Makes You Think…
2. Not All Judges Obey The Rules
When a country is under COMMON LAW JURISDICTION, then a FREE MAN has the inalienable Right to TRIAL BY JURY and his CONSENT is required.
But, in Australia (supposedly a COMMON LAW country), it is often ignored and ADMIRALTY LAW is used, (ie: the Law of the Sea - as opposed to the Law of the Land (ie: "legem terrae" of Magna Carta).
Here is what you may encounter:
Recently in a Supreme Court, a defendant, JOE, stated in effect "I am challenging the jurisdiction of the court." - HIS HONOUR - "Upon what basis?" - JOE - "I have not given my consent." - HIS HONOUR - "Consent is immaterial. The matter does not depend upon the consent of the contemner. Are there any other applications, or can we proceed?" JOE - "You cannot proceed. I have not given my consent to be without a jury.- HIS HONOUR - "I have said your consent is immaterial. The matter is ruled upon. That is the end of it."
THAT IS THE END OF IT ?..... NO! Stand up for your rights!
The Courts and Judges of today are NOT hearing cases as Judges.- they are NOT of Competent Jurisdiction under, nor appointed under, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act from 1st January 1901, inter alia with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) [63 & 64 Vict.] [Ch. 12].
In the High Court Bulletin ... The Judges are only acting as a Coram
Coram = ... in the presence of; before .... (Butterworth's Concise Australian Legal Dictionary)
They are NOT hearing cases as Judges.
Definition of Commonwealth, which is clear and unchallengeable, according to the express wording of the Preamble and the first six clauses of the Constitution Act. The Commonwealth of Australia is the people. not the landmass.
"No free man shall be taken..... (etc)...." .... whereas a slave is a person whose consent is "immaterial." If the Judge claims that Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights, etc., is not valid, ask him how come we still have Parliamentary Privilege … see ..