Dear Sir, I refer to our 'chance' meeting on 9th December prior to the NMC v/s C Barnes case and my written words to you stating that: IF the case was to go ahead that morning that it would be an infringement of constitutional Policy and that it would be considered an ILLEGAL GATHERING by the constitutional Authority.
As it was, the case was called, and after a brief cursory glance at page 1 of 6 of the Clemencia Barnes six page defence submission Magistrate Brown turned to Clemencia and stated: - - - You have NO proper defence - - - is there anything that you wish to say?
Fortunately I had prepared a few words for Clemencia and she stood and read them out to the Court and I give said texts below for your consideration because it also applies to your office.
CONSTITUTIONAL ACT 1934 TASMANIA
PART V – General provisions States:
46 (1) FREEDOM of conscience and the free profession and practice of Religion are subject to public order and morality.
This means that according to THE Sovereign Authority of the Constitution NO STATE LAW or RULE or ACT having a conflict of Religious Ideology applies to ANY person who has NOT disturbed the peace or who is NOT carrying out an immoral Act.
Any interference in the life of a peaceful person is an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY according to the Decree of THE Sovereign Constitutional Authority.
If a prosecutor or other person seeks to differ then they MUST place their CASE with the appropriate HIGH COURT because no State Magistrate has the legal right to hear or judge or punish matters in relation to one’s conscience or ideological, philosophical policy or religious beliefs.
I observed Magistrate Brown suddenly take 'note' of what was being said and he then fully read both pages one and two of the (six) of Clemencia's submission and changed his 'decision' as he stated that he now reserved his judgement until a later date to be advised.
I personally believe that Magistrate Brown is a very dedicated and responsible person who will now possibly be the very first of a long line of Magistrates to take NOTE of THE Constitutional LIMITATIONS placed upon State Politicians and Magistrates and he may well give a response according to THE REAL LAW and withdraw his prior statement that Clemencia had NO 'proper' defence when she CLEARLY so has and that HE (Magistrate Brown) has NO legal rights to hear or judge her case.
I ADD: The Constitution places LIMITATIONS upon ALL State laws/rules/decrees because in fact they only apply to persons who DO disturb the peace or DO become involved in immoral activities.
Naturally any State ADVISORY ruling - for example: "Drive on the correct side of the road and do not overtake on double white lines" are positive 'safety' ADVISORY guidelines that need to be adhered to because if a person drives on the incorrect side or overtakes on a double line they would BE driving in a dangerous manner that would be classified as an IMMORAL ACT that could also end up with the 'care-less' driver causing a disturbance of the peace and causing HARM.
Regrettably we live a long way from the Queens residence so she relies on State Governors to UPHOLD the Acts of the Constitution. The politicians and state servants all SWEAR to uphold the rules of the Constitution but ALL OF THEM IGNORE their oath of allegiance to THE Sovereign Authority as is proven by this pen.
Please further NOTE: A peaceful person of moral standing who is living in accordance with their God-given conscience is not only living LEGALLY within the constraints of the Sovereign Constitution of the LAND, but they are also living in absolute OBEDIENCE to THE Commands of our Sovereign GOD.
Sincerely – Terence