7baz Posted August 14, 2012 i am a bit confused about this ACT Victorian Consolidated Legislation Road Management Act 2004 - SECT 8 Right of passage 8. Right of passage (1) A member of the public is individually entitled as of right to pass along a road. (2) Members of the public are generally entitled as of right to pass along a road. (3) The rights conferred by this section extend to a member of the public using any means of public transport along a road. (4) The rights conferred by this section do not derogate from any right of passage conferred by the common law. (5) Rights of passage conferred by this section or at common law are subject to any restrictions, limitations or conditions which may be specified by or under this Act or any other Act or law. take note on numbers 4 and 5 is this saying no.. i have no right to travel under common law ? or is this saying this act or section does not apply to common law ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
qualia Posted August 14, 2012 dunno..... der·o·gate/ˈderəˌgāt/ Verb: Disparage (someone or something). Detract from. seems to be saying that the section does not take any rights away from someone crossing the road under common law, but any rights conferred under this section (8) is also subject to the other laws and regulations set out in the act. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoOnThen Posted August 14, 2012 4: The way I read it is right of passage that this section gives you cannot reduce your common law rights but then five takes those rights away. If another law or act puts limitations, restrictions and conditions on your right of passage they take precedent over common law. So like most things common law is in place until another law or act comes into play and they take precedent over common law. Again this is my take on it but I am sure a lawyer would read it differently. Deciphering this sort of stuff is why lawyers study for however many years and then get paid big bucks. If you are trying to find holes in this I hope you have nothing better to do for the next few years and then if you do find a hole they will just shut it. Section 5 covers all bases (over and out) (done and dusted) they can just add what they want as they should be able to if there has been a mistake made. This isnt criminal law its the road act Or what qualia said Cheers Got Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
occidentalis Posted August 14, 2012 I think GoT has it right But note difference between rights and limitations/restrictions/conditions. (4) The rights conferred by this section do not derogate from any right of passage conferred by the common law. The rights conferred by this section do not take away from any of the rights conferred by common law (5) Rights of passage conferred by this section or at common law are subject to any restrictions, limitations or conditions which may be specified by or under this Act or any other Act or law. But those rights can be restricted by other things in this act or in any act. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
7baz Posted August 15, 2012 so in its simplest form.... this is outright contradiction , trickery and fraud...... i mean seriously since when can a act or statue over rule a law ? thats like saying a bank has more rights then a human being lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoOnThen Posted August 15, 2012 No it is how laws and act's have to be written other wise you would have loopholes for people to find and then the act would be useless. "The Law" that you are talking about is common law which from my layman understanding is the basic law and then all of the other take precedent over that as required. This is only my opinion Cheers Got Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
7baz Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) ok my understanding is alot different... common law is magna carta , it is part of the commonwealth constitution. our rights to common law is denied. everything is based on maritime admiralty law , the law of the sea. this includes all the fines from the courts , the police , the taxes for the ato , everything.... but interestingly enough.. all these are corporations and they use commercial law to justify there existence. this is how and why they have been getting away with so much bs. common law is indeed basic law.. and it is real law.. law of the land. so again i question.. how does a act or statue in the state laws formed from commercial code over rule a real LAW thats under the constitution ? COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 109 Inconsistency of laws When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. Edited August 15, 2012 by 7baz 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted August 18, 2012 ok my understanding is alot different... common law is magna carta , it is part of the commonwealth constitution. What is your understanding based on? Youtube videos about freeman stuff? Ever checked the actual law? Common law is Magna Carta? Again, what are you basing this on? There is only a single chapter (29) of Magna Carta which was preserved in Australia, and that is in relation to trial by a jury of peers and the right to a speedy trial! That is all! Even then there exist a bunch of state laws which override that chapter anyway! As for your claim the Magna Carta is part of the Commonwealth Constitution.... , have you actually read the Commonwealth Constitution, because...lol everything is based on maritime admiralty law , the law of the sea. this includes all the fines from the courts , the police , the taxes for the ato , everything.... Prove this statement which you make as fact by highlighting the appropriate sections of law. so again i question.. how does a act or statue in the state laws formed from commercial code over rule a real LAW thats under the constitution ? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted August 18, 2012 I would say 99% of this Australian freeman/common law stuff that incessantly keeps popping up on the net is confused regurgitations from already confused people from the UK and US who aren't educated at all on the law. Having kept in close contact with someone who actually tried to use Common Law as the basis of a legal challenge (and documented it all on this forum) I remain extremely skeptical as to any practical applications. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Francois le Danque Posted August 19, 2012 hey baz sorry i dont know the answer but i DO know it's technically illegal to cross tram tracks, anywhere except a crossing. it's technically the same as running in front of a train. hurray for victoria! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
