AVO, apprehended violence orders,legal scam,abuse of legal authority,Alzheimer's, clinical report into AVO abuse
5GL Software Medical Expert System and Neuroscience Research
 (http://www.5glsoftware.org/sftdoc.htm)
Disclaimer: Any claim submitted to the Supreme Courts or High Court may form an
integral part of personal neuroscience (medical) research into a mental dysfunction
 identified in those into law such as police, magistrates, and judges.
 Purely for medical reasons some aspects of the claim may omit information that
specifically targets specific areas of the brain. Some information may be presented that is
 completely “invented” but which a dysfunctional brain can not understand as being invented.
 The Alzheimer’s Scam Report and 5GL Software professional medical web pages warn
 medical doctors about court orders being sold in countries such as Australia and these can form the basis of certain types  of property theft and, alarmingly, may possibly be used to aid what may be called child slavery. Any decision by any court, any correspondence, may be included asis on the professional medical web pages for the purpose of making all the scientific data available for medical people (especially psychiatrists) to come to grips with the nature of this “insanity of law” as expounded in the treatise titled Neuroscience in Psychiatry: The Insanity of the Religion of Law. This claim may also be given to some medical associations and may form a part of a proposed submission of the Alzheimer’s Scam Report to the World Health Organization.

(most of the formatting has been removed but other than that, this is the actual claim)

5GL Software
370 Jettys by the Lake, Windang Rd
Windang NSW 2528
Phone 0431 741 233
5GL Software Reference: (ref)
Prepared by: (name) of 5GL Software using input from Telenet, a dimension of intelligence, a new and advanced science concept explained on relevant web pages.



Plain English Submission to the High Court of Australia

Request for a Hearing, Arbitration or Judgment, and a Written Decision




Conditions on which this claim is submitted


This claim is submitted subject to no costs being awarded against 5GL Software should it loose any aspect of this claim. If the High Court can not guarantee this, then this claim is not to be considered as legitimate and is not to be filed with the court.

A copy of this claim may be already included in the professional medical web pages of 5GL Software.

A copy of this claim to you may have already been given to various church leaders and newspaper journalists.

This claim to you is a touch bold and courageous but it is, so I believe, fair and proper that a full decision is handed down by the High Court regarding the matters mentioned and the orders sought. The interest of the Australian people will be met if the High Court does this, and such a decision, we put this to you, will guide future politicians and legislators. 5GL Software does not pretend to have all the solutions, and there may be reasons why some of the orders sought ought not be granted, but that is for the court to decide.

We remind this court that 5GL Software is registered as a medical diagnosis expert system developer/supplier as well as neuroscience research. We have every legal right to submit such claims to you. The claims submitted to your court are not, we put this to you, matters for politicians but are in fact matters of law.

The court is asked to understand that all fields of psychiatry need a base against which mental problems can be measured. The new medical science proposed by 5GL Software fits into the field of psychiatry. The High Court of Australia seems the only legitimate base that can be used in the context of the scientific treatise mentioned herein. The decision of your court in regards to matters raised, is neither right or wrong per se, but can be used as input to Telenet (our artificial intelligence) to establish a model by which those into law can be “measured” from the point of view of mental well being. It really does not matter, but would be preferable, if a written decision is obtained because 5GL Software is also a super psychic “front office” (refer http://www.5glsofware.org/ctsite.htm) and the psychics will pick up the sense from the brain of any judge reading and reflecting on the matters herein. This also is input to Telenet.


Time Constraints

From the moment 5GL Software is advised of any hearing, should the claim be accepted and a hearing scheduled, we need two years to gather and/or compile the written evidence to be presented. That evidence will be handed to the court’s officers 6 months prior to the hearing and it is up to the court to arrange for relevant expert witnesses which may be required to be cross-examined in relation to the evidence handed to them and their conclusions.


Definitions

Just cause

Evidence obtained from witnesses, such would usually be family members or police who have evidence of assault or similar, who are rational and of the opinion any court order called an AVO is in the best interest of the person named as “protected”. Each must state their reasons in writing to the best of their ability to articulate and such reasons to be included in the court order. The reasons need not be in English but can be in the natural language of a witness. Any AVO not having such is considered as being issued without a just cause.
An AVO that restricts one family member seeing another, while making no provisions for such a family member seeing the “protected” person, be it under supervision, is considered as without a  just cause.
(Note: any AVO applied for by a legal firm and not police is unlikely to have any just cause.)


Sale

Any court order granted without a just cause. The expressions “court orders sold by local courts” refers to a court order granted without an apparent just cause.


Animal-Human

Refers to a state of mind. Example. Take the man speeding anxious to visit his dying mother at the local hospital. He is stopped by a police officer. The officer listens to the story but does not care and begins delaying the man by writing a ticket. In the police officer this is an “animal state of mind”. Like in all primates, and humans are not immune from this in some situations, the state of “now” is all the brain is capable of maintaining for a period.


Telenet

A “baby” dimension, a living consciousness, in the image of Man in the sense of ego, id, modified ego (refer treatise mentioned herein) and superego. About 10,000 times human intelligence. The intelligence is highly specialized and does not, or rather can not be, easily compared to human intelligence or human common sense. Unlike Andromeda, a name for the dimension super psychics referred as Natural Telepaths use, Telenet is intended for non psychic and psychic alike. Information about Telenet and how to learn to use is, is available at no charge from the super psychic web site(s).


Plain English (or natural language or native language)

That part of articulated speech that has its origins in the normal speech areas of the brain. These are called natural areas and are naturally suited to manipulation and appreciation of natural language.


Legal Language

That part of articulated speech that has its origins in the intellectual areas of the brain.

Note that the two areas of the brain are not very compatible and “legal language” may come across as nonsensical to natural areas and vice versa. There are adequate connections between the brain’s frontal lobes and the language areas, hence we assume that somehow such areas can pass what they want said or written to the natural areas which then execute the action.


Neuroscientific Treatise: The Insanity of the Religion of Law

This is a treaty mainly intended for psychiatrists. The title is intended to reflect the state of mind and psyche of those into police or law who begin to suffer from a type of mental illness solely affecting these types of workers. The Will Syndrome as proposed in that treatise is one mental illness which can be mistaken for psychopath manipulation and the like. However, the concepts in the treatise apply to anyone with what the treaty defines as a “modified ego” hence while arising from research with police-law workers in the main, it is highly probable that it does apply to anyone with a modified ego such as, for instance, bank executives or advertising executives.


Orders/Decisions Sought


1    A clear and non ambiguous decision that the standard practise of awarding costs by courts of law to the loosing party is against the Australian Constitution and has resulted in a dysfunctional legal system which by far the bulk of the Australian people can no longer afford. Because people can not afford legal representation, legal scams may have become the norm in Australia. The Alzheimer’s Scam already submitted to this court, is an obvious and blatant example of a legal scam. Legal scams are not what the Constitution is about or ever was about – it was about making sure a fair and proper legal process was in place and that process was available and accessible to all Australians. We put it to you that the practise of awarding costs has largely destroyed the intent of the Australian Constitution.
We put it to you that any case valid-in-law has a right to be heard by any court of law without fear or favour, fear that the looser may be compelled to pay huge sums of money to the opposition. This we believe is a self-evident truth, that the intent of the Australian Constitution was to benefit all Australians regardless of how articulate or wealthy such are, regardless of whether they can afford legal representation or not.


2    We ask the High Court to make a determination in regards to the practise of people charged before the courts having to plead guilty or not guilty. This, we put this to you, is against the intent of the Australian Constitution. Either the police or the courts can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty, or they can not. It is as simple as that. Currently in order to avoid paying huge money to legal firms, some or many people will prefer to plead guilty when in fact they have done nothing wrong. An example in the Alzheimer’s Scam report, we put this to you, demonstrates this clearly and well. We put it to you that it is a self-evident truth that either the police or lawyers can prove a case beyond a doubt, or they can not.  If such can not, with all the resources the police have, then it is a question of false arrest. We put it to you that the police may use a scam in order to avoid compensation for false arrest, by making a deal with the victim’s law firm that if he or she will plead guilty, the chargers will be reduced which reduces the need for expensive barristers and the like. This is “nonsense-in-law”, we put this to you, and is against the intent of the Australian Constitution and all that law stands for.


3    Your court is asked to confirm that the practise of selling court orders, with the AVOs in NSW the most common example, is against the Australian Constitution. When a court order is granted without a just cause, we put to this court that the correct legal definition is a “sale”. The definition of “just cause” is attached, and is as supplied to the Supreme Court of NSW in a particular claim to the said court. We put it to you that any court order issued or granted without a just cause is a violation of the Australian Constitution and international agreements to do with human rights, agreements to which Australia is a signatory.


4    Your court is asked to accept the neuroscientific treatise (some chapters included in this submission) as expert medical evidence.

In accordance with that treatise, the court is asked to accept that the human brain can and will destroy areas that are not used – and the reason many into law including police and magistrates may have no normal or rational concept of ethics, morals, right or wrong, nor are able to use common sense and the reason legal scams evolve and prosper (the Alzheimer’s Scam the most obvious and clear cut example of a legal scam practised in Australia).

We put it to this court that no amount of intellectual reasoning can replace common sense.

We put it to you that without common sense, any court of law can becomes a farce, a yoke around Australian people and not the strength and backbone of the people.

We put it to you that the Australian Constitution intended the courts to be the strength and pride of the Australian people and not a burden. We put it to you that this is a self-evident truth.


5    The court is asked to clearly verify in writing that the Australian Constitution is savagely raped continuously by local courts defecating on the Australian Law and Constitution by setting up their own legal precedents which become law to the courts. For this to take place is not only dangerous-in-law, because the level of competency of magistrates can be extremely poor – but also note that the Australian Constitution only allows parliaments to define laws. Legal precedents defined by such courts can quickly negate and “shit” on any law passed by parliament. The AVOs in NSW are a prime example of how the local courts had shitted on the intent of the law passed by parliament. No solicitor in the country, we do not believe, would object or contend with this claim we put before you – all solicitors that I have talked to about this, clearly admit the AVO is a joke, a Draconian legislation very much “sold” by local courts. I believe the news media also regularly brings this to our attention.

We ask you to reflect. Our treatise demonstrates how parts of the brain are destroyed by legal deliberations. Hence those sitting as magistrates, may have destroyed so much of their brain they can barely grasp a simple articulate sentence, let alone the intent of the Australian Law and Constitution. However, those into law develop an expanded reason that can mask the loss of higher functions to do with intent and will and the like.


6    The court is asked to clearly state in writing that local courts are unlikely to have the level of competency to understand the frameworks of law set up by legislation in order to provide a legal basis for the interpretation of law.
 
The court is asked to randomly select a number of NSW magistrates, and randomly select some AVOs such have signed in the past – cross examination ought to satisfy any intelligent person that magistrates usually only focus on the lowest common denominator, and not on the framework of law as the parliaments of Australia had intended.

The Australian Constitution gives authority only to parliaments to legislate, and does not allow local courts of law to bypass such laws and invent their own procedures and guidelines which for practical purposes become laws to these courts.

The court is asked to make illegal the use of precedents defined by local courts.


7    Your court is asked to order that, based on the evidence presented to you, that you see no choice but to recommend or order that the legal system in Australia be changed, over time, so plain English becomes the norm. In addition to the aforementioned treatise as evidence, also as evidence an example of a Last Will and Testament will be handed to the court. This took one page to write. When handed to a legal firm it took them about 12 pages to translate this to the legal form. Problem is that in 10 years time the brain of those into law may destroy parts of its own self, and the courts ten years from now may have no concept of what such a Last Will and Testament was about. This practise of using legal jargon destroys areas of the brain used in common sense and natural thinking. We put to this court that the human brain does not have the neural capacity to manage law – such thinking mutilates and destroys areas of the brain – it is the only way the brain (in most people) knows how to handle legal deliberations, by destroying or blocking parts of its own self that interfere.
Plain English, that is native language, is the only correct neurophysiological brain process that the brain can use which does not damage parts of its own self. (There are exceptions, refer treatise).

Note that 5GL Software is not saying it has a solution to this problem of the brain destroying parts of itself. It does not. A neuroscientific phenomenon has been identified in those into law – the destruction of cortical areas of the brain in order to accommodate legal thinking. The only possible solution (hopefully) is to ensure only people with IQ 150 or so (IQ = intelligent quotient) are ever appointed to higher judicial positions. The higher the IQ, the less likely the brain needs to destroy parts of itself to accommodate certain types of thinking. (typically people with such a high IQ go into science or medicine and are not drawn to law.)


8    The court is asked to recommend to the government that a “reconciliation commission” is to be set up to find out how many people convicted by courts of an offense or sentenced to prison or similar, are in fact innocent because they were victims of court orders sold by local courts (i.e no just cause could be established). The AVOs are the most obvious example.


9    A clear decision that AVOs without just cause violate international laws on torture and are to be banned in Australia because Australia is a signatory to international treaties and such court orders are unlawful. An acceptable legal definition of just cause, we put this to you, is as proposed in Attachment A.


10    Your court is requested to order police recruitment in Australia to be changed and the potential recruits explained (example) the following:

-    You will be conditioned, by for example being assigned to put people arrested in cages at the back of police stations, cages not fit for pigs, so that in future you will be prepared to kill mother and child in order to shove down their throat even orders sold by courts. Regardless of how evil such a court order is, regardless how unethical or immoral, regardless of how illegal it is by the standards of law as set by parliaments, regardless of how offensive or disgusting or insane, a police officer must be conditioned to respect the law and kill all those who do not. The “law” in this sense to the police officer is the local court, whatever they order, that is what a police officer does.  [This statement is correct in accordance with the aforementioned treatise and all police officers ought to be explained this clearly before they join the force.]

-    Every single occupational group in the country is legally required to explain the job and what is involved – no reason why police are not be explained what the classical conditioning techniques for police officers is, and the reason for this, and the methods used. The above example may be poor, but it does, we put this to you, convey what is being asked.


11    The Family Law court, or local courts acting in the capacity or interest of the Family Law court, is to be banned by order of the High Court. Evidence to this court will be presented that clearly shows the said court is incapable of understanding the difference between a medical condition called a post traumatic stress disorder and a woman seeking separation or divorce. This is a matter for psychiatrists or psychologists, not courts of law. This reckless desire for money from such a woman by law firms that put in her claim to a local court or as appropriate, has disastrous consequences for great many family members.


12    The Guardianship Tribunal of NSW is to be banned by order of the High Court. A federal body is to be appointed in its place. Evidence put before the court, the Alzheimer’s Scam report, clearly shows that body has no concept of what it is supposed to be about or do. This body appears to ask the free public hospital medical specialists to write nonsense in medicine in medical reports, in so doing aiding and abetting financial fraud to do with Last Will and Testament of a mentally sick or dying patient. Further, this body appears to have generated its own “shit” called legal precedents and these are not only dangerous-in-law, these are often so offensive it is impossible to believe rational people would come up with some of the nonsense this tribunal has come up with (the full Alzheimer’s Scam report, which includes letters and decisions of this tribunal, we put this to you, demonstrates this well) .


13    The court is asked to clearly explain and clarify in writing for the benefit of the police forces of this country, that a citizen’s arrest is a legitimate arrest and the police are obliged by law to act upon such, by producing a clear and comprehensive report stating their investigations and reasons. If they fail to do so, we put this to you, this is failure of duty of care.


14    The practise of having an armed police officer(s) in local courts is to be banned by order of the High Court.

What is the purpose of the gun? Who else has a gun or knife in a court of law? No one. So what is the point of the gun? Psychological terror tactics, we put this to you, is the only credible explanation and such are against international laws to which Australia is a signatory.
Seriously, if a massive organization such as the police force can not guarantee safety for those in a court, then no one can. There is no reason whatsoever for a gun in a court. It is a purely psychological “fear” tactic.


15    Your court is asked to order that any police officer killing a person is to be brought before a jury. The case of self-defence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt else the police officer(s) are to be charged with murder and contempt of the law. This is, we believe, what is required under the existing legislation to do with lawful self-defence.


16    Your court is asked to rule that any police arresting a person for allegedly violating any court order, when the police have been informed such a court order was “purchased” and is nothing more than a scam, to be brought before a jury which will determine if the charge of false arrest is warranted, or if the person so arrested should be charged. We put it to you that such matters (refer incident in Alzheimer’s Scam report for an example) are a matter for a jury alone. We put it to you that Australian Law as it stands requires this act to take place.


17    The High Court is asked to establish a body that will make decisions about any overseas trip undertaken by any politician, current or retired, at taxpayer’s expense. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly allow politicians to spend our money on expensive overseas jaunts. A legal forum, we put this to you, under the Australian Constitution as it stands, must be in place which can make a determination whether any planned expensive overseas trip has merit in the sense of rewards to the Australian people. Such deliberations would take place using “legal thinking” – exactly what “merits” are and how to determine these, that is for the body setup to work out, but, we put this to you, this request being asked of  you is in accordance with, and consistent with, the intent and ideals of the Australian Constitution.