Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal and Notice to Principal is Notice to All Agents.

By viewing this Notice, all deniability is removed. Fraus est celare fraudem meaning ‘It is a Fraud to conceal a Fraud’.

For the record Mark Stanley Rapson is permanently domiciled on the Land and Soil of Terra Australis (commonly known as The Commonwealth of Australia), is the paramount security interest holder of all estates, property, assets and collateral, both registered and unregistered, and all associated copyright protected trade names and is not a voluntary transactor in commerce.

Mark Stanley Rapson’s lawful Reconveyance to the Land and Soil jurisdiction of Terra Australis is recorded with Public Recording Number LE070321259GB with Proclamation Date 15th February 2024 and tacit agreement is established by an unrebutted Living Testimony in the Form of an Affidavit.

All usufruct subjugation ties are severed with the occupying corporate governments of Australia.

The corporate Australian governments and their affiliates and other UNIDROIT governments are instructed to immediately cease and desist misaddressing Mark Stanley Rapson in fraudulent debased Dog-Latin, GLOSSA and to cease and desist infringing upon his estate, property, assets, collateral and copyright protected trade names.

All documentation is signed and sealed with witness. Lawful jurisdiction of Terra Australis, an Independent Country and Sovereign Nation, is land and soil jurisdiction. All paperwork is Lawful with Lawful document reference and without prejudice.

All information to support the Reconveyance is publicly and internationally recorded with the Global Family Group, an International Lawful Land & Soil, Recording & Publishing System for the World.
https://globalfamilygroup.com/lrps.html

Tacit agreement to the Living Testimony in the Form of an Affidavit is given by:

Lord Mayor of the City of London – Michael Mainelli/MICHAEL MAINELLI
Australia Federal Treasurer – James Chalmers/JAMES CHALMERS
Australia Attorney General – Mark Dreyfus/MARK DREYFUS
Queensland Treasurer – Cameron Dick/CAMERON DICK
Queensland Attorney General – Yvette D’ath/YVETTE D’ATH

These Offices and their agents, heirs and successors have all been given Notice and tacitly agree to accept full responsibility, personal and proprietary, for:

(a) any ongoing mischaracterisation of Mark Stanley Rapson through unlawful manipulation of naming conventions; and

(b) any other crimes such as unlawful conversion, personage, fraudulent joinder, pressganging, racketeering, inland piracy, peonage, flagrant violation of the Palermo Protocols and war crimes.

For the record Michael Mainelli/MICHAEL MAINELLI and James Chalmers/JAMES CHALMERS and Mark Dreyfus/MARK DREYFUS and Cameron Dick/CAMERON DICK and Yvette D’ath/YVETTE D’ATH and their agents, heirs and successors tacitly agree with an unrebutted Living Testimony in the Form of an Affidavit which stands as truth in Law and all parties now mutually agree.

It is the responsibility of Michael Mainelli/MICHAEL MAINELLI and James Chalmers/JAMES CHALMERS and Mark Dreyfus/MARK DREYFUS and Cameron Dick/CAMERON DICK and Yvette D’ath/YVETTE D’ATH to notify their superiors and all subordinates of this Notice and to correct their respective records.

By receiving Notice, all deniability is removed. Fraus est celare fraudem meaning ‘It is a fraud to conceal a fraud’; and fraud has no sunset clause.

Michael Mainelli/MICHAEL MAINELLI and James Chalmers/JAMES CHALMERS and Mark Dreyfus/MARK DREYFUS and Cameron Dick/CAMERON DICK and Yvette D’ath/YVETTE D’ATH are informed and tacitly understand that these crimes will now be displayed on the public record.

Mark Stanley Rapson reserves the right to produce a copy of any reply from the Offices named above or their failure to reply, to any court and to make this information public, at any time now or in the future.

For clarity, Mark Stanley Rapson is reconveyed to the superior general and concurrent Land and Soil Jurisdiction, is retired from all Citizenship obligations so not subject to any corporate Government agents worldwide, and does not need to be in possession of Government issued ID documents.

Any corporate Agent that demands such documentation, or attempts to create Adhesion Contract(s) for gaining jurisdiction over Mark Stanley Rapson will be guilty of personage, barratry, fraudulent joinder, violation of Palermo Protocols and Inland Piracy.

The names MARK STANLEY RAPSON, MARK S. RAPSON or MARK RAPSON or any variation however styled, is a “Foreign Grantor Trust,” and are under Mark Stanley Rapson’s copyright and no use is granted.

All prior powers of attorney are cancelled.

Mark Stanley Rapson is a Foreign Sovereign not participating in commerce and is to be allowed to travel peacefully.

Any corporate Government agent worldwide has a usufructuary duty to hold Mark Stanley Rapson and his assets harmless.

Mark Stanley Rapson has the right to travel without being detained. This is to be Lawfully respected and adhered to by all corporate Government Agents.

If Mark Stanley Rapson is detained in any way, the Agent or Agents responsible are personally liable.

As we awaken to the realities of the world in which we live, we recognise the depth of the deception we have endured, as well as the part we played in it.

This newfound clarity illuminates our path forward.

We stand beside the original custodians of this land who were brutally displaced, subjected to genocide, and stripped of their customs, traditions, and history. We the living all stand deceived, harmed, and trafficked into slavery as legal Persons, hue-of-man subject to colour of law. These immoral actions of the British Territorial Government, calling itself the Commonwealth of Australia, operating as Australia Inc., and the Roman Municipal Government, calling itself the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, operating as AUSTRALIA INC. are service corporations masquerading as Governments that have been exposed and our time has come.
We unite as one people, to rise above hurt and anger, embracing healing and love. Together, we assemble, embarking on a righteous path to self-governance. We commit to caring for the natural world, ensuring it flourishes for the benefit of future generations.

If this may be of interest to you, find out more visit https://terraaustralisstatesassembly.com/

This Notice is with just cause and without prejudice by Mark Stanley Rapson.

A Notice is also Published at:

The Bribie Islander Community Magazine both in print and online.

An Additional Notice:

Notice to all Law Enforcement Officers, Supervisors and Commanders and All Government Agents

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal and Notice to Principal is Notice to All Agents.

By viewing this Notice, all deniability is removed. Fraus est celare fraudem meaning ‘It is a Fraud to conceal a Fraud’.

The names MARK STANLEY RAPSON, MARK S. RAPSON or MARK RAPSON or any variation, however styled, is a “Foreign Grantor Trust.” These names are under the copyright of Mark Stanley Rapson and no use is granted.

Jurisdiction: I, the living man Mark Stanley of the family Rapson, known to the public as MARK STANLEY RAPSON am the Administrator and Holder in Due Course of all Estates so titled. I affirm that I am a declared Terra Australis State National on the Superior Jurisdiction of Land and Soil, and not a Citizen.

Mandatory Notice: Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Notice of Liability has been issued.

Bond Notice: Private Registered Indemnity Bond: AMRI00003 RA393427653US

The requirement for a Driver Licence:
a) The municipal GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA has changed my right to travel into a government privilege by issued a mandatory “Drivers License” to the ENTITY/LEGAL PERSON: MARK STANLEY RAPSON with the full knowledge that the acceptance of the license created an undisclosed adhesion contract obligating the living man, Mark Stanley Rapson, under various “Statutory Laws,” without his full knowledge or consent. This fact is fully rebutted again with this notice.
The equivalent applies to Driver & Vehicle Agency (DVA) Northern Ireland and National Driver Licence Service (NDLS) Ireland.

b) Removing my rights of ownership to my private property has been done without full disclosure by having a mandatory automobile registration document.

c) Enforcing the paying of tax on an automobile when there is no lawful duty to do so, other than the agency’s use of threats, force, intimidation and blackmail. Tax is a voluntary payment,

I respectfully decline to accept any and all offers of contract.

Genesis 1:26
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

Unalienable Rights
Unalienable Rights are the Inherent, Sovereign, Natural Rights that existed before the creation of the State and which being antecedent to and above the State, can never be taken away, diminished or levied by the State except by Due Process of Law. Nor can any Unalienable Right be fundamentally removed or waived by contract, whether by non-disclosure, which is fraud and unenforceable in Law or knowingly by sufferance, which is contrary to the Spirit of the Law and prejudicial to Sovereignty.

Law of Kinds
The Law of Kinds, which is established in the Book of Genesis, where the Creator declares that each creation is ordered according to their kind: animals to animals, birds to birds, men to men, and so on. This Law of Kinds also applies to all forms of Natural Law, Common Law and forms of law deriving from thereof, so that there is a firm and not-to-be-trespassed boundary between living people and dead corporations, between fact and fiction.

Therefore corporations cannot contract with a natural man.

Corporations can only deal with legal entities, corporations and contract law.

Some examples are: (Corporation Name / D-U-N-S number)

Commonwealth of Australia
The Queensland State Government / 740254438
Queensland Police Service / 759427974
Queensland DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE / 889273541
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY / 750019374
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS / 755664794

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Driver Vehicle Agency / 215941042
Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency / 213276297
Police Services Of Northern Ireland / 212234478
Northern Ireland Courts & Tribunals Service / 236448395
HM Courts and Tribunals Service / 217761187
HM Revenue & Customs / 218124588
Home Office / 239920143

Ireland
The Garda Síochána / 987269800
The Courts Service of Ireland / 985104557
Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration / 896256711

There is no statutory legislation that allows the State to prosecute a living man.

Wirral Council vs Roger Hayes [2011]
The court conceded that Roger Hayes is not the PERSON/corporation, MR ROGER HAYES and agreed that they were separate entities.

[Precedence set in a system based on English Law]

United States of America Supreme Court:
Montgomery vs State 55 Fla. 97-45S0.879. 1795, 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54
Supreme court ruling – No corporate jurisdiction over the natural man.

Supreme Court of the United States 1795,
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.”

United Kingdom/International Contract law
Contract law confirms that for a contract to be valid, it requires compliance with various conditions, and when there has been no full disclosure, any supposed contract would become void.

Precedence has been set:

Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433:
This case involved a dispute over the terms of an indemnity clause in a contract for the hire of photographs. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the party signing the contract fully understands the implications of the terms, particularly when they are onerous.

McCabe v Scottish Courage Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 393:
In this case, the Court of Appeal considered whether a clause in a beer tie agreement was properly understood and agreed upon by the parties. The judgment highlighted the duty to ensure mutual understanding of contractual terms, especially in commercial agreements.

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163:
This case dealt with a dispute over the terms displayed in a car park contract. The court examined whether the terms were effectively communicated to the driver and whether there was mutual agreement on those terms.

Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602:
This case involved a dispute over the terms of a solicitors’ retainer agreement. The court discussed the duty of solicitors to ensure that their clients fully understand the terms of engagement, including matters related to costs and obligations.

Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44:
In this significant House of Lords case, the court examined the issue of undue influence in the context of guaranteed agreements signed by spouses. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring that parties fully understand the legal implications of the contracts they are entering into.

I am not the PERSON you may think I am.

Please be aware, if an officer chooses to write a ticket or a warning, it will be treated as a violation of common law copyright held by the living man, Mark Stanley Rapson.

Plus

The Bill of Rights 1688 states “That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”

1) Government corporations providing “essential government services” caused the Mark Stanley Rapson Estate under colour of law to exist. This corporate person, this municipal trust, this corporate franchise was named after me without my knowledge or permission.
– You do not have permission to impersonate me.
– You do not have permission to resume any Citizenship obligation upon me in regard to the corporation you represent.
– All Usufructs using my name owe me safe passage and must hold me harmless and guarantee that no harm will come to myself or my assets as a result of their use of my name.

2) Police Constables are lawfully bound to protect and serve the public under Oath of common law. Failure to obligate the Oath and uphold Common Law subjects offending Constables to being personally liable for committing a crime.

3) No one (neither Monarch, nor Prime Minister, nor any prelate, politician, judge or public servant) is above the Statute and Common Law of the United Kingdom that form the British Constitution (including Magna Carta [1215], the Declaration and Bill of Rights [1688/89], Acts of Union, Succession and Settlement [1701-07], the Coronation Oath Act [1689]).

4) If I am detained I hereby deny consent for my detention and I hereby request to be immediately released from custody, arrest and detention, free to continue my private travel as is my right.

Again, I respectfully decline your offer to contract.

5) Any failure or refusal by you or your associates to affirmatively, actively and expressly honour any of the above reservations of rights may be criminal violations and/or may cause unjust damage to me and my interests in which case, by your commission of unauthorised actions, you will and do agree to major personal debt and obligation to me for both remedy of, and penalty for, your violations and misconduct and you agree to pay all monetary claims on demand.

6) If you do not release me immediately upon reading this notice I will presume you to be under the impression that you have authority and jurisdiction for my arrest for a crime (infractions are not crimes and consent must be obtained from the accused for any detention for an alleged infraction). If it should be shown at any time that you do not have full authority, cause and jurisdiction for my arrest you will be subject to civil and criminal penalties and will very likely be found liable for a major remedy toward me. You agree to those terms by committing any unlawful or unauthorised force, command, detention or arrest against me.

7) If you fail to release me upon presentation of this notice you will be required at a time in the future to show cause for any non-consensual detention (arrest). Your failure to show cause and jurisdiction upon demand will cause major debt and obligation of you to me for all damages, losses, harm, injuries and violations of rights, in addition to possible civil and criminal actions, allegations and reports against you personally.

8) Under arrest and threat of violence by you and your armed law enforcement associates I will, under protest, be compliant and not resist any command you may issue unless I find it necessary to act in defense of my health and safety or the health and safety of others present as is allowed by law. I am competent to determine when acts of self-defense are, and are not, necessary and justified. Unless you unjustly and/or unlawfully assault or commit battery upon me I pose no threat or danger to you or your associates.

9) I have no intention to interfere with any law enforcement activity or objective and I have no intention to become “belligerent” or “agitated” or to cause any difficulty or hindrance to your authorised and legally compliant law enforcement activity. I will not be “provoked” unless you are provoking me with hostile threats and actions. I am not in protest or opposition against your office, your profession or any of your lawful actions. I am in protest only of your violations of my rights, if there are any, and of your misconduct, if there is any.

10) Since I have and do rightfully deny consent for detention (above), by law you must now either release me or place me under arrest with cause, jurisdiction and proper process. In law, there is no such thing as “forced detention”. Detention is voluntary, arrest is forced. I request that you, at this time, clearly state under the above invocations of rights, one of the following as you are required by law: Am I “free to go” or am I “under arrest.” If you seek my lawful detention you must now declare my arrest after showing cause and jurisdiction.

11) If I am under arrest I refer you to the invocations of rights above. My cooperation and compliance may not, in any way, be interpreted as waiver of any rights at any time. My actions, while under threat of force and violence by law enforcement are under duress and, to avoid the violent potential of your [armed] presence I will comply with your directives and sustain limited personal disruption in the process to hold you accountable later. In any question of my compliance and cooperation, refer to the declarations and invocations above.

The following court rulings are being referenced here to inform and remind you of your obligation and oath to abide by the rulings of your jurisdiction.

Freely Travelling on Public Roads is a Constitutionally Guaranteed Right

[America has English based Law]

Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 105-106 (1971)
Our cases have firmly established that the right of interstate travel is constitutionally protected, does not necessarily rest on the Fourteenth Amendment, and is assertable against private as well as governmental interference. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629 -631; id., at 642-644 (concurring opinion); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757 -760 and n. 17; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97 ; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 79-80; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44, 48-49; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (Taney, C.J., dissenting). The “right to pass freely from State to State” has been explicitly recognized as “among the rights and privileges of National citizenship.” Twining v. New Jersey, supra, at 97. That right, like other rights of national citizenship, is within the power of Congress to protect by appropriate legislation. E. g., United States v. Guest, supra, at 759; United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 314 -315; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651; Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 285 -287 (concurring and dissenting opinion).

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, (1969)
Cites the right to travel interstate as being grounded upon Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, on the 14th and 5th Amendments and the Commerce Clause. [Footnote 8]

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
“With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” “…our decisions have made clear that a person faced with…an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right…for which the law purports to require a license.”

U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757-758 (1966)
“The constitutional right to travel…is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized…a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning…In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution” “The constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified.

Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964)
“…a personal liberty protected by the Bill of Rights…Freedom of travel is a constitutional liberty closely related to the rights of free speech and association…the constitutional right to travel has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized…that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning…In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution.”

U.S. v Mersky 361 U.S. 431 (1960)
An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958)
“Like the right of association [the right to travel freely] is a virtually unconditional personal right guaranteed by the constitution to us all.”

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
“The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the fifth amendment.”

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 (1943)
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. [113] Freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion are in a preferred position…the privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution.” [115]

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274 (1900)
Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.

A Guaranteed Right Cannot Be Converted Into a Crime

Marbury v. Madison, (1 Cranch 170) 5 US 137 (1803)
“…a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law…an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
“Where rights are secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123 (1908)
“The Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim that he had deprived another of a federal right under the color of state law…when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the federal constitution. And he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”

Hale v. Henkel, 201 US 43 (1906)
“…There is a clear distinction…between an individual and a corporation…The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way…He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state…it’s powers are limited by law.”

Byars v. United States, 273 US 28 (1927)
“…it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”

United States v. Jackson, 390 US 570 (1968)
“If a law has ‘no other purpose…’ than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional.”

Staub v. Baxley, 355 US 313 (1958)
“…an ordinance which makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official – as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official – is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.”

Without Willful Intent to Violate the Law There Is No Crime

United States v. Murdock, 290 US 389 (1933)
“The [Supreme] Court has recognized that the word “willfully” generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. It has formulated the requirement of wilfulness as “bad faith or evil intent.”

Spies v. United States, 317 US 492 (1943)
“…the word “willfully”…generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known duty. It is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank differences of opinion or innocent errors made despite the exercise of reasonable care”

Sansone v. United States, 380 US 343 (1965)
“If his action was not willful, he was [not] guilty.”

United States v. Bishop, 412 US 346 (1973)
“The court, in fact, has recognized that the word “willfully” in these statutes generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. It has formulated the requirement of willfulness as “bad faith or evil intent,” …if his action was not willful, he was [not] guilty…”

Evans v. United States, 504 US 255 (1992)
“[The] offense of extortion” was understood…[as] a wrongful taking under a false pretense of official right” [269] and citing White v. State, 56 Ga. 385 & 389 (1876) “generically extortion is an abuse of public justice and a misuse by oppression of the power with which the law clothes a public officer.” [270]

And for the third time, I respectfully decline to accept any and all offers of contract.