT 2007 - SECT 21
Referral of
matters to mediation
21 Referral of
matters to mediation
At any
time when considering whether to make an apprehended personal violence order or after making such an order, a court may refer the protected person and the defendant for mediation under the CommunityJustice Centres Act 1983.
Theprotected person has been subjected to conduct by the defendant amounting to a personal violence offence, or
Theprotected person has been subjected to conduct by the defendant amounting to an offence under section 13, or
Thedefendant has engaged in conduct amounting to harassment
relating to the protected person’s race, religion, homosexuality, transgender
status, HIV/AIDS infection or disability, or
There has been a previous
attempt at mediation in relation to the same matter and the attempt was not
successful.
Note: Section 24 of the Community Justice Centres Act1983enables the Director of Community Justice Centres
to decline to consent to the acceptance of a dispute for mediation and enables
the Director or a mediator to terminate a mediation session at any time.
(4) The Director of
Community Justice Centres is to provide a written report on the outcome of the
mediation or attempted mediation to the court that referred the matter for mediation.
(5) On receiving a report
under subsection (4), the court is to take such action in accordance with this Act as it considers
appropriate in relation to the matter concerned and in doing so may take into
account the contents of the report.
(6) If a matter is
referred to mediation under this section without an order having been made, any
proceedings in relation to the application are taken to have been stayed until
a report is provided under subsection (4).
(7) If the Director of
Community Justice Centres provides a report under subsection (4) or a mediator
conducts a mediation of a matter referred under this section, the Director or
the mediator is taken, for the purposes of the provisions of the Community Justice Centres Act1983, to be exercising those functions for the purpose
of executing that Act.
43.
There are also many more
problems with the APVO found both through political and legal books.
No comments:
Post a Comment