Have you been 'fined'? I was."2.2"

The case HOLL-MAG-3763/15 in Holland Park magistrate court (Brisbane)
'disobeying the speed limit'.
06.05.2016 - Holland Park Magistrate Court with Barry J. Cosgrove as the ring master.

Small hiccup at the start as I forgot to take my notes with me to the court and I had to improvise a bit. Other applications I intended to make, to demand from police additional evidence and reject the accusation as unlawful were in the folder with my notes and possibly someone else can use them.

speed_3.extra.evidence_request.pdf

speed_4.qps.notlegalentity.pdf

Barry Cosgrove refused to adjourn the hearing to allow me to bring my notes, therefore I was not able to present my case properly. Being a typical mongrel homo brutanicus he was jumping with joy at my forgetfulness.
In any fair and legitimate legal system that would be considered as 'denial of justice' by making the trial unfair - however this rotten, corrupt, feudal pseudo legal system has different concept as the core of its operation.

He also refused my 2 previously lodged applications.
Declaration of Cornack stupidity of breaching the rule of independence of judiciary by pleading on behalf of one of the parties.
He claimed that there is a 'common law' allowing stooges to do that.
I asked him 3 times which common law he could point to as the legal basis of his statement, and in reply he kept on blabbing the same thing 'common law', 'common law'…
He also said that  court does not make 'a declaration' - however, later on he found it fit to repeat propaganda garbage about 'speeding' and the necessity to punish it by courts, in the form of a declaration.

As Cornack made the 'pleading' which has not been withdrawn, therefore legally it 'stands in court', I asked in the second application to transfer the charge to her as the 'owner' of pleading. Refused as well.

I started by making application to reject the charge against me as illegal and unlawful. I pointed out that the complaint was made by 'Colin John Parry of Queensland Police Service' and according to the decision by 3 stooges of Queensland Supreme Court (Markan v Queensland Police Service [2015] QCA 22) - 'There is no legal entity known as the Queensland Police Service'.
They are not allowed to be represented in courts as they do not have legal capacity to have any standing in courts. That’s the argument of those people who are considered to be 'authorities' to anyone in legal field.
In reply I heard that it does not matter as that person has authority under 'Police powers act'. My argument that the evidence of such authority is not present in court neither on the original complaint nor in the form of a separate certificate was ignored.
I need to mention here that 'the certificate of authority' for Stephen J Embelton from 'Police Commissioner of Queensland Police Service' (Traffic Camera Office) was presented in the brief of evidence.

I hope that someone would be able to improve on my effort here as complainant (Parry) cannot bring a criminal charge in court as a private person (police monopoly); being employed and representing 'non existent legal entity' does not give him any special rights and there was no evidence in court of him having any authority under any valid legal act.

I believe that this argument can be used in every case brought in courts by 'Queensland Police Service' or their employees acting in courts and possibly in other states as well.
Another issue here is that Barry committed the contempt of court by ignoring decision of his 'older and wiser' colleagues from the court above.

Next, I brought the Magistrate Court Act 1921 as the basic law enacting the establishment and operation of Magistrate Courts. I pointed out section 19 (Laws of evidence -The laws of evidence that apply in the Supreme Court apply in the trial of all questions of fact in the court)
I demanded that, if I am facing a legitimate and lawful court, for those rules to be observed and followed. Being a 'criminal' case - the guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Cosgrove denied me that, claiming that I will be 'dealt with' under 'Transport Act'.
There is no 'Transport Court' with own rules! - therefore, the case brought to legitimate
Magistrate Court is the subject to rules governing that court.

Since Cosgrove failed to follow 'Magistrate Court Act 1921' he did not have any legitimacy under law and he simply run his own bullying enterprise using legitimate court facilities.

The main and only piece of factual evidence in the form of 'camera photo' was unlawful as well as it is the artefact of 'Queensland Police Service', which is 'non existent legal entity' - therefore the exhibit is 'of unknown origin'.
My objection to un-admissibility of such evidence was rejected.

Cosgrove refused me the right to question my accuser in court, he refused me the right to question any witnesses, he refused me the right to demand additional evidence from police.
Although claiming that 'the case is decided with certificates presented',
he failed to acknowledge the lack of 'certificate' for 'Colin John Parry of Queensland Police Service' having any authority to charge people with committing an offence and to present such charge in a legitimate court.
He accepted police claim of me of 'speeding' without having in court any shred of evidence showing that "I" (as the person) did anything wrong, broke any rules, laws, etc.

This is the true face of 'Westminster Democratic System' and that perfidious, rotten,
feudal anglo legal system that all it takes is to have a spineless piece of shit like Barry J. Cosgrove, deprived of basic human honesty, with 'abra cadabra' rule, to 'prove' in court anything what 'authorities' want.

How can anyone have 'respect' for such shitty 'legal' system?
which is not only unfair and idiotic but also oppressive and despotic.

* Barry made suggestion that I could 'nominate another driver'.
In reply I told him that this is forcing people to become police informers/dobbers and I do not have any legal obligation to do that.

* Barry said that 'on the basis of evidence before him' he 'found me guilty' and fined
$350 + $90 court costs.

* Do not get caught in filling one of those forms 'Intention to challenge or dispute' the accusation. It is worded in such a way as to allow police to bring an interstate 'expert' in order to charge you extra 2-3 thousand dollars.

* As I mentioned before, I do not go to Court expecting 'to win'. I had enough lessons to be certain that the best rational legal arguments brought in by an outsider, not a lawyer and a wog, will be rejected by anglo-jewish establishment protecting their own pastures and the assumed 'right' of treating other people as idiots who can be legally and lawfully robbed and deceived.

Transcript of hearing
Transcript of decision