PERVERSE JUDGMENT on 9 DECEMBER 2016 by the DUTCH COURTS within CASE
NUMBER: 09/837304-15 against GEERT WILDER'S public speech on 19 MARCH 2014:
On 12 MARCH 2014 the Dutch politician GEERT WILDERS and several members
of his party, PVV, also known as The Freedom Party, visited a market in
The Hague. Part of their visit was broadcast on national TV and GEERT
WILDERS said that his party would make the city more safe, more
sociable, and if possible, make it a city with fewer Moroccans. When
later confronted with his statement WILDERS held that he had merely
referred to criminal Moroccans and Moroccans receiving benefits from the state.
On 19 MARCH 2014 the Freedom Party held an election rally at CAFÉ DE
TIJD in The Hague. During the meeting, GEERT WILDERS held a speech which
was recorded and broadcast on TV. In his speech he stated: “Before I go,
I would like everyone here to answer the following three questions.
Three questions, please give a clear answer which defines our party, the
PVV. Do you want more or less European Union?” The crowd present
repeatedly shouted “less”. WILDERS then went on to pose the second question: “Do you want more or less Labour Party?” The crowd again shouted “less”. WILDERS continued: “And the third question is, and actually I’m not allowed to say it, because you get reported to the
police, and maybe there are even D66 prosecutors who will launch a case,
but freedom of expression is a great good and we haven’t said anything
that isn’t allowed, we haven’t said anything that’s incorrect, so I ask you: do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?”. The crowd repeatedly shouted “less”. GEERT WILDERS then concluded his speech with the words: “Nah, we’ll arrange it”.
At the election meeting a coordinator (witness 3) from the PVV had been
aware that WILDERS would ask the public whether they wanted fewer
Moroccans. The coordinator had been asked (by witness 4) to instruct the public in advance of the question and answer. Before the speech witness
4 had heard GEERT WILDERS emphasize that it should be as strong as
possible so the content would be picked up by the press and broadcast.
The legal implications of the speech had not been discussed. The issue
of including the topic of Moroccans or criminal Moroccans was discussed
and there was some concern whether there would be a prompt response from
the public. This was the reason why witness 4 called witness 3 and asked
him to ensure that a proper interaction would take place.
Among the many Dutch politicians who have had a FATWA [Arabic: فتوى, TELOS: #487 - RITUAL ADMINISTRATION (#36 - STRENGTH: CH'IANG); MALE:
#237 - USE OF FORCE; FEME: #163 - ANGRY, RAGING, VEXED; ONTIC: #156 -
LIVING SUBSTANCE; DEME: #548 - COMMANDMENT] issued against them,
possibly the best-known internationally is GEERT WILDERS. In 2008
WILDERS received 285 death threats, with a further 264 aimed at all
Dutch politicians. There were a total of 145 protection orders for
WILDERS in 2006; in 2005 there were 110.
An Australian imam named FEIZ MUHAMMAD who as head of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool, a suburb of Sydney is viewed by intelligence agencies worldwide as one of the main jihadist ideologues, a great inspiration for young Western Muslim radicals had issued a FATWA calling
for the Dutch politician’s beheading.
According to Dutch newspaper Elsevier on 3 SEPTEMBER 2010: "PVV leader
GEERT WILDERS [was] angry at the Dutch Intelligence Service [AIVD]. The
AIVD is in the possession of a sound recording on which WILDERS is
threatened with death by the imam on a secluded site of jihadists, in response to questions by Dutch radicals says:
“WE SEE THE EVIL FILTH OF PEOPLE SUCH AS THAT FILTHY DUTCH POLITICIAN. ANYONE WHO #238 / #485 - *MOCKS* OUR LEARNING, LAUGHS AT THE ISLAM AND DEGRADES IT MUST ENTER DEATH, DECAPITATE HIM, CUT OFF HIS HEAD.”
The PVV leader was only informed in detail about the matter around 2 SEPTEMBER 2010. Accordingly WILDERS says he is shocked, and last night consulted ERIC AKERBOOM, National Coordinator for Counterterrorism (NCTb).
“I urgently want to know why the NCTb and AIVD never informed me about this.”
He also asked “what kind of consequences this has for me,” and called
the recording “terrible”." <http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Nederland/274863/Radicale-imam-adviseert-Geert-Wilders-te-onthoofden.htm> [Link no longer active]
DOES THE GOVERNOR GENERAL HAVE AN EX-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO ORDER
If one considers as corporal punishment the legal precedent the cat o'
nine tails, which is a type of multi-tailed whip or flail. It originated
as an implement for severe physical punishment, notably in the Royal
Navy and British Army, and as a judicial punishment in Britain and some
The term judicial birch generally refers to the severe type in use for court-ordered *BIRCHINGS*, especially the Manx hazel birch. A 1951
memorandum (possibly confirming earlier practice) ordered all UK male
prisons to use birches (and cats-o'-nine-tails) from only a national
stock at South London's Wandsworth prison, where they were to be
'thoroughly' tested before being supplied in triplicate to a prison
whenever required for use as prison discipline.
FOSTER V MINISTER FOR CUSTOMS AND JUSTICE B92/1999  HCATRANS 121
(23 MARCH 2000)
KIRBY J: I think the question is still relevant because we have to test
your theory of the section against the possibility that the Minister has
to, as it were, speculate not only on what the discretion that will be exercised by the sentencing judge will be, not only what might be the
subject of some review of the sentence, but what factors would enter
into the sentence, such as offers of return to people who have been
defrauded or a pleading of guilty and so on.
Are any of the other matters that have to be considered under the
section of this problematical class? In other words, the death penalty,
well, one just looks that up. But are any of the other matters that the Minister has to take into account of this variable malleable content? Torture, for example. Would one know whether in a particular case for particular offences - I suppose you could have some offences where even
in oppressive countries there is no torture but in such countries there
is for particular offences having a political character, so presumably -
MR SOFRONOFF: Your Honour, the direct answer is none of the other
specific matters that are addressed in section 22 are of that flexible
kind. With respect to torture, one can readily see that say a sentence
of *BIRCHING* might be regarded here as torture and if that is possible under an enactment of a foreign country, then that is readily
ascertainable as a matter of objectivity. However, although we are
speaking of Commonwealth countries here, some of them from time to time
are in such a state that one could readily accept that in some of them, despite the absence of the provision for lawful imposition of torture,
there may be a risk that that would occur and that would be something
that - - -
KIRBY J: There was a report only last week of one Commonwealth country
where they were going to cut the person up and do it in public and do
other such things to the person, so I assume it just depends from time
to time on the evidence available.
MR SOFRONOFF: Yes, and in our submission, although it is true that the
actual sentence that would be passed would depend upon a great number of matters, some of which will not be known until much later, it is always possible for a range to be given by those who are familiar with such
things, such that for the broad purposes that the Attorney is required
to consider it is possible to conclude that no oppression would result because some significant gaol term would, nevertheless, be imposed - 3 months, 4 months, 5 months, whatever it might be such that the arguments
- - -
KIRBY J: Does *BIRCHING* come up under any other head or is it only available - - -
MR SOFRONOFF: It could only be torture, your Honour. If it is not
torture, and minds could differ about that - they obviously do because,
as we all know, somebody was caned in Singapore a few years ago. If it
is not torture then it is certainly a matter that would be - as a likely
or possible punishment, ought to be considered by the Minister before
sending - in that case it was a youthful offender. It was not extradited
but if it were an extradition case she would have to consider whether
that was a matter that would render it oppressive.
The purpose of my mentioning severe punishment is this, once one admits
that a severe punishment may be material, one admits that punishment is material and once one admits that punishment is material it can be
readily accepted, in our submission, that if what is being sought is extradition in circumstances where no significant punishment will be
imposed, the Minister may consider that that is something that renders
the surrender oppressive or too severe a punishment.
McHUGH J: But does not your argument lead to the conclusion that the
Attorney or Minister must examine the weight of the evidence to see
whether or not the person may be convicted?
MR SOFRONOFF: No, your Honour.
McHUGH J: Why not?
MR SOFRONOFF: Because one thing that does emerge from the Extradition
Act is that one does not have an occasion ever to test guilt or innocence.
McHUGH J: But why should not the Attorney have that obligation? If he
has got an obligation to consider the sentence, why should he not have
an obligation to consider the likelihood of conviction?
MR SOFRONOFF: Your Honour, I would answer the question that she would
have an obligation to consider the likelihood of conviction only if it
can be demonstrated that there is no real likelihood of conviction. That would be a rare case, but I say that because there is authority in this
Court that that would be a matter that would render an extradition oppressive. The case is - - -
HAYNE J: But that is likely, is it not - that is likely to take you over
to accusation not made in good faith? If there is no realistic prospect
of conviction, one is at once perhaps into the field of accusation not
in good faith and, if you are not in that territory, then where lies the middle ground? [Copyright in the High Court of Australia, TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS. AT CANBERRA @ 1451 HRS ON THURSDAY 23 MARCH 2000]
I have followed GEERT WILDERS on TWITTER for the last year at least and
am aware by his RETWEETS that he indeed does continue to receive the
most graphically violent and depraved of death-treats (ie. having had
#419 - SLAUGHTERED MEAT placed in my mailbox on 15 NOVEMBER 2017 I know
how he feels), and his blog entry @ 0930 HRS ON 25 MAY 2023 which was
only on 24 JUNE 2023 accessed by a BING search, himself states:
"I RECEIVE THOUSANDS OF DEATH THREATS FROM MUSLIMS IN THE NAME OF THE
PROPHET MUHAMMAD. BUT WHO WAS HE REALLY?"
We would submit that since the OFFICE OF GOVERNOR GENERAL has an
EX-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY as implication established by #940 - RIGHT TO RULE
and according to #902 - RULE OF LAW, that in order to preserve the ANTHROPOCENTRIC SINGULARITY FIRST PRINCIPLES being the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY which as metakosemeo is constitutionally the product of a CAESAROPAPISM as intrinsic to QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT and the ontology of the human being (ie. homosapiens) reflecting IMAGO DEI,
within the circumstance of ICONOCLASM AGAINST THOSE FIRST PRINCIPLES
being the nature to "THOUSANDS OF DEATH THREATS OF THE MOST GRAPHIC AND BESTIAL KIND" as the consequence of a FATWA calling for the Dutch politician’s beheading by an Australian IMAM named FEIZ MUHAMMAD to meet the threshold of ACTION by the GOVERNOR GENERAL authorising the
*BIRCHING* of all such persons engaged in such ex-judicatory impiety by FATWA.
The notion of 'boy-pussy' was a smaller version of the cat-o-nine-tails
as known to being a colonial authoritative punishment instrument of
slavery / shipping and gave rise to the expression:
'Take it like a man'!
The last *BIRCHING* sentence in Jersey was carried out in 1966.
*BIRCHING* was abandoned as a policy in 1969 but lingered on the statute books. Obsolete references to corporal punishment were removed from
remaining statutes by the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions)
(No. 2) (Jersey) Law 2007.
Formal floggings — those ordered by the ex-judicial authority of the captain or court martial — were administered ceremonially on deck, the
crew being summoned to "witness punishment" and the prisoner being
brought forward by marines with fixed bayonets. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birching>
RESUME TRIPLE F (#666) CAFE DIALOG: "Why should you, in relation to what things are mine and not yours, then dictate what ought to be on my mind?
Such rubbish as YOU CALL IT because of your abject ignorance which you
make despite the absolute command given under SECTION VIII of the
Letters Patent to be "obedient, aiding and assisting", can earn you a criminal charge of TREASON and 25 years imprisonment (if I wish to
pursue that matter against you), as a contempt of your life and business towards the AUTONOMY OF WILL being the MATERIA PRIMA of the SOVEREIGN PRINCIPLES encapsulated within the LETTERS PATENT to the FEDERATION of
the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA OF 1901.
Why did you celebrate Christmas with a lunch on this 14 DECEMBER, 2016
when are you given to such hypocrisy and depravity of being with no
claim that you can make of Jesus Christ as you are a hypocrite and a
Stick to croissants and coffee--but leave the things which are mine to
DOLF: “Who was it who wrote those ignorant comments in relation to my attendance here yesterday?”
TRIPLE F (#666) CAFE: “I want you to leave my business now or I will
call the police.”
[Showed a contemptuous disdain by a backhanded flicking refuse away
gesture towards these documents as if it was sh@t]
DOLF (paraphrase): “That is fine by me.
Because whether it is yourself, POLLYANNAR BIG PICTURE PHOTOGRAPHER or
REDD CATT CAFE, I will neither keep the company with fascist whores nor
to transact any business with those who come here to this country so as
to show such disrespect for the SOVEREIGN PRINCIPLES of our COMMONWEALTH.
You cannot thereby claim any piety, specially Christian identity (but
not limited to), your house is now desolate and anyone who does business
with you will now similarly lose their prospect of eternity.”
CHORUS OF PATRONS @ TRIPLE F (#666) CAFE: “Out!”
DOLF: “Go back to where you came from."
DATE OF SERVICE @ 1345 HOURS ON 29 DECEMBER 2016 OF COMPLAINT AS TO
INFERRED RACIAL HATRED BY PUBLIC EXCORIATION DIRECTED AS ANTI-SEMITISM
(#509 - YAHAD as JEWISH / CHRISTIANS) AND AGAINST DUTCH HERITAGE AND
THEIR FORTHRIGHT MANNER OF SPEECH BEING IMPLICIT TO CULTURAL IDENTITY
AGAINST JINGOISM CAROL @ TRIPLE FFF (#666) CAFE: "In Australia, a lieutenant-governor is a standing appointment for a deputy governor of a state, who acts in place of the governor if the governor is unable, unavailable or unwilling to act.
In Victoria, there is a lieutenant-governor and an administrator. The
Chief Justice of Victoria is ex officio the administrator, unless he or
she is the lieutenant-governor, in which case, the next most senior
judge is the administrator. The lieutenant-governor takes on the responsibilities of the governor when that post is vacant or when the governor is out of the State or unable to act. The administrator takes
on those duties if both the governor and lieutenant-governor are not
able to act for the above reasons.
The lieutenant-governor is appointed by the governor on the advice of
the Premier of Victoria. Appointment as lieutenant-governor of itself
confers no powers or functions. If there is no governor or if the
governor is unavailable to act for a substantial period, the lieutenant-governor assumes office as administrator and exercises all
the powers and functions of a governor. If expecting to be unavailable
for a short period only, the governor with the consent of the premier, usually commissions the lieutenant-governor to act as deputy governor, performing some or all of the powers and functions of the governor.
Marilyn Warren, the CHIEF JUSTICE OF VICTORIA (ie. in 1934 the *CHIEF* *JUSTICE* had *FASCIST* *AFFILIATIONS*), is the current
As of 28 MARCH 2014, the Commonwealth deputies of the Governor-General
are Dame MARIE BASHIR AD CVO and ALEX CHERNOV AC QC. Further deputies
are appointed to exercise narrow powers, such as convening executive meetings, opening parliament and swearing in new politicians.
There is no lieutenant-governor.
State governors hold a dormant commission to act as Administrator of the Commonwealth should the governor-general die, resign, or be absent
overseas or on leave. By convention, the longest-serving state governor
acts as administrator.
Presently, the longest-serving state governor is ALEX CHERNOV, who has
been Governor of Victoria since 8 APRIL 2011. The second longest-serving state governor is PAUL DE JERSEY, who has been Governor of Queensland
since 29 JULY 2014.
On 1 August 2015, PAUL DE JERSEY assumed the administration of the
Government of the Commonwealth of Australia."
TRIPLE F (#666) CAFE @ 1213 HOURS: “You might like to visit the police station as we have reported you and I will take out an intervention
order against you if you persist in this manner.”
DOLF: “Since my actions and statements @ 0813 HOURS of this day have
been entirely in compliance with NATURE, LAW, ORDER and the JUSTICE of
this LAND as SOVEREIGN PRINCIPLES which are defined by a Natural /
Common Law statement as to the existence of an egalitarian right and
that was in accord with such mathematical theoretical noumenon as Intellectual Property of mine, and with specific regard to the computed CATEGORY OF UNDERSTANDING of #287 given as:
#87 - NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 24 JUNE 2023 as [#1, #50, #1, #3, #20, #1, #10, #1] /
#287 - NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 0813 HOURS as [#1, #50, #1, #3, #20, #1, #10, #1, #200] = anagkaios (G316): 1) necessary; 1a) what one can
not do without, indispensable; 1b) connected by bonds of nature or friendship; 1c) *WHAT* *OUGHT* *ACCORDING* *TO* *THE* *LAW* *OF* *DUTY*
As that which was required as action of mindful compliance given by you
in the circumstances AS MY LAWFUL demand granted in the prudent and reasonable exercise of MY PREROGATIVE AS AUTHORITY made in regard to a submission given to SECTION VIII of the Letters Patent as defining the AUTONOMY OF WILL being the MATERIA PRIMA of the SOVEREIGN PRINCIPLES encapsulated within the LETTERS PATENT to the Federation of the
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA OF 1901.
Should your improper, impertinent, unrepentant and bellicose as
threatening public conduct such as this statement: “I will take out an intervention order against you if you persist in this manner” continue.
I will recommend to the magistrate that a charge of TREASON pursuant to Section 9A of the Crimes Act (1958) Victoria be brought against you and
that all the necessary documents relative to any successful prosecution
to the charge (as referenced here) have been already served on you.
I will bring your fascist conduct therefore into a proper mindfulness of contrition and a duty before the law.
Do you understand that?”
DESPITE A SUMMARY OF THE INITIATING SITUATION WITH CAROL @ TRIPLE F
(#666) CAFE OCCURRING ON 15 DECEMBER 2016 OF A BIGOTED ANTI-SEMITISM AND PREJUDICE TOWARDS AN IMPLICIT AND PROUD DUTCH IDENTITY BY JINGOISTIC ICONOCLASM AGAINST QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT AS FIRST PRINCIPLES
TO ANY JUSTIFIED EXISTENCE WITHIN STATES OF THE COMMONWEALTH WAS MADE ON
23 DECEMBER 2016.
I was on 2 JANUARY, 2017 served with an APPLICATION AND SUMMONS FOR AN INTERVENTION ORDER in CASE NUMBER: G13559325 dated 30 DECEMBER 2016 so
as present myself by 0930 HOURS on 11 JANUARY, 2017 before the Sale Magistrate's Court in the determination of the matter and any DECISION
to make a final determination is the issuing of a Personal Safety Intervention Order.
The material details of that Application are as follows: "The RESPONDENT
is a customer at my cafe, [whom] I have known of the RESPONDENT for
[more than] 2 months. On 23 DECEMBER 2016 the RESPONDENT came into my
cafe to deliver me a copy of an indictment he said [that] he was
[lawfully] up[on] me. The RESPONDENT became enraged when I told him to
leave the premises and threw his papers in the bin. I was actually
serving elderly customers at the time and they were very upset as were
On 22 DECEMBER 2016 when I was on my way to an appointment, the
RESPONDENT yelled abuse at me on the street, the RESPONDENT has done the
same before and has left a couple of ranting messages on my business
page on Facebook.
I think the RESPONDENT will continue these behaviours as I have looked
into his Facebook [page] and Googled him, [and found in my view that] he
is a religious fanatic.
I reported the first incident [occurring on 15 DECEMBER, 2016] to [the] police.
I don't wish to engage in mediation as the RESPONDENT is very volatile
in his anger and for his religious beliefs, the RESPONDENT me.
I require an order as the RESPONDENT has entered my place of work twice,
the RESPONDENT is scaring my staff, my customers and myself. Even
approaching me [with]in the street.
I feel the RESPONDENT will persist until he feels he is proven right, it
is religious based.
THE POLICE REFERRED ME TO THE COURT [SO AS] TO MAKE THIS APPLICATION."
#364 - QUESTION OF #430 - LAW APPEAL DERIVED FROM THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT
WHICH IS AGAINST THE UNIQUE INTERSECTION WITHIN NOUMENON AS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
The #364 - QUESTION of #430 - LAW appeal derived from the Biblical
account which is against the unique intersection within NOUMENON as INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY related to the technologizing of QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT dated 29 OCTOBER 1900 given the earlier date 21 AUGUST
1770 then relates to CAPTAIN COOK's diary entry of DUTCH PRIOR DISCOVERY
and POSSESSION having a LEGAL PRECEDENT applicable to PAPAL BULL dated
.jackNote@zen: 4, row: 4, col: 8, nous: 55 [DATE: 2023.8.21, SUPER: #328
/ #23 - Constancy of Guiding Concepts, Emptiness & Non-Existence;
I-Ching: H18 - Ills to Be Cured, Arresting Decay, Correcting, Work on
what has been spoiled (decay), Decaying, Branch; Tetra: 26 - ENDEAVOUR
(WU), EGO: #430 / #55 - Abstruse Mysterious Signs; I-Ching: H22 -
Elegance, Grace, Adorning, Luxuriance; Tetra: 54 - UNITY (K'UN)]
The date 13 FEBRUARY 962 was a relevant event involving a signing of the DIPLOMA OTTONIANUM (also called the PACTUM OTTONIANUM, PRIVILEGIUM
OTTONIANUM or simply OTTONIANUM) as an agreement between POPE JOHN XII
and OTTO I, King of Germany and Italy. It confirmed the earlier DONATION
OF PEPIN dated 756, granting control of the Papal States to the Popes, regularizing Papal elections, and clarifying the relationship between
the Popes AND the Holy Roman EMPERORS.
.jackNote@zen: 4, row: 9, col: 3, nous: 59 [DATE: 2023.2.13, SUPER: #352
/ #31 - Military Stratagem, Quelling War; I-Ching: H32 - Perseverance, Endurance, Duration, Constancy; Tetra: 51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG), EGO:
#460 / #59 - A Sensible Guide, Hold Fast To Reason; I-Ching: H42 -
Increase, Augmenting; Tetra: 13 - INCREASE (TSENG)]
Whereas the LATERAN TREATY (Italian: PATTI LATERANENSI; Latin: PACTA LATERANENSIA) were later agreements signed on 11 FEBRUARY 1929 and
effective 7 JUNE 1929, made between the Kingdom of Italy under KING
VICTOR EMMANUEL III of Italy and the HOLY SEE under POPE PIUS XI to
settle the long-standing Roman Question.
It therefore has a consequence upon PAPAL BULL *INTER* *CAETERA* issued
by POPE ALEXANDER VI on 4 MAY 1493, those earlier relating to the
KNIGHTS TEMPLAR with the last *VOX* *IN* *EXCELSO* dated 22 MARCH 1312
and the more recent PAPAL BULL *MISERICORDIAE* *VULTUS* for INDICTION OF
THE EXTRAORDINARY JUBILEE OF MERCY (ANNOUNCED: #449 - 13 MARCH 2015 / DECLARED: 2ND EASTER SUNDAY ON 11 APRIL 2015) occurring from #355 - 8 DECEMBER 2015 (Feast of the Immaculate Conception) to #355 - 20 NOVEMBER 2016.
To thereby substantiate a reasonable claim of an endemic IRISH CATHOLIC
basis for RACIAL / RELIGIOUS HATRED, WAR CRIMES and TREASON.
Despite its celebrated acknowledgement of the need to reject *TERRA* *NULLIUS* as the legal foundation of Australia, in Mabo v Queensland (No
2)  HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1 (‘Mabo’) the Australian High Court used a sleight-of-hand to tackle this paradox. First, native title was defined as a fragile and incomplete title. Rather than recognising and creating a robust legal version of the interests and responsibilities
created by customary law to authorise the complex relationships among
people and between people and their country (native title), the High
Court constructed native title as a highly circumscribed recognition
space – a limited set of artefacts of customary law and aboriginal title that the British (and subsequently Australian) common law was able and obliged to recognise as ‘property’. Having reduced the robust and
ancient jurisdictions of the Dreaming to the fragility of ‘native
title’, the High Court introduced a slippery notion of ‘co-existence’.
This notion was not an acknowledgement of the co-existence of Indigenous
and non-Indigenous interests in particular places, but an abstract conceptualisation of legal interests in property that could exist
together. It was this abstract conceptualisation which was used to
address the persistent presence of Aboriginal people in cultural
landscapes that were now possessed by new owners whose title was
predicated on the imaginary of *TERRA* *NULLIUS* [as a SLANDER against
Dutch first discovery and possession acknowledged by COOK on 21 AUGUST
1770 in compliance with the legal precedent PAPAL BULL INTER CAETERA
issued by POPE ALEXANDER VI on 4 MAY 1493 and VAN DIEMAN'S LAND named
after a DUTCH GOVERNOR GENERAL and therefore subject to rule of law; cf: Macquarie Law Journal 49, 2006]
The DUTCH SOVEREIGN during a STATE VISIT on 2 NOVEMBER 2016, stated:
"During this state visit, we will be celebrating the close bonds our countries have forged over the centuries. But perhaps even more
important are the opportunities we see ahead of us. The Kingdom of the Netherlands attaches great value to our close partnership with Australia because we believe that, as like-minded nations, we stand stronger
together. Together we can find better answers to the challenges of our
Today, at a time when the international legal order is under pressure,
it is all the more important that we stand together to defend its
principles. Australia and the Netherlands are natural allies as
promoters of peace, justice and development, and we often work side by
side. Take our partnership a few years ago in Uruzgan in Afghanistan.
And our current efforts in the fight against terrorism in Syria and Iraq.
You have also given personal expression to the bond between our
countries. You were in Eindhoven on that dark day in JULY 2014, when the first flights arrived carrying the remains of the victims of the downing
of MH17. For my wife and me, commemorating the Australian victims this morning at the memorial was a very moving experience. We greatly
appreciate Australia's outstanding cooperation in the investigation of
the full facts, so that those responsible can be called to account, and justice can be done.
Just as, for us, Australia is a window onto the Asia-Pacific region, we
want to be your window onto Europe.
As I said, Eendracht - Concord - was the name of the ship in which Dirk Hartog sailed to Australia in 1616 [and such presence at Cape
Inscription, Shark Bay, Western Australia is recorded on a pewter dish
which translates as: 'arrived here on 25 OCTOBER 1616']. And today, 400
years later, 'concord' is a fitting flag for us to sail under as we go forward into the future.
Thank you for the warmth and friendship you always show us in Australia."
WILLEM DE VLAMINGH found the 1616 DIRK HARTOG pewter plate at Cape Inscription, Shark Bay on 4 FEBRUARY 1697. Stress from flattening dinner bowls to create the plates predisposed them to corrode and crack. The
HARTOG text was copied and a new inscription recording the date of the discovery by DE VLAMINGH and his crew was stamped with letter punches
into the metal. The recovered HARTOG plate was taken to Batavia in Java
and is exhibited at the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. The DE VLAMINGH plate
was attached to a wooden post with rectangular iron-planking nails. As
the iron corroded the run-off caused differential corrosion reactions
that help form the complex patina. The fallen plate was discovered by
HAMELIN in 1801 and attached to a new post. It was recovered by LOUIS DE FREYCINET in 1818 and eventually taken to Paris where it remained until
given by the French people to the Australian government after World War II.
We provide herewith a document associated to our TRIPARTITE NUMBER theoretical NOUMENON / GODHEAD as my sole INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY relevant
to GNOSIS EX MACHINA as a nomenclature for consciousness instantiation
and the neuraxis (ie. From Ancient Greek νεῦρον (neûron) [TELOS: #675 -
*CAPABLE*; MALE: #309; FEME: #270; ONTIC: #370; DEME: #525] + άξονας (áxonas) [TELOS: #382 - *BIND*; MALE: #209; FEME: #220, ONTIC: #583,
DEME: #544] as an axis that forms part of the interchange basis of situational grounding for action) possibility for obtaining exclusive
PATENTS to intelligent books and knowledge spheres as requisite for a knowledge / sapient economy: "DEVISING THE IDEA TEMPLATE TO QUEEN
VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT AND HYPOTHESIS ON ONTIC VARIANCE BY
TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION WITHOUT IDEOLOGICAL OR PARTISAN IMPETUS"
ON THAT BASIS CAROL @ TRIPLE F (#666) CAFE's APPLICATION AND SUMMONS FOR
AN INTERVENTION ORDER in CASE NUMBER: G13559325 dated 30 DECEMBER 2016
OUGHT TO HAVE NO LOCUS STANDI WITHIN ANY COURT AS JURISDICTION WITHIN
THE COMMONWEALTH SINCE IT IS AN ICONOCLASM AGAINST FIRST PRINCIPLES
being the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY which as metakosemeo is constitutionally the product of a CAESAROPAPISM intrinsic to QUEEN
VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT and the ontology of the human being (ie.
|Location:||Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK|
|Nodes:||16 (2 / 14)|