Mr Malcolm James Baker,
42 Spencer Avenue,
Maketu 3189.
Hon. Murray McCully M.P.
Parliament Buildings,
Wellington.
Dear Sir,
This is not the first letter I have written to you, but it is the first
this year, and I'm also sending a copy to my member of parliament Todd
McClay M.P. and Tau Henare M.P. who is an elected member for Nga Puhi.
I'm also posting it publicly on my web site at www.rainierbank.biz/mccully
Firstly I want you to consider the banking act. This is a statute of
New Zealand law. The law says that everyone is bound by the law, and
saying that you are ignorant of the law is no excuse if you are
accidentally caught in breech of the law.
Secondly, the law says, and this is merely my interpretation, that when
somebody banks or makes a deposit into somebody's account, the banker
or bank is responsible for that money, and if it is paid out, in either
a negligent or a FRAUDULENT way, then the true owner of those funds is
not responsible, the bank or banker is. In other words, teh money is
still in the bank as far as the owner of those funds is concerned. Let
me give you an example to make this point clearer. Say you deposited
money into your account, and when you went to withdraw those funds the
bank told you that you had already withdrawn them, and you could prove
that you had not, and the bank had paid them out to somebody else, then
the bank has a legal obligation to pay you that money. It is the
responsibility of the government, whether or not the government is the
owner of that bank, to guarantee that those funds are paid out to the
true owner, otherwise it is either negligence on behalf of the bank or
fraud, and it may even be a fraudulent conspiracy if it can be proved
that the government and the bank had knowledge of what was going on.
Where it is negligence only, this is no excuse.
Let me give you two more examples. Say an employee of an entity, such
as an incorporated society, a corporation or a registered company,
where the company is also an internationally recognised trade mark or
brand name such as Pall Mall which is owned by British and American
Tobacco, (or BATA), or Dragon, which used to be owned in China, by the
Emperor, or SUN which is/was owned by Dragon and is recognised in India
as a company (or corp) owned by Dragon,
goes to the bank and deposits some money, then withdraws some money.
Does the employee have the right to withdraw the money?
If the money deposited is part of the profits of the week after wages
have been deducted, does that money belong to the company or the
employee, even if the employee is the chief executive? It obviously
belongs to the owner, which under law is the owner of the trade mark.
Sometimes the company is the owner of its shares as the majority
shareholder, having paid a good price to buy a majority of the shares.
Such a company is the South African one, Johannesburg Consolidated
Investments Limited. In the case of SUN, the employees are the Chinese
army corp, but the owner is an entity called Dragon. Dragon is either a
person, or something which can be transferred from one person or
generation to another, such as a document saying Dragon. Possession of
this used to be a capital offense under Chinese law if it was deemed
that it was illegal possession. It is arguable that one person
possessing any trade mark has teh right to sell it or dispose of it to
someone else for money. I wish to argue in court my case for the legal
possession of just such a trade mark, which I inherited from my mother,
and she from her father, my grandfather, who left it to his wife, who
gave it to my mother. My Grandfather bought it in China, after the
Communist government had deposed the traditional head of state, in much
the same way that a communist government would depose the royal family
if coming to power in the United Kingdom.
Why is Guardian Trust able to prevent me from taking a case to court,
in which I will argue that I am owed money for software which is owned
by Sun Microsystems?
Why is Guardian Trust able to argue to a court that I am incapable of
making a rational decision with full knowledge, and letting the court
decide on the merits of my argument?
I'm asking for $40,000 as a sign of good faith from the government. I
would prefer that this comes from the Pall Mall brand because I am
going to argue that I am owner of Pall Mall brand internationally, and
that I should therefore have exclusive possession. Pall Mall is a
property in the game of Monopoly. Pall Mall is also the name of the
magazine of the Royal Academy. There is more information on Wikipedia
or my web site
There are some additional facts I would like you to consider.
At one time, prior to the year 2,000, both Microsoft and Netscape
claimed ownership of the "web browser" software.
The web browser was an expansion or development of the modem. The modem
was the device which consisted of both hardware and software, which
enabled two or more computers to communicate with each other, i.e.
exchange files in a format both could understand.
The original modem software was called BitCom, which I claim to have
written, and the original manual was archived using .arc file
extensions, owned by BitCom. The original BitCom manual was printed
with a cover containing four colours, one of which was royal blue,
reserved exclusively for and owned by the royal family or the Queen of
England who is also the head of the Anglican or Christian Church, and a
silver colour. This gives the Royal Family an interest in this
publication, and a clause in the contract says that the manual and
software is supplied free by the modem (hardware) manufacturer.This
software contains the contract which covers use of the modem, and how
to transfer the software from one computer to another.
A legal dispute and a court order resolved Microsoft's and Netscape's
claims in favour of Sun Microsystems (Netscape) which became the owner
of JavaScript, the language which the browser now a software only item,
and installed on a computer running a Microsoft Windows Operating
System uses exclusively.
See: http://www.javascriptkit.com/javatutors/primer2.shtml
In 2008 I took a person to court (filed a claim in the small claims
court for $4,000, after being informed by court staff that this was my
only option) because I had evidence (an email address) he was using my
software. The court not only told me that it did not have jurisdiction
to hear a case concerning software (I considered it was a debt), it
told me I was merely bringing the case to be frivolous and vexatious
because of another dispute I had regarding a boundary fence and an act
of (alleged) trespass which was denied by the defendant. I in turn
could say that the court was not a court at all because the person
hearing the case was not acting as a Judge in a Court of law, but as an
arbiter in a dispute, and as so had no duty. This is the ruling of
English case law which applies equally in our courts. A Judge has a
duty.
Guardian Trust, the Minister of Justice informs me, should have been
the one to bring the case because they are acting as my legal property
manager, after applying to the court and having obtained a medical
opinion from my G.P. in 2007, Dr Janjic, that I may not be able to
fully manage my financial affairs. I reject this assertion, although I
acknowledge that I do require professional financial advice, but am
able to understand it and either accept it or reject it. I accept the
Minister's point, but I fail to see on what grounds this case should
not be heard. It is for a properly qualified legal person to make this
decision, not a quasi-arbiter.
The same neighbour (who I took to court in 2008) made some allegation
about me in 2007 and asked that I be detained under the mental health
act. The court rejected this application at the time by Tauranga
Hospital, and it is my assertion that this was done with malice, and
was not based upon anything substantive which the court could consider,
although I was detained for some weeks while the court considered my
application for a judicial review. It is my feeling that I deserve to
be compensated for being detained against my will by the state, and
having medication forced upon me, when I was acting within my legal
rights and no accusation of law breaking, threatening behaviour or
anything else apart from writing a letter requesting payment for
software I claim to own could be shown to the court.
Guardian Trust Limited has rejected my request to file a case in the
Magistrates Court to get a declaratory judgment as to whether or not I
am the owner of the software I claim to have written.
Guardian Trust has also for five years refused to make any money
available to me for the purpose of bringing a woman I say I have fallen
in love with, to this country, for the purpose of seeing whether or not
we are genuinely in love and wish to make a future together. In 2007
when the last property management order was made (I allege under duress
from threats made on tape by lawyer John Patterson) I had, according to
Guardian Trust Limited, $80,000 of a sum I inherited from the estate of
the sister of my deceased mother, my Auntie Margery Burgess, in trust.
I have not had an annual statement of my financial situation for three
years, and the latest one shows that Guardian Trust claims now to have
only 30,000, of teh original $160,000 I inherited in 1999. My new
lawyer is getting an itemized account made, and the property management
order expired on 28th August 2010, but I cannot make a legal will or
change my will because the court order prohibits it. I cannot as the
law stands make any legal contract, even down to the purchase of the
most basic item, without the consent of my Property Manager Craig
Roebuch of New Zealand Guardian Trust Limited.
As I pointed out to Anna-Marie Skillern of Berseng and Co, Lawyers,
P.O.Box 13282 Tauranga, I am not stupid. In 1968 at the age of 12 I had
a measured IQ of 147. The following year when it was retested to see
why I wasn't doing better at school it was measured 20 point higher at
167. I don't know what my potential is, but I am certainly able to
comprehend any fact put before me ina coherent fashion.
My Auntie Jess who took out the original property management order
which put her eldest son Bruce in charge of my financial affairs, died
last year aged 91. She ironically had a property management order
placed on the affairs of her sister, my Auntie Marge. She was
convinced according to the senior doctor at Tokonui Hospital, that I
was mentally ill. He said at the time that there was no evidence of any
mental condition, specifically schizophrenia, the condition my Aunt was
alleged to have before doctors found a thyroid condition which was
treated.
I'm sure you do not want to be drawn into a medical debate which may
have to be settled with a second opinion which I am entitled to. I
think the legal case is fairly black and white, and concerns certain
facts, and certain human rights which have been established and cannot
be taken away.
I'm hoping that you can consider this before the end of the month, and
certainly before the court case on the 11th of February.
There are a few more facts you may wish to be informed of.
(According to the official Microsoft DOS-5 manual)
Microsoft does not own or have legal rights to the
Unformat command
Undelete command
Mirror command
(Even though, format, delete are part of the Microsoft DOS Operating
system, and still essential to its latest iteration, the Windows Vista
and other Windows Operating systems.
The mirror commands record keystrokes on the computer and are needed to
undelete and unformat- used in recovering deleted data, but were
installed on DOS 3, (Disc operating system 3).
Microsoft was accused of trying to monopolize the entire internet, and
even though it lost an anti-trust lawsuit for its monopolistic
practices, it is still trying to do the same thing, by first attempting
to take over Sun Microsystems, ad now form an alliance with Oracle
which has in effect taken over SUN Microsystems.
Although Microsoft does not own the rights to Sun JavaScript, which is
essentially the software which is the internet, because web pages are
opened and read in a web browser window it is still continuing, in
violation (arguably) of a 2001 court order ordering Microsoft to make
payment to Sun Microsystems for attempting to copy (which it denies)
the Sun software- JavaScript.
There are not two halves to the operating system, web browser
arrangement in which Microsoft owns the rights to ASCII code, keyboard
software, software drivers (all documented in the Microsoft DOS-5
manual which I claim to have written for Microsoft), but three parts,
the other belonging to myself as Baker Publishing, not a registered
company, consisting of the timing system, also written in JavaScript,
and the mouse and scrollbar which enables the computer to use a screen
size much larger than the actual screen of the computer. The mouse
originally was duplicated, but since there is no room for it in the
operating system where it was originally, it (the computer) now uses
the other version which is located in the browser software, in the
timing system, which I wrote.
If the web browser, and mouse system and timing system were written by
Microsoft, and not reverse engineered, or copied by them as I claim,
why has the court ruled against Microsoft with respect to their claim
over JavaScript, and their rights to develop and distribute their own
browser?
There are other points (and questions, too many to answer here), but
one is regarding the use of the Microsoft or Java Virtual Machine.
There are two types of memory accessed by the computer, or machine. One
is actual physical memory, called Expanded memory, the other is Virtual
memory or Extended memory. The virtual memory is a lot faster than
actual physical memory because it is inside the chip, inside the CPU or
central processing unit, and it is virtually infinite. It is accessed
by Microsoft software, but it is addressed through (called by the name
of the Java Virtual Machine, and is owned by Sun, (Microsystems),
corporation or incorporated society or corp.
It is interesting to note that JavaScript was used in the camera of the
RAF (British Aerospace) (Sea) Harrier as early as 1978 (and later in an
upgraded version), but that those who work on it are defense employees
and subject to the official secrets act. The same software is now used
in commercial television broadcasts, and it was DOS-5 which first
brought colour to the computer screen. I used this in 1990, and it was
officially released in 1991 (according to the Microsoft DOS-5 manual.
Not only am I claiming ownership of Sun, Sun JavaScript and the Timing
System which comes as part of the web browser which is available to
download for free for an evaluation for 30 days or one calendar month
(which ever is the longer), and therefore the right to charge $2,011
per copy (the same as the current year, and incrementing by $1 or 1
euro each year) (and an additional $2,011 every month as part of the
pay or delete or install a new copy shareware agreement) , as legal
owner of the software which is the internet, I'm claiming at least $1
or (1 euro per month from) telecom, the "owner of Jetstream or
BroadBand also calls ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) and ADSL, from
the $30 per month (29.95) Telecom, or the internet provider charges its
customers. This amounts to over 450 million euros per month including
tax of approximately 20%, because there are currently approximately 450
million internet users in Europe.. Depriving me of this is depriving me
of what is legally mine.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm Baker