Australia: Harley Robert Williamson

Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean, ArthurWankspittle

Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Australia: Harley Robert Williamson

Post by Hilfskreuzer Möwe »

And another Australian, Harley-Robert: Williamson. Harley has been the subject of a number of court actions, and like so many of his kindred, his entry into the court system was via the humble traffic ticket dated February 17, 2008, as administered via photoradar:
Harley received a fine of $75 and was ordered to pay $114.20 in court costs. He then sought leave to appeal, which was refused. His grounds?
Bias against me by Mr Malone, refused to accept my defence.
Justice Mazza observed that this is not a basis to establish bias:
With respect to Mr Williamson this ground is misconceived. Judicial bias is not established merely by a refusal to accept a party's submission or defence.
Other grounds were also argued in supporting materials. Harley wanted a trial by jury, when in fact none was available under law: para. 16. The Road Traffic Act is not contrary to “United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”: para. 20. You can’t secede from Australia: para. 39. The police are not a corporation because they have an Australian Business Number – those numbers are necessary for any entity involved in collection of tax: paras. 43-45.

And it seems that the trial magistrate had become a little testy, which Harley said was a basis for bias: paras. 26-36.
31 His Honour attempted during the making of submissions to understand them and to point out the flaws in those submissions. He did so often in unambiguous language, calling some of Mr Williamson's submissions 'complete nonsense' and 'complete and utter nonsense'. In my opinion his Honour was entitled to indicate his views to Mr Williamson in firm terms.

32 There were a few occasions where the learned magistrate was sarcastic towards Mr Williamson. For example (ts 9), when Mr Williamson sought a trial by jury his Honour asked, 'Where are they, your peers, at the moment? Will you look up the Yellow Pages for your peers?' When Mr Williamson made the submission that he had seceded from Australia, his Honour said, 'You're Prince Leonard of Toodyay'.

33 With respect to his Honour, sarcasm is inconsistent with the judicial obligation to be respectful to litigants and should be avoided. However, I do not think that its use here indicated bias.

34 I accept that at times, but by no means all of the time, his Honour displayed less than perfect courtesy, patience and tolerance. For example, out of exasperation, I suspect, his Honour made the inappropriate comment shortly before sentencing Mr Williamson, 'I feel like giving you life imprisonment'.
But that was rejected.

A little later on we’ll have some evidence on just to what degree Harley can be an annoying jerk.

The next reported case is:
This decision illustrates how it’s the little things thank can break two friends apart. The facts are recited at paras. 7-13. Harley had a friend, Charles Street, who came to live with Harley. The deal was Street would provide various services in exchange for room and board. Into this idyllic arrangement enters the proverbial apple, a bottle of bourbon belonging to Harley. Street drank it without permission. Harley told him to get out, and demanded $600 – or he’d keep and sell Street’s Toyota Hilux. (What’s that anyways?) Harley had paperwork to enforce this “lien”. Street ended up in rehab and in the meantime, Harley sold his car.

At trial the magistrate agreed that Harley had no basis to seize the Toyota and found him guilty of car theft.

On appeal Harley advances a variety of arguments. One is that the theft was by a corporate entity, not him: para. 6. Nope:
22 The appellant raised another argument which sought to draw some distinction between the natural person who was before the court and some other legal entity that utilised the name Harley Robert Williamson . He referred to this other entity as a 'corporate being' or an 'admiralty vessel'. These arguments were manifestly absurd and should not be dignified with detailed consideration. The magistrate came to the inevitable conclusion that the appellant was a natural person and was not capable of being a registered corporation. There was simply no basis for suggesting that the appellant was not liable for his acts because he was acting in some other capacity.
His signature is somehow invalid: paras. 26-27. And then there’s a weird allegation that Harley was immune because of his ever mutable name:
19 At the commencement of the trial, leave was granted to the prosecution to amend the name on the prosecution notice from Harley Robert Williamson to Tumeke Robbie Maxwell. In support of this change, the prosecution tendered a number of documents which established that the appellant had been born on 18 September 1946 and had been registered with the name Robert Paul Bailey. He changed his name by licence on 30 November 2000 to Tumeke Robbie Maxwell. He subsequently changed his name again on 13 January 2006 to Harley Robert Williamson. A further licence document was produced showing that he changed his name back to Tumeke Robbie Maxwell on 1 May 2007.
Again, nope: “There can be no doubt on the evidence that they are one and the same person.”: para. 21.

And the court did not accept Harley’s argument that he had set up his own nation-state, the “Principality of Pentecost”: para. 24.

Appeal denied.

Harley’s latest adventure is documented in another 2012 decision:
This judgment is rather short, and it appears that this is an appeal of a foreclosure. Harley had decided to stiff a bank. There were 86 grounds of appeal. The court decided to not both replying to them individually, but a few were quoted:
1. The Writs Number CIV 2361 that were issued out of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. They were served on the two Corporate Entities known as HARLEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON and TANGIWAI JACQUI MAXWELL Birth Certificate Numbers 4160/1946 and 1956112453 Respectively.

2. The Affiant Almando TORRE completed a sworn affidavit that He served the two Defendants known as Harley-Robert:Williamson© and Tangiwai-Jacqui:Maxwell©.

3. The two living moral,sentient, beings known as Harley-Robert:Williamson© and Tangiwai-Jacqui:Maxwell©. Were not the parties that were served personally.

4. The writs were laid on and served upon the two Birth Certificates. By the process server and were not given to the two Moral, Sentient, Beings aforementioned in Para 3.

….

11. The land was Seceded from the Commonwealth of Australia, by proclamation on the 14th of May 2006. Although not recognised as a Country by the Federal Government. It is however a legal Entity that is recognised by the Government, and having certain rights established in law. Having the same rights as the Hutt River Province.

12. Such as its right to coin its own money, print postage stamps, Promulgate it's own laws and issue Passports, lawfully. These rights have been recognised by the Federal Department of Territories and The Commissioner of Taxation.

13. The Principality of Pentecost as a lawful entity has Secured, as Bailee/Bailor, by filing of UCC1 Financing Statements The land as per Certificate of Title as well as the dwellings on the aforementioned land.



28. The Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd is a signatory to American law such as the Patriot Act II. The Uniform Commercial Code is incorporated in the Patriot Act II. The Plaintiff clearly operates under American law and the Uniform Commercial Code in order to be able to trade commercially on an international basis.

75. The Defendants Birth Certificates are Admiralty Contracts which allow the Defendants the benefits allowed them to be paid to them via the Ceste Qui Trust.

...

78. The Secured Party's are Alien and are not members of the public but are Free Man and Woman, who are moral, freewill, sentient beings, of flesh and blood made in the image of God.
No, that didn’t work. At trial Harley had explained his position:
… he claimed in oral submissions that he had paid moneys due to the respondent because he had 'done everything I possibly could in lawfully issuing money' and that '[j]ust because I use banking principles that not everybody knows about doesn't mean to say that I haven't paid' and that 'I'm entitled to act as a bank' (ts 6 - 7).
Appeal denied. A subsequent procedural decision does not add anything particularly interesting.

So, I had mentioned Harley is a handful. Have a look for yourself!
It seems that while Harley was yelling away one of his cohorts tried to grab a police officer’s pistol, while the other was found carrying a Taser: http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/- ... -in-court/

Frankly, I'm a little alarmed that court security would not have detected a weapon like that. No reports I could find on charges flowing from this courtroom incident.

Oh, the Principality of Pentecost? It’s a grand place!
Last, it appears Harley had set himself up as a guru: http://theprincipalityofpentecost.yolasite.com/

The Kingdom of the Great Southland! It sounds impressive:
Welcome to THE KINGDOM OF THE GREAT SOUTH LAND tm. There are many sites regarding the Great South land. Only this site is the Real Mc Coy. What the others just theorize about this is the REAL Thing. Yes it is a Real Country consisting of Australia, Antarctica and New Zealand. It holds the Australian Constitution Lawfully and is recognized in International Law by the IMF under the Uniform Commercial Code. The name of 'THE GREAT SOUTH LAND' is Trademarked under Australian law and only Southlanders by right have exclusive use of the Name.
Whether this website is incomplete or mothballed is not obvious; everything but the ‘landing’ page is locked out. A pity, one could just imagine the fine literature and audio-visual entertainment Harley might have provided.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]
Chados
Pirates Mate
Pirates Mate
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:10 am
Location: Somewhere...over the Rainbow

Re: Australia: Harley Robert Williamson

Post by Chados »

I'll give him this: He's certainly the "real McCoy." :roll:
CraigThoms691
Tourist to Quatloosia
Tourist to Quatloosia
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:15 am

Re: Australia: Harley Robert Williamson

Post by CraigThoms691 »

The appeal against the $75 fine was dismissed with costs of $3,000 awarded against the unsuccessful appelant.

"6 I was told this morning of the amount of time spent by Ms Paterson in preparation of the appeal and her hourly rate. In my opinion, an amount of $3,000 is fair and reasonable. For these reasons, I order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed in the sum of $3,000."

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/view ... es/wa/WASC


Also, the court-room incident involving the gun-grabbing and the tazer resulted in convictions and is referred to in this appeal against those convictions:

"The appellant was charged with obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. After a trial stretching over four days, he was convicted and given a conditional release order. "

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/view ... es/wa/WASC

"4 The first day's hearing was unexceptional, but things began to get weird on the second day. When the appellant asked for an adjournment, which was refused by the magistrate, the following interchanged occurred:

MR HEDLEY: Sir, Can I ask you a very simple question, sir? Is this West Australian state part of the Commonwealth of Australia?
HIS HONOUR: It's not for me to give you legal advice, Mr Hedley. That's a matter for you to sort out."

5 Matters got stranger after the next witness was called and the prosecution sought to tender a certificate of title of the Kalgoorlie court building showing the ownership of the building.

...

14 The appellant's argument in essence is that no Act of Parliament since 1919 has been valid. His argument seems to turn on the instructions by Her Majesty to which I have referred. The appellant's misunderstanding of fundamental Constitutional principles is no doubt behind this submission. However, it is wrong. The State has ample power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Western Australia. The State is a legal entity under the Constitution of the State and acknowledged under the Commonwealth Constitution, s 106.

15 The magistrate was quite correct in his appreciation of the law and the appellant would have done well to have followed his judgment instead of lodging these grounds of appeal. Although having heard the appellant, it is clear that he holds these misguided views very strongly. The fact that a person is unrepresented is a misfortune, not a privilege. However, the law does not change because a selfrepresented litigant has limited understanding or knowledge.

16 First, as the Court of Appeal has abundantly made clear in Shaw v Jim McGinty [2006] WASCA 231; Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260; Glew Technologies v Department of Planning and Infrastructure [2007] WASCA 289, and as single Judges have made clear in Krysiak v Hodgson [2009] WASC 16 and Williamson v Hodgson [2010] WASC 95, the central tenet of the appellant's proposition is fallacious.

17 Secondly, a magistrate is not required to produce his or her authority. The constitution and jurisdiction of the Court according to law is presumed: See Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) s 34.

18 Thirdly, at no time was the Constitution of the Commonwealth ch III ever engaged in these proceedings. The magistrate was sitting to hear and determine a matter entirely within the legislative competence of the jurisdiction of the State of Western Australia."
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Australia: Harley Robert Williamson

Post by notorial dissent »

Who says Australia doesn't have a sense of humor?????
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Re: Australia: Harley Robert Williamson

Post by grixit »

It's good to see such competent followup to Mowe's work.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4