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.”
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.
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
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“What instrument of delegation can this Court point to as its source of power and Jurisdiction today?”
More information available from: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/