Articles - The Courts
05 Do You Really Want To Pay That Fine?
Search this website
Traffic Camera Revenue Raising Department
.............. Police Force
"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error;
it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nürnberg Trials.
A couple of things for your to ruminate upon regarding the "fine".
An impenetrable barrier for you is the question of Section 115 of An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK) 63 & 64 Victoria Ch. 12.
Section 115 is not an either/or situation, but is a neither/nor requirement which leaves no room for error in interpretation.
The Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK)
63 & 64 Victoria Ch. 12
Chapter V—The States
115 States not to coin money
A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.
This section is what is known constitutionally as an “express prohibition”. In other words the States are expressly prohibited from making anything other than gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts. A State cannot substitute anything for payment of a debt, such as property or assets of any kind, nor can a period of imprisonment be substituted for non-payment. State courts may find liability but cannot order other than gold and silver coin be paid to extinguish debt. This was confirmed to me recently in the Queensland Supreme Court when Justice Ros Atkinson, when I asked her how costs could be paid considering Section 115 of the Commonwealth Constitution, said, “I won’t go into that, it is up to you”. I then said “Thank you your Honour, that means they can’t be paid”. Crown Law has not sent me a bill since that time as they know full well they cannot collect what is not available. As there are no gold and silver coins in common circulation it is not possible for a State to make any person pay debts to a State, or to any person in a State, as this would breach Section 115. Conversely, not being able to compel any person to accept other than gold and silver coin, a State is prohibited from demanding other than gold and silver coin.
The Queensland State Legislature, along with the other 5 State Legislatures, cannot make any law that breaches Section 115 of the Commonwealth Constitution.
This leads us to understand that the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld) is invalid where it claims to be able to steal assets, homes, vehicles and such like, and cannot lawfully stop a person from holding a driver licence due to inability to pay fines and penalties. It also prevents a State instrumentality from instructing a bank to hand over “money” from any account. Banking law is the preserve of the Commonwealth Parliament and it cannot create a law enabling States to circumvent any part of the Commonwealth Constitution. Apart from which electrons in a computer are not gold and silver coin.
The Commonwealth cannot override the Federal Constitution as we are all, The People, parliaments, Governor-General, State Governors, public servants, members of parliament, police etc.., subject to, and under the An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK) 63 & 64 Victoria Ch. 12.
By the way, you should note that the An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK) 63 & 64 Victoria Ch. 12, being an Act of the British Parliament, cannot be claimed to be any other Act. Hence, any copies which bear the name Australia, and the Australian “Coat-of-Arms”, are unlawful and cannot be imposed. The Commonwealth of Australia, and the Federal Parliament are under that Act, and subject to it, and cannot claim it to be an Act of the Australian Federal Parliament.
You see it is not possible for a State Parliament to make valid legislation that allows a State Government Department or Agency to order a bank, other than a State Bank, to hand over any of the contents of any bank account as the power over banking clearly rests with the Federal Parliament in Section 51, placitum (xiii) (below) and the Federal Parliament has no power to override Section 115 to enable State parliaments to interfere with the banking power. In other words, claiming that the State Debt Recovery Office (SDRO) has the power to confiscate people’s property, (and money is property and must have value) is totally false and any such part of any legislation that breaches the Federal Constitution is invalid ab initio.
"Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham, "sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour, but such a decision is not an element that produces invalidity in any law. The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab initio." Uniform Tax Case HCA 1942 (65 CLR 373 at 408).
Part V—Powers of the Parliament
51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
(xiii) banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money;
Your minions appear to be unaware that there is a legal requirement for a supplier of goods to accept legal tender as payment, as, if legal tender is refused the debt is considered to have been paid. As there is no legal tender available, to wit, gold and silver coin for State purposes, no payments can be lawfully demanded by a State. Only gold and silver coins may be demanded for payment and as there are no gold and silver coins (legal tender) then there is no debt from that point on. The complete lack of gold and silver coin is a legal impediment not personal to me and beyond my control. Should a party agree to settle a debt in a private agreement by way of barter, it can be so done, however a State cannot require other than gold and silver coin.
Section 115 of Clause 9 of the An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK) 63 & 64 Victoria Ch. 12 is crystal clear in its meaning, which is explained concisely by reference to page 575, paragraph 2 of “The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth” by John Quick and Robert Garran, 1901.
¶ 178. “Legal Tender.”
DEFINITION.—Legal tender is the act of tending, in the performance of a contract, or in satisfaction of a claim, that which the law prescribes or permits, and at such time and place as the law prescribes or permits. (Webster's Internat Dict.) In the United Kingdom all coin current under proclamation, whether British, foreign, or colonial, is legal tender. British gold coin is legal tender for any amount, unless defaced or deficient in weight; British silver up to forty shillings, and British bronze up to a shilling. (Coinage Act, 1870 [33 and 34 Vic. c. 10] s. 4.) Bank of England notes are legal tender in England for all sums above £5, except by the Bank itself and its branches. (Bank of England Act, 1833 [3 and 4 Wm. IV. c. 98, s. 6].) The notes are treated as cash and not as securities for money, and they pass by mere delivery. (Miller v. Race  1 Burr. 452.) The notes of a county bank are good tender, if not objected to at the time of tender. (Polglass v. Oliver  2 Crompt. and Jarv. 15.) In Australasia and New Zealand, by an Order in Council of 1896, it is provided that the rules as to the amount for which British coin is legal tender are the same as in the United Kingdom. (Imperial Statutory Rules and Orders, 1896.)
COINAGE AND LEGAL TENDER.—By section 115 the States are forbidden to coin any money or to make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts. The prohibition is similar to Art. I. sec. 10, subs. 1 of the United States Constitution. Hence it appears that under both Constitutions the creation and regulation of the monetary system is a power conferred on the Federal Parliament. It is a general power; the Parliament is not limited in the choice of metals to which it will give the quality of money. It may choose some other metal than gold and silver, and impress upon it a legal tender quality. But if a State endeavoured to compel a person to accept anything but gold or silver as a legal tender, the person aggrieved could appeal to the Courts of the Commonwealth for relief. (Burgess, Political Sci. II. p. 143.)
No contract can subvert legislation and the requirements of contract law are specific in that a contract can only be valid if it is legal.
This term, in its more extensive sense, includes every description of agreement or obligation, whereby one party becomes bound to another to pay a sum of money or to do or omit to do a certain act; or, a contract is an act which contains a perfect obligation. In its more confined sense, it is an agreement between two or more persons, concerning something to be, done, whereby both parties are bound to each other, *or one is bound to the other. 1 Pow. Contr. 6; Civ. Code of Lo. art. 1754; Code Civ. 1101; Poth. Oblig. pt. i. c. 1, S. 1, Sec. 1; Blackstone, (2 Comm. 442,) defines it to be an agreement, upon a sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing. A contract has also been defined to be a compact between two or more persons. 6 Cranch, R. 136.
2. Contracts are divided into express or implied. An express contract is one where the terms of the agreement are openly uttered and avowed at the time of making, as to pay a stated price for certain goods. 2 Bl. Com. 443.
3. Express contracts are of three sorts 1. BI parole or in writing, as contradistinguished from specialties. 2. By specialty or under seal. 3. Of record.
4.-1. A parole contract is defined to be a bargain or voluntary agreement made, either orally or in writing not under, seal, upon a good consideration, between two or more persons capable of contracting, to, do a lawful act or to omit to do something, the performance whereof is not enjoined by law. 1 Com. Contr. 2 Chit. Contr. 2.
5. From this definition it appears, that to constitute a sufficient parole agreement, there must be, 1st. The reciprocal or mutual assent of two or more persons competent to contract. Every agreement ought to be so certain and complete, that each party may have an action upon it; and the agreement would be incomplete if either party withheld his assent to any of its terms. Peake's R. 227; 3 T. R. 653; 1 B. & A. 681 1 Pick. R. 278. The agreement must, in general, be obligatory on both parties or it binds neither. To this rule there are, however, some exceptions, as in the case of an infant's contract. He may always sue, though he cannot be sued, on his contract. Stra. 937. See other instances; 6 East, 307; 3 Taunt. 169; 5 Taunt. 788; 3 B. & C. 232.
6.-2d. There must be a good and valid consideration, motive or inducement to make the promise, upon which a party is charged, for this is of the very essence of a contract under seal and must exist, although the contract be reduced to writing. 7 T. R. 350, note (a); 2 Bl. Coin. 444. See this Dict. Consideration; Fonb. Tr. Eq. 335, n. (a) Chit. Bills. 68.
7.-3d. There must be a thing to be done, which is not forbidden; or a thing to be omitted, the performance of which is not enjoined by law. A fraudulent or immoral contract or one contrary to public policy is void Chit. Contr. 215, 217, 222: and it is also void if contrary to a statute. Id. 228 to 250; 1 Binn. 118; 4 Dall. 298 4 Yeates, 24, 84; 6 Binn. 321; 4 Serg & Rawle, 159; 4 Dall. 269; 1 Binn. 110 2 Browne's R. 48. As to contracts which are void for want of a compliance with the statutes of frauds, see Frauds, Statute of.
8.-2. The second kind of express contracts are specialties or those which are made under seal, as deeds, bonds and the like; they are not merely written, but delivered over by the party bound. The solemnity and deliberation with which, on account of the ceremonies to be observed, a deed or bond is presumed to be entered into, attach to it an importance and character which do not belong to a simple contract. In the case of a specially, no consideration is necessary to give it validity, even in a court of equity. Plowd. 308; 7 T. R. 477; 4 B. & A. 652; 3 T. R. 438; 3 Bingh. 111, 112; 1 Fonb. Eq, 342, note When, a contract by specialty has been changed by a parole agreement, the whole of it becomes a parole contract. 2 Watts, 451; 9 Pick. 298; see 13 Wend. 71.
Lastly, the Currency Act 1965, the authority on legal tender in the Commonwealth of Australia, clearly lays down what is legal tender in its Section 16. Gold coins that can be bought from either the Royal Australian Mint or the Perth Mint, are clearly numismatic as, for instance, if one were to buy a $100 face value gold coin, for the selling price of around $1,500, which has a “melt” price of around $540, government departments only accept such coins at their face value of $100. The Currency Regulations tell us that a $10,000 face value gold coin of 99.99% pure gold weighs 1 kilogram and has a value of over $30,000 at current gold price. What is the point in such a coin?
You remain our humble servant.
Have another great public service day,