Saturday, May 9, 2015

Why a fine from the Infringements Court is NOT valid

In Victoria, Australia apparently there exists a so called court - the Infringements Court.

You say: Is it true??? !!! ???

Your lawyer says: Well that's what the envelope says, so it MUST be true.....
(remembering that the lawyer works for 'them' not you, call it (the lawyer) a 'misinformation merchant')

See illustration:



The interwebs has many answers, and so do facebook 'how to get out of (whatever)' groups (maybe) full of:
  • ex lawyers (waiting to give you advice for free - to put themselves out of business),
  • (alleged) paedophile judges preying on you in their domain,
  • drunks with a wifi connection to their outback outhouse,
  • commoners with interwebs connection,
  • Year 7 schoolchildren with (unauthorised) access to their parents computers,
  • descendents of convicts who somehow acquired computing skills without the authorities knowledge.

For those who can fluently type "infringements court" in a popular search engine, they may be able to comprehend that it is (allegedly) a venue of the Magistrate's Court as shown in the illustration below:



But really what is wrong with the above picture that was captured using the very trick key sequence of (Ctrl) C and (Ctrl) V.

Well, one must look at the laws* of Victoria to answer that question.

There is more than one way to nullify the 'Infringement's Court' and the following way is just one of those methods:

Irrespective of the validity of the Victorian Constitution Act (1975), as some may say that the Victorian Constitution Act (1855) is unrepealed and still in force, Section 3 of the '75 Act states:


CONSTITUTION ACT 1975 - SECT 3

Laws of England to be applied in the administration of justice     (1)     Subject to the Imperial Acts Application Act 1922 [2] all laws and statutes in force within the realm of England on the 25th day of July, 1828 (not being inconsistent with any law now in force) shall be applied in the administration of justice in the courts of Victoria, so far as they can be applied within Victoria.

 ref: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca1975188/s3.html

also with reference to a 'court' it is defined in Sect 75(2) of that same Act:

(2)     The Court consists of the Judges of the Court, the Associate Judges of the Court and the judicial registrars of the Court.

ref: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca1975188/s75.html#the_court

So....

With reference to your 'infringement' which has been ruled 'ex-parte', putting aside the fact of 'double jeopardy' you cannot be 'done' twice...

From that so called Infringments Court you need the name of:

1). the Judge of the court who foresaw your matter (obviously ex-parte),
2). the Associate Judges of that court,
3). the names of the judicial registrars of that court.

In order to 'deal with it' you'd have to choose to go to a 'Magistrate's Court', which is really a place of trading/business/commerce.

N.B: In court, should you call yourself, the person's personal representative of the legal fiction name, or call yourself a 'freeman' it would be wise to also bring a tub of 'Vaseline', so that when they bend you over, it won't hurt as much!

Some may suggest that the ONLY law in Australia is a "do not harm another", or even that men of their stature do not go to court, as no doubt they have written on their "Infringements Court" letter:

" I DO NOT CONSENT" or
"LEGAL FICTION, - RETURN TO SENDER",
etc.

and what STILL occurs is something call "due process", irrespective whether it's lawful or not.

* - The validity of law in Victoria is put aside.


The mainstream (Rupert Murdoch) media refuses to report on matters of such significance where Victorian motorists are being defrauded of hundreds millions of dollars annually by the 'authorities'.

1 comment:

Phillip Kahle said...

The infringement's court or more or less a bulking centre for people who want a default judgement.