Have you ever heard when a Magistrate has said this is my court?
Their rules?
It’s probably because he/she is standing persona designata (in a private capacity, not as a Chapter III appointed Magistrate/Judge).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_designata
The persona designata doctrine is a doctrine in law, particularly in Canadian and Australian constitutional law which states that, although it is generally impermissible for a federal judge to exercise non-judicial power, it is permissible for a judge to do so if the power has been conferred on the judge personally, as opposed to powers having been conferred on the court. The doctrine in the more general sense has been recognised throughout the common law countries (including the United States). Persona designata, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, means “A person considered as an individual rather than as a member of a class”; thus it may be a person specifically named or identified in a lawsuit, as opposed to the one belonging to an identified category or group.[1] While it has its origin in Montesquieu‘s doctrine of the separation of powers, it can be traced back as far as Aristotle‘s Politics.
In Australia the doctrine is considered to be an exception to the Boilermakers’ doctrine of separation of powers, which holds that conferral of non-judicial power which is not incidental to the exercise of judicial power on a Chapter III court (a federal court) is unconstitutional.[2][3][4]
So I will be asking, your Honour/Sir/Madam/name of choice, “Sir, are you acting here today persona designata or judge qua judge? Are the rules of this room found in the Criminal Procedures, Civil Procedures or they your own quasi-criminal, quasi-civil or some other rules?
If you are writing to a court, or possibly verbally, you might ask:
Is the court sitting in the correct jurisdiction consistent with Clause 2 and Clause 5 of our primary law, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as proclaimed and gazetted under the Royal Coat of Arms, and, is the monarch that the court derives its power from, the monarch within the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, consistent with the primary law of the Commonwealth?
Is this court’s jurisdiction of common law or admiralty?
See also:
Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003
Section 122 (6) Schedule 1 is amended by deleting “our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors” in the 2 places where it occurs and in each place inserting instead —
“ the State of Western Australia ”.