The People's Court?

What are Australia's courts?

- Are they 'Chapter III' courts, as defined in the Constitution, as that's what they MUST be.

- Are they 'corporations' as mentioned by many?

- Are they as stated by the court themselves “The People's Court”?

MANY a respondent/accused has been yelled at by a judicial registrar, magistrate or even judge when questioning the sometimes shady actions of person behind the bar stating that the premises that they are in is "MY court", at which point in time the accused should stop the matter and require the person behind the bar to recuse themselves, as the accused in not going to obtain a 'fair hearing'.

So, let's take a closer look into the court system in Victoria, bearing in mind that this is a complex topic, where only a few aspects have been skimmed through.

On the 14^th of February 2020, a document called “MCV 170 Years of the People's Court exhibition (2008).pdf” is published as seen within the link:

https://www.mcv.vic.gov.au/news-and-resources/publications/magistrates-court-victoria-170-years-peoples-court-exhibition

From it's own documentation the Magistrates Court states that it was established in 1838, which should be reflected in an Act.

The current Court is 'born' under the Magistrates' Court Act 1989, where in 2008 the Court would be only 19 years old or in 2020 31 years old, yet the court states that it is 170 years old as of 2008.

Remembering that the Court is subject to Victoria's Constitution Act 1975.

There is a problem here as Victoria already had a Constitution prior to federation that being in 1855, where all law prior to federation is to be carried over.

The Victorian Constitution Act 1855 (UK) is an Imperial Act, and since the government of Victoria installed another Constitution in 1975, i.e. 120 years later, did it have the lawfully authority to repeal a UK Imperial Act?

In short, the answer is no, the government of the day did so, unlawfully.

As of November 2021, the people of Victoria are informed that the Magistrates' Court of Victoria conducts business in such a manner as to:

“Develop, maintain, and enhance key relationships with internal and external stakeholders to influence decision making processes and outcomes critical to the success of MCV, including court staff and judiciary, Court Services Victoria, and other Victorian government departments. “

So, let's get this very clear that the court stated that it has internal and external stakeholders to influence decision making processes and outcomes critical to its success.

Who are the internal and external stakeholders?

The only lawful 'stakeholder' (singular and not plural) should be the government under the Crown in right.

The stakeholders the Court mentions are financial services institutions, that have vested interest in the Court's profits arising from cases.

The 'MAGISTRATES COURT VICTORIA' is currently registered as an active business with the ABN 32 790 228 959.

A requirement by ALL business is that they must provide their ABN in business transactions but the 'MCV' does not.

Why is that?

Is there a clause in an Act that the MCV is exempt?

Hundreds of 'persons'/respondents/accused are being deceived per local 'Court' every single day, where the Courts act with impunity.

It seems that the 170 year celebration of the 'The People's Court' has come to a deceitful end many years ago.

The real question is will you (as a victim/respondent/accused) take part in this fraud, let them deceive you or will you take action against their deception?

And that's not even mentioning the 'Queen of Australia' and other taboo/scoffed at topics, that are a legitimate question of law or a 'Section 78B'.

See also :

Courts acting under dictation owned by financial services institutions

Courts acting under dictation owned by financial services institutions

Australia's kangaroo courts are a joke at their 'customer's' expense.

The courts are corrupt to the core, where they have been usurped.

The legal requirement of a 'fair hearing' has been thrown under a bus.

The businesses referred to as 'Courts' are not longer acting independently or even acting solely under the Crown in right, but rather are run by stakeholders that influence decision making processes and outcomes critical to the “success” of the Court, as stated by the "MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA" in public document.

Straight from the 'horse's mouth'.

See document below:

The business known as the Court operates under the following conditions:

"Develop, maintain, and enhance key relationships with internal and external stakeholders to influence decision making processes and outcomes critical to the success of MCV, including court staff and judiciary,  Court Services Victoria,  and other Victorian government departments."

- What are the names of the "external stakeholders"?

- What 'influence' in decision making to they possess? 

- What is the definition or value of 'success' with regards to the operations of the MCV?

- What other influence do the stakeholders have over "Court Services Victoria and other Victorian government departments"?

- Who else has access on your 'private and confidential' information that resides within the Court?

So, realistically how can you have a fair hearing?

You can't, period.

See full pdf:

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp a data collection corporation!

Corporations w̶a̶n̶t̶ need you to use their apps on portable devices rather than a browser on a personal computer/laptop, as more data is 'hoovered' up that way.

When opening up the news.com.au site on a browser and reading 10 native articles, meaning not being directed elsewhere, Murdoch tries to obtain a whopping over 17,360 pieces of information (156 MB worth of data) from you.

When using their app, since is it closed source you do not have any knowledge of what sort of information is being siphoned from your smart phone, nor do you realistically have any control.

Most importantly they know exactly where you are (to within a few feet) from a new method of accurate geo-location that being via WiFi & Bluetooth scanning.

All this data collection is not used for your benefit, but rather theirs, that's why there is that heavy advertising for you to 'be on it' meaning the corporation's companion app.

We recommend using open source apps from sources like f-droid.org

Australia's 2022 Federal election is a fraud!

This is just one aspect, that is part of the fraud, that the mainstream media are concealing. 

Did the Governor General act with the Advice of the Executive Council when issuing the Election writs?

There are many questions to be answered surrounding the issuing of writs for the federal election. Below is the government gazette evidencing writs were issued. Now the question is are the writs issued according to law? Is witnessing a document causing it to be issued? When the Governor General caused the writs to be issued did he do so on the advice of the Federal Executive Council in his role as the Governor in Council consistent with Section 32 and 63 of the Constitution?

 

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT  - SECT 12.

Issue of writs.

                   The Governor of any State may cause writs to be issued for elections of senators for the State. In case of the dissolution of the Senate the writs shall be issued within ten days from the proclamation of such dissolution.

  

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT  - SECT 32.

Writs for general election.

                   The Governor-General in Council may cause writs to be issued for general elections of members of the House of Representatives.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT  - SECT 63.

Provisions referring to Governor-General.

                   The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Governor-General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

 

It is quiet clear when the Governor General acts in his role as Governor General in Council, he is to do so with the advice of the Federal Executive Council (s63), when this occurs the governor proclaims the advice, he cannot act in an alternate  capacity when acting 'In Council'.

 

It is clear this has not occurred when causing the writ to be issued.

Under section 61 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General. This power covers the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth. The Federal Executive Council was established by section 62 of the Constitution to perform similar functions in 

Australia to those performed by the Privy Council in the United Kingdom, that is, to advise the Crown.

 

It is the formal, constitutional and legal body responsible for advising the Governor-General (as distinct from Cabinet). The Executive Council is the legal means of ratifying executive acts by or on behalf of the Governor-General. Sections 62 and 64 of the Constitution provide for the Council to consist of Ministers and Ministers of State and Federal Executive Councillors under summons. They are required to advise the Governor-General regarding the Government of the Commonwealth. Meetings are held regularly, when Parliament sits, usually at Government House in Canberra. However, meetings may be held in other locations (e.g. Parliament House) depending on the number of Executive Councillors present. For this reason, the location of the Federal Executive Council has been taken as the location of the Federal Executive Council Secretariat in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

 

The location of the Federal Executive Council prior to 1936 is subject to further research, as for a time the offices of the Prime Minister's Department were located in Melbourne and Parliament House in Canberra (1927-1936). The Secretariat is responsible for organising meetings of the Federal Executive 

Council, ensuring that appropriate Cabinet approvals have been obtained, that appropriate inter ministerial consultation has taken place, that agreement has been reached and that the Executive Council documents reach the standard of quality required by the Council. Meetings of the Federal Executive Council may be convened by the Secretary to the Council after consulting the Governor-General is unavailable to preside at a meeting of the Council, the meeting may, with his prior agreement, be held in his absence. A quorum of the Council consists of: (a) the Governor-General and two Ministers; or (b) the Vice-President of the Federal Executive Council and two Ministers; or (c) three Ministers The work of the Federal Executive Council is mainly concerned with action to be taken under Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament. 

It therefore covers a wide spectrum of the Commonwealth's administration and includes such matters as:

 - the making of Proclamations and Regulations

 - the creation and abolition of government departments and positions

   in them

 - the issue of writs for the election of Members of the House of

   Representatives

 - the making and terminating of appointments to statutory offices on

   boards, commissions, councils and tribunals

 - the prohibition of import and export of certain commodities

 - the approval of compulsory land acquisitions

 - authorising entry into international treaties

 - authorising of government borrowings overseas

 - commissioning of officers in the armed services 

Business is submitted to the Executive Council by Minute; each Minute is accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum. All Ministers, in their capacity as Executive Councillors under summons, may make recommendations for consideration by the Governor-General in Council. Consequently, if a 

Minister responsible for a particular Minute is absent or otherwise unavailable, the Minute may be signed by the Minister carrying out his or her duties or by another Minister on his or her behalf. 

This is provided for in section 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 

Source: Commonwealth Government Directory, Volume 2, 

Federal Executive Council and Parliamentary Departments, March 1984.

 
In 2013 the ABC in the below story tells us writs are 'printed on heavy paper and has a traditional wax seal, quaint 19th century wording and font, and sets out the formal dates for all the required steps of the election'. 'The Commonwealth's writs are similar. They are definitely not the sort of document you print quickly in A4 from a laser printer.'

The writs for the six state Senate election are signed by each State's Governor. The drawing up of the writ and instruction to sign it are through the state's Executive Council, in effect on the advice of the Premier.






Various electoral Writs. 

Below is a copy of a writ for the 2012 Queensland election:




Gazette articles:
1974




2022




  Senate Writs

The 2022 New South Wales & Queensland Writ clearly provides the seal and endorsement required by the Commissioner but the other State writs are absent these requirements.

NSW




Queensland




 South Australia clearly has a seal embossed under the Governors signature




Western Australia have clearly hidden the seal in use and there fails to be a signature of the Premier.




Victoria and Tasmania have failed to seal the writs.

Victoria




Tasmania

ACT

Northern Territory

Writs for the House of Representatives

New South Wales

Victoria

Queensland

South Australia

Western Australia

Tasmania

Australian Capital Territory

Northern Territory

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 - SECT 153

Writs for election of Senators

             (1)  A writ for the election of Senators shall be addressed to the Australian Electoral Officer for the State or Territory for which the election is to be held.

             (2)  Where a writ for an election of Senators is received by the Australian Electoral Officer for a State or Territory under subsection (1), the officer shall:

                     (a)  endorse on the writ the date of its receipt;

                     (b)  advertise receipt of, and particulars of, the writ:

                              (i)  in not less than 2 newspapers circulating generally in the State or Territory; or

                             (ii)  if there is only one newspaper circulating generally in the State or Territory--in that newspaper;

                     (c)  take such steps as the officer considers appropriate to advise each Divisional Returning Officer in the State or Territory of the dates fixed by the writ; and

                     (d)  give such directions as the officer considers appropriate to each Divisional Returning Officer in relation to the holding of the election.

 

 

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 - SECT 154

Writs for election of members of House of Representatives

             (1)  A writ for the election of a Member of the House of Representatives or for a general election for the House of Representatives shall be addressed to the Electoral Commissioner.

             (4)  Where a writ for an election to be held in a Division, or each Division, in a State or Territory is received by the Electoral Commissioner under subsection (1), the Commissioner shall:

                     (a)  endorse on the writ the date of its receipt;

                     (b)  advertise receipt of, and particulars of, the writ:

                              (i)  in not less than 2 newspapers circulating generally in the State or Territory; or

Below the Governor General Acts under section 5 of the Constitution and seals with the Great Seal of Australia.

Below is a Commonwealth writ for the House of Representatives

showing there must be a seal next to the witness declaration,

The letters LS on the left represent where the seal is to be placed.

In 1998 there was an amendment to the Electoral Act via the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1998, that on the face of it allows for preference votes (other than first preference votes) that in the opinion of the electoral officer can be used to preference the leading candidate most likely to be elected in that Division. This new amendment of 1998 allows for your vote to preference a candidate that was not the intention of the elector to occur.

 

ELECTORAL AND REFERENDUM AMENDMENT ACT 1992 No. 219 of 1992 - SECT 26

Scrutiny of votes in House of Representatives elections

26. Section 274 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection

(2) the following subsections:

"(2A) If, in a House of Representatives election, there are more than 2

candidates for a Division, the Australian Electoral Officer for the State or

Territory that includes the Division must, in writing, direct the Assistant

Returning Officers for the Division also to count such preference votes (other

than first preference votes), on such of the ballot papers, as, in the opinion

of the Australian Electoral Officer, will provide an indication of which

candidate is most likely to be elected for the Division.

"(2B) An Assistant Returning Officer to whom a direction is given under

subsection (2A) must:

   (a)  count the preference votes in accordance with the direction; and

   (b)  transmit to the Divisional Returning Officer any information required

        by the direction; in the manner specified in the direction.".

Source: constitutionwatch.com.au

PM Bob Hawke a paedophile, See Candy Girl Documentary by Fiona Barnett

See documentary by Fiona Barnett, Part 2:

Clearview AI fined £7.5 million and told to delete all UK facial recognition data

It ordered the company to delete the data of UK residents from its system.

Clearview AI has been fined £7.55 million ($9.5 million) by the UK's privacy watchdog for illegally scraping the facial images of UK residents from social media and the web. It was also ordered to stop obtaining the data of UK residents and to delete any it has already collected. "The company not only enables identification of those people, but effectively monitors their behavior and offers it as a commercial service. That is unacceptable," said UK information commissioner John Edwards in a statement. 

The UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) opened a joint investigation with Australia into Clearview AI back in 2020, and issued a preliminary fine of £17 million ($21.4 million) against the company late last year. At the time, the office noted that "Clearview AI Inc’s database are likely to include the data of a substantial number of people from the UK and may have been gathered without people’s knowledge from publicly available information online, including social media platforms."

n issuing a final injunction, the ICO noted that globally, the company illegally collected more than 20 billion facial images for its database. "Although Clearview AI no longer offers its services to UK organizations, the company has customers in other countries, so the company is still using personal data of UK residents," it said. 

Clearview AI sells an app that can be used to upload a photo of someone, then try to identify them by check its database. The data has been used by thousands of public law enforcement agencies, despite the technology being in a legal grey area. 

Twitter, Google and YouTube have all sent cease-and-desist letters to the company, alleging that it violates their terms of service. Facebook has also demanded that Clearview stop scraping its data. The company has received complaints from privacy groups in Europe, and was hit with a €20 million fine in Italy.

In the US, the ACLU sued Clearview for violating Illinois state laws. The company recently settled that lawsuit by agreeing to restrict the use of its database in Illinois, though it will still supply it to federal agencies and other states.

How the AEC commits fraud - It's in the Scrutineers Handbook

The AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) has been committing electoral fraud in the 2022 federal elections.

What's worse, is that it's in their 'manifesto' that being the Scrutineers Handbook from 2021.

The best part about it is that they will get away with it!

From the document:

Source:supplied

The AEC’s electoral fraud

The AEC has offered the wrong information to voters, during a crucial voting window.

It doesn’t matter if it’s deliberate or not.

If a Dr accidentally gives you the wrong medication what happens?

Harm may have been caused.

It is reported .

An investigation takes place.

Often a lawsuit follows.

If the Dr is reported for giving the wrong medication, and the Dr is made aware, and then continues to give the wrong medication

What happens then ?

What if the Dr then started attacking the person complaining about the harm they were causing others?

They would likely be charged, and steps taken to ensure no further harm was caused to anyone else.

Why?

Doctors carry a lot of power and a lot of responsibility.

The AEC is giving out information to voters repeatedly that is incorrect and is causing harm.

It has the potential to change the result of the election.

It can change who represents you down in Canberra .

That is why there is a criminal complaint and the Australian Federal Police are going through the evidence.

I am taking this incredibly seriously, the integrity of our voting system matters to Australians.

Our legal team is building, and I’m am going to drive this hard until there is accountability.

The support I’m receiving for this is nothing short of a miracle .

Thankyou for walking beside me Australia

Steve

Authorised by Steve Dickson 9 Tyler Rd Mons 4545

Source:supplied