QLD Who to Submit Subpoena to?

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now
Status
Not open for further replies.

cuttyshatface

Well-Known Member
24 May 2017
52
1
199
Queensland
When requesting the court order/ subpoena, the arresting officer, DPP and the Magistrate enter their oaths of office into the case. Who do I serve the paperwork/ order/ subpoena on?

And can I put a motion into court to define certain words?
 

Arche

Well-Known Member
20 March 2015
114
11
419
I don't really understand your question.

Is this another sovereign citizen question?
 

Rob Legat - SBPL

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
16 February 2017
2,452
514
2,894
Gold Coast, Queensland
lawtap.com
It is. "Freemen on the Land" have a common tactic of trying to twist a public official's 'oath of office' against them, and then proclaim they have no authority over the matter.

I strongly suggest you don't follow this course of action. It's based on spurious logic that makes up premises and then attempts to argue them through to a conclusion. You won't get a good outcome in court with it. If you're lucky, the judge will simply think you're mentally deficient - if you're not lucky, you could wind up in contempt of court. Proclaim they have no authority all you like, that's not going to stop them penalising you.

You should read this judgment, in full: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana [2008] FCA 374 (found at: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana (Corrigendum dated 24 April 2008) [2008] FCA 374 (20 March 2008) )

Some applicable bits of the judgment are:

- At paragraph 16: "On 19 October 2007, Paul Rana filed four documents which are so staggering in their absurdity that it is difficult to describe their contents..."

- At paragraph 18: "Then there is some reference, which can only be described as weird, questioning the existence of relevant actors as human beings..."

- At paragraph 23 where Mr Rana sent an invoice for $294,413,110 to some 40 people including the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, prosecuting counsel, the chairman and officers of the ACCC, some ASIC officers, family members of deceased persons from a previous case, and Eddie McGuire. The basis for the charges is in paragraph 20, and they're too ridiculous to do justice in summary.

- At paragraph 25 where the judge has a quasi-"Who's on First" discussion with Mr Rana. Followed by paragraph 26 where the court issued warrants for Mr Rana's arrest when he failed to identify himself.

... and the train wreck goes on.

It might interest you to know that Mr Rana earned himself a 6 month custodial sentence at the end of it - which I understand was the maximum penalty allowable for the breaches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cuttyshatface

Tim W

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
28 April 2014
4,913
820
2,894
Sydney
It has always struck me as ironic that people who consider themselves
outside the law, still rush to seek its protection when it suits them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cuttyshatface

cuttyshatface

Well-Known Member
24 May 2017
52
1
199
Queensland
It is. "Freemen on the Land" have a common tactic of trying to twist a public official's 'oath of office' against them, and then proclaim they have no authority over the matter.

I strongly suggest you don't follow this course of action. It's based on spurious logic that makes up premises and then attempts to argue them through to a conclusion. You won't get a good outcome in court with it. If you're lucky, the judge will simply think you're mentally deficient - if you're not lucky, you could wind up in contempt of court. Proclaim they have no authority all you like, that's not going to stop them penalising you.

You should read this judgment, in full: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana [2008] FCA 374 (found at: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana (Corrigendum dated 24 April 2008) [2008] FCA 374 (20 March 2008) )

Some applicable bits of the judgment are:

- At paragraph 16: "On 19 October 2007, Paul Rana filed four documents which are so staggering in their absurdity that it is difficult to describe their contents..."

- At paragraph 18: "Then there is some reference, which can only be described as weird, questioning the existence of relevant actors as human beings..."

- At paragraph 23 where Mr Rana sent an invoice for $294,413,110 to some 40 people including the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, prosecuting counsel, the chairman and officers of the ACCC, some ASIC officers, family members of deceased persons from a previous case, and Eddie McGuire. The basis for the charges is in paragraph 20, and they're too ridiculous to do justice in summary.

- At paragraph 25 where the judge has a quasi-"Who's on First" discussion with Mr Rana. Followed by paragraph 26 where the court issued warrants for Mr Rana's arrest when he failed to identify himself.

... and the train wreck goes on.

It might interest you to know that Mr Rana earned himself a 6 month custodial sentence at the end of it - which I understand was the maximum penalty allowable for the breaches.

Thank you again for your detailed response, I appreciate the time and effort you dedicate to your answers.

In regards to the "Freeman on the Land" I believe in their concept, however I do not believe that the methods they implement for their cause are flawed which begins with their overall attitude that has underlying tones of anger and disrespect. I believe that "Freeman on the Land" is a noble idea and that everything, including the system is "for us, by us" its just a shame that the main "characters" of this movement have managed to discredit the whole concept and have tarnished words such as " freeman and sovereign ". I believe that we are the "credit" of this planet and that our life is a gift and one way or another if you can work it out true freedom is possible.

I believe that the world is commercial and money rules the main objectives of the majority of the population and the lines between right and wrong have become blurred by the power of the currency. There are laws created where there is "no victim" simply for a monetary penalty where the penalties can evolve in to custodial sentences due to non-compliance. I was led to believe that laws exist by consent as nothing can be forced upon anyone as this would interfere with our freedoms and "society" isn't forced upon us however it seems that way as certain people cannot be trusted and there is need for control however this shouldn't be at the expense of others freedoms. The court will never tell you that "You are such and such" they need your consent/agreement to represent the charged individual and "admit" to your name. Or as I mentioned before a warrant will be issued despite your physical presence in the courtroom. There is something significant in this fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.