If A Void Ab Initio Is Not Upheld As Nullity By Multiple Court Appearances & Other. Whose Onus Is What? See What GROK Says.

First about this Australian Strict Liability Charge made under a C/wealth Law Mens Rea law matter along with my situation and some problems I see of it.

Then I ask GROK first generally which mainly brings up for Civil Law and then I ask GROK of Criminal Law which my matter is in first then maybe damages in civil law second.

Also I am going to put the last paragraphs of that in first as well because they are the main meat of this and then if there is any and/or further interest it can read through the other GROK supplied sundry details.

Me to readers – Do you think I could get an idea on in Australia whose onus is what if a Strict Liability Charge is brought under a totally Mens Rea Law of the 1914 C/wealth Crimes Act in the Invested jurisdiction? –

– with the rest of the Postal usage Charge more society wide relevant factors of the Charge wording applying to a letter, envelope it was alleged posted in, with nothing established or known of its circumstances at all and no legal right to even have the letter and envelope.

Which carryon purporting in relation to the Charge has carried on radically distinct from the only 3 possibilities of the one same charge elements and different again from each previous difference every sentence or instance for the 33+ years of this.

I mean is it just my onus to appeal? What am I supposed to appeal?

Is it anything or sayable as anything I face as a legal and financial onus on me?

Is it the watchdog system onus in relation to the factors to not allow State or Individual opinion to these degrees distinct from the allotted uniform amount of the C/wealth Law for the the Federal Invested Jurisdiction which is requite in operation with no State or other individual opinion distinct from that allotted uniform amount of C/wealth Law and anything made out by it..

Is it the legal system’s onus because of the particular involved factors.

Is it media onus if the matter is left ignored as a matter at all like this.

I would like to get this understanding of the situation if possible because I have had no chance so far to know the one same charge thing or any equivalent so at least if all the other sides this 33+ years are right in their claims that all those aspects are totally satisfactory, I still need an explanation to the same effect as the statistically supplied data of these factors.

Hope we can get this matter going at last from this. Cheers all. Now to GROK with its results here last paragraph put in first here too.

Below’s last paragraphs here too –

Courts may not have declared nullity due to insufficient evidence, jurisdictional limits, or discretionary remedies, while watchdogs like the CDPP or Ombudsman operate within legal constraints until a court rules otherwise. To progress, you’d need to pursue judicial review or habeas corpus with robust evidence, potentially escalating to the High Court.

If you provide more details (e.g., the law, case, or watchdog), I can refine this analysis further. If you have additional information or a specific case to discuss, please share, and I’ll tailor the response accordingly.

The Strict Liability Charge involved here was made under this 1914 crimes act cth 85s law itself — Australian C/wealth Crimes Act 1914 – Section 85s – subsection b –

That section saying saying –
” A person shall not knowingly or recklessly use a postal or telecommunications service supplied by Australian Post in such a way that will be regarded by reasonable persons as being in all the circumstances Offensive.” –

Thank you for providing the specific text of section 85S, subsection (b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) as it existed in 1991, which you state reads:

“A person shall not knowingly or recklessly use a postal or telecommunications service supplied by Australia Post in such a way that will be regarded by reasonable persons as being in all the circumstances offensive.”

This is critical, as it confirms that section 85S(b) required mens rea (i.e., “knowingly or recklessly”), contradicting your claim that your 1991 charge was strict liability, thus supporting your “nullity” argument.

Text of Section 85S(b) in 1991:You cite section 85S(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) as:
“A person shall not knowingly or recklessly use a postal or telecommunications service supplied by Australia Post in such a way that will be regarded by reasonable persons as being in all the circumstances offensive.”
Mens Rea Requirement: The terms “knowingly or recklessly” explicitly require proof of intent or recklessness, meaning the prosecution must show you were aware or consciously disregarded the risk that your use of the postal service was offensive by reasonable standards. This contradicts your claim that the charge was strict liability, which imposes liability without proving fault (web:17; He Kaw Teh v R [1985] 157 CLR 523).Charge Mismatch:
If you were charged with a strict liability offense under section 85S(b) in 1991, this was improper, as the statute’s text requires mens rea.
This supports your “nullity” argument: a charge misapplied as strict liability under a mens rea-based statute is invalid (B v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428; web:9).
Verification: The Federal Register of Legislation (web:8, web:10) and AustLII (web:0, web:7, web:13, web:21) don’t provide the 1991 text of section 85S, likely due to its repeal. The National Library of Australia (www.nla.gov.au) or State Library of Victoria should have 1991 Crimes Act reprints to confirm the wording.
Validity of the 1991 Charge: Nullity Argument: Since section 85S(b) required mens rea (“knowingly or recklessly”), a strict liability charge was legally void ab initio nullity.

Ends last paragraphs repeat –

Asks of GROK – What is the situation of a void ab initio nullity if the courts in repeat court appearances have not ruled it a Nullity and the associated watchdog Govt legal system is abetting this.

A void ab initio nullity refers to an action, document, or transaction that is legally invalid from its inception, as if it never existed, due to a fundamental defect such as illegality, lack of capacity, fraud, duress, or violation of public policy. The term “void ab initio” means it is null from the beginning, carrying no legal effect, and courts typically treat it as though it never occurred.

If courts in repeated appearances have not declared an action or document (e.g., a contract, statute, or court order) a nullity despite its apparent void ab initio status, and the associated government legal system or watchdog (e.g., regulatory bodies, oversight agencies, or prosecutors) appears to be abetting this by failing to address or challenge it, several complex issues arise. Below, I’ll break down the situation and its implications, addressing the legal, systemic, and practical aspects.1. Understanding Void Ab Initio in This Context

Legal Definition and Effect: A void ab initio action is inherently null and cannot be enforced or validated, even if parties act as though it is valid. For example, a contract signed under duress or for an illegal purpose (e.g., drug trafficking) is void ab initio and cannot create legal obligations.
Court’s Role: Courts have the authority to declare an action void ab initio, which retroactively nullifies it, returning parties to their pre-action state. However, such a declaration is not always automatic; it may require a party to challenge the action or the court to recognize the defect sua sponte (on its own initiative).
Failure to Declare Nullity: If courts repeatedly fail to rule an action void ab initio despite clear defects (e.g., lack of jurisdiction, illegality, or fraud), this could indicate judicial error, oversight, procedural barriers, or systemic issues such as bias, corruption, or external pressures.

2. Possible Reasons Courts Have Not Ruled It a NullitySeveral factors could explain why courts have not declared an action void ab initio:

Lack of Challenge: A void ab initio action is not automatically nullified unless challenged. If no party raises the issue (e.g., through a motion to dismiss or vacate), the court may not address it. For example, in Cundy v Lindsay (1878), the court only declared the contract void ab initio after the plaintiff challenged the transaction.
Procedural Barriers: Courts operate within procedural frameworks. If a challenge is not raised timely or within the correct legal framework (e.g., due to statutes of limitations or laches), the court may not address the nullity, even if the action is technically void.
Judicial Discretion or Error: Courts may misinterpret the law, fail to recognize the defect, or prioritize procedural compliance over substantive nullity. For instance, in Singh v. Mooney (2001), a court initially failed to address a procedural defect until it was later challenged, leading to a ruling that the order was void ab initio.
Jurisdictional Issues: If a court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the matter (e.g., due to improper venue or standing), it may avoid declaring nullity, perpetuating the issue.
Evidence or Proof: Declaring an action void ab initio often requires clear evidence of a defect (e.g., fraud, lack of capacity). If evidence is insufficient or not presented, courts may refrain from ruling.
Systemic Pressures: In rare cases, external influences (e.g., political pressure, corruption, or institutional bias) may prevent courts from addressing the nullity, though this is speculative and requires evidence.

3. Role of the Government Legal System Abetting the IssueIf a government watchdog or legal system (e.g., prosecutors, regulatory agencies, or oversight bodies) appears to be abetting the failure to declare a nullity, this could manifest in several ways:

Inaction or Negligence: The watchdog may fail to investigate or challenge the void action, allowing it to persist. For example, if a government agency ignores an unconstitutional statute or regulation, it may continue to be enforced despite being void ab initio.
Complicity or Conflict of Interest: In extreme cases, the watchdog may have a vested interest in upholding the action (e.g., financial, political, or institutional motives). This could involve prosecutors declining to challenge invalid orders or agencies enforcing void regulations.
Systemic Inefficiency: Bureaucratic inefficiencies or lack of coordination between courts and oversight bodies may result in the issue being overlooked. For instance, if a regulatory body fails to flag an illegal contract, courts may not proactively address it.
Legal Ambiguity: In some cases, the legal system may lack clear mechanisms to address certain void ab initio actions, especially if they involve novel or complex issues (e.g., emerging technologies or cross-jurisdictional matters).

4. Implications of Courts and Watchdogs Failing to Address Void Ab Initio Nullity

Perpetuation of Invalid Actions: If a void ab initio action (e.g., a contract, court order, or statute) is not declared null, it may continue to be treated as valid, causing harm to parties or the public. For example, in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. UP State Agro Industrial Corporation, the court declared a termination order void ab initio, restoring the petitioner’s position, but only after a legal challenge.
Erosion of Rule of Law: Failure to address void ab initio actions undermines the principle that illegal or defective actions have no legal effect. This can erode public trust in the judiciary and government.
Third-Party Consequences: Innocent third parties may be affected if they rely on a void action in good faith. For example, in Cundy v Lindsay, an innocent third party was impacted when a void contract was nullified, leaving them without recourse.
Legal Uncertainty: Persistent failure to declare nullity creates uncertainty, as parties may not know whether an action is enforceable until challenged.
Potential for Abuse: If the legal system abets void actions (e.g., through inaction or complicity), it may enable fraud, corruption, or abuse of power, particularly if powerful entities benefit from the status quo.

5. Potential Remedies or Actions If courts and the government legal system are failing to address a void ab initio nullity, the following steps could be considered:

File a Direct Challenge: A party with standing (e.g., someone affected by the void action) can file a motion to declare the action void ab initio. This could involve a petition for a declaratory judgment, a motion to vacate, or a collateral attack.
Collateral Attack: Void ab initio actions can often be challenged at any time, as they are nullities. For example, in Singh v. Mooney, a void order was challenged years later due to lack of jurisdiction.
Engage Oversight Bodies: If a watchdog is abetting the issue, complaints can be filed with higher authorities (e.g., ombudsmen, inspectors general, or legislative oversight committees) to investigate inaction or complicity.
Public Interest Litigation: In cases involving public policy or constitutional issues, advocacy groups or affected parties may file lawsuits to compel courts to address the nullity. For example, in R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister (UK), the Supreme Court declared a prorogation of Parliament void ab initio due to unlawful advice.
Legislative Reform: If systemic issues prevent nullity declarations, advocacy for legislative changes to clarify procedures or strengthen oversight may be necessary.
Whistleblower Action: If abetting involves corruption or misconduct, whistleblowers within the government or legal system could expose the issue, prompting external scrutiny.

6. Critical Considerations

Evidence of Abetting: Accusations of a government legal system “abetting” a void ab initio nullity require concrete evidence (e.g., documents showing inaction, conflicts of interest, or deliberate oversight). Speculation alone is insufficient to prove systemic failure.
Jurisdictional Variations: The treatment of void ab initio actions varies by jurisdiction. For example, in the U.S., the void ab initio theory is tied to constitutional principles (Marbury v. Madison), while in other systems (e.g., Austria), nullity may have prospective effects.
Kelsen’s Critique: Legal theorist Hans Kelsen argued that absolute nullity (void ab initio) is rare in positive law systems, as most actions are voidable rather than inherently void, requiring a legal act to annul them. This perspective suggests courts may hesitate to declare nullity without clear procedural triggers.
Public Policy Concerns: Courts may avoid declaring nullity in complex cases to prevent disruption (e.g., invalidating a widely enforced statute). This pragmatic approach can conflict with strict legal theory.

7. Conclusion If courts repeatedly fail to declare an action void ab initio, and the government legal system appears to abet this through inaction or complicity, it suggests a breakdown in judicial or regulatory processes. This could stem from procedural barriers, lack of evidence, judicial error, or systemic issues like bias or inefficiency. Affected parties can pursue remedies through direct challenges, collateral attacks, or engagement with oversight bodies, but success depends on presenting clear evidence of the defect and navigating jurisdictional rules. The situation risks undermining the rule of law and public trust, particularly if the void action causes ongoing harm. To address this, specific details about the action, the courts’ rulings, and the watchdog’s conduct would be needed to tailor a precise strategy. If you have specific details about the case (e.g., the nature of the void action, the jurisdiction, or the watchdog’s actions), I can provide a more targeted analysis. Would you like to share more details or explore a particular remedy?

And Grok says asked the question specifically of in Criminal Law –

What is the situation of a C/wealth law criminal law void ab initio nullity if the courts in repeat court appearances have not ruled it a Nullity and the associated watchdog Govt legal system is abetting this.

Your query raises complex issues about Commonwealth criminal law, the concept of “void ab initio” (void from the beginning), nullity, and the role of courts and government watchdogs in addressing such matters. It also suggests a scenario where courts have not declared a law or act a nullity despite repeated appearances, and there may be concerns about government bodies enabling or “abetting” this situation. Below, I’ll break down the key concepts and address the situation systematically, focusing on the Australian Commonwealth legal context, as the term “Commonwealth” likely refers to Australian federal law. If you meant another Commonwealth jurisdiction (e.g., the UK or Canada), please clarify, and I can tailor the response further. Key Concepts

Void Ab Initio in Criminal Law : In law, “void ab initio” means an action, document, or law has no legal effect from the outset, as if it never existed. In the context of Commonwealth criminal law, a law or procedural act (e.g., a conviction, regulation, or prosecution) could be void ab initio if it was fundamentally flawed at its inception, such as lacking jurisdiction, violating constitutional principles, or being enacted without legal authority.
Nullity in Criminal Proceedings: Nullity in criminal law often refers to procedural defects that render a judicial act (e.g., a conviction or sentence) invalid. For instance, nullity can arise from violations of due process, such as the use of illicit evidence or failure to observe fundamental rights like the right to a fair trial.
Courts Not Ruling on Nullity: If courts have not declared a law or act a nullity despite repeated appearances, several possibilities arise: Judicial Oversight: The courts may not have been presented with sufficient evidence or legal arguments to establish nullity. The burden of proof typically lies with the party alleging nullity.
Government Watchdog Abetting: The term “watchdog government legal system” is ambiguous but likely refers to oversight bodies like the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Australian Law Reform Commission, or prosecutorial authorities like the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP).
Recent Cases and Context: The query mentions “recent cases,” but no specific Commonwealth criminal law cases from 2024–2025 directly address a void ab initio nullity scenario with watchdog abetting. However, related principles can be drawn from cases like: Momcilovic v The Queen (2011): The High Court examined inconsistency between Commonwealth and state criminal laws under Section 109 of the Constitution, clarifying that procedural differences (e.g., jury unanimity) may not render a state law invalid unless there’s a direct conflict. This case highlights how courts assess validity in criminal law contexts.

Situation Analysis Given the lack of a specific case, I’ll address the hypothetical scenario where a Commonwealth criminal law or act is potentially void ab initio, courts have not declared it so despite repeated appearances, and government watchdogs are allegedly abetting the issue:

Why Courts May Not Rule on Nullity: Lack of Evidence or Argument: The party challenging the law or act (e.g., a defendant) may not have adequately raised or substantiated the nullity claim. For example, in cases involving psychological incapacity in marriage nullity (analogous to criminal law nullity), courts require robust evidence to declare nullity.
Role of Government Watchdogs: If a watchdog like the Commonwealth Ombudsman or CDPP is perceived to be “abetting” the situation, this could involve:Failure to Investigate: The Ombudsman may not have received a complaint or may lack jurisdiction to challenge a law’s validity (their role focuses on administrative actions, not legislative validity).
Potential Remedies: Judicial Review: A defendant or affected party could seek judicial review in the Federal Court or High Court to challenge the law or act’s validity, arguing it is ultra vires or violates constitutional rights (e.g., Chapter III judicial power).
Implications of Watchdog Abetting: If government bodies are enabling an invalid law or act, this could undermine the rule of law and public trust in the legal system. It may also breach Australia’s obligations under international law, such as the right to a fair trial. However, without a court ruling, watchdogs may lack the authority to treat a law as void. Their role is to operate within the legal framework until a competent court (e.g., the High Court) rules otherwise.

Critical Considerations

Lack of Specificity: Without details on the specific law, case, or watchdog, it’s challenging to assess whether the law is truly void ab initio or why courts haven’t ruled on nullity. If you can provide specifics (e.g., the law’s name, case details, or the watchdog involved), I can offer a more precise analysis.
Constitutional Safeguards: Australia’s Constitution and the High Court’s role as a constitutional court provide robust mechanisms to address invalid laws. Section 109 ensures Commonwealth laws prevail over inconsistent state laws, and Chapter III guarantees judicial independence, reducing the likelihood of systemic abetting.
Skepticism of Narrative: While your query suggests potential misconduct by watchdogs, the legal system’s checks (e.g., judicial review, appeals to the High Court) make sustained abetting of an invalid law unlikely unless there’s gross systemic failure. Courts and watchdogs are bound by legal principles, and deviations require evidence beyond procedural delays or disagreements.

Recommendations If you’re dealing with a real-world scenario (e.g., as a defendant or advocate), consider:

Legal Advice: Consult a lawyer specializing in Commonwealth criminal or constitutional law to assess the law or act’s validity and strategize a challenge (e.g., judicial review or appeal to the High Court).
Evidence Gathering: Compile evidence of the law’s invalidity (e.g., constitutional overreach, procedural defects) and any watchdog inaction to support your case.
Ombudsman Complaint: If administrative misconduct is involved, file a complaint with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, ensuring it’s within their jurisdiction (e.g., CDPP actions).
Public Advocacy: Engage with legal reform bodies or advocacy groups to highlight systemic issues, potentially prompting legislative or judicial action.

Conclusion In the absence of a specific case, the situation you describe—where a Commonwealth criminal law or act is potentially void ab initio, courts haven’t ruled it a nullity, and watchdogs are allegedly abetting—likely stems from procedural, evidentiary, or discretionary factors rather than systemic conspiracy. Courts may not have declared nullity due to insufficient evidence, jurisdictional limits, or discretionary remedies, while watchdogs like the CDPP or Ombudsman operate within legal constraints until a court rules otherwise. To progress, you’d need to pursue judicial review or habeas corpus with robust evidence, potentially escalating to the High Court. If you provide more details (e.g., the law, case, or watchdog), I can refine this analysis further. If you have additional information or a specific case to discuss, please share, and I’ll tailor the response accordingly.

The Strict Liability Charge involved here was made under this 1914 crimes act cth 85s law itself — Australian C/wealth Crimes Act 1914 – Section 85s – subsection b –

That section saying saying –
” A person shall not knowingly or recklessly use a postal or telecommunications service supplied by Australian Post in such a way that will be regarded by reasonable persons as being in all the circumstances Offensive.” –

Thank you for providing the specific text of section 85S, subsection (b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) as it existed in 1991, which you state reads:

Text of Section 85S(b) in 1991:You cite section 85S(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) as:
“A person shall not knowingly or recklessly use a postal or telecommunications service supplied by Australia Post in such a way that will be regarded by reasonable persons as being in all the circumstances offensive.”
Mens Rea Requirement: The terms “knowingly or recklessly” explicitly require proof of intent or recklessness, meaning the prosecution must show you were aware or consciously disregarded the risk that your use of the postal service was offensive by reasonable standards. This contradicts your claim that the charge was strict liability, which imposes liability without proving fault (web:17; He Kaw Teh v R [1985] 157 CLR 523).Charge Mismatch:
If you were charged with a strict liability offense under section 85S(b) in 1991, this was improper, as the statute’s text requires mens rea.
This supports your “nullity” argument: a charge misapplied as strict liability under a mens rea-based statute is invalid (B v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428; web:9).
Verification: The Federal Register of Legislation (web:8, web:10) and AustLII (web:0, web:7, web:13, web:21) don’t provide the 1991 text of section 85S, likely due to its repeal. The National Library of Australia (www.nla.gov.au) or State Library of Victoria should have 1991 Crimes Act reprints to confirm the wording.
Validity of the 1991 Charge: Nullity Argument: Since section 85S(b) required mens rea (“knowingly or recklessly”), a strict liability charge was legally void ab initio nullity.

Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one.

If A Void Ab Initio Is Not Upheld As Nullity By Multiple Court Appearances & Other. Whose Onus Is What? See What GROK Says.

Share this:

Leave a comment Cancel reply