Another lesson as to why Traffic Administrative Law is Unlawful in Australia
The following information is based on my own research and knowledge of our Australian Law. The author and publisher disclaim all liabilities in connection with the use of this information Under the public benefit social security scheme, citizens may be subrogating their common law rights. It is the responsibility of all individuals to understand their contracts within the public system.
All traffic fines proceed from the Infringement Act 2006, which as it stands administers laws that are inconsistent with our Commonwealth Constitution. One of these simply been our Constitutional right of free use of all Commonwealth roads. The other issue concerns where the authority to act judicially lies, the Constitution referring to the jury panel without any exception for all matters both criminal and civil.
The Infringement Act 2006 itself relies on the Australian Act 1986 which unlawfully has given the states absolute power to enact laws with total disregard of the correct procedure of enacting new laws in Australia through the Queen’s assent. The Australian Act 1986 was introduced unlawfully by Bob Hawke and must be considered by all subjects of Australian as null and void. .
The Sovereign electors confirmed in the 1984 referendum that the powers of the State cannot override Commonwealth Law. The background of the 1984 referendum is as follows; Question 2 concerned the interchange of powers: Enable the Commonwealth and States to voluntary change power with each other, 1 Dec 1984. A total of 47.06% voted YES to Question 2 which was not enough to carry through. This makes the Australian Act 1986 null and void and any State Parliamentary Act that stems from the Australia Act also of no effect to a Sovereign Subject.
This confirmed again in TAYLOR V TAYLOR (1979) 143 CLR 1. Quote: “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.” End Quote. The ruling of the Court in relation to the “Direct Collateral Attack” is through the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980, this is also supported by a decision of the County Court of Victoria in 2006 whereas the crown could not defend the Australia Act 1986 as being valid and thus is Ultra Vires, in the main as it does not comply with section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act, of which the crown conceded to this fact.
The alleged Infringement Act 2006 which relies on the Australian Act 1986, must comply with the Commonwealth Constitution through section 15A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). At this stage, this is not the case. There is no provision in any constitution conferring judicial power upon the Parliament or the executive government within the state of Victoria; this is an administrative procedure that is devoid of all judicial purpose and intent.
All valid Acts in Australia must be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent, as laid out in Section 58 of the Constitutional Act 1901, for the approval of a royal identifier. The Infringement Act 2006 clearly states “The Parliament of Victoria enacts as follows..”, thus must be recognised as invalid and void. It is the sovereigns duty to not consent to these unlawful administrative procedures.
In conclusion, both the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Infringement Act 2006 are Void due to their dependence on the Australian Act 1986 which was unlawfully introduced as Law in Australia. This information may and should be used by all subjects of Australia in all letters and in Courts.