FURTHER LEGAL ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT THE DECISION IN THE DJOKOVIC MATTER BEING ABSENT JURISDICTION AND THE REQUIREMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT TO REMAKE THE DECISION ACCORDING TO LAW.

In a recent Constitution Watch post we correspond with the Federal Court, cc'ing in various Serbian Consulates, Parliaments and Embassies informing the Court of their jurisdictional errors in the Djokovic case debacle, we present for you the reply and further response.

Veliki Pozdrav,

Greetings Victorian Registry of the Federal Court Australia,

.

.
Thank you for your email dated January 19th, 2022 at 9:03 AM, I draw your attention to your statement;

.

.

"I would strongly recommend you attempt to obtain legal advice as the matters raised in your email would appear to raise complex legal issues."

.

.

.

First and foremost whether I obtain legal advice or not is irrelevant as it has no bearing whatsoever upon the court addressing it jurisdictional error. Any decision the court makes must be according to law and once notified of a jurisdictional error, which in law is properly regarded as no decision at all, the court his compelled and has a duty to correct the error pin law. Thus, the court is not functus officio as it has performed a function beyond its powers. Accordingly I demand you forward all of this correspondence for the perusal of Chief Justice Allsop. No doubt you are aware that Registrars are considered strangers to the court, (R v Davison 1954 HCA) and given that Registrars act administratively and not Judicially it is your duty to forward the challenge to the courts jurisdiction to a judicial officer of the court, in particular Chief Justice Allsop. For which we will his correspondence.

The decision in Djokovic has no bearing if I was a party to it or not, but as a question of the jurisdictional powers of the court and this most certainly is in the publics interest that all decisions made by this court comply with any constitutional limitation placed upon it. The practical operation of the Migration Act 1958 must be within constitutional limits, the Minister has exceeded these limitations and therefore affects all Australians. In relation to appeal of this decision it would only be open to the parties of the proceeding. However, this is not a question of appellate rights but rather of the jurisdictional authority to her and adjudicate on the matter. The judicial powers of the Commonwealth vested in the Federal Court pursuant to section 71 can only be exercised according to law, to act outside of the proper application of these judicial powers invested in the court must be exercised according to law. It is thus s71 that compels the court to reexamine its decision and whether it was consistent with the lawful exercise of the judicial powers of the Commonwealth.

6 pages.
Reasons for ruling.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [112.29 KB]


 

If you can spare a few dollars for the creators of this website to continue their research to bring you more great content, any amount, no matter how great or small, would be greatly appreciated.