The Doctrine of Ex Debito Justitiae can be used to present to the Court and provide a mechanism whereby it

is clearly established that a Judge has no other option but to render a judgment according to due process of
Law.

In effect for a judge to ignore the doctrine and the various case precedents surrounding lack of (subject
matter) jurisdiction and void judgments is to wilfully abandon his oath (with full knowledge of the
consequences thereof), commit treason, pervert the course of justice and is a malfeasance of office, In such
action he no longer can lay claim to judicial immunity and aligned with the record of the court and first-hand
witnesses (your observers) and other audio/video recordings which everyone would be prudent to establish
beforehand is prima facie evidence of his lawlessness. Makaera, Aotearoa (New Zealand)

Ex Debito Justitiae

With the reiteration of the above mentioned points especially in line with the Affidavits filed onto the record of
the court in regard to this matter it is highly repugnant that true and appropriate processes of law are being
ignored; even more so when I have continually asserted my rights as a living Man under God with claim of
common law jurisdiction.

As has been highlighted a Judges hands are bound by Parliament and so they should be to ensure that
due process is adhered to and any order established is effected subject to true process of law and that an
unbiased judgment is made according to what has been factually established by the parties to the matter. To
this end I refer once again to t he Imperial Laws Applications Act 1988 section 5 the common
laws of England shall continue to be part of the laws of New Zealand.

To date the primary consideration has only ever been the notice of Special Appearance and Challenge To
Jurisdiction and the fact that as a living man jurisdiction must not be merely presumed by opinion or
otherwise; it must be proven and therefore I require the notarised/certified evidentiary documentation that
provides lawful and conclusive proof of such failure to do so means as an operation of law that there is no
other option but to dismiss that matter full, complete and final.

To date the prosecutions proven unwillingness to rebut my Affidavits is prima facie evidence that they have
lost by default and there is no discretion for the matter to be revisited hence the Default Judgment, entered
on to the file and record of the court, that stands at law.

There has to be a contract and evidence of the contract has to be in the record.
All jurisdictional facts supporting the claim that jurisdiction exists must appear on the record of the
court.
Pipe Line v Marathon. 102 S. Ct. 3858 quoting Crowell v Benson 883 US 22.

When a judge acts ultra vires, outside of his scope of authority, he no longer enjoys judicial immunity
and is open to a suit at law. This is further reinforced by Pope Francis Apostolic Letter issued Motu
Proprio of the 1st September, 2013 whereby public officials are solely responsible and accountable
for their own actions.

judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and
otherwise), act as mere clerks of the involved agency
K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW, Ch.1 (CTP. Wests 1965 Ed.)

courts administrating or enforcing statues do not act judicially, but merely ministerially but
merely act as an extension for the involved agency but only in a ministerial and not a
discretionary capacity
Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579,583; Keller v. P.E., 261 US 428; F.R.C. v. G.E., 281,U.S. 464.

The House of Lords confirmed that a void act is void from the outset and no Court not even the
House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no
matter how unreasonable that may seem, because doing so would mean reforming the law which no
Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to
interpret and apply the law not reform or create it.
Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21

pg 1/2
 The right to adjudicate concerning the subject-matter in the given case; to constitute this there are
three essentials: First, the court must have cognizance of the class of cases to which the one to be
adjudicated belongs; second, the proper parties must be present; and third, the point decided upon
must be in substance and effect within the issue.
Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254, 268.

At the common law subject-matter is not within the the jurisdiction, the court may dismiss the
proceedings of its own motion.
Gormly v. McIntosh, 22 Barb. (N.Y.) 271; Robertson v. State, 10 NE 582, 643.

The judgment of conviction without jurisdiction is void

Johnson v. Lewis, 144 U.S. 653.

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and continues to be absolutely null, without legal
efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or support a fight, of no legal force and effect whatever, and
incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree.
Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).

Not every action by any judge is in exercise of his judicial function. It is not a judicial function for a
Judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the Courthouse, when a judge acts
as a Trespasser of the Law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject matter
jurisdiction and The Judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect
Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962).

A void order results from a fundamental defect in proceedings (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard

(deceased) [1963] 1 Ch 502 and Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978] 3 WLR 1) or from a without
jurisdiction / ultra vires act of a public body or judicial officer (Lord Denning in Pearlman v Governors
of Harrow School [1978] 3 WLR 736).

A void order or claim has no legal effect ab initio

Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] and Firman v Ellis [1978] QB 866

a void order or claim does not have to be obeyed and can be ignored and its nullity can be
relied on as a defence when necessary. (emphaisi added)
(Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461)

Although an appeal is not necessary to set aside a void order, if permission to appeal is requested
and if out of time the Court should grant permission because time does not run because the order is
void and the person affected by it has the right to have it set aside
(Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943] KB 256.

It should be further noted that it is fraud to allow a fictitious party to bring a claim onto the Court and any act
by any government official to conceal the fraud becomes an act of fraud. Fraud is inexcusable and
unpardonable and should excuse no man. Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.

Finally in direct correlation to the statements covered in this section I bring to the attention of the court the
doctrine of ex debito justitiae in order to implement a remedy as of right, as an obligation arising out of the
justice of the matter that the court has no discretion to refuse.

All words/details/constructs herein are as Affiant defines them to be.

Due to the facts as presented in the Affidavit, this case fails due to lack of jurisdiction save only for
the dismissal and apportionment of damages/costs and is invalid, fraudulent, and void ab initio,
and is to be quashed in the interests of Justice with said damages/costs enforced accordingly.

pg 2/2