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you deposited money into your account, and when you went to withdraw those funds the bank told you that you had already withdrawn them, and you could prove that you had not, and the bank had paid them out to somebody else, then the bank has a legal obligation to pay you that money.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 i was officially released in 1991 (according to the Microsoft DOS-5 manual.

Not 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

 

Make a free website with Yola