VCAT acts beyond its power – unenforceable judicial decisions!

MANY Australian authorities act beyond the scope of what they are lawfully allowed.

What is worse is they also gaslight you during this process.

Recently, approximately one year ago, Queensland’s Supreme Court ruled that the so called COVID-19 vaccine mandate for frontline workers was unlawful.

See article:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-28/covid19-vaccine-frontline-worker-mandate-supreme-court-ruling/103517798

SO during this mandate, the authorities did not check whether they had the lawfully enacted instrument for the ‘mandate’ to occur, they just forced the trial drug on frontline workers because that's what they wanted to do.

If you did not comply, your employment would be terminated.

Therefore those that did not comply were unlawfully terminated, where the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal business did not offer a remedy for the victims of government abuse.

VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) as its name suggests is a tribunal.

 VCAT is enacting one the largest legal cons on the unsuspecting Victorian public.

The current, as of 23 June 2023, president of VCAT judge Edward (Ted) Winslow Woodward, pictured left, together with every single member issuing orders are complicit in this fraud causing harm to many respondents.

Will this ever come out like in the above mentioned Supreme Court case from Queensland?

Well, it’s already out since 2018, and it’s a one up better as it’s from the High Court of Australia.

Will the media pick up on this? Did they inform the general population of this from 2018?

Let’s do a quick recap on the unlawful actions of VCAT with regards to MANY orders issued by them.

First and foremost:

• The High Court's decision Burns v Corbett significantly narrowed the jurisdiction of commissions and tribunals.

• The High Court held that the Australian Constitution precludes a State tribunal from exercising federal and state jurisdiction, as tribunals are not Courts and cannot exercise judicial powers and jurisdiction.

A tribunal or Commission not being a 'court of a State' cannot adjudicate disputes involving any of the matters set out in ss 75 and 76 of the Australian Constitution, (see the sections below) even when the dispute involves the application of State legislation. The decision affects all areas of law including:

- anti-discrimination disputes,

- residential tenancy disputes,

- building and construction disputes.

A State law cannot impair or detract from the operation of a Commonwealth law by impairing the Commonwealth law’s ‘conditional and universal’ application, except to the extent that it has a ‘legal operation or practical effect within the universe of the conditional legal operation of the Commonwealth law’. Impairing or detracting from s 39(2) of the Judiciary Act is to say that the Parliament has made a complete, exhaustive and exclusive statement on federal jurisdiction: ‘It is necessarily to say that the Commonwealth Parliament has not only provided positively for the conditional investiture of federal jurisdiction in State courts but has also stipulated negatively for the non-investiture of any jurisdiction with respect to any of those matters other than in State courts.’ Gageler J noted the difficulty of finding any such ‘negative penumbra’ in the text of s 39(2), and stated that the more fundamental problem lies in finding a source of Commonwealth legislative power: namely that s 77(iii) does not allow Parliament to confer judicial power on a tribunal that is not a State court.

The Industrial Relations Tribunals and tribunals of the State such as VCAT and the Fair Work Commission all fall into the same category, 

- they fail to be courts and cannot provide you with an enforceable judicial decision.

Let's see the case file:

THEREFORE, ANY Order that is enforced by law enforcement, e.g. Victoria Police is done so unlawfully.

Tortfeasor is a term worth exploring.

Have you been harmed by VCAT?

 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75

Original jurisdiction of High Court.

    In all matters--

  (i.)   Arising under any treaty:

  (ii.)   Affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries:

  (iii.)   In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:

  (iv.)   Between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State:

  (v.)   In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth:

the High Court shall have original jurisdiction. 

 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 76

Additional original jurisdiction.

    The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High court in any matter--

  (i.)   Arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation:

  (ii.)   Arising under any laws made by the Parliament:

  (iii.)   Of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction:

  (iv.)   Relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws of different States.