Petition against paying road tolls.
Thus in one of my inspired moments I created the first version of the petition to the Legislative council of the State of Victoria in opposition to road tolls. I then commenced gathering signatures for that petition in the heart of the city of Melbourne, Australia, in Bourke St Mall.
After many weeks I gathered over 2,500 signatures. I took the petition into various localities within the state of Victoria, especially those places that were to be most affected by the yet to be road tolls.

Exemption ticket from paying road tolls.
Early in the period of gathering signatures I created UPMART's first initiative, the Toll Exemption Ticket (TET, a perpetual 34-year exemption from toad tolls) and began distributing this ticket to the general public in return for a donation which ranged from 20c to a few dollars. With the ticket there was the requisite UPMART membership and a legal kit that gave various informations about toad tolls. This was in June of 1998. Over 1500 toll exemption tickets were handed to members.

Government opposition
From what followed it was evident that certain government persons and persons with an interests in toad tolls did not like me issuing 34 year exemption tickets and giving informations to electors as to why toad tolls are not lawful and need not be paid.
In July 1998, various members of the Department of Consumer Affairs came forward to entrap me and to set themselves against me in my political protest against tolls. They falsified their names upon my petition and thereafter brought 9 charges against me. I defended these charges over a long period of time and eventually won my right in court, to issue the Toll Exemption Tickets to the members of UPMART, and for those people to thereafter legally claim their exemption from paying tolls. This was an important victory for our communities but it did not attract any media attention, despite the fact that Mr B***h*r, a reporter from The Age newspaper was present in the court at the time of my victory. A win such as this should have recieved the full national coverage that the Age is capable of providing.

Malcolm McClure CANDIDATE FOR PARLIAMENT  <<
In the last quarter of 1998 I put aside my protest on toad tolls and stood as a candidate in three elections. First I stood as an independant candidate for the Senate (Federal). Second as in independant candiate for the Legislative Council and third as and independant candiate for Legislative Assembly (State of Victoria upper and lower houses respectively).
My platforms for candidacy were Direct Democracy, removal of road tolls and accountability of the elected members of parliament. Direct Democracy is your right to have a direct say and determination in the laws that you are called upon to obey. Road tolls should never be! We pay huge amounts of $$ for our right of passage. And accountability of the elected members of parliament is well overdue.
McClure challenges election in High Court
During this election for the senate I was denied my right to have my name appear on the ballot along with other political parties That is I was denied an above-the-line ballot position. Instead my name appeared below the line where electors had to vote for me specifically by filling in all the 63 squares as opposed to marking a single square in an above the line vote. I was put below the line because I was an independent candidate. Independents are discriminated against in our voting system.
An above-the-line vote by comparison is much easier because it requires that voters put a single vote in one square only, and not 63 squares. Most electors are lazy and 96% of them choose this easy above-the-line vote option. This means that independent candidates such as myself were denied 96% of the vote. This newly introduced legislation was very unfair and undemocratic. Independents should have the same opportunities as other candidates.
I took this discrimination and unfairness to the High Court in the Court of Disputed Returns, paid the requisite $500 fee, and challenged the validity of this legislation. I lost this High Court challenge and for my troubles was charged $39,000 in costs, which according to the act under which I brought the appeal, was not a lawful charge, specially since previous challenges by other persons, met with no costs whatsoever, and the $500 fee that I paid was designated for the costs of the proceeding. Ultimately I contested the $39K costs and they were never paid, and remain not paid. However the hastle I endured in defending my right to not pay the costs may discourge others who may also have solid grounds for challenging the result of an election. If the difficluties of mounting an election challenge (coming to grips with the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, The High Court Rules, Court procedures for the court of Disputed Returns and much more) within 40 days does not deter an election-candidate from challenging an election return then the threat of paying huge court costs may. Independants do not have the financial resources of political parties. The purpose of the $500 fee was to stop financial considerations from detering would be challengers to election returns. This was my first appearance and matter in the High Court of Australia, and one where, because of the considerations of the time table for inducting the then newly elected members, had to necessarily be heard quicly, which meant only a short time to prepare. However, this battle for equal ballot opportunity for independant candidates is not yet over, and I am confident that this form of discrimination will be removed at some future time.

During about February of 1999, after some delay, the toad tolls were introduced into Victoria and were officially opened. I continued my campaign on toad tolls and also on Direct Democracy (one of my main objectives and enduring passions). In many of my presentation at the Step 1 Seminars I tell the story of Direct Democracy in Australia. Attendees hear and see historic events and learn about voting that legally binds the Parliament and that was conducted by me and other volunteers, throughout the state of Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia during 2000 and 2001.
The initiative of Direct Democracy is here now in Australia. The legal work and procedures have been created and trialed. I am now waiting for the community to stand up and live what has been created. Many say they want Direct Democracy, but few are willing to do the work that is required to finally see the vision as a reality in our lives. It's a finished product. Where are the volunteers!!

UPMART VEHICLE REGISTRATION  <<
It became clear that monitoring devices on tolled roads were accessing vehicle registration data that is stored and maintained by certain state statutory corporations. During the time period when my vehicle was registered with the State Corporation of VicRoads, that statutory corporations had my implied consent to only store and use my registration data for purposes of registration alone and for certain other common sense prescribed grounds like using the rego number to find a stolen vehicle, but not for tolling companies and not for releasing to multinational corporations such as Lockheed Martin & Tennex.
My vehicle registration data was being accessed and released without my consent. I was not personally consulted nor informed regarding the accessing of my data and my consent to do so was not given.
I did not at any time enter into a contract with the State of Victoria, or the Crown in Right of the State of Victoria, or the multinational corporations that benefited from payments for the tolled roads or any other entities . My right to enter into contract or not to enter into contract with corporations and entiities is an inalienable human right. This right cannot be assumed by or taken over by the State of Victoria or multinational corporations or any other entity without my consent. To do so is to violate my right of consent, and my right of contract.
Any contract that I am entered into by an entity without my knowledge and expressed consent is void.
Any contract between two entities that joins a natural person as a third party to the contract cannot bind or have legal effect upon the natural person unless that natural person has been consulted and been given constructive knowledge of the details of the contract and has thereafter consented to be bound by the contract. I was not consulted and not given any constructive knowledge regarding the future changes in the use of my data or the proposed changes to the access of my data that was currently being held by the government in the form of vehicle registration data.
The law makers ignore the common law i.e. being that if laws are made that change the conditions and the terms of contract that are in place regarding the storage and use of my data held by government entities, then a duty of care obligation at common law and at tort is with the law makers to write into their laws, provisions that provide for me to be directly and personally informed of those changes and the effect of those changes upon me and to thereafter provide to me the opportunity to consent or not to consent to those changes. I did not consent to the use of my vehicle data being made available to, and used by multnational corporations and other entities.
.
How does one abate the nuisance of such a violation of ones rights? For me it was self evident - investigate the laws and the requirements for vehicle registration, comply with those laws and requirements except where they interfere with my inalienable rights and thereafter create a common law vehicle registration system. Thus the UPMART Common Law Vehicle Registration initiative was born. Members who have registered their vehicles with UPMART are active in their political protest against loss of privacy and many other matters probative to vehicle registration.
Other matters under my consideration regarding vehicle registration include but are not limited to:
1. registration at law should be a once off fee as opposed to the existing annual fee which is a subscription.
2. pursuant to High Court rulings, the States may charge a fee for the care and maintenance of roads, but not for the creation of roads. Such maintenance fees are paid amply and in excess by fuel taxes which constitutes nearly 80c out of the dollar of the entire cost per litre of petrol, of which only 3c is used for roads and infrastructure (see petition on petrol). see S78B, Judiciary Act 1903, Notice of Constitutional Matter in documents page.
3. I require a report for each and every access of any of my personal particulars, specifying who accessed, which particular details were accessed, why those details were accessed, when they were accessed, as well as a certification that any copies of the accessed particulars are appropriately destroyed. I want access to my own data which is otherwise available to any other entity.
4. The monpoly on vehicle registration is unlawful.
5. It is my right to choose the service provider of my choice. I choose to register my vehicle with the Association of UPMART, who provide a once off registration fee that is not a subscription, security for my data, I own my plates and not the state and much more....

UPMART DRIVER LICENCES  <<
During this period of creating the vehicle registration initiative, there was a parking fine that was put upon me without my knowledge and which matter was apparently heard in my absence in a court of the State of Victoria.
Subsequent to that parking fine hearing my Vic-Roads license was cancelled for the non-payment of a parking fine- which I did't know existed. I considered this to be unjust and unfair - I have a right to defend allegations made against me and the state has a duty to notify a person of any pending matter that may affect their interests. Importantly, it was my view that the cancellation of VicRoads license was being used as a means to coerce a payment from me. It was extortion. For this reason, and the reasons of privacy as aforesaid, I no longer wanted to be involved with an entity that cancelled my license without consultation or notification of such impending cancellation, or which made my data available to over 30000 police and other multinational entities without my knowledge, consents, or the provision to me of a report that summarised the particulars of such access.
How does one abate the nuisance of such a violation of ones rights? By simply creating a common law licensing system. I thus investigated the law and the requirements for driver licenses and created a driver license system at common law which met the minimum community standards and best practice procedures of the states.
Other matters under my consideration regarding driver licensing are that licensing should be a once off fee as opposed to a subscription which is an annual fee. Secondly, issues of privacy. My personal data is available to over 30,000 police in Australia and also to foreign multinationals such as Lockheed Martin and Tennex. Thirdly I require a report for each and every access of any of my personal particulars, specifying who accessed, which particular details were accessed, why those details were accessed, when they were accessed, as well as a certification that any copies of the accessed particulars are appropriately destroyed, and access to my own data which is otherwise available to any other entity.

Goods and Services Tax (GST) EXEMPTION KIT  <<
s165.55 of the Goods and services tax act gives permission for the Commissioner of taxation to lie. I don't consent to legislation that condones such iniquity, thus the GST exemption kit was created, and are being used effectively. Also GST: has caused many business to collapse; did not have the consent of the voters; was rejected by the voters and is unlawful pursuant to s55 of the Australian Federal Constitution.

UPMART CLASS ACTION ON POLICE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR FELONIES. (UNTOUCHABLES)  <<
Whilst our members were living their right of passage by driving their vehicles registered at common law, certain of the police took it upon themselves to charge them. We expected to be charged, and we wanted this in order to bring our matter before the courts, however it was not expected that the police would attack and physically assault certain of our members. In response to these assaults certain of our members charged the offending police with, on some incidences, up to 30 charges. The Department of Public Prosecution (DPP) in the State of Victoria intervened on these charges and took over the matters and thereafter withdrew the charges and discontinued the matter! The police were thereby demonstrated to be a class of untouchables who are above and beyond the law. Those of us at UPMART, are of the view that persons committing felonious acts are not above the law and must be brought to justice.
How does one abate the nuisance of such a violation of our right to bring unjust men, to justice?
I considered the options and the laws and processes available to me and created the UPMART Class Action on DPP (UCAD, which is yet to be officially released).

UPMART CLASS ACTION ON REPRESENTATION  <<
Whilst our members were in court on their matters, I sought to represent and/ or otherwise assist those members by speaking for them in court or by sitting next to them at the bar table. With few exceptions, the members were denied my assistance by the person presiding. The member's' right of representation, their right to chose a representative of their choice to assist them or co-represent with them in their matters, was refused. The consequence of this was negative, especially to those persons who needed assistance, eg Jerry, Losalini and others.
How does one abate the nuisance of such a violation of ones rights? I considered the options and created the UPMART Class Action on Representation (UCAR) which is now before the Supreme Court of the State of Victoria and shortly to be before the courts of the other states and of the Commonwealth. (See Right of Representation). If you are an Australian elector, you are invited to join into this action.

UPMART ACTION AGAINST FRIVILROUS AND VEXATIOUS CHARGES OF POLICE  <<
Whilst in a car park in Blackburn, Victoria, with several of our members, I was arrested and arbitrarily detained on the charge of interfering with police in the exercise of their duty. Upon inquiry of the police prosecutor, Mr Fitzpatrick, the grounds for such charges were revealed, namely that I spoke with a police officer whilst he was in the car park in the suburb of Blackburn in the State of Victoria. I was incredulous as to the nature of the charges and inquired again as to whether or not this was a joke. The prosecutor was upset that I was laughing. I said to the prosecutor "do you mean that you locked me up, and arrested me, simply because I spoke with a policeman?" He said "yes, by speaking to a police officer you interfered with his duty." I wonder if this was a case of a vexatious act by police against me just because of who I am and what I do?
Thus I am now before the court on charges of interfering with a police officer in the exercise of his duty because I politely spoke with him and asked of him if I may assist him!!. What is our community coming to when persons are locked up and charged because they have politely talked with a policeman! This incident was recorded on video and witnessed by over 18 persons. We have to let this problem go for now, because our plates are full with other issues, but we're sure to catch up with it in the future!

UPMART CLASS ACTION AGAINST FLUORIDATION AND
UPMART ACTIONS FOR PRISONER RIGHTS  <<
Whilst I was locked up and detained in remand by the aforesaid officers, for two days, I was denied fluoride-free water and food that was fit for human consumption. I was also denied the dietary supplementations to which I was accustomed. Other rights that were denied to me include, but are not limited to denial of visitor rights, denial of my right to make a phone call, denial of access to my legal documents. Thus for two days I drank nothing, ate nothing save for 5 green tinged oranges, was not allowed to contact anyone and vice versa, and was locked in a cell with a person who was up 24 hours of the day and had severe psychological problems whist he was on heavy medication. In fact, the choice to put me in such a cell was deliberate, and was verbalised as such by the officer in charge.
Even when fluoride-free spring water was presented to the jail for me to drink by my friends, this water was denied to me. Thus upon my body, being presented before the court on following Monday, whilst dehydrated, hungry and sleep deprived, was called upon by my will to perform the task of self defence in this matter. Whilst in court, I was denied the right to access the charges that were brought against me, and friends who were in the court with me, were denied the right to hand documents to me that were probative to my matter.
Fluoridation is medication. By not being allowed the water of my choice I am being given the choice of dehydration or of medication against my will!.
How does one abate the nuisance of such violations of ones rights? I considered the options and the laws and processes available to me and have created the UPMART Class Action against Fluoridation and shortly to be further class actions and very exciting UPMART initiatives to handle the many violations to prisoners of their human rights. One of these initiatives is an action to bring before the High Court of Australia the matter of natural persons who are in goal as a consequence of not signing a bail condition re matters that only attract a fine.
Our members are pioneering the violations of human rights of prisoners and the abuse of the Bail Acts of the States.

From my experience it is self evident that by standing steadfastly for an inalienable human right, ( in this case my right of passage) that many other violations of human rights are quickly experienced and thereafter exposed. Living my right of passage and right of privacy have exposed all the violations of rights as aforesaid and many other rights, as read in this web-site. I call this the web of human rights.
By living to the max an inalienable human right that is challenged by authorities within our system, other challenged rights are also exposed. At UPMART our members are busting the gremlins against human rights.

The story of UPMART will easily fill many volumes, but for the purposes of this page, the aforesaid introduction will suffice for now as a quick intro.
 <<