I want to encourage people who have understanding of the depravity
the ‘system’, who have nothing to lose because of age or
other circumstances, are not afraid of possibility
‘bankrupt’ by the bankrupt system, have health problems -
to do something positive for the humanity when they still can.
Queensland Police Service - (ABN 29 409 225 509)
1. Supreme Court of Queensland, 21 March 2014, case CA 9591 of 2013,
Peter Markan v Crime and Misconduct Commission
On the basis of the provisions of Article 14 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - I asked Supreme court judges - McMurdo, Gotterson, Morrison - to provide the evidence of their competence as judges. All 3 failed to provide the evidence.
Therefore, I reminded them that according to the rules in anglo law -
if there is no evidence introduced in court that means that there is no evidence.
As there was no evidence in Court of them possessing any competency they did not have any legitimacy to be judges according to democratic principles and international law, therefore
I publicly and officially declared them to be a kangaroo court. No objections, NOT A SINGLE WORD OF PROTEST, no legal challenge.
That declaration was pronounced publicly in the Supreme Court and not in the middle of a desert, therefore it carries with it the authority of the Supreme Court as the legal institution.
McMurdo, Gotterson, Morrison acknowledged, accepted and admitted that they are
illegitimate imposters. (kangaroo court - as in dictionary meaning)
I informed - McMurdo, Gotterson, Morrison - that I am treating them just as the public gallery and they are welcome to listen to my issues I have with 'Crime and Misconduct Commission'
and then I presented my case in legitimate court without illegitimate judges.
2. On the 01.04.2014 about 5pm I had a phone call from the Supreme Court official informing me that the ‘judgement’ in this matter was published on http://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QCA/2014/060
After verifying that fact it is obvious that those 3 people, at the time - private citizens - choose to abuse their ability to access Supreme Court physical resources and they impersonated judicial officers – which are the criminal offences under sections 96 and 97 of Criminal Code Act 1899 which is THE LAW in Queensland.
3. On 07.04.2014 I asked formally Mr. Ian Stewart - Commissioner of Queensland Police Service to arrest, investigate and prosecute those criminals.
* Abuse of human, civil and political rights
* Impersonating judicial officers
Request for the arrest of identified criminals
4. After being ignored for almost a month, on 05.05.2014, I sent to him kind reminder that he failed to do his duty.
Reminder that identified criminals are still at large
5. No reply.
It is my duty to remind those people that they are not supposed to be a gang of thugs employed by oligarchical mafia ruling this State but they are supposed to serve the community and its interest.
6. Due to corrupt arrangements in Queensland law only police have monopoly to charge other people with ‘crimes’. For normal citizens the only way is to go through ‘civil’ courts system.
I lodged formal documents in Court.
Civil claim against QPS lodged in court
30.06.2014 - Queensland Police Service Commissioner - Ian Stewart did not bother to respond to Supreme Court Claim against him.
According to law, rule 137 and 281 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, he is facing the summary judgment of the Court. All what is required is the signature of a judge who will do his job of upholding the law.
Getting rid of Queensland Police
After ignoring for a while the issue and when faced with the prospect of being declared by Court as criminal organization (as per valid Queensland laws),
Queensland Police Service and their Commissioner - Ian Stewart woke up with an excuse appropriate for a 4 year old child
'we did not receive the paper work'
Court hearing against Queensland Police Service and their Commissioner
Fair bit of manipulation happened in this court hearing.
Even before it started.
- Appealed decision of Goofy. Neither formal, written court order nor reasons are available as yet.
Appeal against court favourable decision for police
- Lodged Outline of Arguments in Supreme Court in the case against Queensland Police. Neither court order nor reasons are available - public records are being 'revised' to show an anglo judge as angelic and 'wise'.
Outline of Arguments
One of the aspects of the judgement by Applegarth was that he used latin formula ‘nunc pro tunc‘ (now for then) to justify Police lawyers arrogant mistake of not applying for the Court leave before making their application, which is one of the legal requirements.
Being the product of the morons factories, as Queensland universities are known, lawyers do not know the basics of their trade skills. Applegarth`s use of ‘nunc pro tunc‘ shows him to be in the same category.
‘A judgment nunc pro tunc can be entered only when the delay has arisen from the act of the court.’
‘A judgment nunc pro tunc is an action by a trial court correcting a clerical (rather than judicial) error in a prior judgment.’
This should NOT be applied in the case of ‘legal professionals’ not knowing the rules.
Classical example how ‘independent judges’ are supporting lawyers Mafia.
Applegarth : Mr Hickey, the application that you seek to make is the one that was filed on 18 July 2014, so you are, effectively, seeking a grant of leave nunc pro tunc?
Lawyer: (jumping with joy) Yes, your Honour. Yes.
Applegarth: Yes. I grant leave to file that application. Leave is granted nunc pro tunc.
During the hearing Applegarth was trying to push the assertion that I made a mistake when lodging the claim against Police. He was insisting that I should have served my Claim on Police Commissioner ‘in person’.
However UCPR1999, says that in the case of dealing with corporation:
Part 3 Service in particular cases 107 Personal service—corporations
A document required to be served personally on a corporation must be served in the way provided for the service of documents under the Corporations Act or another applicable law.
Note - A corporation includes a body politic or corporate - Acts Interpretation Act 1954, section 36.
Corporations Act 2001, Division 8 - Miscellaneous interpretation rules - 109X,
Service of documents – clearly says:
1. For the purposes of any law, a document may be served on a company by:
(a) leaving it at, or posting it to, the company’s registered office;
19.09.2014 - The case against Queensland Police Service and their Commissioner.
Lodged with court my reply to Police lawyers gibberish.
27.02.2015 - more verbal vomit from the Supreme Court in the case against Queensland Police Service and their Commissioner. With so characteristic for those creatures perfidy, they said their typical garbage and when they could not find an excuse (the fact that QPS is a ‘corporation’ in the legal sense) they simply ignored it.
anglo judges comments
11.03.2015 - Looking at the statement in ‘reasons’(5) of those creatures from Supreme Court– ‘there is no legal entity known as the Queensland Police Service’ - the question has to be asked about the puprose of creating 'legal' fictions and fakes.
Court own resources quote several cases where ‘non-existent ‘‘Queensland Police Service’ has been actually a party in various court proceedings, eg.
Stallan v Queensland Police Service  QDC 392_QDC10-392
Barlow v Queensland Police Service  QDC 31_QDC14-031
Bismark v Queensland Police Service  QDC 152_QDC14-152
Gobus v Queensland Police Service  QCA 172_QCA13-172
To make ‘judges’ claim even more ridiculous that ‘non-existent defendant’ ‘in legal terms’ was actually acting as the applicant in several cases of their own, eg.
Queensland Police Service v Klupfel  QDC 210_QDC13-210
Queensland Police Service v Ntakarutimana  QDC 139_QDC12-139
Queensland Police Service v Terare  QCA 260_QCA14-260
Queensland Police Service v Tobane  QDC 222_QDC10-222
I lodged also in High Court the application for the special leave to appeal.
More details in
- Battlefield QPS
HC appeal application
17.03.2015 - the transcript of the hearing from 18.02.2015 in the Supreme Court
of my 'appeal' against Queensland Police Service and their Commissioner.
It is educational, because everybody can see deceitful 'judges' how they really behave
and not as they are being portrayed by the propaganda.
30.03.2015 - Lodged Application (Written Case) in the High Court against Appeal Court 'decision' favouring Queensland Police Service, their Commissioner and lawyers