Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

The first and ONLY video recording of crimes in progress in the Family Court

Update:

The video has been placed on to a new location as it was blocked into Australia. You can view the video with transcripts here.

YouTube


Gentlemen.

I am the first man in Australia, and I believe, the world, to LAWFULLY video record crimes in progress in the Australian Federal Magistrates Court on a family law matter.

You can view this here: http://www.youtube.com/user/peternolan1109

The transcript is also available and can be viewed at:
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
http://www.peternolan.com/LinkClick.aspx?link=PAC6601_2007+20091126Reissue+Final.pdf&tabid=538&mid=1230

I will take a screen shot of this post. Should it be removed I will lawfully notice the moderators of this site that I will put the post back and if they remove it again they will face accusation of perversion of the course of justice.

It took me a great deal of effort to bring this conclusive and irrefutable evidence out of this court. I have a lawful obligation to report this crime to the ultimate authority, the Australian people. This is because Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Robert McCelland have refused to punish the crimes committed by David Dunkley.

Any effort to suppress this evidence is also a crime. One that I do not recommend any man commit because I WILL prosecute those who commit crimes against me.

Moderator note/Warning
Should you yet again not abide by the rules to which you have lawfully agreed to when posting then you are lawfully notified that you have, in such circumstances, agreed to pay the FLWG (those who operate this site) the sum of $10,000 for each and every contravention of those rules as interpreted by the moderators and or those who operate this site.

Last edit: by PeterNolan

Asio Annie

Way to go Peter ... you sink the Aussie Freeman site and have its moderator facing fines and imprisonment for publicising specific details of Family Court matters, and now you bring your destructive gibberish here!
I have listened to part of the transcript. Peter Nolan argued before his Honour Federal Magistrate David Dunkley. Peter Nolan required that the court acquiesce to his demand that he would only enter the court room if he had agreement that all his inalienable rights would be intact. He was further asked if he had any affidavit evidence on which to rely. To which Mr Nolan said he did but would not present it unless FM Dunkley agreed to confirming his inalienable rights were intact. Peter Nolan said that he would present evidence only before a common law court but not before FM Dunkley would agree to his inalienable rights intact. FM Dunkley then advised him (On numerous occasions) that unless he presented affidavit evidence on which to rely then he would proceed on an undefended hearing. Mr Nolan then charged the FM with perjury and charged the FM with 1 million oz gold for enforcing an adjudication process on him as a sovereign of Australia.

What does this all mean? If Peter Nolan had been around when St Thomas Aquinas (13th Century) was alive and or before a court in the 17th Century he may have had more success, as his claims relate to the system of Natural law not modern day Common law. The Common law process, which we use today is sometimes referred to as "Judge made law". It is the adoption of an integrated approach that started in England to provide law through precedent to provide benefits of consistency and predictability. Common law operates on the operation of precedent through courts of record in a hierarchical court system. It has benefits of appeal and review of decisions. Peter Nolan should have been aware that the Bill of Rights 1688 affirmed the supremacy of parliamentary law over case law and the role of courts to interpret statutes and decide cases where there are no statutes, applying precedents in both situations. That is the system of law that operates in both Australia and New Zealand.

The Magna Carta in 1297, and the Bill of Rights of 1688 would have been documents that he might have presented and used for argument, but he chose to give no argument to support his demands. He could have also used any relevant statute law but at the end of the day when it comes to law, we follow the English system and Parliament is supreme. Peter Nolan did not present anything. The English common law has its own rules that sets out the legitimacy of the law and where citizens are elected to Parliament. The court is legitimised by the Parliament. Perhaps Mr Nolan is a keen supporter of Critical legal studies (CLS) which is a sometimes considered a revolutionary movement that challenges and seeks to overturn accepted norms and standards in legal theory and practice. CLS scholars attempt to debunk the law's pretensions to determinacy, neutrality, and objectivity. CLS started in the US in 1977 and had its roots in the Legal realism movement in the 1920's.

He can only argue, where there is no case law, in a higher court so if he wasn't satisfied that the Federal Magistrate had jurisdiction to hear his matter why did he not ask for an adjournment and file for the determination of jurisdiction to be heard in a higher court.

Why is all of this relevant?

Peter Nolan argues that the Federal Magistrates court was not a legitimate court and that he wanted the court to grant him different rights from those which are currently extended in law to all other citizens of Australia. The FM could not, even if he wanted to, grant that request that Peter Nolan sought. The FM did what he could and continued the case.

With this outcome, even before the matter got under way there was no point in listening to any further part of the transcript as the determination that would allow the matter to proceed could not and would not be made. Therefore no evidence was made available by Mr Nolan to put his side of the story in relation to parenting matters. He was in the wrong court at the wrong time to ask for what he was asking. Some might say he is a nutter, others a hero for his lone stand. All I see is a wasted opportunity to put his side of the family matter to a reasonably accommodating FM.


Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Secretary SPCA said
I have listened to part of the transcript. Peter Nolan argued before his Honour Federal Magistrate David Dunkley. Peter Nolan required that the court acquiesce to his demand that he would only enter the court room if he had agreement that all his inalienable rights would be intact. He was further asked if he had any affidavit evidence on which to rely. To which Mr Nolan said he did but would not present it unless FM Dunkley agreed to confirming his inalienable rights were intact. Peter Nolan said that he would present evidence only before a common law court but not before FM Dunkley would agree to his inalienable rights intact. FM Dunkley then advised him (On numerous occasions) that unless he presented affidavit evidence on which to rely then he would proceed on an undefended hearing. Mr Nolan then charged the FM with perjury and charged the FM with 1 million oz gold for enforcing an adjudication process on him as a sovereign of Australia.

What does this all mean? If Peter Nolan had been around when St Thomas Aquinas (13th Century) was alive and or before a court in the 17th Century he may have had more success, as his claims relate to the system of Natural law not modern day Common law. The Common law process, which we use today is sometimes referred to as "Judge made law". It is the adoption of an integrated approach that started in England to provide law through precedent to provide benefits of consistency and predictability. Common law operates on the operation of precedent through courts of record in a hierarchical court system. It has benefits of appeal and review of decisions. Peter Nolan should have been aware that the Bill of Rights 1688 affirmed the supremacy of parliamentary law over case law and the role of courts to interpret statutes and decide cases where there are no statutes, applying precedents in both situations. That is the system of law that operates in both Australia and New Zealand.

The Magna Carta in 1297, and the Bill of Rights of 1688 would have been documents that he might have presented and used for argument, but he chose to give no argument to support his demands. He could have also used any relevant statute law but at the end of the day when it comes to law, we follow the English system and Parliament is supreme. Peter Nolan did not present anything. The English common law has its own rules that sets out the legitimacy of the law and where citizens are elected to Parliament. The court is legitimised by the Parliament. Perhaps Mr Nolan is a keen supporter of Critical legal studies (CLS) which is a sometimes considered a revolutionary movement that challenges and seeks to overturn accepted norms and standards in legal theory and practice. CLS scholars attempt to debunk the law's pretensions to determinacy, neutrality, and objectivity. CLS started in the US in 1977 and had its roots in the Legal realism movement in the 1920's.

He can only argue, where there is no case law, in a higher court so if he wasn't satisfied that the Federal Magistrate had jurisdiction to hear his matter why did he not ask for an adjournment and file for the determination of jurisdiction to be heard in a higher court.

Why is all of this relevant?

Peter Nolan argues that the Federal Magistrates court was not a legitimate court and that he wanted the court to grant him different rights from those which are currently extended in law to all other citizens of Australia. The FM could not, even if he wanted to, grant that request that Peter Nolan sought. The FM did what he could and continued the case.

With this outcome, even before the matter got under way there was no point in listening to any further part of the transcript as the determination that would allow the matter to proceed could not and would not be made. Therefore no evidence was made available by Mr Nolan to put his side of the story in relation to parenting matters. He was in the wrong court at the wrong time to ask for what he was asking. Some might say he is a nutter, others a hero for his lone stand. All I see is a wasted opportunity to put his side of the family matter to a reasonably accommodating FM.
Secretary SPCA,

The corporate fiction, MR. PETER ANDREW NOLAN, at no time made any comment and was NOT presented to the private company calling itself 'THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT'. I, the human being calling himself Peter-Andrew of the Nolan family went to the private place of business of a man calling himself David Dunkley.

David Dunkley was NOT operating as a magistrate of any court. The proof of this is on the video and in the transcript where I ask David if he is operating under oath. He refused to answer that question twice. This is irrefutable evidence, from David himself that he was not operating under oath. The Feds were shocked as I had predicted this is what he would say. David had the same legal position as a burger flipper at McDonalds while sitting on that bench. And I am prepared to say so under oath.

As I pointed out. I am the first man to LAWFULLY bring the video and transcript evidence out of a family law situation and make that information available to the ultimate authority, the Australian people. My Claim of Right has been agreed to by your Queen Elizabeth, your Kevin Rudd, your Robert McClelland. If you have a problem with my Claim of Right I suggest that you take it up with these people.

Again. I will screen shot this post and post it to our crimes against fathers site. Efforts to censor or ban me will be exposed.

Efforts, like yours, to disparage me and to tell lies and half truths will be argued in this place should your members wish me to present my case.

Lastly? Your comments about section 121 and publication of documents or video that are allegedly covered by some form of 'family law legislation' do not apply to me or to any man who learns how to refuse the jurisdiction of the 'family law'. That the Australian Federal Guvment has been totally unwilling to challenge ANY of the claims I have put forward demonstrate that I am, indeed, correct. If I had done something wrong they would have thrown me in jail when I pulled out my video recorder.

I am breaking no LAWS. 'Family Law' is not law. It is legislation. It does not apply to a sovereign like me.
PeterNolan said
Efforts, like yours, to disparage me and to tell lies and half truths will be argued in this place should your members wish me to present my case.
Nolan. Here's the 'truth'.

Get a grip! You're delusional.

You are 100% responsible for the outcome in your court matter. Not the FM. There is no conspiracy against you.

You carried on like a baffoon in court. And you're carrying on like a baffoon now.

Yes. Members should be very interested to view your posts, because its a classic example of how NOT to conduct yourself in a Family Law Court!

Members. If you want to be UNSUCCESSFUL in Family Law court matters, follow Nolan's example!

4MYDAUGHTER
Peter you are arguing in the wrong court to resolve the issue you are discussing. It is as simple as that. You didn't put up ANY constitutional argument and I am amazed the FM didn't actually have you removed from the courtroom.

Read up on how the Common Law system came about and why Australia and New Zealand have adopted that system and how it is legitimised through Acts of Parliament, where Parliament is supreme. Its Law 101 !! Get a grip and sort yourself out man. I don't mind arguing democratic principals but this site is about family law and child support issues not whether the constitution fits one or all. We operate under a COMMON LAW system and if you don't like it then change it!.

You have not set out in any sort of rational way a statement of your claim with supporting Acts and instruments to support it. If you are arguing the sorts of things you want to argue you would have researched both the Bill of Rights and  Magna Carta and been quoting chapter and verse. The system of law you refer to is not in this Century. If you want to argue it then argue it like a professional person and put up the evidence, put up the argument, put up what acts you rely on and lets look at what you have otherwise there is nothing for us to say here.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets