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:
Commencement
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.
7 comments:
Nice, but how about the real facts?
Well maybe you would like the real evidence?
Maybe you would like some Prima Facie Evidence of this Fact?
O.K...
Willing to accept any correspondence.
We can communicate via email if you like.
Cheers.
The infringement Court is a 'venue' of the magistrates' court.
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.
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!
Post a Comment