After 2 years in litigation with the Department of Transport in the Perth Magistrates Court, on 21st November 2024, I decided step off of the litigation merri-go-round and reclaim my power.
Morality and ethics play no part in the Magistrates court. The Magistrates Court is a preditory business set up under a pretended jurisdiction in violation of s.2 (2)(3) of the Constitution Act 1889 (Western Australia)…. Prove me wrong!
Part I — Parliamentary
2. Legislature to be constituted in Western Australia
(2)The Parliament of Western Australia consists of the Queen and the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly.Constitution Act 1889
(3)Every Bill, after its passage through the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, shall, subject to section 73, be presented to the Governor for assent by or in the name of the Queen and shall be of no effect unless it has been duly assented to by or in the name of the Queen.
Magistrates and Judges know this yet proceed in a pretended jurisdiction in fraud in order to obtain financial gain over the people of Western Australia. The Magistrates and Judges work with the prosecution with the purpose of conviction for summary judgement (penalty by way of a fine).
In 1986, seditious politicians waged war upon the people of the Commonwealth of Australia by deceptively removing Her Majesty (Queen of the United Kingdom) and subsituting a fraudulant office of the Queen.
Australia Act 1986 – Letters Patent 1986 resulted in the reversal of power where the government have the authority over the people as opposed to the people having the authority over the government. This became blatently obvious during COVID.
From Capitalism to Socialism resulting in Communism.
Western Australians are forced to do business with the Department of Transport to which the WAPOL administer and enforce through fraudulant legislation passed without royal assent.
The Magistrates Court and the Fines Enforcement Registry, an extortion racketeering outfit are fleecing the people of Western Australia through pretended statutes passed without lawful authority to do so.
Back story to Dawn Michelle Kelly v Department of Transport PE 3280 of 2023.
The Department of Transport supplied evidence that a payment was tendered yet the Certificate Evidence did not record a payment being posted and accepted by the Department of Transport.
Noteworthy Elements
There is no controversy – We paid to unconstitutional levy imposed repugnant to s.92 Commonwealth Constitution. Bills of Exchange Act s.79[1], Cheques Act 1986 s.82 Effect of Discharge of cheque Effect of discharge of cheque (1) Subject to subsections ( 2) and (3), where a cheque is discharged under subsection 78(1) or (2), all rights on the cheque are extinguished.
CHEQUES ACT 1986 – SECT 78 – When cheque discharged
(1) A cheque is discharged if:
(a) the cheque is paid in due course by the drawee institution;
(b) subject to section 80, the holder, at any time, absolutely and unconditionally renounces the holder’s rights against the drawer or all persons liable on the cheque; or
(c) subject to subsection 81(1), the holder intentionally cancels the cheque or the drawer’s signature and the cancellation is apparent from the cheque.
Clause 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution relating to the operation of 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.
We have not seen nor heard any evidence that all courts are not bound by the bills of exchange act and clause 5 of the Constitution.
The state law that the Department of Transport denied me and Department of Justice are also bound by clause 5. All laws are binding. This is why you must uphold this law. Payment schemes cannot be inconsistent with the indissoluble federal commonwealth.
Bills of Exchange Act: s.79 Presentment of cheque for payment
Subject to the provisions of this Act:
(a) where a cheque is not presented for payment within a reasonable time of its issue, and the drawer or the person on whose account it is drawn had the right, at the time at which the presentment ought to have been made, as between him or her and the banker, to have the cheque paid, and suffers actual damage through the delay, he or she is discharged to the extent of such damage, that is to say, to the extent to which such drawer or person is a creditor of such banker to a larger amount than he or she would have been had such cheque been paid;
(b) in determining what is a reasonable time, regard shall be had to the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade and of bankers, and the facts of the particular case;
(c) the holder of such cheque as to which such drawer or person is discharged shall be a creditor, in lieu of such drawer or person, of such banker to the extent of such discharge, and entitled to recover the amount from him or her .
Porter v Kelly [2024] WASC 282
Even though I had paid the transfer of license and unlawful duty, what I had experienced is that this was immaterial. The Department of Transport Certificate Evidence did not record any payment tendered. Porter v Kelly [2024] WASC 282, the appeal in the supreme court created case law to support the paper only prosecution by the Department of Transport. A case law echo-chamber of case law to support the pretended jurisdiction asserted by the Supreme and Magistrates Court.
ACCUSED: We’re presenting as the woman.
HER HONOUR: And how would you like to be referred to today?
ACCUSED: Dawn.
HER HONOUR: All right. Okay. So before me I have prosecution notice char ge 3280 of 2023 called in the name of Dawn Michelle Kelly. The woman Dawn has presented under that name, I’m satisfied it’s the woman named in the prosecution notice. Dawn, are you maintaining your plea of not guilty today?
ACCUSED: Before we proceed – – –
HER HONOUR: We’re not proceeding anything because the trial is not starting. It will depend, and you will be well down the list today, I can tell you.
ACCUSED: Magistrate Ridley, is that correct? We are here as a member of the Commonwealth with rights to justice of the Crown within the Commonwealth and we seek the application of that justice as the law allows. Is it not the case that the Magistrates Court 2004, the pretended law in violation of section 2 of the Constitution of Western Australia requiring royal assent to which prohibition exists in section 2, subsection (3) for failure of receiving valid royal assent?
Is it a matter of state record that the provision of royal assent has been altered at 1986 by removing her Majesty and substituting a fraudulent office of the Queen? Is it not the case that after 1986 Parliament cannot apply a bill that is void of the Queen under section 2, subsection (2) and (3) of the West Australian Constitution? I request that you, your Honour, take judicial notice of the fact that the Magistrate Court Acts and Fines Enforcement Registry Acts are not enforceable acts of the State because of the prohibition that exists at section 2, subsection (3) of the WA Constitution. Is there any reason that the prohibition at section 2, subsection (3) not be given its full application of prohibition?
Is it not the prohibition in the Constitution a valid command to follow? Okay. No answer. For a third time, is there any reason we should not obey the prohibition in the Constitution, Western Australia, when valid royal assent has failed the Bill in Western Australia Houses of Parliament? I understand you have failed on three attempts to settle this matter by your silence of valid jurisdiction and the prohibition enforceable.
I ask the question, how is it not that you are pretending a jurisdiction that has no jurisdiction at law, being that the Magistrates Court Act 2004 is being applied as a fraud and sham proceeding. Your silence. So, look, as you have stated here, you are now mute. We’ve got nothing to answer. You’ve just admitted to the proceeding in fraud and sham and we’ve nothing to answer here. Thank you.
HER HONOUR: So the court sits not to answer questions, but to take submissions. I take what Dawn has said as a submission and quote from Hall J in Maxwell, also known as Harley Robert Williamson v Bruce [2012] WASC 12. These arguments are manifestly absurd and should not be dignified with any detailed consideration.
ACCUSED: All right. There’s nothing to answer for here. You have not proven jurisdiction under – – –
HER HONOUR: So is your plea maintained or not?
ACCUSED: – – – the WA Constitutional law. Thank you. HER HONOUR: Thank you.
ACCUSED: We’re leaving….
Conclusion
I am grateful for the rich education gained from my experiences in the pretended jurisdiction of the Perth Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court who operate without lawful authority pursuant to s.2 (2)(3) Constitution Act of Western Australia and s.2 and s.5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
I don’t claim to be an expert in the law or anything else for that matter, what I do claim is that I am the master of my own experience. And in my experience I made a judgement call to end to proceedings as in the event that I was aquitted for the second time, the Department of Transport with its infinite resources may appeal the decision again and there goes another year of my life focused on the legal BS.
I know that I made the right judgement call over a minor summary offence. Sometimes you just have to pick your battles and walk away…. Or perhaps at a later date hold them accountable when the time is right.
Donations received with Gratitude
If you would like to support the work I am doing
Recent Comments