NOTE: this is work still in progress, key points are below ill fill in and edit the explanation as i get time.
For all that follow the path of the of the Free-man or sovereign that live under corporated occupation of their lands, we all seek the correct jurisdiction to hear a claim brought against us, we know the court system is a defacto system and as Sir Harry Gibb stated "has no basis in law" so what jurisdiction does it have.
The two basis of law in this country called now Australia are a Constitutional one and a Sovereign one.
Don't get the 2 mixed up
For the government to assume sovereignty over the Island continent called Australia, the original sovereignty would of had to be ceded to the Australian government lawfully before the government can have a dejour jurisdiction. Evidence of the day, date, time and disclosure of the signatories to this instrument are yet to be brought forward, and there is more sufficient evidence to show a cause to deceive for unjust encichment to strip original sovereign culture by means of malicious legislative practices, than any lawful instrument to change the sovereignty and therefore to make dejour laws for the land.
And for the Australian citizen (British subject) we have a constitutional law to hold your occupying government in line, However over time this has eroded away from its original purpose and it being once English common law, its now Australian common law since whitlam started the new corporate Australia in 1973, then in 1986 the Australia Act (U.K & Aust) brought in a corporate constitutional head of state, so you have a corporate (executive) government which is a private registered foreign corporation, and since the heads of the commonwealth meeting in 1949 the Queen no longer had implied sovereignty over Australia (not that she had it in the 1st place)
The Australian Oxford Dictionary 2010 edition
So either way if your a citizen of Australia and you want your constitutional rights inferred by a court, or if your a descendant from an original sovereign or you are an original sovereign and your stance is that the court/government/and system of defacto law is subservient to your true sovereign lore, you could use this procedure.
If you're a descendant of an original sovereign that had lawful control of this land prior to the basis in English law that we have today, your counter claim to any claim or action brought against you would be proof of claim that you and tribe have ceded your sovereignty with lawful documents that are self evident, otherwise the court, the government or agencies thereof do not have the jurisdiction to hear your matter and an application for a "conditional appearance" for lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine your matter is required, and your matter is beyond the jurisdiction of all courts but the high court of Australia even the high court does not have the jurisdiction to hear a matter relating to sovereignty but you need to get that on record for your matter, any correspondence with the courts/prosecution or police would include a notice of discovery to points of law, and requesting proof of claim of loss of sovereignty asking for day, date, and time and a copy of the document or instrument that ceded your tribes sovereign power over to the Australian government.
If you're an Australian citizen you would challenge the validity of a statute or royal prerogative and the jurisdiction of the Magistrates court to hear your matter and you would need to take it to the supreme court to get remedy and restitution, that way you have a place to appeal to if you don't like the supreme courts decision.
Although the court is a madhouse and scares most people in its presumption of jurisdiction, its simplistic in its procedures, the court runs on procedures, application and forms, both parties have to follow the courts procedure if they wish the court to make a decision that favours them, get the procedures correct with the correct line of defense and you can't lose.
Failure to follow procedure will make a water shut tight case fall apart.
The summons and the process to serve said summons has procedure to follow, if the summons was not served in accordance with the appropriate legislation and time frame, it is of no effect and the court has lost jurisdiction in personam (jurisdiction in the person) you can petition the magistrate to strike out the case and the court can act no more, the informant may reissue the matter but still the procedure has to be followed.
Lets look at the procedure for issuing a summons to provide the court jurisdiction over the"Person" if the court cannot legally assume or acquire jurisdiction over the person. it cannot act against the person.
As a point in your Notice of Discovery you would request proof of claim. that the prosecution show evidence that the summons was signed for in accordance with (9.), (11) and 6.7 for the court to imply its jurisdiction in your matter.
Now to make a point, the court gains jurisdiction over the person, if the person "appears in the court", even without the correct process as seen in the below link.
14 Meaning of appearance
So unless you go in with the right form of defense ( better of with offence) you will grant the court jurisdiction, just by showing up or your lawyer will by filing a notice of defense.
The below links show that a "conditional appearance" can defeat the power of the court for lack of jurisdiction or an irregularity in the originating process to hear the matter, if the summons was not served to your hand and you did not sign for it, the court has lost jurisdiction in personam, if you don't object to the prosecution's claims to of served the summons and followed procedure as he/she gives second hand evidence to the Magistrate in his/her opening statement, the court will of presumed all is in accordance with the procedure an move on.
So the key thing here is TO NOT SIGN ANYTHING FROM THE COURT OR ANYONE SERVING A SUMMONS ON YOU. then the court can't get jurisdiction over you, and you have a better chance of beating the prosecution in court and sue them for bringing a fraudulent action on you via means of malicious prosecution with a counterclaim for damages. ( note every court has their limits on how much restitution they can award check for value)
Conditional Appearance from The Australian Oxford Dictionary 2010 edition
Plea to the Jurisdiction. Butterworths Australian Legal Dictionary.
The magistrates court only has jurisdiction over summary and indictable offences that are heard summary, all indictable offences should be heard at trial and you don't get a jury trial in the Magistrates court, a magistrate should ask you if you want a trial by jury if your charges are criminal, so if your in the magistrates court your best option is to get it out of there..
What is a counterclaim?
You would add a counter claim to your response.
The county, supreme, and high court's. have a conditional appearance form to lodge if the court does not have jurisdiction or the defendant does not consent to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter, a form 8b. in the county court a form (will fill in this when i find the form number again for the supreme court) and a form 7. in the high court, the Magistrates court do not have conditional appearance forms, however you could use a special appearance form and note the appropriate reasons why and with the below magistrates court act and the Courts (Case Transfer) Act get your matter to a higher jurisdiction to rule on the action brought against you.
Even if you're unlucky and the Magistrate rules against you, you can file an appeal to go to the county court and file a conditional appearance form 8b. in there to go to the supreme court...they can not stop you from seeking the correct jurisdiction to hear your matter.
If you matter is a driving related offence, you would want to be in at least the supreme court so you can use points of constitutional law to defend you matter, since the magistrates court act section 100 sub-section 2 above states the magistrates court cannot rule on the validity of a statute, you need to go to a court that can, your counter claim would be that the road safety act 1986 is not in accordance with section 92 of the constitution and whereas section 109 of said constitution states: (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.) the court can be rest assured that no right law was broken.
If you're a tribal sovereign, you would need the High Court from the Magistrates court to rule on the fact that until a referendum on recognition of the first nations people is held and decided how can this court or the government of Australia make any laws to impose on yourself without consent or ceding your sovereignty, and that would be the basis of your counter claim.
Case Transfers. (County Court Vic.)
The attached forms are those most commonly used when applying to transfer cases down to the Magistrates' Court or up to the Supreme Court from the County Court. More details may be obtained from the Courts (Case Transfer) Act 1991 No.43/1991 and the Courts (Case Transfer) Rules 2001 Statutory Rule No.92/2001. Form 2 - Notice of Objection Form 4 - Referral Under Part 3 Form 6 - Part 5 Application by Plaintiff - (to transfer DOWN to the Magistrates' Court) Form 7 - Part 5 Application by Defendant - (to transfer UP to the Supreme Court on a Counterclaim)
something i prepared earlier that show a possible play on the above, as i fill in the gaps above.
Here is a remedy that has showed some light on dealing with the mad hatter (magistrate) on driving freely/toll's or any statute that is not in accordance with the right law (constitutional law not refering to original lore ) as we can see below in section 100 sub section (2.) the magistrate can not rule on the validity or non validity of a statute (law of legislation) the magistrate can only rule that legislation is broken via an offence by a person, if that person stands up in the public arena (seats at back of court room) and states the following.
WHEN PERSON'S NAME IS CALLED, STAND UP A SAY I AM HERE IN RELATION TO THAT MATTER IS THIS A COURT OF RECORD? (INSIST IT TO BE RECORDED) THEN SAY "FOR THE RECORD", THE ALLEGATION BROUGHT TO THE COURT BY OUR SEMI LEARNED FRIEND HERE ( PROSTITUTOR ) ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RIGHT LAW (DEPENDING ON SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION) AND UNDER SECTION 100 SUB SECTION 2. OF THE MAGISTRATES COURT ACT 1989, THIS COURT DOSE NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS MATTER.
THE MAD HATTER MAY SAY, OH IS THIS A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE?
YOUR REPLY WOULD BE YES! (but try to avoid talking subject matter the deranged hatter may construe it as consent for him/her to hear the matter)
THE HATTER MAY ASK YOU ON WHAT GROUNDS, FOR EXAMPLE IF ITS A TRAFFIC MATTER YOU WOULD SAY THE ROAD SAFETY ACT 1986 (FOR VICTORIA) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 92 OF THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION ACT 1901
AND WHERE AS SECTION 109 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES
NO "RIGHT LORE" HAS BEEN BROKEN BY ONE'S SELF.
THE MAD HATTER MAY DO EITHER THE FOLLOWING.
1. TELL YOU AND THE PROSTITUTOR TO GO OUT SIDE AND DISCUSS THE MATTER,
2. DEPENDING HOW SERIOUS THE ALLEGATIONS ARE MAKE PROVISIONS FOR A HIGHER JURISDICTION.
3. DISMISS THE MATTER ON THE SPOT.
THEY CAN NOT REFUSE "ACCESS" TO THE CORRECT JURISTICTION TO HEAR THE MATTER, IF YOU TAKE IT TO THE SUPREME COURT THEY CANT WIN AND IT WILL COST THEM TOO MUCH TO CHALLENGE YOU.
THIS IS EASY TO DO ANYONE WITH A FEW WEEKS RESEARCH ON THE FACTS CAN DO THIS ITS ALL ABOUT THE RIGHT WAY TO DIRECT THE COURTS TO FAVOR YOURSELF.
ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.
AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE LAW HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT: email@example.com