Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

WRITING A LETTER TO THE COUNCIL REGARDING

UNLAWFUL PARKING FINES

Thanks to: www.ReligiousWord.com


www.CLRG.com
To: COUNCIL (ABN 343243435)
Infringement Number: 10927
This notice is in response to a unlawful parking infringement notice I received on the 23rd of September 2009. I, John
Smith, am serving you my notice of understanding, intent and my claim of right for your understanding.
I, John Smith do solemnly declare that as a sovereign subject of Australia, I only owe my allegiance to Her Majesty,
Queen Elizabeth II, not the state and I do not contest to your unlawful administrative law. Your claim is conditionally
accepted for value with consideration of proof of claim.

Keeping in mind that the “Corporate Council” has only the right of maintenance of Commonwealth Roads (under the
Road Management Act 2004) and not the right to collect any form of taxation unless authorised by the Federal
Parliament or consent, please provide supporting documentation of either a valid contract between both parties, your
Federal authority or your ownership of Commonwealth roads.
Keep in mind that the Infringement Act 2006 is Null and Void to all subjects of Australia for the following reasons:
The Sovereign electors confirmed in the 1984 referendum that the powers of the State cannot override Commonwealth
Law. The background of the 1984 referendum is as follows; Question 2 concerned the interchange of powers: Enable
the Commonwealth and States to voluntary change power with each other, 1 Dec 1984. A total of 47.06% voted
YES to Question 2 which was not enough to carry through. This makes the Australian Act 1986 null and void and any
State Parliamentary Act that stems from the Australia Act also of no effect to a Sovereign Subject.

This confirmed again in TAYLOR V TAYLOR (1979) 143 CLR 1. Quote: "Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all
administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification,
and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.” End Quote. The ruling of the Court in relation to the “Direct
Collateral Attack” is through the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980, this is also supported by a decision of the County
Court of Victoria in 2006 whereas the crown could not defend the Australia Act 1986 as being valid and thus is Ultra
Vires, in the main as it does not comply with section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act, of which the crown
conceded to this fact.

The Infringement Act 2006, which relies on the Australian Act 1986, must comply with the Commonwealth
Constitution through section 15A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). At this stage, this is not the case. There is no
provision in any constitution conferring judicial power upon the Parliament or the executive government within the
state of Victoria; this is an administrative procedure that is devoid of all judicial purpose and intent. The Infringement
Act 2006 clearly states “The Parliament of Victoria enacts as follows”, thus must be recognised as invalid and void.
Also keep in mind under the Trade Practices Act 1974 section 60, your corporation may not harass or coerce anyone
into contract.

In the event that you cannot provide any Federal evidence, it is the expression of my “WILL” that I do not consent to
the transaction of any fee or tax imposed by your corporate body. Failure to register a dispute against the claims made
herein within 21 working days will result in an automatic default judgement and permanent and irrevocable estoppel.
Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity.

POLITICAL PROTEST
I John Smith do state that my Civil Rights are not affected as laid out in section 15F of the Crimes Act 1914 Commonwealth.
I, John Smith do state that I have a Claim of Right as laid out in section 9.5 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995
I, John Smith does claim my right to politically protect under section 28 of the Crimes Act 1914 Commonwealth with respect to the claim made by the informant.