On thursday 10th October 2024, a crime was witnessed in court room 6 at the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The crime was sedition.
Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913
Part II — Offences against public order
Chapter VII — Sedition 44. Term used: seditious intention
An intention to effect any of the following purposes, that is to say —
(a) To bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;
(b) To excite disaffection against the Sovereign, or theGovernment or Constitution of the United Kingdom, or of the Commonwealth of Australia, or of Western Australia as by law established, or against either House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth of Australia, or of Western Australia, or against the administration of justice;
(c) To excite Her Majesty’s subjects to attempt to procurethe alteration of any matter in the State as by law established otherwise than by lawful means;
(d) To raise discontent or disaffection amongst Her Majesty’s subjects;
(e) To promote feelings of ill-will and enmity betweendifferent classes of Her Majesty’s subjects; is a seditious intention, unless it is justified by section 45.
45. Acts excepted from s. 44
It is lawful for any person —
(a) To endeavour in good faith to show that the Sovereignhas been mistaken in any of Her counsels; or
(b) To point out in good faith errors or defects in theGovernment or Constitution of the United Kingdom, or of the Commonwealth of Australia, or of Western Australia as by law established, or in legislation, or in the administration of justice, with a view to the reformation of such errors or defects; or
(c) To excite in good faith Her Majesty’s subjects to attemptto procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the State as by law established; or
(d) To point out in good faith in order to their removal anymatters which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of Her Majesty’s subjects.
Police and Judiciary Collusion
I appealed a decision in the pretended jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia where Elizabeth Woods who was doing business as a Deputy Chief Magistrate in the Perth Magistrates Court determined that Public Officers doing business as Corporate Police Officers are not accountable for their actions.
Police Officers do not have to comply with the statutes they administer and enforce!
It was proven that the officers in question did not have a delegation of authority pursuant s.8 of the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008
“An Act to provide for the administration and enforcement of the Road Traffic Act 1974, the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive), Act 2008 and the Road Traffic (Vehicles) Act 2012 and for other matters relating to road trafficRoad Traffic (Administration) Act 2008″.
Police FOI
On 16th September an FOI letter was sent from Shannon Ferguson in response to an FOI request regarding The delegation of function signed and in writing by the CEO of the Department of Transport pursuant to s.8 of the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 for the following officers:
* Col Blanch [PD16640]
* Owain Fiander [PD12894]
* Jeff Osborne [PD13302]
* Tegan Jenna Nelson [PD15747]
* Susan Henderson [PD13444]
* Carl Webb [PD13759]
* Trent Banner [PD16524]
* Paul Inkster [PD16738]
* Stuart McRae [PD10770]
* Antony Nuttall [PD13302]
* S. Young [PD11557]
In regards to your request for the delegation of function signed and in writing by the CEO of the Department of Transport, I have been advised by the commissioner’s office that they do not hold these documents and you may wish to seek this information from the Department of Transport directly.
The Western Australia Police FOI also confirmed the Department of Transport has no record of a delegation of authority pursuant to the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 s.8.
Non Compliance of statutes invalidates the statute.
Forrest and Forrest Pty ltd v Wilson [2017] HCA 30 (61)
Supreme Court Oral Submission
It is my understanding the Magistrates Court practices a pretended jurisdiction in oppression and denial of my political rights to justice of the crown within the commonwealth, justice which by right, established in 1900, is current law.
The intention of the acts of 1973 in denying the commonwealth and crown jurisdiction by pretence of another under the crown Australia, is intended to commit a criminal act against the commonwealth and crown in so much as exercising this pretended jurisdiction is a crime against the commonwealth and crown whereby the rights of the people are violated and denied.
How may it be otherwise? Am I not due a reference on request?
It is my understanding that this court affords the protection of justice under the crown at s.16 and s.23 of the Supreme Court Act 1935.
Authority to apply justice in Western Australia begins with the Commonwealth Constitution 1900 (UK) which provides the authority of the crown, covering clauses 2 & 5 of the Act. The next authority is letters patent for western Australia issued by the crown of the United Kingdom at s.2 of the Western Australian Constitution requires the same crown for the Queen in Parliament and the governor’s office to provide royal assent.
Criminal Code 1913 (WA) s.44 states that contempt of the constitution or Sovereign is a class of a crime called sedition. Is that not the case?
Dawn Michelle Kelly
10th October 2024 – SJA 1029 of 2024
Supreme Court Act 1935
s.16. General jurisdiction
(1) Subject as otherwise provided in this Act, and to any other enactment in force in this State, the Supreme Court —
23. Supreme Court authorised to perform certain acts required to be performed by courts in England:
Where any Act of Parliament in force in England on 1 June 1829, and applicable to Western Australia, or any Act of Parliament adopted and directed to be applied in Western Australia, authorises and directs any proceeding, act, matter, or thing to be had, done, performed, or executed by or before Her Majesty’s Courts at Westminster, or the respective judges thereof, or by or before the Lord Chancellor or any Equity Judge, in the administration of justice, every such proceeding, act, matter, and thing, subject to any express enactment to the contrary and to any rules of court for the time being in force, shall be, and the same is hereby authorised and directed to be had, done, executed, and performed by the Supreme Court and the judges thereof in like manner as if the same had been in and by such Act of Parliament expressly authorised and directed to be had, done, executed, and performed by the said Supreme Court or the judges thereof.
It is a matter of record of the Gazette for Western Australia that the Magistrates Court 2004 Criminal Procedures Act 2004 and the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 have not received that royal assent of s.2(3) of the Western Australian constitution act 1889. That same section prohibits the use of any bill that fails to receive that same royal assent.
A softly spoken Natalie Whitby, doing business as a Judge of the Supreme Court was made aware that the crime that was being committed and that she is now a party to.
Conclusion
Natalie Whitby’s premeditated and predetermined decision evidenced a blatent miscarriage of justice, oral submissions not considered to maintaining a unified approach of pretended authority.
Full transcript to come…
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – PREAMBLE
An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia.
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 Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:
And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:–
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – CLAUSE 2
Act to extend to the Queen’s successors.
The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – CLAUSE 5
Operation of the Constitution and laws.
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, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.
Recent Comments