04 September 2015

Why the Infringements Court is not a valid Court – No Act

Most Constitutional lawyers, Justices of the Peace, Internet Detectives, Facebook Lawyers should know that Australian Courts are (read should be) set up via something called due process of law.

If they are not, then it’s not ‘lawful’ irrespective of its (the alleged court’s) existence.

During this process the court is set up with a document called an ‘Act’.

Let’s take for example a fair few well known courts.

Although technically not a court this place of business called VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) has an ‘Act’, which is called (surprisingly) the VCAAT Act 1998, where it can be referred to at:

So, the first step in the ‘Court Tree’ is the public forum called the Magistrate’s Court, where it too has an Act with the uninspirational name of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989, in the example of Victoria, which can be viewed at:

The next step (in Victoria) is the County Court (for other states it’s the District Court) where this ‘court’ also has an Act, the County Court Act 1958 as shown in the link:

Section 2 of a court’s Act should be titled Commencement where it is stated when the Act comes into play, as in the example of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 – Sect 2:


This Act comes into operation on a day or days to be proclaimed. 

where at this point you can refer to the appropriate government Gazette to view its proclamation.

So let’s start disassembling the ‘Clayton’s* Court’ (The court you have when you’re not having a court (CorpAu)), i.e. the ‘Infringement’s Court.

From the nomenclature used by the corporation conglomerate (commonly referred to as the government), an Infringement’s Court should have, by rights, the name of a document called the Infringement’s Court Act, with the year pertaining to its ‘legal’ setup.

Little doubt at this point in time internet sleuths would have searched in their favourite search engine for the ‘Infringement’s Court Act’ where one would have returned a result of:

well realistically not quite true, but one get’s the picture.

The closest result would be the Infringements Act 2006 residing at:

meaning there is no lawful proclamation of an ‘Infringement’s Court’ (from an Act's point of view).

Another point in law to note is the false advertising of the “Infringement’s Court”.

* - A colloquial term referring to a brand of non-alcoholic drink, where it was immortalised in Australian TV commercials by Jack Thompson using the catch phrase “The drink you have when you're not having a drink”.

This post is covering only the topic of Acts in reference to the Infringement's Court, but there are a few more topics to cover with reference to the so called 'court'.

Note: The actual validity of the Acts referred to in this post is put aside.


The Fine Guy. said...

Nice, but how about the real facts?

Unknown said...

Well maybe you would like the real evidence?

Unknown said...

Maybe you would like some Prima Facie Evidence of this Fact?

AuCorp said...


Willing to accept any correspondence.

We can communicate via email if you like.


Anonymous said...

The infringement Court is a 'venue' of the magistrates' court.

Iva1 said...

Look into legal defition from blacks law,etc at Coram non-judice. It defines clearly the validity of the Infringements Court and the worthless penalties and Warrants issued. I would love to see an article re: coram non-judice and address any court that is not a chpt 111 court and perhaps they all can be defined as Coram non-judice. Once is made it known to Department of Justice i would argue coram non-judice all claims were withdrawn.

the GLOSSA channel said...

Iva1's comments need to be followed-up on. This is a story worthy of further investigation. It's high-time we shut the corrupt government down to the extent that they think very, very carefully about ever trying to pull a bullshit stunt like this ever again!