DECLARATION OF STATE SUBVERSION AND CORRUPTION

 I FORMALLY DECLARE AND ASSERT, AS A LAWFUL CITIZEN OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA BY BIRTH, EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS AND EGREGIOUS PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND MINISTERIAL MISCONDUCT BY: 

• THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT 
• THE STATE OF VICTORIA 
• THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND 
• THE NORTHERN TERRITORY 

THAT CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN A FORM OF TREASON BY LEGAL SUBVERSION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTIUTION ACT 1901 WHERE BY MENS REA AND ACTUS REAS PUBLIC OFFICIALS ENGAGED IN ACTS AND OMISSIONS TO ACT IN A COURSE OF CONDUCT WHICH BY DESIGN AND IMPLICATION EXERTS THE EFFECT OF LIMITING, MANIPULATING AND ELIMINATING THE RULE OF LAW ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT 1901. 

Flagged as: UIDEMG_MAG_CMNPRP_001–006 | Legal–Forensic Tier 1 Incident | Judicial System Integrity Breach

It is submitted for urgent review that the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, with actual or constructive knowledge of its implications, and under the acquiescence of the Crown in Right of Victoria, permitted or failed to prevent a multi-actor, ultra vires operation that resulted in the unconstitutional detention of Mr Reece Ferrara. The proceedings, their structure, and resulting deprivation of liberty constitute the formation and operation of what must legally be characterised as a "false court."

That the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, acting under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Crown, proceeded despite possessing, or being imputed to possess, full knowledge of the jurisdictional errors, statutory conflicts, and fundamental breaches of due process involved in the proceedings.

That the conduct of various state actors—including Victoria Police, court staff, legal practitioners, and forensic experts—demonstrates a coordinated and premeditated effort to circumvent lawful process. This coordination occurred inter-institutionally and spanned multiple domains of legal authority (judicial, correctional, legal representation).

That the unlawful conduct was executed under a shared common purpose, namely to bypass procedural protections in order to detain Mr Ferrara arbitrarily and without lawful authority. This entailed deliberate omission, misrepresentation, and strategic suppression of contrary evidence.

That officers of the Court applied the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT)—a statute from a foreign jurisdiction—instead of the correct Victorian legislation (Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (Vic)), to conduct proceedings. This statutory substitution was unlawful, unconstitutional, and represents an act of jurisdictional usurpation.

That, by doing so, the forum operated as a "false court"—lacking the valid foundation of Victorian statutory or constitutional authority. The accused was excluded from proceedings in breach of the principle of audi alteram partem, resulting in unlawful imprisonment for 28 days, devoid of public accountability or legal basis. The suppression of visibility further violates the fundamental common law maxim: "Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done."

That the accused’s release from detention was carried out via the same invalid and unsanctioned process which imposed the detention, without remedial acknowledgment or judicial correction. This continued disregard for fundamental rights invokes a breach of peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens)—specifically, the prohibition against arbitrary detention, as codified in Article 9 of the ICCPR and customary international human rights law.

The facts as submitted engage the following:

• Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) – ss 21 (liberty), 24 (fair hearing), and 38 (public authority compliance).
• Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic) – Jurisdictional scope and procedural compliance.
• Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) – Potential false document creation (s 253), misconduct in public office.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Arts 9, 14, and 17.
• Convention Against Torture (CAT) – Art 2 (psychological coercion and dehumanising treatment).
• Common Law Doctrine of Jurisdictional Error and Abuse of Process

Updated Transcripts Insights for VOCAT and Procedural Analysis

2021-09-09

VOCAT 2017-1756   Transcript Parts 1-6

VOCAT acknowledges   PTSD symptoms, distress from confrontations with AFM, and self-regulation   attempts

ICCPR Article 7;   CAT Article 1; Charter of Human Rights Act 2006 (Vic) - Section 24

Heightened PTSD,   increased fear in legal process

Dismissal of PTSD   context and procedural bias

AB v CD [2018] HCA   58; ICCPR, CAT; Section 24 Charter

VOCAT Hearing - Admissions and Remorse

2021-09-09

VOCAT 2017-1756   Transcript Parts 1-6

Expressions of   regret, responsibility for actions affecting AFM, focus on mental health   support

Victims of Crime   Act; ICCPR Article 7; Emphasis on mental health in procedural fairness

Sense of   responsibility, need for mental health support

Lack of mental   health focus over punitive measures

Meissner v R;   Charter Section 10; ICCPR Article 14

VOCAT Hearing - Procedural Concerns

2021-09-09

VOCAT 2017-1756   Transcript Part 3

Notes   inconsistencies in AFM statements and potential procedural oversights in   evidence handling

Procedural   fairness, Meissner v R, high standards in evidence handling

Distrust in   procedural fairness, legal anxiety

Procedural gaps in   evaluating evidence

Kirk v Industrial   Relations Commission; Charter Section 24

Documentation of Assault Impact

2021-09-29

VOCAT Verdict   Transcript - 1721

Violent assault's   psychological impact, relevance to procedural handling and mental health   redress

Charter of Human   Rights - Section 10; AB v CD on mental health impact in procedural justice

Heightened PTSD,   psychological distress, redress need

Inadequate trauma   consideration in legal handling

Bunning v Cross;   Section 24, Charter; ICCPR Article 7

Systemic Procedural Misconduct

Establish patterns   of procedural misconduct constituting cruel, degrading treatment

Psychological harm   from delays, gaslighting, and obstruction; International protections violated

ICCPR - Article 7;   CAT - Article 1; Section 51(xxix) of the Constitution

Highlights need   for High Court intervention to uphold fair hearing standards and prevent   further harm.

Evidence of Coercion and Misrepresentation

Misrepresentation   by Brodie and Bowler led to lack of effective representation

Brodie and Bowler   falsely claimed representation without Ferrara’s knowledge, impacting his   right to fair representation

ICCPR Article 14;   Charter of Human Rights Act 2006 (Vic) - Section 24; Meissner v R (1995)

Violations justify   procedural oversight to enforce accountability and fair legal processes.

Contempt and Jurisdictional Error

Demonstrate   jurisdictional overreach and procedural obstruction

Persistent denial   of requests, unauthorized actions by officials; Section 75(v) review   justified

Australian   Constitution - Section 75(v); Magistrates' Court Act 1989 (Vic) - Section 133

High Court   intervention necessary to address systemic bias and reinforce judicial   accountability.

Unauthorized Surveillance and Privacy

Advocate for   inadmissibility of evidence from unauthorized police surveillance

Unlawful   triangulation breaches privacy; Public policy against unlawful evidence   collection; Violates procedural fairness

Telecommunications   Act 1979 (Cth); Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) - Section 138; Bunning v Cross

Upholding privacy   rights and lawful collection standards reinforces public trust in legal   processes.

Independent Oversight and Transparency

Argue for the   necessity of an independent oversight body for accountability in law   enforcement

Strengthen IBAC;   establish independent police complaints authority; Increase powers for   independent oversight; protect whistleblowers

IBAC Act; Public   Interest Disclosure Act 2013

Reinforces   transparency and impartiality; prevents misconduct recurrence.

Systemic Reform and Training

Advocate for   training in human rights standards and mental health awareness to prevent   recurrence

Comprehensive   training in ethical standards and de-escalation techniques; Encourage   accountability culture; Track misconduct in a national registry

ICCPR, UNCAT,   ethical standards training standards

Sustained   improvements in policing behavior; builds community trust.

Enhanced Community Involvement

Foster community   trust and transparency through community oversight committees

Involve community   in oversight processes; Increase engagement through forums and feedback   integration

International   standards for public involvement in oversight

Enhances   transparency and trust; ensures policies align with community expectations.

Right to Redress and Compensation

Ensure redress and   compensation for victims of procedural abuses

Proactive measures   to provide redress in compliance with international standards; UNCAT requires   redress and compensation

UNCAT Article 14

Reinforces   accountability; provides justice for victims of procedural misconduct.

It is respectfully submitted that:

1. An independent judicial or commission-led inquiry be convened to investigate whether the Magistrates’ Court operated outside lawful jurisdiction, thus constituting a false court.
2. The prosecution of any officers or practitioners involved in intentional or reckless misuse of jurisdictional process be considered.
3. That a judicial review application under Order 56 of the Supreme Court Rules be considered to set aside all orders issued under the invalid proceeding.
4. Immediate intervention under ICCPR & CAT complaint mechanisms to address jus cogens violations and seek public remedy.
5. Referral of this matter to the Attorney-General of Victoria, Victorian Ombudsman, and IBAC for investigation under public law integrity frameworks. 

False Court, Jurisdictional Error, Misuse of Evidence Act, Ultra Vires, Unlawful Remand, Psychological Torture, Common Purpose Collusion, Magistrates Court Integrity Breach, Section 42JA, Charter ss 21, 24, 38, ICCPR Articles 9, 14, CAT Article 2.

DENY --> ATTACK --> GASLIGHT ---> ISOLATE ---> EXPLOIT & DISCREDIT ---> SUPRESS & MANIPULATE ---> REVERSE  COMPLAINANT / MALICIOUS ACTOR

Judge Evelyn Bender

Professional and other memberships

• Australian Association of Women Judges
• International Association of Women Judges
• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
• Judicial Advisory Group on Family Violence
• Family Law Information Sharing Protocol Committee
• Law Institute of Victoria, Young Lawyers’ Journal Interview
• Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties Bill Steering Committee

Conferences and events attended during the year

14 September 2020, Victorian Women Lawyers, 2020 Warren Moot, Victoria, via Zoom.

6 November 2020, Law Sense, Law for Mental Health Practitioners, Victoria, via Zoom.

SOURCE: https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/fcc-annual-reports/2020-21/part-5/app7

Evelyn Bender Melbourne 15 September 2008

Source: https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/fcc-annual-reports/2020-21/part-2

Resourcing Yourself: Professionally and Personally"

DATE: 24 August 2016

Her Honour was appointed to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (then the Magistrates Court of Australia) on

15September 2008 and presides predominantly in the Family Law jurisdiction.

In addition, Her Honour is notably active in various committees concerning Family Violence

particularly the Family Law Courts Family Violence Committee and the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Family Violence Taskforce and recently participated in the Council of Australian Government Advisory Panel.

Her Honour commenced her professional career as a country solicitor before returning to Melbourne where Her Honour became the Family Law partner in a large suburban firm. Her Honour was then a Registrar of the Family Court of Australia for thirteen years. At the time of her appointment Her Honour was the Family Law In-House Counsel at Victoria Legal Aid

SOURCE:

vwl.asn.au

https://vwl.asn.au › wp-content › uploads › 2016 › 07 › MEL_DOCS_3706638_1.pdf

Article 7 Crimes against humanity 

1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: 

(a) Murder; 

(b) Extermination; 

(c) Enslavement; (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; 

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; 

(f) Torture; 

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; 

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; 

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons; 

(j) The crime of apartheid; 

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. 

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1: 

(a) “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack; 

(b) “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population; 

(c) “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children; 

(d) “Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; 

(e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions; 

(f) “Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy; 

(g) “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;  

(h) “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime; 

(i) “Enforced disappearance of persons” means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. 

3. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term “gender” refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term “gender” does not indicate any meaning different from the above.  

( 1 Paragraph 2 of article 5 (“The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”) was deleted in accordance with RC/Res.6, annex I, of 11 June 2010.  

I have maintained these grievances privately between myself and the alleged respondents for several years in the belief that everyone—including those accused—deserves a fair hearing. I have placed my hope and faith in the Courts of Justice, confident that if given the opportunity to be heard, natural justice would prevail. The allegations I present represent only one side of the matter; they in no way deny the alleged parties their right to a fair hearing before an appropriate court and an independent judiciary.

It is important to note that I have experienced, and continue to witness, deliberate interference with the natural course of justice in ways similar to the instances cited in the following cases:

• Borg v R [2020] VSCA 191
• AB (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym) [2018] HCA 58
• Slaveski v Victoria [2010] VSC 441
• R v Marafioti (2014) 118 SASR 511 [13]

As noted in one judgment, “[b]ehaviours which might appear odd or different to some should not too quickly be associated with illegality. Eccentricities should not be magnets for the exercise of police powers.”

This perspective is further supported by Karpin and O'Connell (2015) in their article, Stigmatising the Normal: The Legal Regulation of Behaviour as a Disability (University of New South Wales Law Journal, 38(4), 1461-1483):

"It is the fear of the disabled body as irrational and out of control that, rather than inviting the protections established in law, triggers the speculation of frightening possibility. It is not the disabling condition that is the source of the stigma, but the unacknowledged fears and assumptions that attach to it. Daniel emerges from the High Court judgment stigmatised as terrifyingly out of control with the potential to commit heinous criminal acts such as sexual assault and arson, rather than being recognised as a disabled child who required care and assistance in managing a challenging school environment."
 

Similarly, in Slattery v Manningham City Council [2013] VCAT 1869, despite Slattery’s multiple diagnoses—including bipolar disorder, ADHD, PTSD, hearing impairment, sleep apnoea, and an acquired brain injury following a stroke—the Tribunal observed that certain behaviors, such as his compulsive contact with council members, could not be solely attributed to his disabilities. The Tribunal described the ban imposed on him as "disproportionately extensive and unspecified" and "blunt, broad, and insufficiently tailored," concluding that the combination of his symptoms—compulsive complaining, irrational and anti-social behaviors, aggressiveness, and conduct deemed objectionable—constituted the relevant manifestations of his disability ([82]).

In Coroneos v Medical Board [2001] QCA 268, it was emphasized that a body vested with powers, such as the Medical Board, must avoid penalizing a practitioner for eccentricity, unorthodox or unpopular behavior, or even for offensive personality traits that might, at times, complicate interactions with colleagues. While it is acceptable to impose conditions for behavior that falls below the threshold of a diagnosable psychiatric illness, extreme caution is required before limiting a practitioner's capacity to practice. In my view, the conditions imposed in that instance were so unreasonable that no rational Tribunal could have sanctioned them, as they clearly failed the Wednesbury test ([13]).