There are many advantages to marrying under common law.
It is said that a Common Law Marriage does not involve a ceremony. This is incorrect. It’s well known that couples who live together for a certain amount of time are considered legally married under common law. the couple can also have a wedding ceremony under common law. They can have a traditional wedding with all the trimmings. And this includes:
Nothing needs to be lost by opting for a common law wedding as opposed to statute law. It is still a traditional wedding that is a personal contract with added benefits. Why wouldn’t it be? After all they’re not marrying the State.
What happens also is that the romance is not lost in a legal process. It is a personal affair and there would be still a proposal etc. A common law marriage is more intimate and personal than a statute law marriage.
There is no contract with the State they sign so couples are not bound by the State and by the Marriage Act 1961. Contracting with the State becomes very expensive if things go wrong and they decide to end the marriage. Nearly everyone knows someone who’s had a messy divorce. That doesn’t happen under a common law marriage unless the couple involved want it to be and that’s not very likely. Only lawyers win when couples split and divorce under statute law. Everyone knows that.
A common law marriage is different because you are in control and not lawyers. Tradition is that he couple discuss their wishes with family and fritend before the marriage takes place. They agree on what they want to happen if they did decide to separate some time down the track. Then their agreement becomes a matter of honour and the relatives will do what is best for all concern. That is a much better arrangement and it is a more civilized way of ending a marriage if they part company. Common law weddings are coming back into vogue in mainstream Australia. It is not a privilege that is reserved only for certain community groups. If it was once it is not any more.
The association of UPMART in partnership with the church of SOCIA will marry couples at common law. This service is also at no cost to the couple getting married. A stipulation though, is that the couple to be married must first attend an UCLC to be eligible for the marriage service. This stipulation is so that they become aware of how to obtain full benefit by marrying at common law. Couples also may help design their marriage certificate. Designing your own common law marriage certificate is a personal affair as opposed what you get when marrying under statute law.
We would like to know your thoughts or experiences on the topic and commenting is encouraged. What is your opinion on a wedding ceremony that is under common law?
To find out more visit: www.upmart.org
Well, I see the white-ants are out working away to smear the meaning, beauty and name of common law. I can see community’s opinion of common law could easily become confused on what is common law. Statute law lawyers, supported by journalists, will go out of their way and relish an opportunity to take advantage of community’s ignorance on common law or what it’s true meaning may be. By not understanding we could become vulnerable and we could believe a distorted and untrue interpretation of common law.
An indication of attempted denigration of common law meaning is surfacing, and is evident in an article found recently. The Herald-Sun newspaper, Durham USA, has an article posted by John McCann. It implies a negative impression of common law. He reported on a conviction for robbery and suggests that it’s supported by common law. Is he serious? A robbery supported by law!
If not already confused we would be after reading his article. Also it has bad spelling, bad grammar and is an overall incoherent mixture of events that does not relate to each other and especially not to common law.
A misleading article deceives the public.
The article is sick deluded and doesn’t making sense. How could it pass editors for publication? The article is void of facts and of a storyline. It consists of words thrown together to associate negativity with common law. Certainly, I will agree theft and murder are violations of common law but he doesn’t imply that at all. Instead he suggests the opposite. He has thrown common law in with claims of, felony of speeding (what’s that?) racially motivated robbery attacks, drugs, manufacturing, possession. What the….!?
The article should be a grave concern to us all. To know that we are regarded so ignorant as not to ask questions on such an article. To tarnish something so pure and so lovely as common law and associate it with crime and corruption is in itself, a crime. It’s a crime against humanity and against community.
I was not able to make sense of the article at all so I decided to contact John, as the author and ask him a few questions and I wanted to find out his knowledge on common law.
In my first email I wrote:
I found your article regarding common-law robberies in Durham. Could you tell me, what is a common law robbery?” Jill
John replied very quickly to my email, which was great!
John wrote: “I checked with Durham’s top public defender, who defined common-law robbery as, ‘Unlawful taking of property from the person of another by violence or intimidation.’
I replied and wrote:
Thank you for the reply.
I’m sorry to say though his definition of common-law robbery doesn’t make sense.
If it doesn’t make sense to the average person then it is not common law.
Common law is the law of the land and it can not be used as a negative such as is in this article, and make any sense.
Do you have a defined definition of common law?” Jill.
John again replied quickly - On 2010-11-17 11:57, John McCann wrote:
“seems to me in regular talk we’re just saying the guys stole stuff from other folks”.
I again replied and wrote: “But only the very ignorant would not question a claim that stealing is supported by common law”.
“Didn’t you write the article, John?”
I’m still waiting for a reply.
Truth is, the majority of the legal profession rely on statute law to make large sums of money. They don’t want us knowing the benefits of common law in the community. They make money by bad laws passed in parliament. Lawyers rely on community fear to uphold bad laws. They in turn fear an interest in common law or any proper understand of it in the community. That’s where the white-ants come in, to make sure they install fear and distract us away from anything good for us.
Politicians don’t want us understanding the powers of common law either. They will do whatever it takes to tarnish an association of anything good with common law. It’s to protect their pockets that a healthy interest in common law is discouraged. Another reason is that common law empowers people. An example is empowerment in the courts. UPMART has a class action on representation in the lower courts.
We should always represent ourselves in most cases.
It’s important we are able to have who we choose to represent us in court. When we are innocent of unfair charges we need to represent ourselves in court. An example is traffic fines. If there is no victim, then there is no crime, under common law. We can win by demonstrating a right to travel on the roads. Also by following our own instincts that we know right from wrong, truth and justice.
We can win by representing ourselves. By doing so we can put the legal system as we know it, on notice. We are able to stand our ground if we fully understand common law rights and human rights and know how to use the knowledge to our advantage in court.
To understand common law and how it’s associated with truth and justice causes a whole new world to be revealed. The so-called legal system of today and especially in our courts is not interested in justice for the innocent.
Statute law lawyers are not interested in truth and justice. They’re not interested simply because there’s no money in it. Instead they use our courts to make loads of money for themselves by defending the guilty and by getting the guilty off conviction.
If this concept is hard to understand I suggest reading Brett Dawson’s book, The Dirty Deeds of the Ratbag Profession. He’s a lawyer and explains the legal system of today in simple to understand language in his book.
A true meaning of Common Law and understanding of many other good laws in the universe is also taught in an UPMART Common Law Course (UCLC) by founder of Upmart, Malcolm McClure. Malcolm also teach that:
Common law is a human law.
Common law is the law of the community for the betterment of the community.
Common law is a good law so everyone wants to obey it. Today, unfortunately we’re only conscious of the bad laws made by legislators of the statute law. Bad laws have caused us to lose a concept of any law being a good law. A good law is one that’s enjoyable to obey and to be part of it’s overall structure.
Definitions of Common Law:
1. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the community. Oxford English Dictionary.
2. The unwritten law derived from the traditional law of England. Ibid OED
3. The unwritten law derived from the traditional law of England and as developed by judicial precedence, interpretation, expansion and modification: Dietrich V R 1992 177 CLR 292
Comments are welcomed. Tell us, what’s your idea of a good law under common law?
For information on UCLC and application form write to: Upmart PO Box 1 Yea, Vic 3717
Malcolm McClure founder of UPMART and tutor of the UCLC
We have included the video (above) so you are aware that we in UPMART do have a couple videos for you to watch on YouTube. There’s not many available as yet but more are coming soon. Also please note: A few people and/or organizations have taken an opportunity to associate their video’s with UPMART on YouTube. They may agree with UPMART principles and like to associate themselves with UPMART, that’s great, however only the videos on YouTube that feature Mr Malcolm McClure in interview are in fact true UPMART videos.
UPMART is very unique. It consists of people who share a common, human rights and community interest. We have people in UPMART who are willing to stand for human rights against adversity. The stand separates UPMART from organizations who’s members are not permitted to take up the UPMART initiatives. Their members still want to be seen as aligned with the association of UPMART. Unfortunately, as I see it, they want to have, a foot in each camp. This is not possible. To truly stand for freedom or for truth as some say, they must follow their conscience by taking up the UPMART initiatives.
Learn more by attending a UCLC It is a great opportunity if it is still on offer by Mr McClure The course provides a grounding for everyday Australians to learn about common law. It teaches the structure of the common law in this country. Also in a UCLC students had an opportunity to learn useful tools of law that they may handle problems commonly faced today, such as speeding fines, and parking fines. Learn many secrets that lawyers do not want you to know.
Malcolm also teaches the skills necessary to handle your own legal processes, for those who are so inclined.
Although there are some personal benefits which can be gained through this learning, it is the wider community interest, in our human rights here in Australia, which is the real reason we get together in UPMART.
Examples of human rights causes in Australia for which we in UPMART stand include:
- our right to be presumed innocent until otherwise proven guilty (refer Common Law foundations);
- our right of passage, ie our right to travel free from unlawful road tolls (refer Federal Constitution);
- our right to be not medicated against our informed consent (eg water fluoridation cause);
There are over 25 such community causes of action which UPMART has championed over 10+ years.
His first foray into law and the ‘freedom initiatives’ was in 1998. This was a quest for Direct Democracy that is still ongoing, to this very day. The initiative, telephone voting, was then, and still remains today, unique and radical. Malcolm presented his ideas to the then Telecom Australia (now Telstra). They locked the project in and made it subject to a confidentially agreement.
Telecom described Malcolm’s usage of the technology as ‘brilliant’ and were especially impressed when he pointed out the financial returns for the facilitator. In 1997 the usage of mass calling telephone facilities for the purpose of discovering the majority will of the electorate within a political jurisdiction was ahead of it’s time. Thus a confidentiality agreement was required by Telecom and ‘unfortunately’ says Malcolm entered into ‘with my consent’ This was not merely a unique use of the current technology for grass roots democracy of the people by the people for the people.
Malcolm Introduced Electronic Voting.
The discovered majority, the will of an informed and educated electorate prevails over governments, or becomes a core consideration in the decisions made by our governments’ However members of parliament did not appear keen to let the majority will prevail over them. The initiative was directed in a different direction by Telstra and other service providers and today finds itself used by Television, radio and newspaper polls so you can express your right to have a say in the ‘soap of your choice’. Not what Malcolm had envisioned.
At the time Malcolm McClure also developed alternate grass roots legislation for Direct Democracy using traditional paper ballots. He totally revamped the traditional modality of the humble ballot and turned voting into a fully auditable process whereby electoral officers could not discard or replace or alter ballots. Malcolm introduced numbered ballots that were in triplicate whereby electors receive a copy of the vote that they cast and ballots were completed in pen and not pencils.
Once again these notions whilst simple on the surface, had not previously been done in any jurisdiction in the world, not even Switzerland. I have volunteered as a polling official in Western Australia in 2008 in one of his Referenda, and was impressed at the professional conduct of the voting booth, the ease of vote facilitation and the attention to detail and accuracy.
Malcolm then put his work to paper and drafted unique legislation named the ‘Direct Democracy Act 1998 . In late 1998 he took his invention and Direct Democracy to the polls as a candidate in three elections in Victoria. Firstly as a Senate Candidate and shortly thereafter as a candidate for Melbourne North Province and then Frankston East District. Three elections in about as many months is a hard haul for anyone, even with political and financial backing, but especially difficult for a self-funded independent. Malcolm was unlike any other candidate especially in the light of his hand drafted legislation ready to be put before parliament as a private members bill.
The 1998 election for the senate raises particular concerns for Malcolm because of relatively new laws that stopped independent candidates from having access to the ‘above the line vote‘ which Malcolm says is “…a blatant discrimination against independent candidates and ultra vires our Australian Constitution” The new laws effectively denied to independents 96% of the vote, since in order to vote for a particular independent, the voter must complete the entire ballot “below the line” and mark all the boxes, which is an option only done by about 4% of voters. The much simple and quicker above the line vote is given to political parties and sitting independent Members of Parliament effectively denying to independents 96% of the vote.
to an independent incumbent senator whilst he himself was denied such a vote as an effective discrimination against independents, that was blatantly unfair and against the principles of fair democracy as laid down by the founding fathers or our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. Malcolm was not the only one to see this new law as unfair and undemocratic.
On this matter of discrimination against independents and his concerns that independents were denied representation in the media, he filed his first appearance in the High Court of Australia in the matter M119 of 1998 and joined by over 380 appeasers who likewise objected, interestingly says Malcolm “The constitution provides for independents only, and not for political parties, yet it is political parties that are given preferences in the Electoral Act above individuals.”
If Malcolm were to run the same case again, he says he has learned much in 10 years and would do it differently now. For example he says: “I would take the position that our constitution was valid, and that the Federal Parliament is obligated to obey its provision.”
Whilst not elected and not winning his court case, he kept on with his vision of Direct Democracy, where “We the people have a say in the laws we are called upon to obey.”
In May 2000 Malcolm launched Australia’s first ever Electors Referendum, of the people by the people for the people on the matters of GST and Road Tolls. This incredible work saw the polling of over 10000 electors in the State of Victoria within over 80 localities in 21 of Victoria’s 22 provinces. The results conclusively proved that the majority will was against GST and against paying tolls for the use of roads. The referendum was taken interstate to New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia making it the first ever National peoples referendum. Senator Len Harris was impressed by Malcolm’s invention and visited the polling booth on two separate occasions in Victoria and later voted in the polling booth when the referendum commenced in Queensland at Cairns.
The concurrence of numerous initiatives saw Malcolm often working up to 3 or 4 days and nights without sleep. Indeed his typical working week from 1998 to 2005 was 130 to 140 hours. He recalls those days of exceptional difficulties when in 1999 whilst in the middle of an election campaign he was, on the whim of his landlord, literally evicted from his rental home in Murrumbeena and found himself literally on the street. Though the law of the day and his lease stated 180 days notice for an unspecified eviction, he was only given 90 days.
Whilst in the middle of the campaign he could not do anything other than take the matter to the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the judge ruled that 180 days notice as specified in the lease contract is void and is automatically updated to 90 days notice with the new legislation. “The terms of the original contact ought stand, notwithstanding subsequent changes to legislation. For example old cars still remain on the road, notwithstanding that they would fail current safety standards.” The sting of this ruling remained as an example to Malcolm of what he calls “rulings that defy common law and commercial codes of conduct”
So what event was it that started Malcolm on his new journey? What caused him to set aside his path in physics and chemistry and a successful and lucrative tutoring college that he owned and built from scratch? Why did he embrace the arduous and thankless pursuit of human rights and better laws? Simply says Malcolm, “It was the issue of paying road tolls that stirred in my gut and motivated my will of action.
The plan by the government to cause us to pay for roads already fully paid for was wrong, especially when monies were already in the government coffers sufficient to meet the full cost of the proposed new infrastructure. Notwithstanding, tolls discriminate against the poor and unfairly target businesses and individuals who live along side or who must use tolled roads. We already pay huge petrol taxes of which less than 6% is used for roads. If we truly have a user pay system then use those taxes for roads, and not make us pay and pay again. I have over 19 solid grounds as to why tolls are unlawful and ought not be paid.”
In June and July 1998 Malcolm McClure pioneered Australia’s first ever Claim of Rights and issued over 1500 Toll Exemption Tickets to members of his well known association, UPMART.
In my interview with him in March 2010, I asked Malcolm why he let go his profitable and personally enriching career for community causes. He stated, “A career is usually about money and doing some activity to get money to get what you want for self or family. But what use is money to self or family without freedom? What use is money when political and economic systems fall, and civil unrest follows? In those days of unrest in the revolution of China, Russia, Bosnia and Argentina or world wars, could money guarantee the safety and well being of all the rich and famous?
Though many secured themselves to safety with their wealth, many did not. Wealth, or power for that matter, is not a guarantee for safety or for rights. But more importantly, the ambition for wealth and power is insatiable in humans, who are mostly greedy and selfish and don’t know when enough is enough. This ambition blinds conscience and duty, and blinkers perceptions and actions. The wealthy and institutions with money and power generally do not action their responsibility to others of their community or to nature and life in order to stop the perils and woes. Preventative action and principles are set aside by the vast majority of humans who favour the use of their time, action and consciousness for the pursuit of ambition, convenience, ignorance, comforts or a myriad of excused for non-action.
But what has become of our rights when, in days to come,we are vaccinated or micro chipped without consent by force or coercion of threats of menace? What of the toxic chem-trails being intentionally sprayed upon us on a daily basis from military and commercial jets? How can money protect against poisoning such as this? What of our forced medication against our consent by way of Fluoridation? What of the many who are imprisoned before trial or conviction? Money cannot protect against all these woes, and the list of woes is ever growing. Yet the majority, even when they have knowledge of a woe, continue day to day without taking action.
Non-action by the majority or by those who know of these woes, is supported by the majority or those who know for these woes that are against their own rights and their community. I am not like the majority. I am not like those who know and who do nothing. This is self evident. I act because my conscience and sense of duty compels me to act.
Many say they will act when they have money or the children have left home or their business is successful, but that day is in the future, that day may never come, and when that day comes, it is always too late. The old growth forests are gone, more species are extinct, millions of lives and families are damaged. If I had set aside action with the notion to act when I have money, or to act when all is right with me in the world with family and friends, then this freedom movement in Australia would be something other than what it is today and those lives I have saved or helped would not have been saved or helped. It is perhaps unfortunate for me personally that I have a conscience and a sense of right and wrong and that my will is to set myself and my needs aside for the greater good of life, liberty and our community. But this is the nature of true service. I want for more men and women to do as I do.
I hope that by my example, they might be inspired to stand for their tights and for their community against the woes that affect us all. I hope they be inspired to do some service to life, liberty and community and know in their gut and their heart that their service shall affect the reality of our future in some way, Yes, I hope that humans can embrace and won their power and responsibility as co-authors of our future.” Malcolm McClure has gone on to create many initiatives for freedom. Only a small fraction of Malcolm’s work can be highlighted in this introduction, but here is a Chronology of several of the initiatives of Malcolm McClure and some other interesting facts that I thought would be of interest. Numerous other actions, such as UCAFFOR(for old growth forests,) UBUGMO (on GMO,) CODAS (on Courts duty to abide by s78B) have not been mentioned here.
Launched in June, but put on ice for want of volunteer administrators. This political kit was different from the legal kit because it does not require or need for people to be prepared to go to court. The Tolls Political Kit was re launched on October 2004 in Queensland for Jerry Kobylski and thereafter in Victoria and New South Wales, where it remains current. The intent of the political kit is to use political means to remove Road Tolls from an entire State or Territory, as opposed to the legal kit which is intended to handle a toll fine after it is received. In the long term the Political kit is more powerful and long lasting, though the legal kit is often preferred as individuals or businesses seeking to handle the fines they have received. These days Malcolm favours the Political Kit, since invariably with the Legal Kit there is always questions and a never ending flow of people needing help in its use and for their paperwork processes.
Malcolm stood on a platform of Direct Democracy and No Tolls. Also he strongly advocated open and accountable government.
His draft legislation for Direct Democracy was also presented in his candidacy portfolio. He achieved good results and attained over 4% of the vote in the province of Melbourne North on a limited budget of only hundreds of dollars. In the senate election, 16% of those who knew of McClure’s candidacy chose to vote for him, as evidenced by the proportion of the number of primary votes received verses the number of flyers handed out to the public.
The Court case against him by consumer affairs was concluded in the County Court of Victoria. Presiding judge Keogh found in favour of McClure who accordingly won his right to issue Toll Exemption Tickets. The historic win was not reported by The Age newspaper, though a reporter from The Age appeared in court on the day when the verdict was handed down. It was in this matter that Malcolm served up his famous challenge to the Magistrate in the lower court, “Whom do you serve” which has since been used by hundreds of people in Australia.
This referendum was on GST and Road Tolls and was conducted in 7 provinces in the State of Victoria, and proved that :electors were against GST and Road Tolls.” This referendum also launched Malcolm’s People’s Mandate, the first ever mandate of the people to parliament that was in triplicate and where electors were diligently and professionally marked off the electoral roll.
Following research into the constitution since 2998 Malcolm began presenting to the general public. First evening seminars were often over 5 hours. It became evident that this amount of information is best unpacked over a weekend workshop, with an introductory evening seminar. From 2002 to present day Malcolm has presented over 193 introductory seminars and 100 weekend workshops. To do all these seminars and workshops he has made over 365 air flights around Australia.
Malcolm developed and released the first ever GST Exemption Kit for individuals and another kit for businesses as a remedy to make a stand against the bad law of GST. As a side consequence of making a stand against the GST, individuals and business users of the kits have saved tens of thousands of dollars to literally millions of dollars. The saving of money was not the primary intent and purpose for these GST kits, though this side consequence is valued by users.
Malcolm McClure developed and released Australia’s first system for registration of vehiclesat Common Law as a stand against the many problems of the current vehicle registration system. The first of those to embrace and use this system have now been driving pursuant to their rights for about 9 years.
An historic work that arguably set in motion the debate for human rights legislation in Australia.
Malcolm developed and released Australia’s first system for driving licensing at Common Law as a stand against the many problems of the current driver licensing system. The first of those to embrace and use this system have now been licensed pursuant to their rights for about 9 years.
Malcolm greatly assists the residents of Russell Island in their flight against a corrupt Redland Shire Council in their group action.
Malcolm developed and released a Common Law Marriage Kit. In August of that year, Malcolm read a traditional marriage certificate under the Marriage Act 1961 that his friend was to shortly sign. He then investigated the Act and was shocked at the legal implications of this traditional marriage contract which would affect the rights of both bride and groom and their children. His friend, like so many wedded couples under Statute Law, had not read the legislation nor had any idea of its implications. Malcolm presented what he had discovered and asked his friend who likewise was shocked. He like many other couples simply trusted the government that it would be doing no harm to their and their children’s rights. Malcolm then did the work and developed a superior alternative pursuant to appropriate laws which the newly wedding couple signed. Malcolm then went on to perfect the kit which has been used by many couples since Malcolm himself has personally been the master of ceremonies in over 7 marriages.
by DPP. Police in all States of our Commonwealth who commit crimes are protected from prosecution by the Department of public Prosecution (DPP.) If in the course of their work, zealous police officers break your arm or shoot and kill you and you bring a criminal charge against the responsible police officer then the DPP intervenes and takes over the matter and then discontinues the matter, effectively making the police immune from prosecution. This intervention to protect police officers has happened on numerous occasions to both members of the general public and UPMART. In response UPMART commenced it’s first stand against this unconscionable intervention in 2004, and the fight continues to this day.
Malcolm began the first Class Action on the Right Of Representation, which was an action to facilitate your right to appoint the man or woman of your choice to present for you in your matters in any court proceeding, even if that person appointed is not a legal practitioner within the meaning of the Statute Laws of the various States of the Commonwealth of Australia. In the case that a man or woman is legally competent, the choice of whether or not representation is permitted is up to the presiding judge or magistrate. The 7 billion dollar monopoly on Legal Representation currently held by barristers and solicitors is challenged in this action, which was adjourned sine die in 2005 in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Malcolm says “Whether or not this action returns to a final showdown in court is reliant upon the support of the constituents of our communities. The legal work and grounds for the matters are complete and ready. Challenging the monopoly will be difficult without funding and support of the community which is yet to prove that it wants the basic right and freedom.”
The Statement of Claim of this matter is an amazing read, with talented wording, excerpts of which have used by many men and women for their own matters.
The imprisonment of Losalini Rainima in jail, without even a trial and without any conviction for nearly 12 months caused Malcolm to file an action in the High Court of Australia, Sydney Registry. Even a cursory reading of the documents as filed reveals this work to be profound and pioneering and a huge step forward for basic Human Rights in Australia. Two days after filing in the High Court, Malcolm filed for Habeas Corpus for Losalini who appeared in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and her release was immediately ordered.
Malcolm says, the journey of UMABA was extra-ordinarily difficult, and could not have been done without the work and contributions of Zenaan Harkness, and the support of UPMART members.
Following the failure of a well known organization existing for the protection of men and women forced against their will to ingest psychiatric drugs or forced to have convulsive shock therapy Malcolm produced a range of successful notices to protect victims of psychiatric abuse. Notices were also made for the protection of those who do not want to be vaccinated against their will.
This Class Action was to stop high-rise development in Scarborough. Following requests from beaten and de-spirited constituents of the City of Stirling who had fought for many years to stop the passage of …………………………………………………………………………………….more to come.
Amendment 458, Malcolm commenced process on behalf of the community. The number of constituents at meetings for this action had fallen from over 500 to about 10, and the future was not looking good. At the last hour Malcolm successfully filed an injunction in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, and following initial preliminary hearings, effectively stopped the high rise development until 2010. A remarkable achievement in and of itself. Malcolm was able to achieve more success at the last hour with a handful of constituents, them had ever been achieved in the preceding years with hundreds of activists led by a committee.
Following a request from a member to set-off court costs and the failures of the advocates ‘commercial redemption’ to successfully transact a promissory note before a superior court, Malcolm had cause to research and develop his version. During an auspicious court proceeding his promissory note was on trial following its previous presentment as payment for thousands of dollars worth of court costs. In the proceeding Malcolm was in the court where he put to the court some important verbal challenges which caused a victory for his note. Since that day he has used the note for several worthy members to set off varying ‘debts’ that range from tens of thousands of dollars in council rates to over $millions of mortgage debts on properties. Malcolm guards closely the secrets of his promissory note successes, since in his words, “Only those deserve freedom who are willing to defend it.”
Malcolm finished the development of his long awaited Common Law Birth Certificate and released it to needy patrons of UPMART, who diligently put it to good use.
2008: Fluoridation, In April Malcolm attended a meeting in Warrnambool, and put on the table several solutions for handling the forced medication of constituents. This meeting was the beginning of a slow but steady process for stopping fluoridation of the community water supplies within Victoria. Referendum on Fluoridation was an action in Geelong, Warrnambool and Mildura. In Mildura 10% of eligible voters cast ballots of whom 98% declared their will against fluoridation. As a consequence Malcolm says “The majority will of the constituents of Mildura has been discovered and proven to be against fluoridation. Legal entitlement is now created for the constituents of Mildura to lawfully oppose fluoridation of their water supply.”
Malcolm lives near the centre of the Black Saturday fires. Following the fires and the death of certain of his friends and acquaintances in the fires, Malcolm and other UPMART and SOCIA Church members dedicated a year of service to the Community that had suffered and lost so much. Many thought that he has disappeared from the scene of human rights, but the reality was he was as busy as usual.
Your comment, possible on any initiatives by M McClure’s that’s listed here would be very welcomed.