The case HOLL-MAG-3763/15 in Holland Park magistrate court (Brisbane)
'disobeying the speed limit' - District Court appeal
This is going to be 2 pronged battle.
On one hand the procedure for the appeal in the District Court and
on the other hand keeping at bay mongrels wanting to take money off me.

Transcript of hearing
Transcript of decision
I lodged notice of appeal

and then 'The outline of arguments' I intend to bring in court.

       DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

                                                                              Registry : Brisbane
Number: BD 1727/16

Claimant :       Police Commissioner Queensland Police Service (ABN 29 409 225 509)
and
Defendant :     Peter Markan

                                     OUTLINE OF ARGUMENTS                  

The subject of my application to this Court relates to the issues of:

• the lack of respect for the human rights in Queensland;
• racist attitude, discrimination and vilification of people who are not lawyers and not of anglo origin and who represent themselves in courts;
• denial of the protection by law to such people by rotten legal system;
• treatment of such people by ‘public institutions’ and courts as SECOND CLASS CITIZENS
• use of ‘ABRA CADABRA’ method to ignore valid and rational but ‘inconvenient’ issues;
• creation of TOTALITARIAN REGIME consisting of lawyers who infested various democratic institutions and courts, and are controlling Australian society as self-professed ‘master breed’
• enacting of concealed dictatorship when an opinion of an unelected individual is claimed to be binding to 22 million of free people in Australia (those so called ‘authorities’ in legal proceedings)

The grounds of my appeal are:

1. Denial of natural justice by refusing adjournment, requested due to the fact of me not having my notes with me on that day, regarding the police evidence and therefore not being ready to effectively defend myself.
As I left my important notes, with copies of legal references relating to my fight against the accusation by police at home, I was not ready to proceed with the hearing of the case against me. Cosgrove disregarded and ignored that I was disadvantaged and he deprived me the opportunity to present my case efficiently.
For that reason the court hearing was UNFAIR and in breach of the due process of law.
- Observance of Due Process of Law - Statute 1368 - Imperial Act 3
- Liberty of Subject (1354)
which are the valid laws in this State - IMPERIAL ACTS APPLICATION ACT 1984 Queensland Legislation.

This is also the breach of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  article 14.3.b
_          '(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate
with counsel of his own choosing;'

2. Contempt of court by the magistrate, Barry Cosgrove, by disregarding the Supreme Court
decision that ‘Queensland Police Service’, listed in Court documents as the party pursuing
the charge against me (through its employee), is not A LEGAL ENTITY therefore, they do not have the legal right to be involved in any court case in Queensland as a party.
(Markan v Queensland Police Service [2015] QCA 22 - (page 3 point 5)
I made formal application in court on the basis of the above decision by Supreme Court judges.
Mr Cosgrove arrogantly rejected that decision, ignoring its validity under the law, and thus committing
the contempt of higher court. If laws and Courts in this State have any meaning, he should be prosecuted for committing such crime, as any other citizen would be.

3 judges of the Supreme Court clearly said in point 6 of their reasons for judgement that - 'it is also not possible to say who would be the proper defendant'. Those people clearly indicated that they do not have a clue who ‘Queensland Police Service’ is in the legal sense. So, how come a little man like Cosgrove can contradict them and accept that phantom creation as the legal party in a Magistrate Court?

3. Abuse of human right legislation - Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 –
Schedule 2—  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966, and in force from March 23, 1976.

It is included in Australian Federal Legislation
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 –
Schedule 2—International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
And also in State legislations in Victoria and ACT

• Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006  - VICTORIA
• Human Right Act 2004 – ACT

In spite of efforts by Queensland lawyers and Queensland judiciary to oppose the recognition of human rights in this State - the human rights as recognized and codified by The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - are in fact valid law in Queensland.

I AM AN AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN and I have the right to be protected by Australian, federal laws. By residing in any State within Australia (in geographical sense) I do not leave Australian soil and I do not stop being Australian citizen.
The Court hearing was conducted on Australian territory (in geographical, political and legal sense) therefore I, as the Australian citizen, have right to be protected by Australian laws and I demand to be protected by that law.

Such legal protection is guaranteed to me by Constitutional rights                   
                                                117 Rights of residents in States

• A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.
  

                                  109 Inconsistency of laws

• When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

The illusionary ‘restrictions’ for Australian citizens, for any reason residing in Queensland, are legally and logically unsound as there is no separate Queensland nationhood/citizenship. Queensland is not
a sovereign entity. The fact that lawyers (at least 30% of ‘parliamentarians’ are lawyers) created several legal fictions relating to residents of various States (members of the Commonwealth) is purely to create confusions and to enable them to enrich themselves from such confusions.
Laws passed by the Parliament of Australia apply to the whole of Australia.

I also have to stress here that I do need recognition of my human rights to be formally acknowledged by some mongrels in Queensland legal system to exist in practice.
I do have unalienable human rights since my birth, regardless if one or another miserable creature ‘recognizes’ them or not. On the basis of those rights, I defend human dignity against barbarism represented by Queensland ‘legal system’.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  Article 14 
‘All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.’

Since the court hearing was not 'fair' by the reasons in the point 1 above, and in points 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 below - this was done in breach of my human rights to a 'fair trial' and common law principles.
Mr. Cosgrove was cooperating with police prosecution to have me convicted on the basis of CLAIMS without any verifiable evidence presented, that I (as the person) did anything wrong, broke any rules or regulations. Therefore, he was neither 'independent' nor 'impartial'.

Legal systems in all civilized countries in the world are created to protect the society, laws and also human rights – which are considered to be the basis of the social order in a community.
That rotten Queensland system only pretends to be a system like others, when in reality it is the biggest abuser of human rights and laws they claim they are protecting.

4. Allowing a private citizen (Colin John Parry - no evidence of any authorisation to act according to any valid law), an employee of legally non existent entity, to pursue a criminal charge against me in court.
I pointed out in Court that the complaint was made by 'Colin John Parry of Queensland Police Service' and according to the decision 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.
Parry is clearly identified in court document (Summons) as the employee of Private Corporation/Company
'Queensland Police Service' - ABN 29 409 225 509

The 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.

5. Attempting to force me to become a police informant/dobber against my will/wish.
Breach of Evidence Act 1977, Section10, Privilege against self-incrimination.
Mr Cosgrove during the hearing suggested to me that I could avoid police prosecution if I became police informant and 'tell them' who was the driver of the vehicle at that time (if I knew it).
That suggestion constitutes unlawful blackmail and attempt to terrorize me. It breaches my right/privilege to silence, the right/privilege not to incriminate myself and my right/privilege not to be compelled to act against my beliefs/convictions.
6. A breach of Magistrate Court Act 1921, section 19, enacting the establishment and operation
of Magistrate Courts.
Since the issue in point 2 above is legally undisputable and Parry did not have any authority to present a criminal 'charge' against me - the case should be considered as being a civil dispute between him and me and in this case he failed to present in court all evidence as required by the primary law regulating the operation of the Magistrate Court.
That law has not been impliedly repealed by the passage of inconsistent other laws, therefore it remains valid law in Queensland.

7. Denial of a fair trial and a breach of natural justice and valid legislations by allowing hearsay evidence and assertions to be accepted in court.( Evidence Act 1977, section 92,93)
vThe person accused of committing an offence is me, however all 'certificates' presented in court by
police prosecution as 'evidence' refer to objects - camera and a car. This is not a dispute between a camera and a car, this is not a 'toy story' - this was claimed to be a court case involving real people.
It was inferred in a bizarre way that finding the object 'guilty' (car) makes the owner of that object guilty as well, although no 'certificates' nor any evidence was presented what was the relation between the object and the owner when the alleged 'offence' was committed. (even in Queensland, a person cannot be charged with murder if only a gun owned by him can be proven as used in such murder)
v There are 2 strange 'certificates' provided as evidence. 1 says that 'infringement notice was sent by
mail' and second one says that I 'have been served with infringement notice'.
I would like to refer to decision by APPLEGARTH J of Queensland Supreme Court (Markan v Queensland Police Service 4836 of 2014 - unpublished) On page 2 it says - 'He says that it was sent by registered post. Inquiries conducted by the senior legal officer for the defendant suggest that it was not received. It may, in fact, have been received and those inquiries have not been able to locate how it came about'.
In that case a letter was sent by registered mail, the evidence of delivery was provided in the form of the copy of the Report from Australia Post confirming the fact of delivery with the date and time of delivery.
In this case, we are dealing here with the same mongrels from QPS - they were not able to find the letter delivered by registered mail to their head office but they claim that they 'served' on me something sent by ordinary mail without a shred of evidence that it was delivered and I received it.
In fact I did not receive it, therefore it was not served on me. The evidence of service has not been provided, no due legal process was followed.

8. Blatant manipulation of court process and a breach of valid laws by allowing the 'evidence',
coming from an illegal and unlawful source, to be accepted in court.
All those 'certificates' are coming from legally non existent source - Queensland Supreme Court (Markan v Queensland Police Service [2015] QCA 22) - 'There is no legal entity known as the Queensland Police Service'. Therefore, the 'certificates' are of unknown origin and should not be accepted as they are clearly marked as the artefacts of 'Queensland Police Service'.

9. Abuse of common law principle by depriving me the right to question my accuser and/or witnesses publicly in court.

This was apparently a 'criminal' case therefore police are not doing me a favour by presenting all the evidence, including witnesses.
I made formal application in court to question the accuser and the witnesses - this was denied.
As per point 1 above, I did not have opportunity to ask police to provide any evidence that
- the speed limit on that road was as police says it was - no evidence provided
- who was the driver at the time - no evidence provided

Standard of proof in every criminal case is on the accuser and the guilt must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The exception claimed in 'Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995' is illegal and it breaches human rights legislation.
Common law supersedes Statute Law and 'deeming' me guilty only because I own the car is unlawful.

10. Making 'conviction' without having in court any evidence of me doing anything 
       wrong/illegal/unlawful.
The 'complaint' of C.J. Parry from 07.07.2015, which is the basis of all the hassles for me in courts, made a claim that 'where the said driver was driving' - however, no evidence was presented that in fact
I was the driver of the car at that time. There was no evidence who the driver was, as even if police photo was considered to be legitimate evidence, it does not indicate who the driver could be.
Not a shred of evidence was presented who the driver of the car was, could have been or might have been.

Due to the appalling attitude of lawyers and legislators towards the respect for the human rights
a brutally terrorist assertion as in "Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995
107  Owner responsible for offence" is claimed to be valid 'law'.
However, Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg - Principle IV says
      'The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve
him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.'
The fact that those people who are responsible for creating such 'law', acted immorally and in breach of internationally recognized principles, relieves me and other people from ‘obeying’ such immoral laws.

The photo with the infringement notice denies me (or anyone else) the ability to identify with certainty as to who was using the car at the alleged time of the alleged offence. If it was another person - I was not present when alleged offence was committed to confirm that fact.

'Conviction' without evidence is the breach of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 15.1 - '1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which
did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed.'
Not knowing who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence is not a crime under human rights legislation. And I do not know who the driver was.

11. Breach of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 15.1, by imposing 'the fine' in excess of the initial penalty.
It says:
' No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed.
Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when
the criminal offence was committed.'
Mr Cosgrove applied here a terrorist technique of attempting to scare off people from fighting for their rights by imposing the 'fine' of A$350, while original fine was apparently A$86.80 (Summons).

Another indication that the whole thing is an extortion with a threat of violence, a money grabbing exercise are the letters from SPER demanding me to pay extra A$ 91.20 of 'court costs'. This is illegal, as access to justice system is the human right (should be free) and not a privilege for which I have to pay. There is also another strange charge of something called 'Offender Levy' A$ 110 which is pure bullying and robbery as no person should be penalized several times for the same 'crime'.
Therefore, all those charges are illegal and unlawful.

12. Operating illegal and unlawful 'Cosgrove Bullying Enterprise' on legitimate court premises.
When he was selected to work for Magistrate Courts he made a swearing of not only allegiance to Ms Windsor but also to follow laws, and rules of his office. By ignoring/disregarding valid laws of this country and the State, as indicated above, he was not acting as a legitimate 'officer of the court'.
He failed to demonstrate that he was acting with respect to the laws, on the contrary - he made all indication that he is not only favouring the other party but acting in collaboration with them.

He was not acting as a genuine, independent arbitrator in a Magistrate Court but as the enforcer/bully in cohort with mongrels from Private Corporation/Company 'Queensland Police Service' - ABN 29 409 225 509. The primary objective was to 'find me guilty' and ‘let the other side win’ regardless of what was presented in court.

13. Use of 'abra cadabra' method to disregard legitimate legal issues.
Human rights of people living in Queensland are contemptuously ignored and disregarded by judiciary and the Mafia ruling this State. With the backdrop of the terror war against the society and the calls that now ‘security’ is more important than freedoms it is the tactic towards enslavement.

That rotten, corrupt, depraved, degenerated, feudal, pseudo, anglo 'legal system' is a flexible tool to pretend that all is 'in order' and 'judges' can say any rubbish they want to justify their decisions, as there is no effective supervision and accountability of their conduct neither by the community groups, government organizations nor legal groups (appeal courts, jurists organizations, etc)

Existing system encourages judiciary not to be responsible for own conduct and actions. Magistrates/judges are certain that their conduct/mistakes/abuse of power will be shielded by higher courts and colleagues and such matter silently put on the back burner. Queensland 'legal system' ignores openly Australian and International laws and treaties being aware that such abuse of human rights will be tolerated by their colleagues in other courts (legal Mafia).

In reality me and people like me, (normal people) do not have to commit any ’crime’, even according to rubbery anglo laws, to be denied natural justice. If you are not submissive and subservient and raise you head above the rubbish ‘they’ want you to be in – suddenly slave herders (police, judges, ’authorities’) and vultures (lawyers) try to bully you or terrorize.

In this case there was absolutely no evidence that I did anything wrong and in spite of that this mongrel Cosgrove 'found' me 'guilty'. On basis of what - claims against me made by government bullies aka 'Queensland Police Service'. His statement became 'valid' under rotten anglo law because 'he said so'! -

14. Disregarding the fact that 'formal pleading' to that 'charge' was made by another person.
During the preliminary court hearing on 22.10.2015 in this court, when asked how do I plead,
I answered – ‘I do not plead anything’.
Ms SHERYL LOUISE CORNACK said in reply – ‘I will enter a plea of not guilty  on his behalf’ – and she made the note in court papers to that effect.
As the consequence of her racist arrogance, by pleading to the charge, Ms SHERYL LOUISE CORNACK became the 'owner' of the charge, responsible for it with all the liabilities.

Ms SHERYL LOUISE CORNACK pleaded voluntarily of her own free will – she chose to do it as:
-           I did not ask Ms SHERYL LOUISE CORNACK to plead on my behalf,
-           I did not authorise Ms SHERYL LOUISE CORNACK to plead on my behalf
-           as the magistrate, Ms SHERYL LOUISE CORNACK is not allowed to represent
one of the parties and act on behalf of one of the parties
-           Ms SHERYL LOUISE CORNACK simply raised her hand and said - ‘I will take it over   
for myself’ - and legally and lawfully her pleading stands in court as the admission
of accountability, as that plea has not been formally withdrawn by Ms CORNACK

Mr Cosgrove claimed that there is a 'common law' allowing stooges to do that and breach the rule
of independence of judiciary. 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'…

15. Condoning the abuse of human rights and abuse of office by an employee of Holland Park Magistrate Court Ms SHERYL LOUISE CORNACK
During the preliminary court hearing on 22.10.2015 in this court, when asked how do I plead,
I answered – ‘I do not plead anything’.
Ms SHERYL LOUISE CORNACK said in reply in a patronizing way – ‘I will enter a plea of not guilty  on his behalf’ – and she made the note in court papers to that effect.
At that time I was not incapacitated, un-able or legally restrained to make the decision in my own matter, while representing myself in court. The Evidence – hearing transcript pages – 5-26 and 6-12

I feel deeply offended by such disrespectful, belittling attitude towards me, so characteristic to racist, arrogant anglos, who maintain colonial mentality and cannot get used to the idea that there is no Empire any more. Due to corrupt arrangements in political/legal system they continue to keep grip on power and remain 'authorities' in spite of making less than half of population of Australia.
They do not miss an opportunity to show their arrogance by the attitude towards non-anglos.

In this case I chose how to answer the question put to me and I do not want some mongrel to dictate to me how it should be answered. Cosgrove, being another arrogant racist anglo, condoned her conduct.

• Ms CORNACK chose to act without my authorisation by - ‘pleading on your behalf’
• Ms CORNACK by doing so, broke the cardinal rule of ‘independence of judiciary’ by acting on my behalf as one of the parties in court of law, before her
• Ms CORNACK by doing so, broke the rules of Magistrates Courts Act 1921, section 18 and Justices Act 1886 section 145(1).
• Ms CORNACK by doing so, falsified public record of the true reality during the court hearing. (Criminal Code Act 1899 sec.123  Perjury)
• Ms CORNACK conduct indicates her shamelessly low level of professional knowledge and professional incompetence by not being aware of the very basic principle of the legal system she is somehow put to administer. (independence of judiciary)
• Ms CORNACK conduct is the abuse of judicial discretion which has been exercised arbitrarily and capriciously and in bad faith.
• Ms CORNACK failed to comply with the provisions of the law and her conduct is the blatant manipulation of court process.
• Ms CORNACK abused my human and civil rights, particularly those guaranteed to all in -
  The International Covenant on Civil and Political which is included in the Federal Legislation
  as Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 – Schedule 2
• Ms CORNACK is in breach of the rule “Nemo iudex in causa sua” (Latin for no one (is a) judge in (his) own case) by representing me and pleading on my behalf while at the same time
  she was supposed to be an independent arbitrator.
• Ms CORNACK created quite a confusion to understanding how the legal system operates
  by making a pleading to herself, indicating that she could be suffering from split personality disorder or another serious mental problem.
• Ms CORNACK conduct highlights the issue that there is no effective community supervision
  of selection of judges, judicial conduct and their decisions,
• Ms CORNACK conduct highlights the tendency among judiciary to maintain feudal concepts
  of ‘masters’ and ‘slaves’ to enable protection of depravity within legal industry.

Ms CORNACK unlawfully failed to accept my decision, as the party in Court, of NOT MAKING ANY ‘PLEADING’

Signed:

Applicant        PETER MARKAN                                                 Dated: 03.06.2016