WITHOUT PREJUDICE The Officer in Charge Traffic Camera Office P.O.

Box 1916, Melbourne 3001 C/o Victorian Police

Victoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913 Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA

23-3-2011

10

heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au
Cc; Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001

15

Ethical Standards Department Victoria Police Unit Victoria Police Centre, 737 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3005 Phone 1300 363 101, Facsimile 9247 3498

Ref: Obligation Number 1106575301 20 Sir/Madam,

.

As you have not provided an up-to-date email address I use the same email address as I used previously!
.

25

I received a 20 March 2011 response to my 23 February 2011 correspondence and add the following to my previous statements.
.

30

35

I will use an example: Say that you are living in a street say number 1/53 and call for a plumber. You are waiting at home for the plumber to attend to your problem but do not notice any plumber arriving into your drive way. Subsequently you receive a bill in the mail from the plumber setting out the repairs he did at your property. You dispute the bill and contact the company which indicates that the plumber has assured them he performed the job and that the account is correct and you simply have to pay up or face court action. Obviously, you are in a dilemma because your plumbing isnt fixed and faced paying a bill you clearly dont accept being liable for., however the company having reviewed your complaint has ruled against you.
.

40

45

Then you either pay-up merely on their say so or face court action. How on earth are you going to prove your plumbing system is still up the creek and wasnt repaired as even if you can prove it is still not working who is to say it wasnt fixed by the plumber and it then broke down again?
.

Now your predicament seems to be that the courts may rely upon the honesty and integrity of the plumber and his company.
.

p1 23-3-20 11 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD st A 1 edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Then you happen to have a talk with your neighbour across the road at 7/53 and he recommends you to contact his plumber because he did an outstanding job. Within half an hour of phoning the plumber he arrived and did a magnificent job in repairing it but he hasnt as yet presented the bill for the repair.
.

Now, you start realising that perhaps the bill you dispute may be that of your neighbour and so you ask if he is aware what was repaired. It turns out that there was an office error that caused the plumber being in error directed to 7/53 rather then 1/53 and because your neighbour happens to have just phoned for a repair it was timely done for your neighbour. 10 What the above example indicates is that the plumber honestly presented the account to his company about the repair performed. He did so in good faith. The company who received the matter dismissing your complaint did so in good faith also. The error was simply that because the plumber was incorrectly taking the 1 as a 7 (seeing the neighbour standing there waiting for a plumber) to 7/53 instead of 1/53 but no one picked up this error and he was to have attended to 1/53 then his bill for 7/53 was mistakenly put onto 1/53. Clearly no dishonest conduct was contemplated by anyone and yet if it had gone to court, before you happen to have the conversation with 7/53 neighbour you more then likely would have lost the case. Now lets translate this into infringement notices and your purported review.
.

15

20

Even police officers are contesting speeding fines, and so successfully, even so their earlier complaints were reviewed and rejected. As such, a review is often done upon the basis of the information provided and not upon the basis of the true facts of the incident.
.

25

30

As has been shown north of Melbourne where point to point cameras were incorrectly recording drivers to be speeding because of the incorrect time setting of one of the cameras. No use to call a police officer to court to give evidence if he did set the one camera and not the other because you would get evidence of the police officer that may be very honestly given but nevertheless be incorrect. Likewise so with the person having set the other camera. Clearly it is not the persons who are setting the cameras who will be aware of every detail because they may act in good faith and yet it can be all wrong.
.

35

40

45

50

Linking this to two of my computers where both have been set differently and then suddenly I realise one is an hour different then the other. It turns out one went back from summer time to normal time while the other didnt because summer time had as yet not come to an end. As such, this problem caused two different computers to show different times. Therefore, the operator of a camera can try to do his best and yet any electronic error within the unit can result to an incorrect end result. Not just with computers used for going onto the internet but also can eventuate with computers used within a surveillance system and so speed detection cameras. At times a computer system may play up and then return to normal, and boy dont I know when using various computers and having a computer suddenly going haywire and then later back to normal without any culprit (program, etc) being detected why this did happen. Now, the same is with speed detection cameras that they have been known to record a still standing tree (usually they are when their roots are well embedded in the ground) to allegedly do 76 or more kilometres, well that is by a speed detection equipment, even so physically the tree didnt move at all! Now, you claim I was speeding and yet present me with a bill, like the plumber, even so I havent got any evidence to show that your bill is really validly presented! (See also below further set out about this!). Next you tell me that I still have to pay $149.00.
.

You did however also state:

QUOTE p2 23-3-20 11 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD st A 1 edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

If you believe your situation or circumstances are such that special consideration should be given, the correct forum for this purpose is the magistrates court where all parties concerned may avail themselves of the opportunity to give sworn evidence. END QUOTE
.

The issue is should there be any special consideration at all or just ordinary consideration that a person is deemed: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! 10 I AM NOT THE ONE WHO PURSUES LITIGATION IN THE COURTS AS TO ME THERE IS NO ISSUE. It is the Victorian Police who may pursue legal action (litigation in the courts) and then as you pointed out evidence needs to be given under oath, including that by any camera who alleges I was speeding, because we cannot have a police officer claiming I was speeding merely upon the say so of allegations of equipment that may or may not be correct.
.

15

20

The police officer concerned (if it was a police officer at all and not someone employed by a private company making money out of infringement notices and so perhaps also bias in perhaps incorrectly setting equipment!) may, as like the plumber, take it to tell the truth and the Court would have no way of knowing if he is reflecting the facts of the circumstances or not as he merely can give evidence to his own perceptions which may or may not reflect the true circumstances. Hence, what is needed is the camera concerned to give evidence why it held it detected me to be speeding and how it was that this camera could detect me doing so. Did the person operating or setting the camera by accident bump the camera? Did the camera get sidetracked and by error record the speed of another vehicle while taking the photograph of another, etc.
.

25

30

35

It must be very obvious that the person who may have been setting and/or otherwise operating the camera may have acted in good faith but that to me is not good enough! It must be on basis of facts only and not what some person may assume! The facts can only be known to the camera and as we had with the cameras north of Melbourne they were both operating correctly but just not together. In fact a police women only recently established this where two cameras had allegedly caught her speeding but taking recordings about 4 minutes apart even so by the alleged speed it should have taken only about 11 seconds apart and so the court dismissed both charges. Now, we surely cannot have a police officer succeeding against cameras and then others who happen not to be police officers are having to accept somehow that there is nothing wrong with the cameras!
.

40

45

50

It may very well be, as I indicated with my computers, that a camera plays up but then by the time it is tested it may be back to normal and so no errors can be detected by the testing even so it may have made false recordings. A clear example was where a camera was fitted upon a pole that was moving in the wind and so despite the camera having been secured and may have been appropriate set nevertheless the camera incorrectly recorded because of the sway of the pole it was fitted upon. Likewise cameras placed on the side of the road, no matter how accurately set, may be due to vibration of passing trucks move slightly causing incorrect recordings. As such, it would be a tall if not impossible order for any camera operator to prove that a camera used was not at the very time subject to vibration of passing traffic which may have caused incorrect recordings of alleged speeds of passing vehicles. Anyone would be aware that if one stands along side a road and a car, in particular a heavy vehicle, goes past then it causes a wind guts and even those stayed in a car will experience the car to be moving (rocketing). As such, any camera that is fitted onto a vehicle may be subjected to this rocking and so those on the side of the road, and hence produce an incorrect recording even so in a testing laboratory it may appear to be appropriately calibrated, etc.
.

Besides this, under the constitution (by which the States within s106 are created out of the former Colonies measure is a Commonwealth legislative power and as such any speed detection devise
p3 23-3-20 11 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD st A 1 edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

or for that any other measuring equipment only can be used is approved within Commonwealth standards.
.

10

15

Without seeking to specifically denigrate women, it is however well known that women generally are subjected to morning sicknesses and other upsets, more then men, and this can vary during the day. Likewise, I experienced with computers that they too tend to vary in how they work. Ok a computer can be switched of but a wife (in particular a nagging one) might not! Still, computers, even those used in speed detection can be subjected to climate conditions and it is basically anyones guess when this will occur. As such an operator may honestly give a version that to his/her understanding the circumstances were ideal but in reality the operator cannot know the precise conditions upon which a speed camera (speed detection devise) operates at the particular time. For all I know there could be a small tremor in the ground the operator may not become aware of sitting in a vehicle, or there might be other issues relevant, but not explored above, which all could to some degree contribute to an incorrect reading/recording. It is not my task to disprove each and every possible element of disturbance that may or may not have occurred at the alleged time the alleged recording was made as I am not the prosecutor/clamant. As such, it is up to the prosecutor/claimant to prove all relevant matters, including jurisdiction, etc.
.

20

25

It is wrong to assume that the police making any claims can rely upon presenting any evidence in court and then obtain a decision because THE COURTS MUST ALWAYS BE THE LAST RESORT to deal with any conflict and as such the onus is upon the Prosecutor/claimant to present all relevant details before any litigation has taken place so that the prosecutor/claimant can show to the court it is not vexatiously seeking to prosecute a claim by extortion or deception but gave a reasonable opportunity to me to be aware of all relevant details the prosecutor/claimant seeks to rely upon and has given a reasonable opportunity to seek to resolve matters without involving the courts.
.

30

35

Where then the police or other authorities fails to do so then I view, apart of there being any court that can hear and determine a matter, the courts cannot entertain a case where the prosecutor/claimant failed to give reasonable efforts to seek to resolve matters without litigation. It is not for me to pay for any image the police may or may not seek to rely upon because the clearly embedded legal principle INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY is that the prosecutor/claimant must produce all relevant details relied upon.
.

40

45

Let me give an example: In the 1970s I was then allegedly convicted for speeding in absentia, allegedly doing 75 km/hr in a 60 kilometres zone. During the proceedings I made clear I was only doing 50 kilometres an hour but for the sake of the case would admit doing 75 kilometres an hour. The magistrate, afterwards, severely berated the police officer and made clear that he believed I was only doing 50 kilometres an hour as even if I had done 75 kilometres an hour I still couldnt have been speeding because by the police own evidence (during cross examination) I was not measured to do 76 or 74 kilometres an hours but 75 kilometres an hour and as the road concerned was not marked 60 kilometres an hour speed limit but 75 kilometres an hour then clearly I could never have been speeding!
.

50

As such, I proved that by the police officers own evidence I still couldnt have been speeding. The Court accepted this, and for the record also that the police officer, despite his evidence to the contrary, had not served any documents upon me as the date he claimed to have attended to my residence was about 5 months after I had already vacated that property! I had a house contract to prove I resided elsewhere, as well as gas and electricity bills.
.

p4 23-3-20 11 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD st A 1 edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

It should never be that the accuser can wait until a hearing is due and then cough up whatever the accuser may seek to rely upon and then proven to be wrong while in the mean time the accused may loose a days pay of work, etc. The police or other involved must provide relevant details to the accused well before any litigation were to eventuate and failing to do so I view then the police is ABUSING THE LEGAL PROCESSES and basically using terrorism and extortion upon citizens who may be totally innocent of any wrong doing, such as where a camera incorrectly records a license plate as I understand also often has occurred, such as with toll roads.
.

10

15

20

To me it isnt relevant if the Traffic Camera Office does or doesnt accept anything because quite frankly I couldnt care less because we do have a constitution and the States by this are bound to the legal principles embedded in the constitution and the Magna Carta is part of this. The Traffic Camera Office is not known to the constitution as being a impartial judicial element as it isnt part of the judiciary, even if pretended to be so, because a Court of law couldnt impose a fine before conviction as the Traffic Camera Office pursues, and hence it is in my view an unconstitutional conduct by the Traffic Camera Office to seek to impose a fine in the manner as it now does. No State legislation can override legal principles embedded in the constitution! A camera, unless it can be subjected to an oral examination under oath in a court of law this I doubt, cannot be regardless as a witness and neither can be relied upon as again, as some set out above, there are numerous issues that can affect a camera without an operator or other person setting and/or controlling the unit being aware of it. Have you ever seen a video monitoring a camera that it wasnt disturbed by an animal like a cat or a dog and so its position altered that could have interfered with the recording?
.

25

30

35

I would have no desire nor intention to exceed any speed limit but that is irrelevant where in the first place I will vigorously oppose any jurisdiction of a court to entertain this kind of nonsense alleged against me and the way it is perpetrated against me., neither do I accept this to be a modus operandi by any Authority to abuse its powers to cause innocent motorist to end up paying for claims due to the as I view it terrorist kind of activities used to enforce payments or a person faces to go to court regardless of his/her innocence because of the failure of proper prior disclosure of what is relied upon as alleged evidence and so rob any innocent person of to challenge the matter before any litigation is eventuating. It is so to say a backstabbing attack where at the last moment the police may seek to present details/evidence to seek to prevent the accused sufficient time that might be needed to disprove the accuracy/validity of any alleged details/evidence
.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues and/or details.
.

40

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

.

(Our

name is our motto!)

.

45

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

p5 23-3-20 11 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD st A 1 edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com