This case is an egregious stain on our Justice system which would completely satisfy a mistrial.
Errors of Law
The Court has made various errors of law throughout the case which should be noted:
1. Allowed a citizen to prosecute another citizen in a criminal case in contravention to the Constitution and the Crime Severity Act. Even if you argue the Crime Severity Act's case, how can one reasonably claim that Treason is not a criminal offence? Is one who undermines the stability of the Government, who ends up in jail, with a large fine, and banned from office not a criminal?
2. Denied the Defence a Speedy trial through repeated refusals to recuse in absences of up to a week on multiple occassions. The Court has also used irrelevant reasons to deny motions of recusal.
3. The Court has, on multiple occasions, ignored parts of motions and failed to address them.
4. The Defence requested to bring forward witnesses after the initial witness, based on the answers given, and the Court denied them the ability because they originally request. The Defence did not respond to the request for witnesses. The Defence alerted the court that they would be away, yet the court took so long to respond that it called for witnesses during the period which the Defendant was away. At the Defence's first opportunity after the primary witness was questioned, they asked to call on witnesses.
5. The Defence was charged with perjury for deleting an update to their representation status when it later changed. The comment was deleted with the reasoning 'redacted' and this was visible to all Justices. No court procedure or law exists for having to ask permission to remove a trivial notification of the status of my counsel, particularly when it was removed with the reasoning - which is visible to the court - saying 'redacted.' This doesn't even fit the description of perjury.
View attachment 30433
6. The Court has declared the Defence Guilty of Perjury without Trial.
7. As shown throughout this case, a member presiding over this case has been engaging in ex parte communication and has failed to recuse themselves. The Court held that the DLA was unable to prosecute me because I was a party in a case to which they were also a party to, but ignored the fact that the Plaintiff and Chief Justice were in a voice call together and immediately left when I joined another VC.
View attachment 30432
8. The political bias in this case is outstandingly obvious when you consider that a citizen has been allowed to put a charge of treason on to their case to elevate the jurisdiction to a higher court when the lower court rules against them several times. The higher court proceeded to do the exact opposite of the lower court and has continued to be hostile toward the Defence for the entirety of both trials.
Claims for Relief
The claims for relief in this case are not sufficient to constitute treason:
I fail to understand how I have maliciously undermined the government in my capacity as Speaker when:
No changes were made to the Constitution.
No changes to the system of Government were made by the Speaker.
When advised that the Department Reform Act was a complex change, I immediately announced a public referendum. I don't deny that I made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes and I immediately worked to correct my mistake to carry out my duties as prescribed by the constitution.
Changes made by staff were rolled back as far as reasonably practicable until the conclusion of the referendum.
The public referendum was carried out and passed with a supermajority three times.
The Supreme Court has no authority as the Court of disputed returns to halt a referendum and then demand the results from an individual which doesn't have access to the results. Then, when they fail to provide the results, continually charge them with contempt of court for failing to provide them.
This is Perjury. This is simply incorrect. The Supreme Court is in breach of the Constitution and the Judicial Standards Act in hearing the case, which outlines that Criminal cases are brought on by charges laid by the State or in appeal to the State.
Treason is a summary criminal offence as provided by the Crime Severity Act.
An adversarial legal system relies on the constitutional protections of a fair trial. The Supreme Court has effectively allowed the Speaker of the House to be charged with Treason in a civil case by someone other than the state.
Constitutionally, the Department of Legal affairs is the only entity permitted to prosecute on the Government's behalf.
3.
The charge of Treason was previously accepted by the Supreme Court in Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 and was not dismissed. The validity for the charge still exists as it was asked to be split into its own case.
Precedent is persuasive, but it does not enable the court to directly override law, especially the constitution.
The court has not even provided any examples of precedent for the citizens' cases that they have mentioned. The constitution states plainly that:
This is Perjury. It is also incorrect. When this was posted the fine was paid in full. Many of the contempt of court charges were made due to me not providing information I did not have access to as Speaker (election results).
There was no active injunction at the time since the case was dismissed in the court it was issued. No evidence has been provided to suggest that it was active at the time.
View attachment 30429
View attachment 30431
The DLA was never my counsel. I openly and actively refused their counsel, there was no affiliation. This was a calculated and political claim to relief. Just because we are parties in the same case (which was illegal) does not assume mutual representation. The idea that because we were sued first together, and then separately by the same plaintiff, for the same reasons, that it would then produce a conflict of interest is ludacris. Under this logic I could sue the Plaintiff and the Chief Justice and it would imply a conflict of interest for the Chief Justice because they were parties in the same case.
No evidence provided.
I have been out of all of these positions for over a month.
Key Considerations
1. You are currently making a decision to charge someone who made an honest mistake and actively worked to correct that mistake with the highest crime that one can be charged with.
2. If you find the Plaintiff guilty of Treason, you are directly contravening the Constitution and law in allowing a citizen to prosecute.
3. The Supreme Court does not have unlimited authority and cannot halt a referendum. In SCR 20, the Commonwealth made the sound argument that:
There is no law that establishes that the Courts can order that the Speaker or another branch of government to stop undertaking their constitutional duties, even for a brief period.
5. A democratic system of government with a system of checks and balances is underpinned by the constitution. The constitution is the highest legal document in the country. The constitution sets out three branches of government which all play a unique role in the operation of our government, particularly in elections. This is why the Supreme Court acts as the court of disputed returns, a body which reviews the results of disputed elections and referendums.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court also interprets the laws as per its constitutional duties.
This establishes a very thorough body of
review. The Supreme Court's recent actions have not been that of review, rather, the Supreme Court has been actively making illegal and unconstitutional court orders against the constitutional duties of other branches of Government.
The Constitution provides that, in order for a complex change bill to pass into law, it must satisfy the requirements set out in the Constitution. This constitutionally charges the Speaker of the House of Representatives with being the returning officer to carry out referendums.
The Supreme Court draws its powers from the Constitution as a body of review and as an interpreter of the law. While I acknowledge convention surrounding court orders in enabling the Supreme Court to fulfil its role, the Supreme Court has overstepped in ordering a constitutional process be 'paused' in
Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 and then proceeding to charge the Speaker for Contempt of Court for failing to comply.
I hope that the Court comes to the realisation that it has no legal ground to make a verdict on this case and that it should be dismissed.