Talk:Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Name of Court
Section 4 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) states:

(1) The Magistrates Court is continued in existence.

Correct name of court therefore appears to be Magistrates Court rather than Magistrate's Court. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Assize (talk • contribs) 05:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Corruption and interface to pervert the course of justice
This court is responsible for putting violent alcoholics back out onto the public where they are able to threaten victims and witnesses; In complete anatomy with support of elected members of the local government who demand legal reform to remove them selves from being responsible after making sure their political party was paid by shops that sell alcohol, the police for not recording alcoholic brands/suppliers or images/video of alcoholics while and after they have finished attacking someone, and anyone who needs organs which can be taken from what ever body parts are left undamaged after a life of abuse at the hands of drunks.

Dirt file capital
This courts supports the abuse of people with police that have just one video camera with a pause button which makes sure to never capture jokes told by police during the manufacture of a dirt file that wont be handed to a court of law, let alone suicide inquests where the police pretend there is no such a file let alone audio of police making jokes

Selective information from the dirt file will be released by police to other like minded abusers who stand to gain wealth and ability to further commit acts of abuse should the people say one word of the audio and jokes told by female and male police officers.

Police like to call such dirt files the term of information but really its a record of their abuse that is not open to suicide inquests or proper review by an outside authority with the power to hold those to account for the intentional act of destroying evidence, manufacturing a falsehood, and using someone elses DOB when making an arrest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.52.169 (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Time limits apply
Only requirement to have someone criminally charged is a record of receiving emails - which can be printed out without header information and submitted to a court of law as evidence of complaint.

Metadata that disproves the complaint will not be accessible because the complainer will be funding the defence and limiting its ability to defend its client - for an easy conviction - just admit 'guilt' and enjoy living with a 'conviction that will not effect the rest of your life' as per letter received by respondent to complaint.

Evidence can be fabricated by police after receiving of a complaint (general members of the public can simply crawl off and die because if they dont have a legal representative then they are simply not worthy of rights - ask any police officer that has a video camera for making 'recordings' between jokes if seeing them at the suicide inquest) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.72.224 (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

== s47F allows police to make statements of rape whilst manufacturing a false digital record and appending content to be shared before the committal of a verbal assault with the intent to cause endangerment to life, or endangerment to health ==

Police have rights to make jokes about rape towards their intended victim who will be abused later on by another 'professional' that also enjoys payment for 'services rendered to the community of like minded frauds that endanger the health of others'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.69.43 (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

RAMDISC deletion - backup your data always because to not do so could be an issue
section 117 criminal code 2002 to seize any other thing found at the premises in the course of the search that the executing officer or the person assisting believes on reasonable grounds to be: ii) evidential material in relation to another offence that is an indictable offence; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.40.49 (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Appeals process, Convictions by suspicion, and instant police findings of 'what ever you think'
There is no appeals process for convictions by suspicion that are supported by police who write text to the following meaning of 'what ever you think will do it'. Officials whom make such convictions by way of unseen documents to any court process or rights protector of the suspect are able to do so because they par-take in fee-sharing where other officials can be contacted and also persuaded by mean allegation to join the process of harassing the suspect of suspicion which in many cases results in suicide, actual harm to health, and death of others by way of process to prevent pregnancy occurring in the first place. Some of the officials are employed on a contract or have retired which allows them the ability to over-rule the court process and act upon their own beliefs for a better society (because they know how to do things better then anyone else who doesnt think like them, and may an invisible God help anyone whom gets in their way - because you wont get a life or rights) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.118.115 (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This place is a proxy for those that love to murder a persons whole family by ensure the person never breeds, its amazing what 10 acts of neglect and failure to record correctly can do - all hidden from public view by those with access to create government records on computer systems used to defraud the victims further and further until they have no choice but to commit suicide as that is the only justice in this town --- aided and abetted by the over paid frauds whom sit in judgement upon others whilst they assist the concealment of police information files for a greater size of membership or other similar pay rises in line with the amount of population being disposed of into the sub system which exists to re-trial those submitted into it for a more 'suitable' justice administration standard in much similar of the likes Hitler and many other mass murderers would of administered should they of been able to write Australian law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.212.134.199 (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Special murders never go on trial or even appear at places like this
This place is a proxy for those that love to murder a persons whole family by ensure the person never breeds, its amazing what 10 acts of neglect and failure to record correctly can do - all hidden from public view by those with access to create government records on computer systems used to defraud the victims further and further until they have no choice but to commit suicide as that is the only justice in this town --- aided and abetted by the over paid frauds whom sit in judgement upon others whilst they assist the concealment of police information files for a greater size of membership or other similar pay rises in line with the amount of population being disposed of into the sub system which exists to re-trial those submitted into it for a more 'suitable' justice administration standard in much similar of the likes Hitler and many other mass murderers would of administered should they of been able to write Australian law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.212.134.199 (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Harassment of legal professionals is rife, many of the Judges are involved
Lawyers will not act for abuse victims as the Australian Federal Police are known for their abuse of law to then harass if not send broke any legal representation of such victims. No business can withstand the abuse committed by the members of Australian Federal Police as the members are known to take-it-in-turns to ensure no case will ever be logged at the magistrates court.

The Judges whom preside here are known for 'looking the other way' when it comes to reviewing any evidence that disproves the delusional claims logged by members of the Australian Federal Police whom may be working in differing capacities in other organisations from ACT Policing to other federal departments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.80.143 (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of reproduction rights of people before conviction
The removal process starts in a pre-interview that is booked to occur before a later interview which is recorded for the courts. People in this pre-interview are abused by former union reps that will tell the person before them by way of implying that 'some people shouldn't have children'. The choice to remove rights is concealed in Administrative processes that generally involve a team of union thugs or other politically active participants.

Other like minded staff will follow-up upon the pre-interview by asking if the person has started or is in a relationship with the intent to harm if not ensure the relationship is ended; Tools used range from simple abuse of 'you should see a doctor' to straight out attacking by ring-fencing-ideals that the persons 'next' relationship or future partner could pose a risk to the person (and laying the ground work for mistrust should the person accept the form of abuse being committed against them is instead a form of advise or assistance).

Australian Federal Police officers and other instruments like that of various departments within the health professions of the courts may also engage in this process of abuse as described above with added effect of using 'policing methods' to ensure the harassed and abused person is then accused of something they could never defend against whist the police know the allegation is false and without any basis. Such an allegation may include a statement in written form added to a persons record or medical files with text of 'possible threat to mother', etc.

Metadata was concealed from courts
To assist gaining convictions police made sure conceal metadata from courts of law because having metadata that disproved the police claims may of resulted in something else and they could not have that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.105.220 (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)