Case law

If you can verify any of the sections in images, please send link to the case law and description (page) of the quoted piece, to pma@thecommonwealthofaustralia.com.au

Image	Text (OCR scanned, may be errors)
	The doctrine of negligence: The law of negligence imposes a duty on us all to take care so as to avoid injury, loss or damage to another. The Rescuer’s Duty of Care: Lord Atkin of the House of Lords described this duty in the seminal case of Donoghue v Stevenson, and I quote: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonable for see would be likely to injure your neighbour. Verified: https://www.revise-law.com/donoghue-v-stevenson and https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html Justice Dixon’s of the High Court “of Australia” In the case Munday v Gill [1930] HCA 20; (1930) 44 CLR 38 (14 August 1930) – states that officers must prove every aspect of the case, including the lawfulness of the acts refers to. VERIFIED (exact quote will be posted when found) Chief Justice French of the High Court “of Australia” In the case South Australia V Totani [2010] HCA 39 (11 November 2010) stated that even Magistrate’s Courts must be in accordance with Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitutioned. Not stated, NOT VERIFIED, “interpretation” is not “stated” Hayne J: Crennan J: Kiefel J: Bell J: AND Keane J concur: of the High Court “of Australia” In the New South Wales. High Court Slams Retrospectively — DPP v. Keating [2013] 8 May 2013 The High Court criticised the amendment as creating a “statutory fiction” This is a clear reminder by the High Court of the presumption against retrospective Legislation and the need for law to be certain and ascertainable: not arbitrarily changed later to patch up a problem, and: Comment, not verified, see 46, 47 of case in link. OTT, C.J., HILL, FINLEY, WEAVER, ROSELLINI, HUNTER, and HAMILTON, JJ., of The Supreme Court of Washington concur in the case (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261) They are the law of government for internal regulation, not the law of man, in his separate but equal station and natural state, a sovereign foreign with respect to government generally.) (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law,) A “Code’ is not a Law,” NOT VERIFIED
	J Higgins in the case Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), concluded that A “Statute’ is not a Law,” NOT VERIFIED Circuit Judges: Wallace, Kennedy and Fletcher In the case (Rodrigues v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); concur …lacking due process[of law_, in that they are `void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism.In the case (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law, A “Code’ is not a Law,” “Code’ is not a Law,” NOT VERIFIED
	In the cases (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705, 707; Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165). A concurrent or joint resolution’ of legislature is not “Law,” codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws. – statement, conclusion, not case law, NOT VERIFIED In the case (Rodrigues v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985) “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law.” NOT VERIFIED The Common Law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land. The codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” Chief Justice TANEY In the case Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1859), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that State courts cannot issue rulings on federal law that contradict the decisions of federal courts, overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin Chief Justice TANEY In the case Ableman v Booth. No state law or court can contradict Federal Court case rulings Primary Holding No decision of a state court is valid if it conflicts with a decision by a federal court Newcrest Mining (WA) Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia [1997] HCA 38: Extracts from what Justice Kirby said at “Interpretative principle” ..Where the Constitution is ambiguous, this Court should adopt that meaning which conforms to the principles of fundamental rights rather than an interpretation which would involve a departure from such rights. Verified: https://jade.io/article/68005
	There is more than adequate proof to show that many laws passed – and enforced -by both federal and state governments are illegal and void. There is also hard evidence to show that certain laws are routinely ignored by courts, such as magistrates’ courts. Here are just a few High Court precedents and rulings that show this, remembering that the High Court is the highest judicial body in the nation and its rulings are in fact binding on all courts. In the case of Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet [2003] HCA 67; 217 CLR 545; 202 ALR 233; 78ALJR 105 (13 November 2003), Justice Kirby states very clearly between paragraphs 203 — 213 that the purported Australia Act — which Government agencies hang their hats on every day — is illegal and void, because it purports to alter the Commonwealth Constitution without complying with Section 128, which can only happen by way of a referendum. COMMENT – The Australia Act has been declared to be illegal and void, therefore any action that a government takes under this Act is illegal and void. Reading paragraphs 203 – 213 we can agree with the above comments, but they are not quotes. Paragraph 210 (VERIFIED from the case link above): The joint reasons complain[221] that the parties, interveners and amici did not challenge the validity of the Australia Acts. But that has been the problem – that governmental and political parties have not contested the validity of that legislation. They represent the very class who devised and enacted it. The constitutional arrangements of this country do not belong to them but to the people as electors for whom this Court stands guardian. It is not for parties, interveners or amici, by their agreements or silence, to oblige this Court to misapply the law – least of all constitutional law, concerned as it is with the fundamentals of government[222]. The question of validity was repeatedly raised by me during argument in these applications, as it has been in other cases. Justices of this Court owe a higher duty to the Constitution and the law. They are not hostages to the arguments of the parties. Nor are they mere arbitrators of the disputes that parties choose to define and propound.
	In the case of Port of Portland v State of Victoria [2010] HCA 44 (8 December 2010, all 7 Justices confirm the validity of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 and the Bill of Rights 1688. COMMENT – Many lower courts routinely ignore or dismiss the Imperial Acts Application Act, so defendants can demand that magistrates are legally bound to rule in accordance to this Act if applicable. •In the case of Hospital Provident Fund Pty Ltd v Victoria [1953] HCA 8; (1953) 87 CLR 1 (11 March 1953), Justice Williams talks about Section 2 of the Victorian Acts Interpretation Act, that all Acts are subject to the Commonwealth Constitution and that a court should ensure the Constitutional validity of an Act. COMMENT – All courts have to observe Constitutional validity when passing judgement, therefore defendants can produce this ruling if their matters are subject to this Act. Comment not a quote Actual quote from Port of Portland v State of Victoria [2010] HCA 44 (8 December 2010, paragraph 13 (VERIFIED from link above): 13. The Bill of Rights is one of the “transcribed enactments” set out in s 8 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 (Vic) and by force of s 3 thereof continues “to have in Victoria … such force and effect, if any, as [it] had at the commencement of this Act”. The preferable view is that these provisions in the Victorian statute at best serve only to reinforce what are settled constitutional principles. From the grundnorm represented by the constitutional settlement by the Convention Parliament there was to be no turning back in England, or thereafter in the United Kingdom. In Australia the absence of a power of executive dispensation of statute law, what Dixon CJ called a “general constitutional principle”[16], became an aspect of the rule of law and, as Wild CJ put it with respect to New Zealand, is “a graphic illustration of the depth of our legal heritage”[17]. Such a power is absent from the Constitutions of the States which are identified in s 106 of the Constitution.
	In the case of South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39 (11 November 2010, Chief Justice French stated that even magistrates’ courts must be in accordance with Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution. NOT VERIFIED COMMENT – Again, this ruling proves that all courts are required to act in accordance to the Constitution, so if defendants become aware that a magistrate or judge is ignoring their Constitutional rights, they can produce this ruling and force the courts to adhere to it.