Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Magistrates' Court Jurisdiction

There is NO DOUBT that the judicature in Australia is literally corrupt to the core, and the slate should be wiped clean only to start from scratch.

There is little 'chatter' from the corporate media on this topic, or even on significant court cases that the corporate media's reporters attend but do not make public.

The Magistrates' Court, a place of business, trading and commerce has literally NO jurisdiction over you, if you do not let it.

The following post has been reproduced with the permission from the original author, with minor editing.

I had a constitutional barrister talk with me over my matter in the Frankston magistrates court on the 1st April. He informed me that all Magistrates’ Courts only recognise and run under "state constitutions" and they only acknowledge the charges brought to them and make their decisions on case law of the charges, NOT YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW, a defence under federal constitution will not be looked at, and they will only hear a defence under the act that you have been charged under.

He stated that you have to challenge the Act’s legitimacy (Road Safety Act etc) and the state Constitution’s legitimacy for your defence.

so ok I’ve done that before.

For my matter the Victorian Constitution of 1975 where the court draws its power to act from, is not a valid constitution because the 1855 constitution could only be amended not "repealed" so that makes the 1975 Victorian constitution invalid, and whereas the 1855 constitution did not receive royal assent either and was enacted by British parliament so that makes that null and void as well.

Reason the 1855 Constitution is not valid is because of the fact that Australia is the only Commonwealth nation that has no treaty with its original tribes to bring a de jure law from England and make it valid in this country............... that’s what a treaty is for to secede the original lore of a land to a new law of a foreign land namely England.

So, since this has never been done, you could state that NO legislation that draws its power from a state Constitution is valid via no treaty to give it any force of law....... and must be challenged to get it out of the Magistrates’ Court and into a court that will look at your evidence and defence.

And the way to do that is to challenge the validity of the legislation you’re been charged under,       by the Magistrates Court Act.

Stating that the Road Safety Act (1986) is not in accordance with section 92 of the 1901 Constitution will not be acknowledged as a defence, because the Magistrates’ Court only recognises the state Constitutions not federal.

I don’t see a reason that you will need to treaty 1st to play this, only to know the fact that until there is a treaty to extinguish the original lore of this land, a foreign law or a law that replaced it like they have today, has any effect or basis in law by means of NO TREATY to give any law of the Commonwealth (even commercial law) power.

Magistrates' Court Act 1989 - SECT 100

100. Extent of jurisdiction

(2) The Court does not have jurisdiction in any cause of action- 

(a) in which the effect of, or the validity or invalidity of, any act, matter or thing done or omitted to be done by any person or body whatsoever in the exercise or purported exercise of any power or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body or purportedly conferred or imposed on that person or body by or under- 

(i) any royal prerogative; or 
(ii) any statute- is sought to be determined or declared; or 

(b) in the nature of a proceeding for a prerogative writ; or 

(c) brought on a judgment of the Supreme Court or the County Court.

I believe that since the police ‘prostituion’ office are not lawyers or barristers they can't run a matter under a Chapter 3 court under the federal Constitution, so since the state Constitution is the instrument that gives the powers of the court and cops authority to run, they run under that .

So, if you challenge the validity of the statutes the charges draw their power from and apply for a Constitutional challenge under Section 100 Subsection 2 of the Magistrates’ Court Act, the ‘prostitution’ can’t act and has to hand it over to the DPP, then you would challenge the validity of the Constitution by means of Ultra Virus because of no treaty to use the Crown’s law here in a higher court.

I had the ‘prostitute’ walk in the courtroom without her brief today, after being a typical hero cop bitch last week, I walked up to her yesterday and told her that I’m seeking applications under Section 100 sub 2 for a Constitutional matter and she was quite the different lady, still a chip on her shoulder but not so bitchie, now the matter is listed for a contest hearing on the 1st July, and the Magistrate told her on 3 occasions that the problem that she is going to have is getting me TO CONSENT TO THE JURISDICTION of the court, so he listed it for a contest hearing, and acknowledged me for stating that I will be filing for malicious prosecution, and she said that she will be dropping the not following bail requirements charge, because they sent it to the wrong address.

So alls good so far.

I have MR CRISP as a magistrate, he charged and jailed someone for contempt of court for blowing a bubblegum bubble in court, only to have it dropped on appeal............... but the guy sat in lock up for 12 days before the appeals court day ............... so his a prick................. even the barrister told us that his mad, and he said the he was a shit barrister and a worse magistrate................ so where it goes from here no one knows.

Source supplied.

No comments: