Legislation can not be considered 'real law', until tested in a 'competent court' preferably with 'Trial by Jury', and not a 'Jury trial' an important difference that must be understood and as stated in the '1901 Australian Constition Act' Sect.80.
A 'Trial by Jury' is a group of people from 'the people' with unrestricted 'process of inquiry' and has authority to 'anull' bad legislation and find the accused 'innocent or guilty' and to recommend punishment. This also allows 'the people' another avenue to reject 'bad legislation' that 'harms or prejudices' the people.
A 'Jury Trial', is different from a 'Trial by Jury'.
A 'Jury Trial' is a restricted process, controlled by the judge, to a rigid legal format to only
the facts presented and the jury has no say, if the process, legislation or laws are bad or unjust
to the accused or society.
(Ref. UK, Julian Assange Case.2024)
'Judge Only or Summary Judgement trials' are processes, all accused parties must agree on and be bound by, from a Judge or judges examining the evidence presented and strictly applying to legislated rules of law. Usually applicable in commerce, parliament, private or intenational trade cases. (Ref. Law Merchant, Admiralty Law, Uniform Commercial Code (i.e UCC 1-308), Unidriot Code, Holy See Private Law.)
As Parliament administers 'Trade & Commerce', on behalf of society, for convenience, all such 'fictions of law' that register with Government and therefore stand under Parliament's authority. To take advantage of 'limited liability' when trading; meaning the 'living Man or Woman' that operates the 'fiction of law' are not liable, only the 'fiction of law' is and that may have 'low financial value' for paying any remedies from any harms caused.
The 'Living man or Woman' must act fudiciously but they are firewalled from any financial responsibilities of harm or failure. If the 'living Man or Woman' was trading as self, or as Private entity, then they are personally liable for remedies from any harms caused.
Case Law or Common Law
Any findings by a court can only become 'Case Law' and that can only apply to the related
'House of Parliament' that passed that legislation. Fortunately all countries, that were once under
UK law, can share their 'Case Law' findings or database.
To consider 'Case Law' is also 'Common Law' is problematic, as 'Common Law' is where
'living Men and Women' stand, above Parliament and below 'Natural Law'.
So unless the 'Judiciary's Court' declares it is operating as a 'People's Court of Law' and is following those simple rules for harm against 'living Men and Women'; it must be making 'Case Law' not 'Common Law'.
I suspect the Judiciary have forgotten the difference or consider there is no difference. However there must be, as people are 'living entities', equal under natural law; while 'Trade & Commerce' entities under Parliament are complex 'fictions of law' operated by 'living Men and Women' that come and go; while the 'fiction of law' continues. (e.g. Private or Public Company, CEO, CFO, etc. churn over personel all the time.)
The Judiciary are 'suppose to be' an independent, equal arm of Parliament, where legislation when challenged, is interpreted how that applies to 'existing law' or if it is 'invalid' or anulled. Judges are appointed by the Crown (Governor-General in Council) with advice from Council, typically the Executive Arm of Government (i.e. Prime Minister Assisted by the Attorney General) putting 'their person' on the bench. However Judges are there by oath to ensure 'the Executive' amends, repeals, or passes legislation that improves the law or removes law no longer needed. The Judiciary can not initate action for reason of 'self seving needs'.
Once a Judge(s) is appointed, can not be easily be dismissed; must do wrong in office and both houses of Parliament agree 'wrong doing done' and dismissal is required.
Hence why all ex-British (UK) territories can quote each others legal findings, as their parliaments stood under the UK Parliament, some still do today, but all 'living men & women' stand above any Parliament, at 'Common Law' with many inherited protections fought for and won over hundreds of years.
In essence the Crown and Parliament can never prejudice the people as the people are supreme and the source of Authority for Parliament to operate. The Bankers, Military Industrial Complex, Globalists, Select Billionaires are aware of this and wants to ignore your Rights, so they have elaborate plans to dumb-down, divide, conquer and eliminate all those that challenge.
Since the dawn of civilisation, the divine rights of Leaders, Kings and Nobility to 'rule the people' has been overcome many times, through many bloody battles and each has re-affirmed the sovereignty of the people is paramount.
But there are always those that wish to re-establish control, the price of our freedom, our free dominion, is eternal vigilance, the control can to come from anywhere, that is why anything that 'prejudices the people' is considered abhorrent, and those that wish to implement prejudices, run the risk of committing 'treason against the people' with severe penalties!
Government is three branches, Parliament, Executive and Judiciary are all 'creations of fiction' (dead entities) operated by 'living men and womem' from the pool of 'living Men and Women', in society and subject to, or more often, guided by the Parliament's rules. Which should reflect the simple rules of the People's 'Common Law', to help administer the operation of society and for good governance.
Politicians many years ago required all 'fictions of law' (dead entities) to be subjects of their respective Parliament; however the people, the 'living men & women', can never be subjects, as Parliament must draw its authority from the living and never from itself; as Parliament is a dead entity. The dead can not do anything; unless re-animated or summoned by the living, so how can the dead control the living?
For the people to be subject to any Parliament, they must consent and agree to be bound, willingly and by full disclosure by Parliament to all rules that will apply. Failure to do full disclosure is fraud, and fraud always undoes any agreement. Any Parliament that commits fraud is unlawful, citizens must stop all interaction and the Crown immediately dissmiss and call new elections with all perpetrators barred and under prosecution, if found guilty, recompense all victims from the perpetrators resources first. i.e. They forfeit their enriched pensions, overpaid salaries, all allowances etc. and all assests aquired while in office. This should get the dishonest people out, if they can loose all their ill gotten gains from dodgy deals or outright theift.
It is unclear if Parliaments have deliberatly tricked (defrauded) the people, the 'living Men and Women', to stand under Parliament's rules and authority, as themselves, or as their dead avatar. As Parliament requires all non-government dead entities like private businesses, charities, body corporates, to register with Parliament's various authorities, to be able to undertake lawful interaction, commerce and trade. (e.g. Business ABN, ACN; People must have a TFN, MCN, DSSN and soon a DID.)
If true, then living Men and Women are trading as their avatar and should be able to claim all living costs and expenses, like any other dead business entity. If false, then living Men and Women are not trading, they are simply being compensated for their time and effort; usually by a registered dead entity, as an employee and a cost to that dead entity. Living men and women are not trading, to make any capital gain but seek some form of exchange or currency to pay living expenses, fees, bills, etc. imposed by others, who do trade in society under and with Parliament's authority at State or Federal levels.
As more people trade with each other and commercial entities, more people needed to register, as a 'trading dead entity' or as an 'employee of a trading dead entity'. To lodge tax, claim returns, deductions, grants, buy licenses, pay fees, etc... Over time these registrations, morphed on to possessions, cars, land, homes and the living. e.g. unknowingly done at birth by your mum or dad, registered a name as you; and this becomes your 'strawman' or 'dead avatar' and that makes you a 'citizen of society' under Parliament's Rules.
It is believed your 'dead avatar' is you, the citizen, but not the living you, and you must recognise somehow, when you are acting as the living or as your dead avatar. Try not to adjoin the two, as only the living can operate the dead, as the Politicians (or the system) wants to control, fine, and tax the living, as the dead have nothing of real value, other than an empty vessle that can trade or be contracted with and without consent.
Parliament Members from political parties sit in a grey area, as 1st allegiance is to whom? Their 'oath of office' is to the Crown, they are funded and controlled by their political party and their party donor's, or vested interests; Then the electorate, is a distant 3rd? Yet, they are elected and paid by the electorate and suppose to take your greviances to parliamnet and represent you. Is this another cruel fraud? Is Parliament an elaborate lie? A way to fleece the living Men and Women of their personal, national, wealth? WAKE Up, cos I think we have all been had!
When Parliament exceeds their authority, usually limited by an agreement(s) or contract, or 'constitution', or in their vast ever changeing legislation of statutes and regulations; their rules can become invalid, in conflict, be unlawful or unenforceable. To raine in there excess the first thing 'living Men and Women' have to say is NO, to their Parliament representive they voted in. When that fails, state, 'I can not comply', legislation passed is unlawful, or is abhorrent and prejudices the people. Request they repeal or stand down and call a new election. In theory a Quorum of voters of the electorate can request impeachment of a sitting member or provide evidence their allegiance is not to the electorate or the Crown, but to some foreign power, cult or ideology.
Hence why the Crown, Royality, {or a Governor General}, the 1st of equals amongst the people, according to the Coronation Oath, is suppose to keep a watch on Parliament and Parliament keeps a watch on the Crown; for any legislation that places restriction on Parliment or the 'living Men and Women' which would be abhorrent to their daily activities or responsibilities and can be seen as an act of treason against the people. Such uprisings are well known as 'civil disobedance' or worse case 'civil war'. Human history is replete with such bloody rebellions...
