Option 1 (if criminal ie speeding ticket, video below)
Didn’t accept your paperwork/filings? That’s a criminal offence.
Is Joseph BLOGGS your name? Joseph is the living man, Joseph BLOGGS is the defendant in error, its the artificial person, but your honour, I have to ask a few questions first. Firstly I need to understand the nature in the cause of the charges against me, as well, I need to know is this matter civil jurisdiction or criminal jurisdiction?
Thank you your honour for confirming for the court record that the action against me is criminal, and now I just need to confirm that the criminal jurisdiction is under the common law criminal jurisdiction or is it criminal jurisdiction under admiralty or a military tribunal venue, because the court must be sitting pursuant to ChapterIII Constitution.
They will try and move on without responding directly. Repeat, I need to have these questions answered in order to establish the jurisdiction as different rules apply to each, and I need to know who the injured party is, and the nature and cause of this allegation. Who is bringing the claim against me?
They will try and move on again. Thank you your honour, I’m sure it would not be a breach of your Oath of Office, knowing you are doing your duty under the Constitution to answer these questions before we can proceed.
They’ll try again to talk over you. Your honour I motion for a dismissal of this matter, because if this is criminal jurisdiction as you have claimed, I need to see a verified complaint from the injured party, and I have to have an opportunity to face my accuser. So who is the injured party? Why am I here if there is no injured party? I do not understand why I am here.
If they withdraw then repeat for the record, eg. matter of Joseph Bloggs CRI/2023/3333, charges dismissed? Any fees paid for bail should be returned after dismissal (if dismissed).
Option 2
So you may ask the magistrate before you begin the proceedings of your trial or hearing:
“Is the Constitution Act valid law in this courtroom today?”
And there should be one of two reactions.
They should say, yes, the Constitution is valid law in the court, or no, the Constitution is not valid law in the court today.
If yes:
“Thank you, sir, for confirming the Constitution Act is valid law in the court. Can you now confirm the court is bound to the power and authority within the sovereignty of the United Kingdom found at Clause 2 binding upon all at Clause 5?
Is it not so the Fountain of Justice and all source of power, and jurisdiction flows from the Monarch into the court?
Is the Monarch’s Justice and Mercy present in the courtroom today”
Should they fail to answer, ask three times. If they fail to answer the second time, you could say:
“Sir, if you fail to answer a third and final time, it will be taken on and for the record with judicial notice, that this court fails to be bound to the authority of the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom prescribed by the Constitution Act”
The House of Lords in the Quark Fishing case of 2006 confirmed that if a question arises on what authority or pursuant to what power an act is done, it is to the Constitution that one would turn to find the answer.
“Sir, it is clear that you have failed to establish jurisdiction as you operate in a jurisdiction foreign to the foundation law of this country. Your pretended jurisdiction has clearly been exposed.”
When the court is not authorised or has the power to hear and issue an order for a case, legally, as per the Constitution, the court has a lack of jurisdiction.
Three factors determine a court’s jurisdiction and ability to hear a case. The court should have:
- Jurisdiction over the parties
- Jurisdiction over the subject matter
- Authority to issue an order over the subject matter
“Sir, I must apologise, but there are no facts in evidence the prosecution have left me no choice but to challenge the jurisdiction of the court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“There are no facts in evidence to establish I was labouring under an infectious disease and the State’s quarantine powers could not be engaged against me.
I move this court to strike the matter out as the claims are an attempted vexatious prosecution due to the failure to establish the facts.”
“When a statute prescribes that there must be reasonable grounds for a state of mind, including suspicion and belief, it requires the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person.”
“What instrument of delegation can this Court point to as its source of power and Jurisdiction today?”
More information available from: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/