How to get justice with an Invoice

The following is a transcript of the discussion between the Battler and Peter Gargan to show people how to get justice without going to court.

 Hello again. Peter

Hello, Mr. Holt How are you?

I’m pretty good mate. Welcome back. Now we’re going to talk about the procedure on how to implement a civil invoice.  So Peter, what is a civil invoice? How does it work?

Blackstone’s commentary said that when you participate in society, part of the invisible contract, but it’s a contract between you and the crown, you agreed to abide by the constitution.  and the ordinances of the state in which you live.  A statute is a contract of record.

So, if you break a statute, then you render yourself liable instantly to an invoice for debt. And the invoice for debt is based upon Section 4B of the Crimes Act 1914, which sets out a formula where you can convert a term of imprisonment to a liquidated penalty, a pecuniary penalty. Now, this is really important because by Section 64, judiciary Act 1903, the Commonwealth and each of the states is in law, no different to an individual.

So, they can be charged on a civil invoice with a breach of contract when they breach their own statute law. And this was used by a fellow called Scott Bartle from Fremantle to persuade the customs department to release his car which they’d impounded on him when he was importing it from America.

But it’s a very interesting technique and it’s fallen into disuse because I don’t think lawyers like it very much because it basically doesn’t end run on the courts and, once you’ve calculated the amount owing. For example, a breach of Section 43 of the Crimes Act 1914, which is attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice in respect to the judicial power of the Commonwealth, which by the way, almost every judge in magistrate in Australia has been doing regularly since 1972.

Particularly since when the Kable principle was established. Now the Kable principle says that Section 79 of the Constitution says that if there’s a dispute between Australians, it must be resolved in a court without a capital C on it and judges, which is a plural word without a capital J on it.

And how many would that be?

It says As Parliament prescribes, but Parliament has not prescribed the number of jurors for a civil jury. So, by default it’s go to be the same as for a criminal jury because, under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights, all persons are equal before the law. So, all persons are entitled equally to trial by jury, the same as a serious criminal is.

Okay, so what would be the minimum number of judges?

12. 12. 12. The same as a jury.

You need 12 judges and 12 men and women as a jury? No. A single judge. Not a capital ‘J’ judge presiding, but the judges are the little ‘j’ judges who actually make the decision are… jurors.

Gotcha.

This implements the spiritual side of the law, which sits above even the common law. The constitution which is based on our common law, the spiritual side sits above that because when you’ve got two or more gathered together, the spirit of Jesus Christ is with them. So that’s the spiritual side.

And of course, God Almighty knows what a verdict is. A verdict is a finding of the truth…. V E R D I C T… verdict derives from the Latin root, meaning TRUTH.

Right. Can you tell us the formula for calculating the penalty, please? 

It comes out of 4B of the Crimes Act 1914.

It’s the number of years of the maximum term of imprisonment, which in the case of section 43 of the Crimes Act 1914 is 10 years. That’s multiplied by five penalty units per month. So, say it’s 10 years jail by five by 12, so 600 penalty units and a penalty unit today is $222, but on Monday, the 1st of January, 2023, it goes up to $275.

In simple terms the calculation looks like this:

Number of Years x Max Penalty x 5 x 12

So, I’d say every judge and magistrate in Australia should have a bit of a look at himself when he goes to have a shave on Monday morning of the New Year and think I think I better start sitting with juries.

Right. Peter, who can create and implement a civil invoice?

Anyone. Anyone who’s agreed by a breach of the law. Now, for example, if you go before a magistrate and you say, excuse me Mr. Magistrate the Kable principle says you can’t sit as an individual person, but you must sit with the jury, and he says, no that doesn’t happen in my court he needs to learn that it’s not his court, it’s our court.

And in our court, the Constitution must be obeyed. Now if he doesn’t obey it, then he commits two crimes: One is under Section 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995, which gives very big teeth to the international covenant on civil and political rights, particularly Article 9, which says that no one can be subjected to arbitrary judgment by anyone else.

Now, how far back can we go, Peter? Because I’ve been before a couple of magistrates in the past 12 months, and a couple of judges and they have all sat without a jury. How far back can we go? Two years, 10 years, 20 years?

No, there’s no statute of limitations on anything more than six months imprisonment.

So, in other words, somebody who was convicted by a magistrate two years ago is Liable.

The Magistrates is liable….Yes. Good. Okay. No.  The chickens are going to come home to Ru.

Oh boy. Are they ever, alright, that’s good to know. What sort of preparation do we need to create this invoice?

First of all, you give your name and who you are, and who you’re raising the invoice against because they’ve committed a crime.

Then you put an invoice number and a date on it.

Then you put an extract out of Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, backed up by Sir William. Holdsworth home. Holdsworth died in 1944. So, it’s very relevant. It’s not old law. It’s not ancient law that nobody knows anything about. Not that they’re teaching our lawyers about this in university. They’re turning out basically educated lawyers and of course, lawyers say, no, that couldn’t be right. It is right.

And that’s what I say. Their pigeons are going to come home to roost. 

That’s usually the ones I’ve seen, they put that on as a whereas. Whereas is a statement of fact, right? Then they outline the offense alleged with the penalty that accrues for a breach of that offense. And in, in the case of a magistrate, sits without a jury. That’s two offenses, one against Section 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995, and the other one against Section 43 of the Crimes Act 1914, which was enacted to ensure the integrity of the judicial process. Every judge and magistrate in Australia has been disregarding that since Mr. Whitlam decided to reform Australia without a referendum.

So, what I see here is a big problem with the courts because if we file these, what likelihood is there that the courts will even activate these things?

That’s a very big problem, but there is a solution. Once you’ve sent the invoice, you then send a reminder after 28 days and give them another 28 days.

In Queen Victoria’s Letters Patent 1900, a Justice of the Peace has the same power as a judge in court. So, if you get two justices of the peace together, and get them to witness your affidavit of debt, that then becomes a debt that’s enforceable, can be entered on the personal property securities register handed to a get collected to collect, or otherwise enforced.

And in Queensland in particular, The Supreme Court will accept a proceeding to enforce a  breach of statute invoice.

They’ve already done that for me, so we know that works.

 Isn’t that wonderful?

Yes. So let me just reiterate the procedure. The first thing we do:

• Write out an invoice detailing the laws that have been broken, the penalty, and the liquidated penalty in dollars.
• We then send that to the person who has breached the law against us. We give them 28 days to respond.
• If they ignore the invoice, we then send them a reminder with another 28 days to respond.
• If they still fail to respond to that, then we write an affidavit using the same text on the invoice, and cite the relevant laws they have broken and the penalties, and we calculate those penalties.
• Then we go and find two JPs. I found my two JPs at the local court, and when they read the affidavit, they were delighted to sign it, so I got them to sign it, and then I sent that to the offender. And gave them another 28 days to respond. We give them 28 days so that we stand in honour and we give them plenty of time to respond.

But these people are so egotistical and so convinced that they have total power. They will ignore it, but not anymore. So, this person that I have now filed a civil suit ignored me. So, I took my affidavit to the Supreme Court. I paid my fee. After they accepted it, they did the paperwork. And yesterday I served that, civil suit on the person who has aggrieved me.

Now, if the amount of money is more than $800,000, you file it with the Supreme Court. If it’s less than. You file it with a county court or magistrate. But the fact is, once you have that affidavit signed and sealed by two JPs, you have a lawful financial instrument that can be acted on.

Now, all I have to do now since I’ve served that Supreme Court order on my transgresser. I just have to sit back now and wait for her to decide what to do. She’s been summoned to the Supreme Court next month if she decides not to pay me. So, she then will have to come to court and defend herself.

But since she has perverted the course of justice, and you can cite the laws that she’s broken, Peter, then how is she going to defend herself?

Section 80 of the Constitution is what I think you’ve alleged.

That’s right.

Attempted to pervert, and it says that you must be tried in a state where you are found.

Now this woman decided to get a warrant from a judge. Get you carted off to the Bastille, transported to Victoria, and you live in Queensland.

And incarcerated for five days.  Six days. Six days. I think that every day that a person’s unlawfully incarcerated, and the judge can’t arbitrarily incarcerate you, attracts a liquidated penalty against the person who did it.

I think it’s about $214,200, but I think it’s gone up to $233,000, and that’s per dyke, and it’ll soon go up to 300,000 in the new year. Now, this is supposedly payable to the aggrieved person,   in his hands. It’s regarded as income, so 47% of it, because you’re right in the top tax bracket. When you start getting that kind of money, 47% of it goes straight to consolidated revenue. So our members of Parliament, basically, who only get 200,000 a year, just a standard ordinary member that’s if you’re not a minister or anything like that, they need to go and start asking some questions in the parliament of the Attorney General and saying, why are you not letting and, ensuring the Australian courts will take these proceedings, and give a judgment if a judgment is due. Or if the person says I’m not guilty, give them a jury trial as has been our common law right since 1487. A judge cannot, since 1487 discharge an alleged criminal.

Very good. Alright, mate, we now know how to do this and it’s underway so we shall see the response.

Just one more thing. You mentioned that we need these MPs, these representatives, to stand up in Parliament and start questioning the attorney General.

We saw what happened when Rod Carlton did that. What guarantees are there for any other politician?

That’s why they’ve go to stick together because if they let the poor fellow who’s got the courage to ask the question, be isolated from the. Then

I think we saw very clearly there that Pauline did not support Rod.

No. Pauline Hansen was instrumental in implementing it actually. And that’s a black mark against Pauline Hansen and I don’t care who knows it.

Yeah, I agree. Alright mate, thank you very much. Very good knowledge. Again, thanks for sharing.

Good on you mate. You take care.

You too. Have a Merry Christmas.

You too, mate. Cheers.

Watch the Video here: