Challenging Jurisdiction

So you may ask the magistrate before you begin the proceedings of your trial or hearing:

“Is the Constitution Act valid law in this courtroom today?”

And there should be one of two reactions.

They should say, yes, the Constitution is valid law in the court, or no, the Constitution is not valid law in the court today.
If yes:

“Thank you, sir, for confirming the Constitution Act is valid law in the court. Can you now confirm the court is bound to the power and authority within the sovereignty of the United Kingdom found at Clause 2 binding upon all at Clause 5?
Is it not so the Fountain of Justice and all source of power, and jurisdiction flows from the Monarch into the court?
Is the Monarch’s Justice and Mercy present in the courtroom today”

Should they fail to answer, ask three times. If they fail to answer the second time, you could say:

“Sir, if you fail to answer a third and final time, it will be taken on and for the record with judicial notice, that this court fails to be bound to the authority of the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom prescribed by the Constitution Act”

The House of Lords in the Quark Fishing case of 2006 confirmed that if a question arises on what authority or pursuant to what power an act is done, it is to the Constitution that one would turn to find the answer.

“Sir, it is clear that you have failed to establish jurisdiction as you operate in a jurisdiction foreign to the foundation law of this country. Your pretended jurisdiction has clearly been exposed.”

So what does lack of jurisdiction mean?
When the court is not authorised or has the power to hear and issue an order for a case, legally, as per the Constitution, the court has a lack of jurisdiction.
The power of the court to make and take such a decision only lies with authority imparted as per the Constitution.
Three factors determine a court’s jurisdiction and ability to hear a case. The court should have:
  • Jurisdiction over the parties
  • Jurisdiction over the subject matter
  • Authority to issue an order over the subject matter
What we’re attacking is the authority to issue the order. To further elaborate, if the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a case, they lack jurisdiction. They cannot undertake any decision regarding it.
So shifting liability so as to challenge jurisdiction.
“Sir, I must apologise, but there are no facts in evidence the prosecution have left me no choice but to challenge the jurisdiction of the court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
We use quarantine for an example here.
“There are no facts in evidence to establish I was labouring under an infectious disease and the State’s quarantine powers could not be engaged against me.
I move this court to strike the matter out as the claims are an attempted vexatious prosecution due to the failure to establish the facts.”
So the court must have subject matter jurisdiction. There must be facts in evidence to prove a fact. It can’t be a hunch, it can’t be assumption. You must establish it on a fact. And how do we know that and how do we back this up in the court? Well, it’s called a reasonable belief. So what is meant by a reasonable belief, was addressed in George v. Rocket 1990 HCA. A reasonable belief can only be reached on the basis of a fact. The full bench of the High Court stated in the case:
“When a statute prescribes that there must be reasonable grounds for a state of mind, including suspicion and belief, it requires the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person.”
This is the High Court precedent you require for the Magistrate to understand what the Police assert must be based on a fact and not just from a hunch.
“What instrument of delegation can this Court point to as its source of power and Jurisdiction today?”
Full video of that presentation is available from the Living Free Movement (access to LFM Members Only) #LawfulMeWebinars
More information available from: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/

 

Posted by admin