Return to UPMART INDEX;

UPMART Overview.
Q1. Who are you? What is UPMART?
We are an association of electors entitled to vote for a member of the Senate and for a member of the legislative council of the state in which we are living.
Q2. Why do you act, why don't you just leave things the way they are?
Our members have seen and experienced the erosion of basic human rights in their respective federal, state and local communities. We understand that this erosion has occurred with the consent of our community by its acquiescence to bad statute laws.
The spirit of a community that consents or acquiesces to bad statute laws is sick.
There is abundant evidence to show that the spirit of our community is sick.
We are healers of the spirit of our community. We do not consent or acquiesce to statute law that contributes to the erosion of basic human rights. <i<

Q3 But some of your members have been locked up for standing for human rights. Is this true?
Yes, about 20 of our 4000+ members have been locked up as a result of standing for human rights. Being locked up is a choice of conscience that a few of us have made. (See Losalini RAINIMA bail matter) It is easier for me to be locked up than to go against what I know to be wrong. I myself have been arrested and locked up over 10 times, for various periods of time.
Our community would be with great integrity and honour if its members stood by principles of truth, liberty and justice. If our community lived by good and virtuous principles, it would mean a very quick end to certain of the violations of our human rights in Australia.
Many within our Association have endured for our human-rights, and don't feel badly about what we have endured. There are very few associations in Australia, and even the world, with members who have principles and the courage and capacity of their convictions to the degree that they are willing to be locked up for those principles. The many within our community who do not live the principles of human rights cannot understand our attitude.
They, who do not have courage to stand, see our being locked up as a failure and a defeat. But conversely they who knowingly sell out their rights for temporary security or comforts or for fear of loss or for other reasons are, by default, aiding and abetting the iniquity and the bad laws. Being locked up is not something that we want to endure. Being locked up is not our choice. We are victims of a system gone mad, where corrupt men without principles, conscience and discernment have positions of power and responsibility.<i<

Losalini RAINIMA.
Q4 But one of your members was locked up in jail from March 2005 continuously for nearly a year to March 2006, just because she didn't sign a bail condition. Isn't this madness? All she had to do was sign a piece of paper and she would have been set free? Even the other prisoners did not understand why she did not sign. She could have been out at any time! Her matter was only a traffic matter, that you can't be locked up for, so how is it she was locked up? She has been punished in a way that is more severe than if she were found guilty. How can this be?"

You are referring to Losalini RAINIMA. Her matter is not that simple.
Losalini is standing on a principle that is challenging the use of the Bail Act of NSW to imprison humans before trial and before conviction.
Losalini's matter is a watershed, it is a critical point and a moment of truth for Australia's legal and law enforcement systems. The principle Losalini stands for threatens the use of sections of the Bail Acts of all the states in the Commonwealth of Australia. When she wins, and when her principle is upheld, then it means that persons who are accused of summary offences, where there are no victims, cannot be locked up before trial and before conviction.
The police in all the states have bail making powers.
To use these powers the police take three steps. <i<
First the allegation. The police make an allegation or a charge against you, a natural person. There are two types of charges the police can make against you. There are summary charges and indictable charges.
Summary charges such as littering, driving an un-registered vehicle or a parking fine, are usually dealt with by way of a fine. Losalini was charged with minor summary charges. You don't have to turn up to court for minor summary charges because you simply get the fine in the mail, but if you want to you can choose to defend the summary charge by going to court. This is where the contradictions begin to appear in the system, because Losalini's matter is only a summary charge, for which she doesn't have to turn up to court and, it is not a jail offence, so how can she be in jail for nearly 12 months!
Indictable charges such as theft or assault, may be dealt with by way of prison or a fine. They are serious charges, and you have to turn up to court for indictable charges. (Losalini is not charged with indictable charges, but she has been in jail longer than a serious indictable charge. Not even criminals get 12 months for theft or assault, and we know of court matters where people who have committed murder only get 3 months! So what is going on here! )

Any charges made against you by the police don't have to make sense or even be right at law. The police can just make a charge if they feel like it because they have the discretionary power to do this. You probably know someone who has had silly charges or wrong charges made against them by the police. <i<

Second, the summons. The police then summons you to turn up to court to answer to their allegations. They serve the summons on you by post or in person. Sometimes the police might summons you to go to court on a minor summary charge, but even if they do this, you still do not have to turn up to court. Losalini was summonsed to go to court on a minor summary charge. <i<

Third, the bail. This is where it gets interesting. If the police want, they can now put you on bail. Bail is usually a promise (undertaking) you make to the police or the court that you will appear in the court. The police, if they feel like doing so, can ask you to agree to make extra promises on top of the promise to turn up to court. The police want you to keep the extra promises you make until the time of the hearing of their allegations against you. The extra promises are called bail undertakings, or bail conditions. The extra promises the police want from you, for example, might be an action they want you to do or not to do. The extra promises they ask you to make will cause you to act or behave as if you are guilty. The extra promises cause you to voluntarily punish yourself before the trial. If the trial is many months away, they want you to volunteer to punish yourself for many months until the hearing of the matter in court.
When the matter is heard in court, and if you are then found innocent (or guilty), then there is no compensation for the time you voluntarily punished yourself. There is no compensation because you volunteered to enter into the bail. You volunteered to punish yourself. You volunteered to make those extra promises.
If you sign the bail undertaking and agree to punish yourself you lose.
But what happens if you don't want to make those extra promises because you say you are innocent and because you have an answer (a defence)? What happens if you don't won't want to act as if you are guilty and don't want to deny to yourself your rights?
What happens if the police ask you to make extra-promises and you refuse to make them?
Then the police will tell you, that
"if you don't sign the bail undertaking (make the extra-promises) then I will lock you up until the trial."

If you don't sign the bail undertaking and don't agree to punish yourself you still lose.
Whether you sign or don't sign you lose.
You now have to choose to either sign or not sign. You have to choose which way you want to lose. You have to weigh up your options and your principles. You have to decide between signing and staying out of jail or not signing and going to jail. What would you choose?

You then say in reply "I am innocent until proven guilty. How can I be locked up before trial?".
Police say, "We don't care what you say because we have the power to set a bail condition. We have the power to lock you up until the trial under the Bail Act."

You then say "but you are asking me to volunteer to make extra promises under the threat and coercion of being jailed. If I don't agree to make those promises, then you are going to lock me up. That is wrong! That is making a promise under a threat. That is coercion into contract. This is wrong. A promise made under threat of jail is not valid!"

Police say "I don't care what you think, I have the power to do this. The Bail Act says I can do this. I have the power and the authority to set the conditions of your bail. I am permitted by the Bail Act to cause you to enter into bail under threat. If you don't enter into bail I am going to lock you up until the trial!
You say "But I'm only charged with a minor matter which is only a fine. There is no jail for my matter!. How can you lock me up when there is no jail for my matter?"

Police say "Because the Bail Act says I can. Don't blame me, I am just obeying the law!"
You say "But you don't have to make the extra bail conditions. You don't have to make me make those extra promises"
The police say "That is true, I have the choice to not make bail conditions, but I have to do my job. Look I'm not saying I like doing this, but I have to do my job. If I don't, then I don't get promoted. You know how it is."
You say "But that's the Nuremberg defence. You know that what you are doing is wrong. Just because the law says so, you don't have to do it. You are guilty if you do this."
The police say "Yes, I may be guilty, but I'm doing my job, and I'm going to get my pension. The magistrates and the judges do the same think (thing) as me. They even have more bail powers than me. Look, if you don't like it, then take it up with your politicians. Are you going to sign or not?"

You say "But if I sign, I am doing something wrong. I am signing under threat and I am volunteering to punish myself before conviction. How can people sign under threat? How can the police and the magistrates be allowed to make people sign under threat? Surely people don't sign. Signing under threat is a violation of my rights!"

Police say "People always sign, because they want to be out of jail more than they want their rights. You will sign too, or do you think you are going to be the first not to sign?"

You say "You mean everyone has signed even when they know it is wrong?"

Police say "One or two here and there didn't sign, but they soon give up after an hour or two or a weekend in the cells!"

You say "But this is only to break my will, and to make me like a sheep. The community won't allow this!"

Police say "The community are sheep. Everyone signs eventually. You either sign, and agree to the conditions or you get locked up. This is the way it is. Are you going to sign or not!?"

Losalini say "No, I am not going to sign!"
Police say to Losalini "Then you get locked up. There is no room for principles in our community. You will sign and we will win!"

This is what happened to Losalini.
The police put conditions on her being free and at liberty until her court case.
She was charged with a minor traffic matter of driving an unregistered vehicle.
The charge is a summary charge, which means in this case, that it is dealt with by way of a fine. The unregistered vehicle charge is not a jail offence.
She disputes the charge and maintains her innocence. She says her vehicle is registered. The police say it is not. This dispute is clearly a matter for the court, and, at common law, the balance of consideration is in Losalini's favour and she must be assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. <i<

The police asked her to agree to not drive a motor vehicle until after the matter was heard in court. Losalini said she cannot agree to this because:
1. she would be volunteering herself to be punished before the hearing. She needs to drive to earn an income and for her enjoyment of life and day to day needs.
2. she is innocent until proven guilty and, "No fines or forfeitures before conviction" William I, Mary Sess, Bill of Rights 1688, which is law in Australia. We do have a Bill of Rights!!
3. she says that the bail agreement could not be binding because it would be made under a threat of imprisonment, and an agreement or promise made under threat is not valid.
4. she says it is her right to not enter into a contract or a promise if she does not want to.
The police say:
The Bail Act does not prohibit bail conditions to be signed under threat of punishment. In effect the Bail-Act provides for the police or the courts to extract promises under threat. We at UPMART are in action to change this problem.
Many of our members have stood upon their principles and have been jailed because they have not signed or entered into a promise against their will. E.g. Jerry KOBYLSKI, Alison COOK, Jose van ROOY, Malcolm McCLURE and others. Interesting is the fact that all these members were not jailed because of their political protest or because of the initiative of UPMART, but because of the Bail Act and the powers of the police to lock people up in that Act if they don't sign themselves into Bail. They got locked up because they stood for a principle! <i<

Q5 So Losalini was jailed because of driving an un-registered vehicle?
NO. I thought I made this clear. Losalini was not in jail because of the allegation of driving an unregistered vehicle. The matter of the allegation had not even been heard, so how can she have been in jail because of it? In fact it does not matter what she was charged with. She was jailed because the courts and the police used a combination of their discretionary powers and Bail Act to put her in jail. Here is another example to make the matter clearer for you.

Martin X was walking in Acland street, St Kilda, at 4pm in Feb 2004. He reached into his pocket and pulled out his handkerchief. As he pulled out his handkerchief a receipt and chewing gum wrapping paper came out with it and fell to the ground. A policeman saw the papers fall to the ground and approached Martin and said to him "Are you aware you just littered the ground" Martin replied "What do you mean?" "See those papers, are they yours?" Martin looked at the papers and saw that one of them was his receipt and the other his chewing gum wrapper that he only just finished. Martin replied "Yes." The policeman then said "I am charging you with littering. What is your name?" Martin replied "But that's ridiculous, that was an accident."
police "I am charging you with littering. What is your name?"
Martin replied "I am not going to give you my name, because that's a stupid charge, I've already picked up the papers, so there's nothing I've done wrong"
Police "You only picked up the papers after I pointed out you had discarded them. What is your name?"
Martin replied "No, I am not going to tell you". The policeman then said "I am placing you under arrest for refusing to give your name. " Martin protested but was taken down to the police station at St Kilda where he was held until his identity was verified after he gave his name. The police then said "I am putting you on bail to appear in the Magistrates Court at Melbourne. You must undertake to not litter again in that period" Martin replied "What do you mean litter again, I have not littered at all, littering is deliberate, this was not deliberate" The police said "You have been placed on bail and the conditions of your release are that you do not litter again" Martin said "Remove the words again and I will sign" "The policeman said "I've already set the bail conditions and they won't be changed" Martin said "But if I sign then, with those words I am admitting I am guilty" Police "Are you going to sign or not?" Martin "No I cannot sign" Police "Then I am putting you in remand pending your trial" Martin was then locked up over the weekend and brought before a magistrate on the Monday. The matter was set for hearing two months from that time. Martin was kept in remand for two months. When the matter was heard the charge against him was dismissed by the magistrate. Martin was set free, but he spent 2 months in jail because he would not sign. From observing other similar matters, it is likely that if he had signed, he would have been found guilty. <i<

Q6 I see, so really this could happen to anyone, and it doesn't matter if you're guilty or not guilty, the police can make an allegation and charge you and set bail conditions and if you don't agree to sign they can lock you up!
Yes, now you've got it. Registration was not the reason for Losalini being locked up. Whilst UPMART vehicle registration is not yet recognised by the states or the police, this was not the reason for being locked up.

Q7 But how did she get locked up in the first instance?
Losalini was driving her vehicle and the police spotted her car and by looking at their database noted that the vehicle did not appear to be registered with the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW. The police then later came to her home in Sydenham, Sydney, Australia, knocked on the door and arrested her. They then took her down to the local police station, and then asked her to volunteer to sign herself into the bail conditions. She did not consent to volunteering to punish herself and thus she was locked up and continues to remain locked up to this day. Losalini maintains that her vehicle was registered at the time when the police said it was not. <i<

Q8. But what happened next in Losalini's case. Is there anything you could do about the bail conditions?
We challenged the Bail Conditions. Losalini asked for them to be removed. She even appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales where the Bail conditions were reviewed. The Supreme Court backed the use of the Bail Act by the police and the Local courts, and confirmed that the Bail conditions that were set, have been set according to the Bail Act. The Supreme Court was not willing to over-rule the Bail Act. Losalini (Lo) was locked up on 28 March 2005, and Is now released because of our use of prerogative Writ of Habeas Corpus.. It is disappointing that the appeal to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, saw the judge support the legislation. <i<

Q9 What now?
Losalini is now in process to take the matter further for a claim of compensation..

Q10 What about her family, how did they cope? Eleven and a half months without their mum was a long time?
This was the hardest part of the whole matter. Losalini was the main bread winner for their family, and the family is now suffering financially. Though she and her family have endured much for our rights, her children and her husband still stand behind her. Of course they missed her. They were able to see her on the weekends. Financially the pressure was on, and she has yet to recover. The family did not have the means to cover their costs (mortgage, food, electricity etc). Our community loves our sporting heroes and heroines, but what of the champions for our rights and liberties? Does our community love and support them too? Now we will see if the community has the will to support our champions for human rights. Champions like Losalini do what others in our community cannot do. You can have 100 000 people turn up to a football match, but how many people turned up for Losalini when she went to court? How many people made the journey to visit her in jail, or wrote her a letter of support or have joined into a class action to change the barbaric Bail Act? We all have a responsibility to help our champions, instead of just taking their labours and their sufferings for granted. It takes great courage of convictions, endurance of convictions and faith for Losalini to do what she is doing. Sometimes I don't think our community deserves champions such as Losalini. <i<

Q11 What can we do?
You can write to her, or better still, come and see her in person at an UPMART Step 1 seminar, in Sydney. See the Diary of Events for details. Then, after statisfying yourself as to the importance of her cause, help her in that cause.

She and the other members of UPMART would like to know that you do care. She needs to know that you have an interest in what she is doing for us. You cannot imagine what she has had to endure and continues to endure due to those 11.5 months. What would you endure for your rights? Are you innocent until proven guilty? Should you be forced to make a promise under threat of imprisonment? Do you think these rights are worth standing for? Did you know that they subjected her to more than one psychological examination, because the court didn't understand why she wouldn't sign the bail conditions. The psychiatric report came back that the family believed some "strange notion that they have rights" and "something about common law"

We have recieved a few calls from persons wanting to donate money to help Losalini and her family. This is much appreciated. She has lost a lot of money in her stand for human rights. I need to ask her permission before we can reveal to you just how much she has lost. To the best of our limited resources we at UPMART have been able to help her financially in a small way by paying for some of her home expenses including gas, electricity, rates, and some mortgage repayments. If you want to help her financially please contact UPMART at one of our Australian contact numbers to make arrangements.

Q12 But I don't get how she could have done this. How can someone go for so long in jail on a principle. I mean, it must be very hard for her. Most people would sign the bail, even if what they were signing was wrong. Most people would sign, just so they would stay out of jail?

Know that Losalini is one in a million. She knows that at some point the line must be drawn. If our rights are not stood for now, then the abuse of those rights will only get worse.
Many would have given up by now. But she stands firm. The sacrifice she has made is like no other. Financially they have suffered, emotionally they have suffered.

To understand her a little more, included is an overview of Losalini.

At UPMART we know that the many inherit their freedoms because of the few within their community who stand for their rights.
We do not want our community to trade human rights for false and illusionary benefits, because upon such trading history has shown that the community loses both rights and benefits.
We seek those members of our community who have the courage of their convictions and who seek to embrace and uphold their inalienable human rights for themselves and for their children. To truly understand the significance of those many human rights issues at the foundation of our causes, you would need to stand in those rights in the face of those who seek to deny them to you.
Our members demonstrate the courage of their convictions. Such courage of convictions is not common among members of a community who are pre-occupied and distracted with personal ambitions like money, power and material gains. Of what use is wealth without freedom? Standing for and living your rights is not easy. The many want these rights handed to them. The few realise that the rights and freedoms that we have today were defended and fought for by those who came before us. From the earlier works and sacrifices of others we have inherited many blessings, a garden of rights, acknowledged or implied at law. We have taken for granted these blessings and we have squandered or not maintained the garden of rights that we have inherited. <i<

Q13 Apart from this stand on the Bail Act, UPMART has other initiatives such as Common Law Vehicle Registration. Are UPMART members doing these initiatives to save money?
No! Money is not the issue. Violations of our rights is the issue. There are benefits (including some financial benefits) that members receive for standing for their rights. However the receipt of these benefits is not the primary reason for standing. Yes we only pay a one off registration fee that lasts forever. Yes our members do get GST exemption for the goods and services they purchase at the point of sale, but these benefits are incidental to our primary motive.

Q14 "Then why do you stand if it is not for money?"
I thought I made this clear. We stand for our human rights. You may understand our philosophy with a simple affirmation that we like to say in the first person.

"I am an Honourable Member of the Elector’s’ Parliaments of Australia.
I am Honourable because:
I have knowledge of good and evil, AND I choose to do good, not evil;
I have a conscience, and my spirit is good;
I uphold and stand for truth, liberty and justice;
I oppose iniquity;
I care for our community, and I want happiness for all within it;
I assist in the creation of the Members Parliaments every time I vote;
I have many ways I may exercise my powers and my authority, one of which is Referendum. Referendum binds the Parliament;
I exercise my powers and my authority wisely;"

Q15"Yes but isn't that a bit idealistic. Nobody cares about community these days. It's all about money and the individual." <i<

We, the voters, the Honourable Members of the Elector's' Parliaments of Australia, (HoMEsPA) have responsibility both individually and collectively to protect and maintain our freedoms and our rights. It is our responsibility to visualize then create the best possible vision and future for our community. It is our responsibility to maintain a healthy parliamentary and judicial system. It is our responsibility to take affirmative action and stand for righteousness. Until we individually and collectively own our responsibilities and accordingly take affirmative action, our community will continue to be subject to the will and the visions of individuals of bad spirit. Until we own and act upon our responsibilities, our community will continue to harbour and foster the cancer of selfish politicians and greedy multinationals with agendas that are contrary to the greatest good and will of our community. A healthy community has healthy antibodies to neutralize these cancerous growths.
Our community is presently not healthy. It is we, the Honourable Members, that are the lifeblood of our political systems. We have free will. Use it or loose it. Exercise your free will or be subject to the will of others who seek to enslave you. We are the judge of what is right and wrong, so stand in the light of truth and have the courage to sing along. We have responsibility both individually and collectively to take affirmative action against repugnant law. It is up to us to tell politicians what they must do and how they must do it. We have the right of veto. Pursuant to Natural Law, Divine Law, Common Law, the Coronation Oaths Act, the Crimes Act 1914 and many other statutes in force, we are legally obligated to take action against and veto any and all repugnant law. Claim and use your rights. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. When will you individually take a stand for truth, liberty and justice? If not now, When? How little we risk, compared to those who served in wars past. The time for action is now. Your way is easy. Your way has been paved. The solutions are manifest. There are no more excuses. You are Honourable Members. Act accordingly! Fulfil your duty. Shirk apathy and complacency and live your rights! <i<

Q16. But we have to know our rights before we can live them. How can people find out about their rights?
There are many ways to find out about your rights. At UPMART we have a Common Law Course that is unique, and unlike any other. You're welcome to attend.

Q17 But there must be other solutions. What about the Universal Commercial Code, and the laws of contract. It's a maritime court, and we don't have to give consent!
The Universal Commercial Code book is very good material, but it has not helped people when faced with a policeman who says "sign this undertaking or be locked up". In this situation we are dealing with a violation of human rights sanctioned by the rule of the gun. Your choice to enter or not enter into a promise or a contract is violated because you are forced to choose one of two evils, the default of which is being jailed. <i<

Q18 What about Mary Elizabeth Croft?
Mary acknowledges that she got a lot of her material from the Universal Commercial Code book. Once again, these materials are good for their intended purpose, but not for dealing with human rights violations. We also teach the laws regarding contract and the power of consent, and raise the importance of these subjects when dealing with day to day affairs, the courts and the police. We know about contracts, and choose not to enter into contract with, for example, the statutory corporations that keep a register of vehicles or driver licences. The law of contract, however, won't help you when faced with a policeman who does not speak or know that language. Such policemen are on a different wavelength.
We know about consent, and the power of your consent, or your non-consent when entering or not entering into contract, with statutory corporations, courts, banks, and the police.
At UPMART, however, we are unique. We are tackling the source of the violations of our human rights. Many of our members have tried different approaches. I told them of the limitations of those approaches, but it is their choice to try them. For example, some of our members said to me "You must get onto David Win Millers work, that's the solution." I replied that David's work won't fix the problem of a policeman who, metaphorically, has got a gun to your head and says "sign the undertaking or be locked up" There is no reason in a conflict such as this. Yes you can be witty, and speak in the "noun" language, but we train our members to do this anyway. We, at UPMART, have been speaking in the noun before ever David came along. Yes, I have learned from his work, but such work has not brought about a change to the root of the problems, or brought victory in court to any of our members. You can become a master of the rules of contract and the power of consent, but such mastery will not help you when faced with the exercise of the discretionary power of a policeman who says "sign or be locked up". <i<

Q19 What about Copyrighting your name? Lots of people are spending $700 to copyright their name.
Yes, and I have not heard or seen anyone in Australia who has made a successful claim for breach of their copyright, or who has averted being charged by a policeman. Word is out, the police have been informed to ignore the Copyright of name material, but still people keep spending their money. Once again, this material won't help you when you are living your rights in the face of a policeman who says "I am charging you with littering, and am entering you into bail (contract/promise) to not litter again until the hearing. Sign the bail or be locked up."
If you really want a copyright of name, we have two for you to choose from. One that is free which uses Bible codified common law, and another that is only $50 which is only available to our members by special application, which is more powerful than the $700 material that is currently being sold. But we don't push our sophisticated copyright, because we know the solution is not with red herrings such as copyright of name. At best the copyright of name is a band-aid scheme to try to stop the symptoms, but it does not fix the problems. Don't you agree that it would be better to live in a community where you didn't need to rely on a copyright of name to protect yourself from your own government or from multinationals? I watched hundreds spend $700 or more or less, on their Copyright of name, in the hope that it would be some sort of magic document. People amuse me as they reach to the bottom of the barrel for anything other than having to actually live their rights in the face of inconvenience or prison. I guess it's the human condition, where humans will pay money rather than be responsible by taking action to target the source of the problem. They think their problem can be fixed or solved by paying money. It's like the person who spends big money on barristers and solicitors in the hope that they will fix the problem for you. They do this because they are not confident to present their matter themselves in court, or that the legal learning curve is too steep. This is why we are tackling the problem of the right of representation. The person who cares most about your problems is you! In the beginning I also used solicitors and barristers, until I decided it is better for me to do it myself. The first duty of barristers and solicitors is to the court, their second duty is to themselves and their last duty is to you! People will do anything rather than take responsibility and tackle the source of the problem or handle their problems themselves. Humans don't like to confront. They like to get on with their lives, and they hope that the problem will just go away. They seem to adopt the minimalists work ethic, that is "what is the smallest amount of effort I have to expend, in order for the boss to think that I am working". That is, they do the minimum they have to, in order to stave off the problem. Humans want the quick fix, but don't want to do the hard yakka that is required to transform a community.
We at UPMART are doing the hard yakka. We are confronting the problems and our actions shall result in long term solutions that shall have an effect for hundreds of years to come.

NEWS: Monday 13 March 2006. Losalini RAINIMA released by order of Supreme Court of New South Wales, after 1 year of imprisonment, which imprisonment was without trial and without conviction, on an allegation of a small traffic matter!!
NSW Supreme Court upheld UPMART common law notice.
This victory is a victory for YOU.
To find out more on how Losalini has set a precedent for you, come to the next Step 1 Seminar.