This blog post about void court orders was brought to my attention and quotes not only critical principles, but also relevant case law:
A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions  it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court.
A void order results from a ‘fundamental defect’ in proceedings:
- a fundamental defect in proceedings will make the whole proceedings a nullity;
- a nullity cannot be waived;
- it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and
- a person affected by a void order has the right – ex debito justitiae – to have it set aside.
A ‘fundamental defect’ includes
- a failure to serve process;
- failure to comply with a statutory requirement (Smurthwaite v Hannay );
- a ‘without jurisdiction’ / ultra vires act which is any act which a Court did not have power to do (Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis ).
‘Without jurisdiction’ obviously also applies when ‘official court documents’ are faked, i.e. the ‘authority’ of a court is falsely invoked by white collar criminals. This deception / fraud may be hard to spot, but it is
- a non-insurable event!
And the significance of insuring local councils was the issue for an Early Day Motion already in 1996. Institutions live longer than individuals!…
My big question:
- is is a ‘fundamental defect’ to hear the CRIMINAL allegations of child witnesses in a SECRET family court?
When the magic of ‘related articles’ find this link below, it demonstrates one of the important avenues forward: ‘contract law’ between ‘consenting parties’ – generally about the value of a ‘trade transaction’.
In the end, our dishonest money system is definitely the best explanation for a lot of the corruption we’re seeing: sex, money or both. Or other ‘material perks’, as long as ethical, moral, spiritual values can be avoided…
Still, I shall keep blogging and won’t give up hope!