Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Statutory Interpretation

When does 'statutory Interpretation' apply?

Statutory Interpretation applies, as I understand it, when the crime does not fit the black letters of the Law written. That is, the letters written say 1 thing but the prosecutor wishes the law to include some other thing into the meaning of the words written (black letters).

What LP and others are saying is like; that although the black letters of the FCoA law say a judge shall not demand documents of a 3rd Party without giving the 3rd Party proper Notice and time to object to the demand. Even though a dishonourable judge of the FCoA did demand such document with the menace (threat) of dealing with the party if such documents were not produced within 3 days the judge did not commit an offence created by s139.2 of the Criminal Code Cth because that offence was not for the purpose claimed by the prosecutor.

Furthermore, they are try to say that a judge is immune (granted by Bryant CJ) from prosecution of a course of justice like CONTEMPT of an undertaking given to the Court because at the Common Law Doctrine (long standing law created by a judge) they are.

The power to prosecute a Contempt of the Court, which breach of an undertaking given to the Court like that of a judge pursuant to s26 of the FL Act, is created by s35 of the FL Act.
Therefore is a law created by an Act of the Parliament of the Cth in relation to the judicial power of the Cth.

Furthermore, the immunity Bryant CJ gave or claimed on behalf of that FCoA dishonourable judge is a perversion of justice pursuant to s43 of the Crimes Act Cth. What I was reminded of today is the Crime Murphy J of the HC was twice found guilty of IN ABOUT 1986, but then that verdict was set aside by Murphy J's brethren of the HC on the grounds evidence relied on should not have been relied on.

He did not get retried because he had cancer and passed away within about 2 yrs of those convictions.

My point is Statutory Interpretation is what Parliament have said the law made (black letters of the law) and then and only then, whatever a judge wants the law to say the law say's. The reality is the Laws of the Parliament are only black letter law if the judge and lawyer want them to be and the law is what the judge wants it to be on that day because judge are protected (not immune) from prosecution by the AG of the Commonwealth (Cth).
Justin

I have read your posts for sometime with interest. In this particular instance I take note of your first paragraph and in particular, "as I understand" and would quite firmly make a point that your interpretation is misguided. Case Law stems from the far reaching effects of the Magna Carta. It has been in place for quite some time and has ensured in the majority of matters that justice is not only seen as being done, but that it is actually being done. Mistakes are made, sure, but mistakes are made in all spheres of life at times, this is why we have appellate courts. 

Federal Magistrates and Family Court Judges apply the law as best they can to meet the intention of the Family Law Act. In interpreting the Act they make decisions as to what the Act intended from the arguments which are put forward by the advocates. I note that you are discussing s. 26 of the Family Law Act but you fail to mention in particular which part of Division 4 (Judicial Registrars) of the Act which you specifically rely upon as you refer in your post to Judges which is totally different.

As I pointed out earlier in the post there are appellate avenues available, if you have ill will about the integrity of the Australian Judiciary perhaps it is time to start considering the avenues available to you under the ICC (Im not sure if this is the forum for that). Unfortunately Australia is a common law country and as such precedents plays a major role. While I have only limited exposure to the ICC my understanding is that they too rely on case law in coming to their decisions.

In regards to your comments about BRYANT CJ, contact the Ombudsman, and if you can please update us with any progress on the matter.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas
Hi LP,

Interesting attempt to go :offtopic:, You had me confused until I realised you may not have taken your medication, lol, so until it kicks in, may I remind your learned mind.

Section (s) or (s.) 26 is not in Division 4 of Part IV, if that is the Division 4, you are claiming I was referring to.

S.26 is in Division 3 of Part IV of the FL Act and has nothing to do with Judicial Registrars, it is "Oath or affirmation of allegiance and office" which is an Undertaking given to the FAoC by a judge before another judge that the judge giving the Undertaking will do right according to law.
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 26 - Oath or affirmation of allegiance and office
 A Judge shall, before proceeding to discharge the duties of the office, take, before the Chief Justice or a Justice of the High Court of Australia or a Judge of the Family Court or of another court created by the Parliament, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form in the Schedule to the Constitution, and also an oath or affirmation in the following form:
       "I,                       , do swear that I will well and truly serve in the office of ( Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge, Judge Administrator, Senior Judge or Judge , as the case may be) of the Family Court of Australia and that I will do right to all manner of people according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill will, So help me God."
or
       "I,                       , do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that    " ( as above, omitting the words "So help me God" ).
      
The judges Undertaking of; will do right according to law. Is not a direction as to which law will be given priority but an Undertaking the judge will do right by all law.

For the direction of which law must prevail, you, as you should know, must turn to clause 5 of the Cth Constitution, which clearly states "all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, …

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - CLAUSE 5 Operation of the Constitution and laws [see Note 3]
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.

By the ICC are you meaning "the International Chamber of Commerce" if so yes, they may be the way to go if the AG, in breach of his duty, refuses to cause an ad hoc Judicial Inquiry into the petition presented in Parliament 23 Nov 2009. Being for an investigation and prosecution of judges complicate in the matter Bryant CJ granted (for want of a better word) or claimed was immune from prosecution of, a Breach of an Undertaking given to the Court.

This wrongful claim by Bryant CJ and use of the common law Doctrine for immunity was to defeat an initiating application to deal with a judge who had committed wrongful actions, by abuse of his power including unlawful demand with menace, which the initiating application sought was sought pursuant to a LAW OF THE PARLIAMENT created as a course of justice in regard to a judicial power of the Commonwealth (Cth).

There is no judicial immunity created by a law of the Cth, but there are laws of the Cth that a judge can be prosecuted, like the perversion of justice as I afore-posted. This is reinforced by Clause 5 of the Constitution Cth that the FAoC have claimed in the past, in broad terms, is not applicable to judges of the FAoC.

LP you said and I can understand your learned mind wanting this topic in regard to 'statutory Interpretation' to be sidetracked into the wanted belief that FAoC judges make the law applicable in their Court, in breach of clause 5 (because it does not apply to FCoA judges), and not the Parliaments of Australia make the law first applicable.

would quite firmly make a point that your interpretation is misguided. Case Law stems from the far reaching effects of the Magna Carta.

 Yes, the Magna Carta is the founding law for Case law to become Common Law and is English Law not a Law of Australia although it is carried as a guiding principal for our Common Law, hence the Doctrine of Judicial Immunity carried, which is created by judges of Australian Courts using English, American and other world laws as a guiding principal.

As Haynes J said in 1 of his speeches to a Law University presentation, I don't remember which 1.

Words similar to if not the same. "… Although the laws of the word are not applicable/enforceable on the people of Australia, the Court does like to be directed to where a law of another country supports your arguments and principals when you are making submissions to the Court … Hence the Common Law of Australia is kept in turn with the Law and directions of the people of the World" or words to that effect.

But case law and common law are not the issues of this topic, 'statutory Interpretation' is the subject of this topic, or are you saying 'statutory means case and common law and not the laws created by the Parliaments of Australia?
        
You continued with
It has been in place for quite some time and has ensured in the majority of matters that justice is not only seen as being done, but that it is actually being done. Mistakes are made, sure, but mistakes are made in all spheres of life at times, this is why we have appellate courts.

Regarding an appeal of the offending Orders of the judge granted immunity and your take on what should occur; what did, or should I say, did not occur and why it did not occur I will whisper to you later.

But, in short, you are right, there is a right and an obligation on the Court for all to be able to appeal a wrongful Order of the Court whether it was made in error, recklessly, with negligence, or wilfully, (fault elements of criminal law) especially when judicial wrongful behaviour (Misbehaviour pursuant to the "Judicial Condition of Contract" created by s. 22 of the FL Act.) has been committed from the bench.

The law of the Commonwealth also causes such wrongful behaviour to be prosecuted, whether jointly or individually is immaterial, in my view, here. For a fraudulent act of receiving remunerations for a duty not for filled (dereliction of duty) unless the judge did not claim payment from the services rendered at the bench or for the time spent while committing the wrongful behaviour and making the wrongful Orders.

Are you claiming all the above or any of the above and afore-posted is a misinterpretation of the laws judges give an undertaking that they will do right according to law, to all without bias.
Justin,
I am still trying to determine what you are really doing on this site. It is to help or activism, if so keep the two separate.

You enter into a topic discussion (Grandparents et al) and offer valuable advice and then try to turn it into a political discussion pushing your issues of criminality and bias.

You then try to obscure issues by posting selective sections of Acts, Statutory Interpretation and comments as if a 'part' proves the whole.

What did Bryant say in total and what context was it in?

There was another poster some time ago that also used the same argument about Bryant who managed to get his case into the High Court where Kirby J described his case as 'unintelligible'.

With respect from your postings, you appear to belong to the 'Melbourne Club' a small number of individuals that are not even supported by the extreme sections of the Fathers Rights movement.

Have you considered that both your approach and law interpretation may be in error?

PS Swipes at LP and his one liners don't go down well. I suggest you carefully re read the section about one liners and at the same time acquaint yourself with other posts in the same forum about Hijacking threads and topic creep.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
LP - clearly your law school was not in the same league as Justin's! 

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
I have to agree Monteverdi. I had no idea that we had recourse to the International Chamber of Commerce, my Lecturers and Professors only ever referred to International Criminal Court. However, now I have taken my so called medication, I may look into the marketing aspects that the International Chamber of Commerce can provide to cases entering the Australian Family Law system. 

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas
Liberi Primoris said
I have to agree Monteverdi. I had no idea that we had recourse to the International Chamber of Commerce, my Lecturers and Professors only ever referred to International Criminal Court. However, now I have taken my so called medication, I may look into the marketing aspects that the International Chamber of Commerce can provide to cases entering the Australian Family Law system.
 
You can never trust those lecturers and Professors! They informed me that they knew the law. As to the marketing aspect of Family Law, may I be the first to offer a marketing slogan: 'You were born with nothing & you will leave here with nothing'.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
monteverdi said
Liberi Primoris said
I have to agree Monteverdi. I had no idea that we had recourse to the International Chamber of Commerce, my Lecturers and Professors only ever referred to International Criminal Court. However, now I have taken my so called medication, I may look into the marketing aspects that the International Chamber of Commerce can provide to cases entering the Australian Family Law system.
  You can never trust those lecturers and Professors! They informed me that they knew the law. As to the marketing aspect of Family Law, may I be the first to offer a marketing slogan: 'You were born with nothing & you will leave here with nothing'.

No, surely that slogan should belong to the Family Court of Australia and be placed under the Commonwealth Laws Courts sign?

You were born with nothing & you will leave here with nothing

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Thanks guys for the :lol: :lol:, I see you enjoyed mine, as you know I had no law school other than home school and enterprise, and thats not the spaceship either. :lol: ?

Monti, I agree with your ICC contribution but suggest with tongue in check if not cut off, suspecting the quality of the company I am in, You were born with nothing & you will leave here with nothing would be offensive to the FCoA and bring it into disrepute, they would prefer you hang it under every solicitors plaque in keeping with those who have 2 hands in their pockets only on extremely cold days, would they not? :lol:

Thanks LP for the ICC you were referring to, I had forgotten about that 1 and took the first 1 I was comfortable with. Maybe we should ask them on their take of what is so often posted on this site. Maybe we could get our help out to a greater number and effect a better understanding on how to interoperate statute law.

Again Guys, thanks for the laugh.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets