Registration?

Contents

Registration??

(Note the following is my personal research, and cannot be taken as legal advice, as I’m not a lawyer, just a person interested in their rights and how to stand up for them. Thanks!)

Part One: Meanings

Definitions:

Oxford Australian Essential Dictionary and Thesaurus:
Noun: An official list of things or names etc. 2. A book in which items are recorded for reference. 3. A device that records the amount of something automatically a cash register.

Verb: List something in a register. 2. Indicate; show: The thermometer registered 100*

Australian National Quick Reference Dictionary and Encyclopaedia:

Noun: An official record; a roll; a book for special entries of facts;

The Macquarie Dictionary and Thesaurus:

Noun: A record of acts, occurrences etc. 3 A mechanical device by which certain data are automatically recorded, as a cash register. 4. Computers, a device capable of holding digital information until it is required. 5 Verb: To enter or have entered formally in a register. 8. To enter ones name or cause it to be entered, in an electoral or other register; enrol.

Readers Digest Oxford Complete Wordfinder:

1.An official list eg of births, marriages and deaths, of professionally qualified persons, or of qualified voters in a constituency. 2. A book in which items are recorded for reference. 3. A device recording speed, force, etc. Verb: 1 to set down (a name, fact etc) formally; record in writing. 3. Enter or cause to be entered in a particular registry.

Mirriam-Websters dictionary:

 reg·​is·​ter | \ ˈre-jə-stər  \

Definition of register (Entry 1 of 3)

1: a written record containing regular entries of items or details

2a: a book or system of public records

b: a roster of qualified or available individuals

a civil service register

3: an entry in a register

7a: an automatic device registering a number or a quantity

b: a number or quantity so registered

c: CASH REGISTER

9 : a device (as in a computer) for storing small amounts of data

especially : one in which data can be both stored and operated on

(note all of these are to do with recording data in a system, not one mentions making ongoing payments. I could not find a single dictionary with a meaning involving the payment of money, and most had similar meanings.)

To make this clear, here is an actual legal dictionary’s meaning.

Legal Dictionary for Australians (Peter Alderson = 3rd edition):

Something formally and officially recorded. Registration is necessary for many activities such as births, deaths, marriages, the licensing of motor vehicles to be used on the public roads, the forming of companies and the purchase or transfer of land.
Note that the registering of births and deaths and marriages does not require ongoing payments.

Here’s another interesting definition I’ve found in the Australian Legal Dictionary:

Golden Rule: One of the rules of statutory interpretation adopted by the courts. According to the Golden Rule, judges will apply the literal or normal meaning to a word or phrase unless doing so would lead to an absurdity or inconsistent result.

Literal Rule: A General rule of statutory interpretation where words are to be given their plain or normal meaning.

Any changes to these meanings (which are widespread, as per the many different dictionaries that back this up) As an officer said to me “a vehicle is unregistered when the payment period expires”.
This is in effect a breach of section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution which states that “On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce and intercourse among the states, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.” Now to change the definition of “registration” to include making payments violates the “absolutely free” part. Both in terms of money, and freedom of movement. As I found out, an officer will pull you over and prevent you from using the roads if this payment expires. In both senses of the word, that makes what Victoria Police are doing, and what Vicroads is doing illegal, and null and void.

Having said all this, it’s important to recognise that the only way I or any other Australian could be driving an unregistered car is if it was brand new, or if it wasn’t recorded in any system, or wasn’t using the number plates or somehow had no Vehicle Identification Number. If any or all of those things are not present, then the vehicle would be unregistered. If all those things are present (and I can show you they are – the presence of the fine itself is proof of this) then my vehicle is, in fact, registered. If the system it’s recorded in says that it’s “unregistered” it’s the same as writing the word “dry” on a piece of paper, and submerging it in water. Yes the piece of paper would still say that it’s dry, while it would, of course, be very wet.
The fact that the officer scanned my plates, looked me up in the system, found my details, then pulled me over, shows that my data is undoubtedly recorded in the system. Therefore it IS registered.

Hayne J in the High Court pointed out in Fyffe v Victoria (2000) 172 ALR 336; 74 ALJR 1005 (HCA) A case from Victoria covering Clause 5 of the constitution which provides : “… this Act, and all laws made by the parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth.” – (5.39 Introduction to Australian Public Law) 

Presumption of innocence:  Our legal system operates on the presumption that a person who is accused of a criminal offence is innocent until proven guilty according to the required standard of proof. The burden of proof falls upon the party, usually the Crown, making the accusations.




Part Two: The Commonwealth Constitution.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Commonwealth-Constitution-of-Australia-Design-2.jpg
Our Constitution gives us vital rights.

The Introduction to Australian Public Law -5th Edition David Clark states that (1.7: The Constitution of the Commonwealth to be found in s9 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK) and is the highest form of law in Australia.

Preamble: Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland, and under the Constitution herby established.

Section V: This Act and all laws made by Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and people of every State, and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State.

Section 106: The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.

Section 109: When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
Section 117: A Subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall NOT be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.

Section 118: Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial procedures of every State.

Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution which states that “On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce and intercourse among the states, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.”

Quick and Garran state in the Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth that on section 92: (p1024 section 84)
“Freedom of Interstate Trade: This section is intended to provide for the perfect freedom of trade and commerce among the States, from the moment of the imposition of uniform duties. In order to secure that object the strongest possible words have been used. Nothing has been left to implication. In this respect the Constitution of the Commonwealth is more explicit than the Constitution of the United States”
and on Page 1025:

“…absolute freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse may be defined as… the right to travel unburdened by State restrictions, regulations, or obstructions. “

W.GMcMinn states in a Constitutional History of Australia that : “the Commonwealth was bound as much as the States not to interfere with trade between states in any way

Part Three: Null and Void/ Repugnant laws:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Red-Ensign-Repungnant-laws-jpg.jpg

I’d like to draw attention to section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution which states that “When a law of a state is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”

Also worth noting is the many times the constitution makes it clear that laws are SUBJECT TO THIS CONSTITUTION.

(Section 2, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10, Section 27, Section 31, Section 51, Section 52, Section 58, Section 76, Section 87, Section 106, Section 108, – of course Section 109 – )

So we know laws can be void. The Commonwealth Constitution of Australia -W Harrison Moore states on page 383 (which is a whole chapter about unconstitutional legislation) that: An Act of Parliament which deals wholly with matters not granted to the Legislation, or with matters withheld from it, or exercises power in a forbidden way, is void… Thus, when it is once established that some part of an Act of Parliament is invalid, the ordinary presumption in favour of the validity of a legislative Act gives way.

On page 570 it states clearly that: “in the case of The Commonwealth Constitution sec 92 establishes specifically that freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse which the implied will of Congress imposes in the United States. In that it is Explicit and not Implicit, it is stronger than the American Constitution. It is secured also against any impairment by the Commonwealth Parliament , that Parliament cannot, like Congress, remit the obligation of the States to respect the freedom…. It also imposes restrictions upon the Parliament, which cannot by any Act of its own impair freedom. In one sense, every condition or regulation laid upon inter-State commerce is a restriction of its freedom.” (check out Fox v Robbins)

http://chrisfieldblog.com/2010/10/18/australian-law

Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
“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 favor, but such a decision is not an element, which 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.”

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, “he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour”. That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.

WATSON v LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374   BARWICK C.J.
To bind the citizen by a law, the terms of which he has no means of knowing, would be a mark of tyranny.

 Imperial Act 36 Edward III of 1363, Chapter 9. That Imperial Act promises that cases brought to the court will be heard.

“If any man feeleth himself grieved contrary to any of the Articles above written, or others contained in divers Statutes, will come into the Chancery, or any for him, and thereof make his Complaint, he shall presently there have Remedy by Force of the said Articles or Statutes, without elsewhere pursuing to have Remedy.” 36 Edward III of 1363, Ch 9

such denial of applications for justice also constitutes breach of the Crown’s Promise specifically that justice will not be deferred.

Magna Carta 1297 Statute Clause 29
“We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

Note the recent finding of the High Court regarding dismissing applications summarily.

Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28 (1 September 2010)
The exercise of powers to summarily terminate proceedings must always be attended with caution. That is so whether such disposition is sought on the basis that the pleadings fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action or on the basis that the action is frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process. The same applies where such a disposition is sought in a summary judgment application supported by evidence. As to the latter, this Court in Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd said: “The power to order summary or final judgment is one that should be exercised with great care and should never be exercised unless it is clear that there is no real question to be tried“.

 All such developments in Australia are to be ignored and also to be resisted.

LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335
“But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary man

Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
“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 favor, but such a decision is not an element, which 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.”

Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471
Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.”

Habeas corpus [1640] 16 Charles I c. X
“that none be put out of his franchise or freehold, unless he be duly brought to answer, and forejudged of the same by the course of the law, and if any thing be done against the same, it shall be redressed and holden for none….
That no man of what estate or condition forever he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, without being brought in to answer by due process of law
That no man be put to answer, without presentment before justices, or matter of record, or by due process and writ original, according to the old law of the land, and if any thing be done to the contrary, it shall be void in law and holden for error…”

Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 278
“In my opinion, where the prior decision is manifestly wrong, then, irrespective of the consequences, it is the paramount and sworn duty of this court to declare the law truly….”

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is how-a-Bill-is-made-in-Australia-519x1024.jpeg
Here is how a law is made. If you’re accused of breaking a law, ask them to provide these papers, and the date it was given Royal Assent.





Also it’s worth noting Section 71 of the Commonwealth Constitution: The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other Justices, not less than two, as the Parliament prescribes.

Part Four: US Cases
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (Scholar select – Harrison Moore first edition:  London 1902)
about:blankEmbed URLPaste a link to the content you want to display on your site.EmbedLearn more about embeds(opens in a new tab)

P566: From the acceptance of leading American authorities by the High Court in Fox v Robbins, it is clear that we may be guided by the mass of case law which has grown up in the United States.

P550: On several occasions the High Court has emphatically asserted the weight, if not the authority, of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States preceding the federation of the Australian colonies in matters wherein the two Constitutions are alike.United States Influence on the Australian Legal SystemDownload

Paying Particular attention to the quotes: “In the last 10 years, there have been around 70 instances of courts in Australian jurisdiction referring to American Law Institute Restatements in their judgments.” (p14)
And “The High Court has referred to decisions of the United States Supreme Court for over a century… Since then, the High Court has cited United States Reports of the U.S. Supreme Court about a thousand times” (p15) https://www.nysdwi.com/supreme-court-opportunity-declare-driving-right-not-merely-privilege/embed/#?secret=0gwZEaI1BA#?secret=rfVprTfBDC

http://thecountyguard.org/right-2-drive-1.html
“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between “Privileges vs. Rights”.  We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S.  Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e.  “laws of no effect”.  In other words – “LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL.”

The Supreme Court in Guest says of the “right to travel” that “Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now 18 USC 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v Moore, 129 F 630, 633 [Circ Ct ND Ala, 1904]. We reaffirm it now.” As we see, the Michigan Supreme Court had already recognized it in 1889, and Crandall v Nevada had alluded to the concept in 1867. The earliest known case working towards developing the concept was Smith v Turner, 48 US 283 (1849).

One of Americans’ basic “Bill of Rights” rights is “the basic constitutional right to travel,” upheld as long ago as in cases such as Crandall v Nevada, 73 US 35; 18 L Ed 745 (1868), Pinkerton v Verberg, 78 Mich 573; 44 NW 579 (1889), and once again reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in so many words, “right to travel,” in Dunn v Blumstein, 405 US 330; 92 S Ct 995; 31 L Ed 2d 274 (1974), and in the following cases:

These include taxes directly upon people or personal property. “…all duties, imposts and excises [indirect taxes], shall be uniform throughout the United States.”[See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.]. This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900).

“Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of limitations upon his authority.” The United States Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp, v. Merrill, 332 US 380©388 L1947)


Part Five: Magna Carta

Magna Carta 15 June 1215

https://www.murdoch.edu.au/School-of-Law/_document/WA-jurist-documents/2016-Vol-7/Western-Australian-Jurist—Devlyn—Stand-Alone-Final.pdf  An Article from the Western Australian Jurist about The Magna Carta and it’s Relevance to Contemporary Australia.


https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j-20151009  – An Article about why the Magna Carta still matters. Quote: “13.  The most influential provisions of the 1215 charter, c 39 and 40, have survived as c 29 of the 1225 charter and its reissues. Only c 29 survives in the substantive statute law of four Australian State and Territory jurisdictions, and as the received law in the other three States and Territory[5]. As translated from the original Latin, c 29 reads[6]:

“NO free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”[7]”

The Legal Dictionary for Australians states:

Clauses marked (+) are still valid under the charter of 1225 but with a few minor amendments.



TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, or to no one deny or delay right or justice.

The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth on page 334 (section 316)  states that: “Thus Magna Charta, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights, contain declaration of rights, privileges, and immunities, which are said to be the inalienable birthright and heritage of property from spoilation. These declarations undoubtedly bind the British Executive and the British Judiciary. They may guide but cannot bind the British Parliament.”

And: “The protection to every man’s life, liberty, or property, except as forfeited by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land, is guaranteed by section 39 of Magna Charta”

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/iaaa1980240/s8.html

IMPERIAL ACTS APPLICATION ACT 1980 – SECT 8

[1297] 25 Edward I (Magna Carta) c. XXIX

No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.

Part Six: Fines etc

Commonwealth Constitution Act: Section 115: A State may not make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.

Section 118: Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial procedures of every State.

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca1975188/s3.html

    (1)     Subject to the Imperial Acts Application Act 1922 [2] all laws and statutes in force within the realm of England on the 25th day of July, 1828 (not being inconsistent with any law now in force) shall be applied in the administration of justice in the courts of Victoria, so far as they can be applied within Victoria.

Imperial Acts Application Acts 1980 (Vic) Section 8, Habeas Corpus (High Court case Port or Portland v State of Victoria.

Imperial Acts Application section 8 sub section 12: (http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/iaaa1980240/s8.html ) “12.     And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures, before any conviction or judgement against the persons, upon whom the same were to be levied.

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes, and freedom of this realm:

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void.

Bill of Rights section 12: That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void.”

The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth Page 336,337 section 318 states: “The Bill of Rights (1688) is of special interest as declaring that certain recited rights are ‘the true ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people to be firmly and strictly holden and observed in all times to come”

It also states on page 867 (section 721) that “… the prohibition against laws impairing the obligation of contracts (Art. I., sec X. I.). These limitations are the foundation of the rule that “vested rights must not be disturbed” (Cooley, Const. Lim., p357)”

Currency Act 1965 sections 9, 11, 16 and 22 (cannot lawfully and constitutionally discharge any debt over an amount of $20)about:blankEmbed URLPaste a link to the content you want to display on your site.EmbedLearn more about embeds(opens in a new tab)Sorry, this content could not be embedded.Try again Convert to link

Currency Act 1965

Authoritative Version

– C2016C01090

In force – Latest Version

View Series

Section 9: 9  Transactions to be in Australian currency  

(1)  Subject to this section, every sale, every bill of exchange or promissory note, every security for money, and every other contract, agreement, deed, instrument, transaction, dealing, matter or thing relating to money, or involving the payment of, or a liability to pay, money, that is made, executed, entered into or done, shall, unless it is made, executed, entered into or done according to the currency of some country other than Australia, be made, executed, entered into or done according to the currency of Australia provided for by this Act.

             (2)  Nothing in this section operates so as to invalidate a will or other testamentary instrument.

Section 11: 11  Payments to be made in currency under this Act

             (1)  Every payment that is made shall, unless it is made according to the currency of some country other than Australia, be made according to the currency of Australia provided for by this Act.

             (2)  For the purpose of making a payment that was payable before 14 February 1966, but is not made until on or after that date, the amount of money in the currency provided for by this Act that corresponds to an amount of money in the currency provided for by the repealed Acts is, subject to subsection (3), an amount calculated on the basis of the equivalents specified in subsection (4) of section 8.

16  Legal tender

             (1)  A tender of payment of money is a legal tender if it is made in coins that are made and issued under this Act and are of current weight:

                     (a)  in the case of coins of the denomination of Five cents, Ten cents, Twenty cents or Fifty cents or coins of 2 or more of those denominations—for payment of an amount not exceeding $5 but for no greater amount;

                     (b)  in the case of coins of the denomination of One cent or Two cents or coins of both of those denominations—for payment of an amount not exceeding 20 cents but for no greater amount;

                     (c)  in the case of coins of a denomination greater than Fifty cents but less than Ten dollars—for payment of an amount not exceeding 10 times the face value of a coin of the denomination concerned but for no greater amount;

             (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), a coin shall be deemed to be not of current weight if it has become diminished in weight by wear or otherwise so as to be of less weight than the weight prescribed as the least current weight of that coin.

22  Prohibition of other than official coins

                   A person shall not make or issue a piece of gold, silver, copper, nickel, bronze or of any other material, whether metal or otherwise, of any value, other than a coin made or issued under the repealed Acts or under this Act or a British coin as defined by the repealed Acts, as a token for money or as purporting that the holder is entitled to demand any value denoted on it.

Penalty:  1 penalty unit.https://cirnow.com.au/ex-victorian-police-officer-comments-on-fines/embed/#?secret=4NVfC4UPf9#?secret=sotIALkHcd

Part Seven: Human Rights

Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/charter-human-rights-and-responsibilities-act-2006/014

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cohrara2006433/ (CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2006)


  12.     Freedom of movement 





Article 6: Everyone has the right everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11: (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 13: Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Article 17: (2) No one shall be deprived of his property.

Article 30: Nothing in this declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Article 15 on the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights:

(Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Act 1986),

Part Eight: Other

(taxes pay for the roads, etc)https://itp.com.au/where-does-the-ato-spend-your-tax-money/embed/#?secret=Ex1Iwmdc5z#?secret=YqzhMNGjHm

Why Do We Pay Tax?

The revenue the Australian Government receives goes to public services and infrastructure, including:

Welfare and payments from Centrelink

Health

Education

Defence

Roads and Railways

Parks and playgrounds

https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/9qj1h9/my_australian_tax_return_shows_where_my_money_went/  (note the section on Transport, general public services, other )

Thus as a tax payer, we do indeed pay for the roads, so there’s no reason to pay “extra”. Also on top of that, financially contributing to roads makes each tax payer a join owner of the roads, and has every right to use their vehicle on their roads.

The Legal Dictionary for Australians

Royal Assent: Before any proposed Bill may become binding statutory law, it must first receive the approval of the Queen’s representative, this being the Governor or Governor- General… Once a Bill receives Royal Assent, it becomes an Act. (See Australia Act 1986 CTH)
(As we are innocent till proven guilty, police and the courts have to prove that there is a law around this, and have to show when and provide the document with the Royal Assent or the Governor-Generals approval. If they cannot provide that, then no law has been broken.about:blankEmbed URLPaste a link to the content you want to display on your site.EmbedLearn more about embeds(opens in a new tab)Sorry, this content could not be embedded.Try again Convert to link

Strawman:  Rundle V Delaware & Raritan Canal Co., 55 U.S 80 (1852)about:blankEmbed URLPaste a link to the content you want to display on your site.EmbedLearn more about embeds(opens in a new tab)Sorry, this content could not be embedded.Try again Convert to link

“A corporation, therefore being not a natural person, but a mere creature of the mind, invisible and intangible, cannot be a citizen of a state, and cannot fall within the terms or the power of the above mentioned article, and can neither plead not be impleaded in the courts of the united states”  

We are the Persons Personal Representative of Person In his her private capacity.  

Monopolies: Section 8 Division 4, Subsection 5 and 9 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 Which brings into place the Statute of Monopolies 1623about:blankEmbed URLPaste a link to the content you want to display on your site.EmbedLearn more about embeds(opens in a new tab)Sorry, this content could not be embedded.Try again Convert to link

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/hist_act/iaaa1980240.pdf

(5) and be it declared and enacted by authority of the present

parliament. That all monopolies, and all commissions, grants,

licences, charters and letters patents heretofore made or granted,

or hereafter to be made or granted, to any person or persons,

bodies politick or corporate whatsoever, of or for the sole buying,

selling, making, working or using of any thing within this realm,

or the dominion of Wales… are altogether contrary to the laws of this realm,

and so are and shall be utterly void and of none effect, and in no

wise to be put in use or execution.”

The Legal Dictionary for Australians states:
Monopoly:
To possess exclusive control over.

Vicroads/vicfines letter: “Fines Victoria acts on behalf of the Victorian Government and is a single point of contact for the public to pay or deal with their unpaid fines.”

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Monopoly-legal-definition-1024x484.jpeg
What if someone started their own registration business? This would prevent them from being shut down in theory!

Financial hardships due to lockdowns:

Final part: Vicroads/Vicfines and Victoria Police acting unlawfully

Legal Dictionary for Australians:

Extortion:  Originally the term related to the taking of any article or money from a person by a public official apparently acting within their official capacity, where in fact the official has no right to such an article or money. Today Extortion relates to demanding money with intent to steal.

Coercion: Force or pressure exerted to change the actions or behaviour of another in a desired way.

Theft: Stealing; the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it. Theft is a criminal offence.

Tort: A Civil wrong where it is alleged that one party has unreasonably interfered with the rights of another. Examples of torts are defamation, trespass, negligence and nuisance.

Block has been deleted or is unavailable.



  • Page
  • Block

Paragraph

Start with the building block of all narrative.

Color

Text settings

Drop cap

Toggle to show a large initial letter.

Typography

Font sizeSizeDefaultabout:blank13203642

Advanced

Skip to the selected blockOpen publish panel

  • Page
  • Paragraph

Topics in this Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.