There are a fair few points in Australia’s legal history that make zero (legal) sense, are ultra vires, or just plain and simple, laws have the not been installed lawfully.
In the 1980’s the legal minds in the motherland were in fits of laughter at the at colony’s bumbling legal ‘professionals’, more like amateurs with regards to a law being put into action, where the colony was labelled as being a “legal basket case”.
The law being proposed was akin to a large umbrella over the colony, but the legal ‘bubble headed boobies’ had zero idea if it would be ‘lawful’, you know being put into circulation lawfully with all the checks and balances in place an all the i’s doted and t’s’ crossed.
So the legal buffoons made up an couple of Acts, a local version and an imperial one of the Australia Act 1986, so when one refers to the Australia Act, the question would be which one?
IF the answer in court would be the Commonwealth one, then the next question that needs to be answered is, is it place ‘lawfully’ or as one would put it in legal speak “a Section 78B Notice”, with reference to the Judiciary Act of 1903, or a more colloquial term a ‘constitutional argument’, but that’s another topic altogether.
Journalism has been dying a slow and painful death in Australia, where now it’s nothing more than government sponsored propaganda not different from Pravda or the Xinhua News Agency.
The Australian Government has bought the subservience of the ‘news’ outlets in the form of tax breaks, where now the news websites now contain nothing more than government approved propaganda stories and for revenue generation, clickbait.
The news outlets led you to believe that they obtained exclusive information or ‘leaked’ documents where in reality there is no such thing when it comes to those publications, as the information released to them is carefully chosen.
In relation to the Djokovic matter, the readers were lead awry with regards to the focus on the real culprit, that being of those in charge of the colony.
Australia’s legal system is corrupt to the core, it’s a farce, a bluff and many actions of those in government are not lawful to say the least.
On a few occasions the mainstream media was invited to attend court matters of section 78B importance, where an excuse was given that there was not enough resources available to attend to that matter, yet a media team was dispatched to follow an ‘influencer’ in Melbourne’s Chapel St. shopping district.
The site constitutionwatch.com.au publishes FOI documents in relation to government actions and other information on the topic of law that is of paramount importance if one has anything to do with the colony’s legal system.
See article of the title:
FURTHER LEGAL ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT THE DECISION IN THE DJOKOVIC MATTER BEING ABSENT JURISDICTION AND THE REQUIREMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT TO REMAKE THE DECISION ACCORDING TO LAW.
In a recent Constitution Watch post we correspond with the Federal Court, cc’ing in various Serbian Consulates, Parliaments and Embassies informing the Court of their jurisdictional errors in the Djokovic case debacle, we present for you the reply and further response.
Veliki Pozdrav,
Greetings Victorian Registry of the Federal Court Australia,
.
.
.
“I would strongly recommend you attempt to obtain legal advice as the matters raised in your email would appear to raise complex legal issues.”
.
.
First and foremost whether I obtain legal advice or not is irrelevant as it has no bearing whatsoever upon the court addressing it jurisdictional error. Any decision the court makes must be according to law and once notified of a jurisdictional error, which in law is properly regarded as no decision at all, the court his compelled and has a duty to correct the error pin law. Thus, the court is not functus officio as it has performed a function beyond its powers. Accordingly I demand you forward all of this correspondence for the perusal of Chief Justice Allsop. No doubt you are aware that Registrars are considered strangers to the court, (R v Davison 1954 HCA) and given that Registrars act administratively and not Judicially it is your duty to forward the challenge to the courts jurisdiction to a judicial officer of the court, in particular Chief Justice Allsop. For which we will his correspondence.
The decision in Djokovic has no bearing if I was a party to it or not, but as a question of the jurisdictional powers of the court and this most certainly is in the publics interest that all decisions made by this court comply with any constitutional limitation placed upon it. The practical operation of the Migration Act 1958 must be within constitutional limits, the Minister has exceeded these limitations and therefore affects all Australians. In relation to appeal of this decision it would only be open to the parties of the proceeding. However, this is not a question of appellate rights but rather of the jurisdictional authority to her and adjudicate on the matter. The judicial powers of the Commonwealth vested in the Federal Court pursuant to section 71 can only be exercised according to law, to act outside of the proper application of these judicial powers invested in the court must be exercised according to law. It is thus s71 that compels the court to reexamine its decision and whether it was consistent with the lawful exercise of the judicial powers of the Commonwealth.
If you can spare a few dollars for the creators of this website to continue their research to bring you more great content, any amount, no matter how great or small, would be greatly appreciated, go to:
