110716-Premier Ted Bailliue - COMPLAINT - Etc

1
Ted Baillieu Premier of Victoria ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au

Cc:
16-7-2011
Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court of Victoria C/o help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au Acting Chief Commissioner of the Victorian Police C/o heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au C/o Victoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA
10
Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com Ethical Standards Department Victoria Police Unit, Victoria Police Centre, 737 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3005 Phone 1300 363 101, Facsimile 9247 3498
15
Ref: Obligation Number 1106575301
Re: COMPLAINT - ETC

20 Ted, As you were elected upon the platform of Law & Order would it then be too much to ask if you actually could ensure the State Government applies this?
.
25
Whereas I had from onset OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION of the Infringement Court (magistrates Court of Victoria) I am not aware that this court formally invoked jurisdiction by handing down a reason of judgment with orders why my objection to jurisdiction was dismissed. As such there never was any jurisdiction invoked and the purported ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICE is NULL AND VOID and so WITHOUT LEGAL FORCE!
.
30
Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector General of Government HCT-00-CV-MA-593-2003 QUOTE Constitution needles to mention is a supreme law of the land. END QUOTE
.
35
40
Further, I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and as indicated in previous correspondences also the States are created by the federation within s.106 of the constitution subject to this constitution and by this bound by all legal principles embedded in the constitution. As also indicated the Court faced with a constitutional issue (federal) (such as the Commonwealth legislative powers as to measurement issues relating to speed detection devices, etc) then is dealing with a federal issue and for this must be able to invoke federal jurisdiction. I am not aware that the purported Infringement Registrar or the purported Infringement Court had any federal jurisdiction to hear and determine matters and as such it is and remains to be NULL AND VOID whatever orders it purports to issue. Hence, despite what the purported Infringement Act 2006 may state it is ULTRA VIRES and of no legal force, including any Sheriff action.
QUOTE Infringement Act 2006 "Court" means Magistrates' Court; p1 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
45
2 END QUOTE
.
http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/magistrates+court/home/court+lists/magistrates+ +court+lists+site+-+weblink QUOTE Daily Hearing Lists Daily hearing lists for criminal and civil matters in the Magistrates' Court throughout the State of Victoria The link(s) below will launch a new browser window.
10
Link to website: Daily Hearing Lists END QUOTE

.
15
20
http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/Magistrates+Court/Home/Court+Lists/MAGISTR ATES+-+Court+Lists+ -+Home QUOTE Court Lists Link to the Magistrates' Court daily hearing lists for the criminal and civil jurisdictions. These lists are hosted on a separate website and are automatically updated direct from the court system each night. The lists cover every Magistrates' Court in the State of Victoria and are available for up to three months in advance. Please click on the link in the panel to the right to access the Daily Hearing Lists. If you are unable to access your hearing date, please telephone the Magistrates' Court where the matter is to be heard for hearing information.
25
Contacts For further information and advice contact the Magistrates' Court where your matter is listed or your nearest court. Contact details for all Victorian Magistrates' Courts are available under 'Court Locations'
30
.
Email: help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au END QUOTE
35
40
As such no court other then the magistrates Court itself could hear and determine matters and therefore requires to be an OPEN COURT, and a law list for the cases to be heard, etc. Further, a registrars decision always is reviewable, ad His Honour Kay J in the Appeal of Abbott v Abbott in the Family Court of Australia (24 and 25 October 1994 made clear that there can never be any time limit upon a review of a registrar, this despite that the act was purporting a time limit. If a Registrars decision is not reviewable then it is not subject to a judge supervision and would violate the requirement of a judicial officer dealing with matters. (So forget some computer dealing with matters purporting to be a Infringement Registrar see also below).
.
45
50
Further, the Form to seek a decision to be revoked placed the person subjected to the ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICE to state not having been either the driver or the owner, which prevents any review as entitled upon in law where the person might be both the owner and the driver or either one of them. Hence there is a total failure of a REVIEW DE NOVO merely because the objector demands this. No grounds are required to be given for a REVIEW DE NOVO because it is a legal requirement that this is provided when so requested by the person subjected to any decision of a REGISTRAR. We also have the problem that the decision appears to be one of administrative character rather then one of a judicial decision where the decision was not at all, albeit purported to be, one of a Registrars decision because as shown below no registrar (Including a Infringement
p2 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
Registrar) could manage to hear and determine say 2 cases every minute. If it was a judicial determination then where is the transcript of this purported court hearing? Indeed, where is the law list showing the names of each and every case listed before the particular Infringement Registrar on the day? As set out below also when was this an OPEN COURT hearing?
.
10
Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords QUOTE In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy. END QUOTE
15
Because my previous correspondence including 23 February 2011 were also forwarded to the Victorian Police (the alleged informant) then where the Victorian Police failed to disclose to the Infringement Registrar the precise nature of my correspondences then I view it perpetrated perverting the course of JUSTICE and I view the Victorian Police must be held legally accountable, including the Leading Senior Constable 23196 P. Dolheguy who on 20 March 2011 wrote to me purportedly dismissing my claims, as clearly by this he knew about my objections and had a legal obligation to ensure that such details were also provided with any brief to prosecute me, and so be presented to the purported Infringement Registrar. Actually P Dolhheguy wrote:
QUOTE I am satisfied the alleged offence was committed and the issue of the Infringement notice was justified. END QUOTE
20
25
None of my writings so far addressed the issue if an alleged offence was or wasnt committed because this is immaterial to the issue that I challenged the jurisdiction of the court and questioned upon what basis the allegations were based. As such, Leading Senior Constable 23196 P. Dolheguy seemed to me to act as judge, jury and executor disregarding any proper consideration of what I actually wrote in my correspondence of 23 February 2011!
.
30
More over he also wrote the following:

QUOTE If you believe your situation or circumstances are such that special consideration should be given, the correct form of this purpose is the magistrates court where all parties concerned may avail themselves of the opportunity to give sworn evidence. END QUOTE
35
40
45
50
At no time did I argue for special consideration as my issue was the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and other matters and as such Leading Senior Constable 23196 P. Dolheguy seemed not to have understood the content of my 23 February 2011 correspondence. Neither exist there any proper facility to pursue an objection other then to elect to go to court and why should I want to elect to go to court as the defendant as after all that is for the prosecutor to decide to go to court or not. If the prosecutor doesnt go to court nothing can eventuate because only the courts can sanction the imposition of fines and other cost and only after it, not that I concede it would, dispose first formally of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. where this OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was never disposed of then clearly no jurisdiction was ever invoked administrative or otherwise. It is sheer and utter nonsense that I am expected to make an APPLICATION FOR ACTION BY A COURT where I in the first place OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT and as such it was for the Police, knowing I challenged matters to follow proper legal procedures and if they desired to pursue the matter further to ensure that the Court was advised of my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as the court has no powers to issue any orders, other then to maintain the STATUS QUO until it has first disposed of the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION , and failing to do so then all and any purported orders are WITHOUT LEGAL FORCE and A NULLITY. Because there was a total failure of proper procedures being
facilitated it now jeopardise any further prosecution because the Magistrates Court Victoria is now tainted by its own inappropriate conduct by this. Fancy the idiotic situation that a party OBJECTS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT and the court nevertheless disregards this and vandalise by this the very democratic system by which the courts are existing!
.
I take it very serious that the government notably elected upon the principle of pursuing Law & Order is the one violating this very legal principle and is misusing and abusing the magistrates Court of Victoria for this ulterior purposes to enforce this. Little wonder Australia is turning into a lawless society when we have members of the police force themselves showing to disregard the proper application of the law (legislation challenged are ULTRA VIRES and are therefore not part of the law!) Our youth of today grow up with police officers being involved in murder, drugs, rape, breaking and entering and numerous other issues and clearly this cannot but reduce the respect the youth of today have for law enforcement.
.
10
15
Concealing relevant details from a Court in my view is a very serious issue because it is tantamount to terrorism as to terrorise the subject to orders which may never have been issued had the true details relevant to the case been disclosed. If this is your kind of Law & Order then forget about this and learn that as Premier you are bound by what is constitutionally applicable and permissible!
.
20
25
From onset the Infringement Notice gave me the option to request to go to court and as I made clear why on earth would I want to go to court when I am not the one seeking to litigate, indeed wrote ample to seek to avoid this utter and sheer nonsense of litigation? If the Victorian Police desires to litigate then clearly it could always do so albeit then I had the right to oppose the same. I objected to the jurisdiction of any court to hear and determine matters and as such from onset when the Victorian Police provided me with the Infringement Notice it was formally advised by me (and so your self also) that I objected to the jurisdiction of any court to hear and determine matters. As such the purported Infringement Registrar could not deal with the matter unless first my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION had been formally disposed of by reason of judgment and orders, this never eventuated.
.
30
As the constitution embedded the legal principle that the court can nullify any law then clearly where (as set out below) the legislation refers to must issue then clearly the legislation for this also is ULTRA VIRES! We cannot have that the courts are no more but rubber stamping whatever the government may desire! The courts independence (see also below about Kable, etc) cannot be placed in question!
.
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
35
40
45
50
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are offences committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and the only cases to which Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the criminal law of the state was in conflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in any other cases there would be no necessity to change the venue, and select a jury of citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in modern or in ancient times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by an Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal offences, and I do not at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of the honorable member a state of affairs in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive. It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by this Constitution. END QUOTE
55
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates p7 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
8 QUOTE Mr. BARTON .- I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON .- this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government END QUOTE
10
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee. END QUOTE
15
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced , will all have been the work of Australians . END QUOTE
20
And 25
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. END QUOTE
30
35
40
45
. The moment the courts give special treatment to anyone, including having to accept evidence from an informer unquestionable, as is provided in the purported Infringement Act 2006 then it no longer is an INDEPENDENT entity and this precisely was what I SUCCESSFULLY disputed also on 19 July 2006 before the County Court of Victoria that its ABN/ CAN registration, as with any other court, prevented it from being a Court of law. . As I made clear a fine before conviction is not legally possible and yet the Victorian Police has set itself up to become government sponsored terrorist to pursue payment of fines and the sheriff office credibility has been reduced in the process also by enforcing terrorism against motorist or owners of a motor vehicle without the true sanction of the constitution. Is this your kind of Law & Order enforcement that so to say Adolf Hitler would be a saint when compared to what is being perpetrated now against citizens under the guise of Law a& Order? After all having innocent persons imprisoned and their privacy invaded to authorise the sheriff to break in , even at places he may suspect a person to be even so it might be someone else private property cannot be deemed valid and yet the purported Infringement Act 2006 seeks to demand from the Infringement Registrar to issue such kind of warrant! Have you lost your marbles, I may ask? QUOTE Infringement Act 2006
82. What does an infringement warrant authorise? (1) An infringement warrant (a) authorises the person to whom it is directed to break, enter and search any residential or business property occupied by the person named in the infringement warrant for any personal property of that person; (b) directs and authorises the person to whom it is directed (i) to seize the personal property of the person named in the infringement warrant; and p8 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
50
55
10
15
20
25
30
9 (ii) if the amounts named in the infringement warrant together with all lawful costs of execution are not paid, to sell the personal property seized; (c) in the case of an infringement warrant issued against a natural person, including a director to whom a declaration under section 91 applies, if the person executing the infringement warrant cannot find sufficient personal property of the person named in the infringement warrant on which to levy the amounts named in the infringement warrant together with all lawful costs of execution (i) authorises the person to whom it is directed to break, enter and search for that person in any place where the person named in the infringement warrant is suspected to be; and s. 82 Part 6Infringement Warrants Infringements Act 2006 Act No. 12/2006 70 (ii) subject to any endorsement under section 80(2), directs and authorises the person to whom it is directed to arrest the person named in the infringement warrant and deal with that person in accordance with (A) Division 1 of Part 12, if appropriate; or (B) Division 2 of Part 12, in any other case. (2) Nothing in this section requires a person to whom an infringement warrant is directed (a) to break and enter a property for the purpose of finding and seizing personal property; (b) in the case of an infringement warrant issued against a natural person, including a director to whom a declaration under section 91 applies, to break and enter a property for the purpose of finding and seizing personal property before arresting the person named in the infringement warrant. (3) Despite sub-section (2)(b), a person to whom an infringement warrant is directed must not arrest the person named in the infringement warrant unless the person executing the infringement warrant reasonably believes that there is not sufficient personal property of the person named in the infringement warrant on which to levy the amounts named in the infringement warrant together with all lawful costs of execution. s. 82 Part 6Infringement Warrants Infringements Act 2006 Act No. 12/2006 71 (4) On the imprisonment of a person for any reason, if there are any unsatisfied infringement warrants outstanding against the person, any person to whom such a warrant is directed is not required, in executing the infringement warr ant, to serve any notice or to search for, or seize, any personal property of the imprisoned person. END QUOTE
35
40
45
50
Now, there are many persons who sell cars but then the new owner never register the vehicle in their name but leave it in the name of the previous owner (often deceased) and you want to perpetrate this vile conduct upon perhaps a widow. Say I was to die and my 78-year old wife were to sell our car and then the new owner fails to transfer registration and incur heaps of infringement notices and in your vile system my wife could have the Sheriff office breaking into our home and take possession of goods regardless of her innocence because some computer generated but allegedly Infringement Registrar issued warrant compulsory under purported legislation of the Infringement Act 2006 permits this? Are you totally out of your mind? Have you grown up in some communist country or other dictatorship where the true meaning and application of our (federal) constitution doesnt apply? Well, I have news for you, I started the VELVET REVOLUTION to reclaim our constitutional and other legal rights because I am sick and tired of people ending up sleeping under bridges, etc, because the legal processes have been perverted by those we elected to the parliament to act as our agents but then deprive us of true and proper representation. In my view the very Police and the Infringement Registrar and other in Civil Compliance Victoria involved in such despicable acts should be sacked on the spot as they are the cause of our youth loosing respect for law enforcement when they themselves are manipulating the system for their own purposes.
.
55
I objected to the infringement notice and other material and did so elaborately, as my 23 February 2011 (23,626 character length) correspondence of 12 pages did set out certain matters, followed by (a 14,055 character) 23 March 2011 correspondence of some 5 pages and this then
10
10
followed by (a 25,112 character) 30 May 2011 correspondence of 9 pages and then also the 10 June 2011 correspondence (of 26,741 characters) of 10 pages and yet it was alleged I never responded to the Infringement notice? Well, I got news for you as the Inspector of the Victorian Police himself refers to my 23 February 2011 correspondence then clearly like it or not I have the evidence to prove I did. So, what is the purported legislation about when it somehow doesnt provide for any consideration of this? Why on earth have courts at all if the government merely can dictate to a court what it wants? Well, a court that is not independent is not a court at all! As such no enforcement can be perpetrated against anyone of any purported warrants or other purported orders. Do notice point 4 on the APPLICATION FOR REVOCATION it states:
QUOTE WARNING: Section 167 of the Infringement Act 2006 states that a person must not intentionally provide false or misleading information in any written statement required by or under the Infringement Act 2006. PENALT: 10 PWENALTY UNITS END QUOTE QUOTE 167. Offence to give false information A person must not intentionally provide false or misleading information in any written statement required by or under this Act. Penalty: 10 penalty units. END QUOTE
..
15
20
25
30
Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUOTE In my opinion, the jurisdiction extends not only to the setting aside of judgements which have been obtained without service or notice to a party ( Craig v. Kanssen [1943] KB 256 at 262 - 263) but to the setting aside of a default or ex-parte judgement obtained when the absence of the party is due to no fault on his part. I can find no indication in the Family Law Act of an intention to displace this inherent jurisdiction. END QUOTE
.
35
QUOTE R.V. Crimmins (1959) VR 270 Suppression of relevant evidence END QUOTE
.
40
QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343 Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true. END QUOTE
.
45
50
There can be no doubt that the second Infringement Notice was issued on the basis that I had not responded, this even so the Victorian Police itself was well aware I had done so, perhaps not to their liking but then again in any kind of litigation or legal processes regarding eventual litigation I am entitled to respond as I deem fit and proper. The issue is did the Victorian Police conceal from the purported Infringement Court being purportedly part of the Magistrates Court of Victoria relevant details as to purport some case before the infringement Court that as such didnt exist? In my view the concealment of my correspondence was tantamount of perverting the course of JUSTICE and the conduct involving at least more then one person itself underlines this was a conspiracy to pervert the course of JUSTICE. No judicial system could survive if this is part of its judicial processes. We all have to hold those who perpetrate this concealment/deception upon the courts legally accountable!
.
55
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the p10 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
11 Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. END QUOTE
.
As the Infringement Registrar purportedly made a judicial decision upon the basis of the evidence then I am entitled to be provided with the TRANSCRIPT of the hearing so I can determine upon what evidence the Infringement Registrar made his purported JUDICIAL DETERMINATION (See also below for further set out).
QUOTE Schorel v Elms (1994) Unreported M2944X of 1989 SA27 of 1993 Page 16 and 17: It is clear from the transcript of the proceedings of 2 August 1993 that at no time was the charge contained in the wife's application formally read or otherwise orally put to the Father, nor indeed was he given an opportunity to plead to that charge. END QUOTE And QUOTE Schorel v Elms (1994) Unreported M2944X of 1989 SA27 of 1993 Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
QUOTE Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509 at 510 (High Court) A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the burden of endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by their own advocacy END QUOTE
Law Encyclopedia: Coram

[Latin, Before; in the presence of.]
25
The term coram is used in phrases that refer to the appearance of a person before another individual or a group. Coram non judice, "in the presence of a person not a judge," is a phrase that describes a proceeding brought before a court that lacks the jurisdiction to hear such a matter. Any judgment rendered by the court in such a case is void. QUOTE Bowers v Smith (1953) 1 ALL ER 320 (Re Clarke Hall) and (Morrison on Children, 7 Ed, P3) "... the first business of the court is to try to issue whether or not the case is bought within the terms of the statute, and only if this be proven by proper evidence can the court proceed to decide upon treatment " END QUOTE Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: QUOTE Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which she/he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. END QUOTE
.
30
35
40
45
The legal doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur action denies any remedy to a litigant (including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands. If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with Dirty Hands best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!
.
50
55
People are driven to suicide (I know because under the banner of MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!) I have assist people since 1982 who contemplated suicide, etc. It is in my view utter scandalous and reprehensible that a Government were to perpetrate such vile act of terrorism against its own citizens rather then to respect the RULE OF LAW, being foremost what is constitutionally permissible and applicable, causing many to loose the value of life and by this commit suicide. Lives being destroyed by this kind of government sponsored terrorism and then you dare to argue about Law & Order? Come on get your own act together as Premier of the State of Victoria and immediately ensure that all and any litigation within the purported Infringement Act 2006 are stayed until it has been appropriately addressed what, if any, of the action is constitutionally valid as after all I have challenged the validity of the
12
Infringement Act 2006 and as such unless and until there is a competent court of jurisdiction to declare the legislation in whole or in part to be INTRA VIRES, not that I concede it may do so, there is no legislation to be relied upon, not just against my person but against any other person!
.
I refer to my previous correspondences including the following quotation: QUOTE 10-6-2011 CORRESPONDENCE In past correspondences, way back to the 23 February 2011 correspondence, I did set out;
QUOTE As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I consider it essential that we do adhere to the constitution and so its true meaning and application as to do otherwise would invite dictatorship, tyranny and anarchy and surely the Victorian Police would not want to promote this? END QUOTE
.
10
15
As I indicated the State of Victoria was created within s106 of the constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and by this is bound to apply all embedded constitutional legal principles of this constitution:
QUOTE 106 Saving of Constitutions The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution , continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State. END QUOTE
20
QUOTE 10-6-2011 CORRESPONDENCE

.
25
See also as to the independence of State Courts, separation of powers of the judiciary: KABLE v.THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR NEW SOUTH WALES FC 96/027 Commonwealth Constitution, High Court of Australia
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention ), QUOTE Mr. BARTON: Its process must run throughout the length and breadth of the federal states, and it must have power to enforce its decrees against any individuals, just in the same way as the supreme court of any of the existing states has power to enforce its decrees against any citizen therein, otherwise federal laws will lose their sanction; because the executive, legislature, [start page 96] and judiciary, constituting the three great arms of state, if every one of them does not rest upon and reach the individuality of each citizen , then as far as one of them falls short, the constitution will be imperfect on one side. END QUOTE Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER: When imperial questions arise her Majesty must have some supervising authority; but so far as the other matter to which the hon. gentleman referred is concerned-as regards any important common law questions-I think that the Supreme Court and our federal judiciary will be quite competent to settle those, and I am not aware of any reason which makes it imperative that the decisions here and the decisions in the old country should always follow on precisely the same lines END QUOTE
.
30
35
40
45
50
The following also indicates that since federation the colonial SOVEREIGN Parliaments became CONSTITTUTIONAL Parliaments and hence no longer could amend their own constitutions since federation. As shown below No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. !
.
55
Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN: There have been only four amendments in this cent ury. The hon. member, Mr. Inglis Clark, is a good authority on America, and I am sure he will agree with me that out of sixteen amendments only four have been agreed to in this century. All the other amendments which have been made were really p12 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
10
15
20
25
30
13 amend- [start page 198] ments which were indicated almost at the very framing of the constitution, and they may be said to be amendments which were embodied in the constitution at the first start. The very element, the very essence, of federation is rigidity, and it is no use expecting that under a rigid and written constitution we can still preserve those advantages which we have reaped under an elastic constitution. All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodiesthe main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution. Therefore it is useless for us to hope that we can, at the same time, have the advantages of a federation and retain the advantages of that elasticity which has hitherto given birth to our greatest privileges. Even responsible government, which we have all learned to revere so much, has simply been a growth under the shelter of parliamentary sovereignty. We do not know that the parliamentary responsibility of ministers can exist under any other conditions. We have not seen it exist in the United States or in Switzerland, and we have no reason to suppose that it will be compatible with the conditions of federation here. I am inclined to think that it will not. I am inclined to think that our best course will be to follow, in this respect, the guidance of Switzerland, and have our ministers elected individually by the parliaments. I am all the more willing to recognise this because, quite apart from federation, this is an alteration in our constitution which for many years I have been in the habit of advocating even with our present local parliaments. This rigidity of constitution leads to some very strange results. When a constitution becomes immutable, not theoretically immutable, but practically immutable, as it must be in a federation, it is apt to become, as has been very well laid down by Dicey in his admirable work on federal government, the object of a somewhat superstitious reverence on the part of the people, which leads them to regard the constitution not only as something altogether apart from its true object, but something sacred in itself. END QUOTE Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE
.
35
40
Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. END QUOTE Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception. END QUOTE
.
45
50
55
60
Hansard 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. TRENWITH.The Parliament is the executive committee of the people, not its master. It is not an institution to be reverenced and held up simply because of itself; it can only be reverenced and trusted by the people while it performs the work which the people designed it for. And that is the mistake my honorable friend (Mr. Wise) fell into when he confounded the end with the means. The end is the will of the people, and the means at present are parliamentary government, of which we are all proud. But I say it is better that the present means should go rather than that the end should be frustrated. END QUOTE Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates p13 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
14 QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution: END QUOTE Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS: I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets. END QUOTE
.
10
15
From the above we therefore have a separation of powers not just of the Commonwealth but also that of the States themselves and the judiciary must be independent! Again, the Kable case indicates an impartial judiciary! Considering that ordinary in the State of Victoria there is an open court system *(unless special provisions are invoked such as security, etc) then one must ask in regard of enforcement order notice 12 July 2011 when did the enforcement Registrar hear matters in open court?
.
20
25
Considering that there are about 631,861 fines in three months (see below article of the Herald Sun) and that is about 2,527,444 (4 times 631.861) fines a year and even on basis of 10% only going through the courts for an ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTIFICATION and subsequently for a warrant issue this means that 10% is about 252,744 x 2 = 505,489 cases and yet the figures below only provide for about 250,000 cases and so by the magistrates Court of Victoria publication it appears that the Infringement Court ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICE and warrants are not included in its calculations and more then likely because it is a concocted litigation that is done by computers and not at all in open court! When seeking to go into About the Court
http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/Magistrates+Court/Home/About+the+Court/ QUOTE About the Court The Magistrates' Court of Victoria has a long and proud history of providing justice for the people of Victoria in local and regional Courts across the State. The Court's objective is to provide an efficient, modern and responsive Court of summary jurisdiction designed to meet the needs of the community. The Magistrates Court is the busiest court in Victoria, sitting at 52 different locations around Victoria and handling approximately 90% of all cases which come before Victorian courts each year. The Court deals with about 250,000 criminal and civil cases every year.
30
35
40
The Magistrates' Court of Victoria covers the main areas of: Criminal Matters and Traffic Offences Money Claims and Civil Disputes Family Law Family Violence and Intervention Orders
45
Fines and Penalties, including the Infringements Court Specialist Court Jurisdictions, including the Drug Court and Koori Court The Court also manages the Criminal Justice Diversion Program and a number of Court Support Services including: Aboriginal Liaison Program
50
Adult Court Advice and Support Community Correctional Services p14 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
15 Court Integrated Services Program (CISP) CREDIT / Bail Support Program Enforcement Review Program END QUOTE
.
On 12 June 2011 the Herald Sun then at page 17 under the heading Road fines rake in $61m reported: 10
QUOTE SPEEDING and disobedient drivers fined for breaking Victorian road rules have delivered a $61 million boast to State Government coffers this year. In the first three months of this year, 631.861 fines more than 7020 a day were issued for motorist ignoring speed limits, running red lights and failing to pay tolls. END QUOTE
.
15
20
25
30
Courts usually sit from about 10 am till 4.30 pm but even if we allow for 5 pm we still have that the Infringement Registrar was to be dealing with infringement notices (taking out 1 hour for lunch time) 6 hours a day being (6 x 60) or 360 minutes a day. If they had to be dealt with by the Infringement Registrar then he would have to deal with 19.5 per minute. Or about every 3 second per infringement notice. Obviously no Infringement Registrar could accomplish this. More over, many of the infringement notice are responded upon to be paid because we have so to say a government sponsored terrorism where it is cheaper for people to pay their alleged fine then to loose a day of work (so income) to fight it and risk loosing it anyhow. Often people gambling away by this the security of their driver licence. The fact that many police officers, when caught or allegedly caught, successfully then defeat the infringement allegation may underline that those enforcing the law upon others when it comes to themselves have a different view about law enforcement as then it is a different story as then one cannot rely upon the cameras. Anyhow, even allowing for say for argument sake 90% of people as fools to pay the infringement notices then there still be left about 702 to be dealt with by the Infringement Registrar which amounts to about 1.9 or say 2 cases to be disposed of by the Infringement Registrar ever one minute. As such 30 seconds to dispose of each Infringement Notice and that includes to consider the evidence and to note the penalty and the cost, etc. Well, if a person can work on this kind of speed then he may be a computer but certainly cannot be human! Moment, it is a computer and not a human who issue the enforcement order notice and so there is no OPEN COURT hearing at all!
http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/Magistrates+Court/Home/Criminal+Proceedings/T ypes+of+Hearings/ QUOTE Types of Hearings
35
40
Mention A mention hearing is an administrative hearing of a case to allow a magistrate to follow the progress of the proceeding. The accused is also given the opportunity to plead guilty at this hearing. Contest Mention
45
A hearing where all parties and the magistrate try to decide whether a case can be resolved by finding common ground between them. This is the hearing before the matter proceeds to a summary hearing. Summary Hearing A summary hearing will take place if the accused pleads not guilty to the charge(s). At this hearing, both parties present their case to the Court and a magistrate will determine the outcome.
16 Ex parte Hearing A hearing conducted in the absence of the accused. A magistrate will proceed to hear and determine a charge against the accused, based on the evidence of the police or other informant and any other witnesses for the prosecution.
Filing Hearing This is the first hearing in the committal process. At this hearing the Court will set a timetable for the exchange of information betwee n the prosecution and the defence and dates for matters which will ultimately be determined in a higher jurisdiction. Applications for bail may also be lodged at this time. Committal Mention A preliminary hearing prior to the full committal hearing. Permission to cross-examine witnesses may be given, matters in dispute will be discussed and a date for the committal hearing can be set at this stage. The Court may also hear and determine some charges if the accused pleads guilty. Committal Hearing A hearing where a magistrate will hear evidence of the prosecution and decide whether a properly instructed jury would convict the accused. This is the last hearing a matter will have before it proceeds to a higher jurisdiction. Re-hearing Application If a magistrate determines a matter in the absence of the accused, the accused can make an application to the Court for the order to be set aside and re-heard. The accused needs to serve their application on the informant (the person who charged them) and then a new hearing date will be scheduled for the magistrate to decide whether or not to grant the application. If they do, the case continues as a case normally would, with the accused having the option of pleading guilty or not guilty. An application to drive pending a rehearing application must be served on the informant at least seven days before the application is to be heard.
10
15
20
25
Contacts Criminal Registry - Magistrates' Court Contact the Magistrates' Court where your proceeding is listed. Contact details for all Victorian Magistrates' Courts are available under 'Court Locations' Email: help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au
30
END QUOTE
.
that we know the kind of hearings that are available let us then see the next publication by the Magistrates Court Victoria:
Ok now .
35
Infringement Court
http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/Magistrates+Court/Home/Fines+and+Penalties/Inf ringements+Court/ QUOTE Infringements Court The Infringements Court is a venue of the Magistrates Court which deals with the processing and enforcement of infringement notices and penalties, such as speed camera and parking fines. The Infringements System is based on administrative processing rather than hearing the case before a magistrate unlike other matters falling under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of Victoria which are heard in open court before a magistrate. The role of the Infringements Court is to resolve large numbers of unpaid infringement notices lodged by enforcement agencies. This is designed to reduce the workload on the judicial and administrative resources of the hearing courts without removing the right of any individual to appear before a magistrate. These offences generally have fixed penalties and include parking offences, driving offences and litter offences. p16 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
40
45
17 The Infringements Notice Process When you receive an infringement, such as a parking fine, there are a number of options available to you. These options are clearly explained on any infringement notice you receive.
If you fail to take any action upon receiving the infringement, within the time specified, or fail to comply with a payment arrangement you have with the issuing agency, (eg. Melbourne City Council), a further notice will be sent to you. This is called a penalty reminder notice and is a reminder to you that the amount is still outstanding. The penalty reminder notice will allow you a further 28 days to finalise this matter. Where an enforcement agency issues a penalty reminder notice, additional costs are incurred against you. If after 28 days from the service of the penalty reminder notice the matter is still unresolved, the enforcing agency may lodge the infringement notice particulars with the Infringements Court for further enforcement. The Infringements Court will usually make an order at this stage and a notice of enforcement order will be sent to you providing information on the amounts owing together with what options are available to you.
10
15
Take note that the longer you wait to act, the fewer options you will have and the amount you have to pay will increase.
20
25
Contacts Infringements Court Counter Enquiries: Monday to Friday 9.00am - 4.30 pm Ground Floor, 444 Swanston Street, Carlton 3053 Postal Address: P.O. Box 14487, Melbourne , Vic 8001 DX: 210231 Telephone: 9200 8222
30
35
Civic Compliance Public enquiry counter: Monday-Friday 8.00am - 6.00pm Ground Floor, 277 William Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000 (next to Flagstaff Station, above the Australia Post Office) Telephone Enquiries - Monday-Friday, 8.00am - 6.00pm - 9200 8222 Automated Information Service (24 hours) - 9200 8222 Country callers (free call) 1800 150 410 END QUOTE
. Again notice: Infringement Court 40

http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/Magistrates+Court/Home/Fines+and+Penalties/Inf ringements+Court/ QUOTE Infringements Court The Infringements Court is a venue of the Magistrates Court which deals with the processing and enforcement of infringement notices and penalties, such as speed camera and parking fines. The Infringements System is based on administrative processing rather than hearing the case before a magistrate unlike other matters falling under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of Victoria which are heard in open court before a magistrate. END QUOTE
.
45
50
55
The usage of the statement unlike other matters falling under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of Victoria which are heard in open court before a magistrate. Clearly indicates that THE PRETENDED enforcement order notice IS NOT A Magistrates Court jurisdiction at all but is purported to be so even so it is dealt with by way of administrative decision. Moment, ADMINISTRATIVE decision to decide the guilt or innocence of a person? Come on lets cut the crap and this state sponsored terrorism and make it very clear that no court under whatever star chamber court system can operate to have the innocence or guilt decided by administrative way, where a mere computer determines matters as a computer cannot evaluate and neither apply NULLIFICATION a pre requisite to be considered with each case if this is to be applied or not.
18
.
10
15
20
.
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are offences committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and the only cases to which Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the criminal law of the state was in conflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in any other cases there would be no necessity to change the venue, and select a jury of citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in modern or in ancient times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by an Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal offences, and I do not at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of the honorable member a state of affairs in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive. It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by this Constitution. END QUOTE
25
Clearly NULLIFICATION was applicable in the colonies and was embedded as a legal principle in the constitution to be applied by a court if it desired to do so. A computer cannot consider this and so cannot deal with matters. Also, one cannot deal with an administrative decision to ultimately decide the innocence or the guilt of a person.
.
30
35
It is therefore very clear that the Magistrates Court doesnt consider the number of ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICES as being part of its cases dealt with because it holds it is not part of its judicial system. Well, if it aint part of the judicial processes then it aint worth the paper written upon. It also means that all past paid fines, and other charges are to be refunded to every person who paid it, by order or otherwise. Come to think of it, I never was notified of any court hearing! As such, realistically there never was a court hearing as such and when one consider the legislation itself
QUOTE Infringement Act 2006 Division 2Enforcement Orders 59. Enforcement orders (1) If an infringements registrar has not received a request under section 58 from an enforcement agency, the infringements registrar may make an enforcement order that the person pay to the Court the outstanding amount of the infringement penalty and the prescribed costs in respect of a lodgeable infringement offence. (2) An enforcement order is deemed to be an order of the Court. END QUOTE
40
45
50
55
Now I get it, it is not really a court, let alone an OPEN COURT but some computer spewing out all those ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICES and then we have to deem (deemed) it being a Court order issued by a court. Seems to be the same like the unconstitutional 1999 legislation that invalid federal orders became State supreme orders. Actually in one case then a man who insisted he had valid Supreme Court of Victoria court orders and was not interested in what the INVALID Family Court of Australia orders were about was then imprisoned for this and then 5 years later when it turned out that indeed the Family Court of Australia orders were invalid (consider Wakim HCA27 of 1999 (re cross vesting) then somehow the State of Victoria legislated that those invalid Family Court of Australia court orders actually were deemed to be Supreme Court of Victoria court orders. Moment, which were the Supreme Court of Victoria orders he was imprisoned for? Were it the Supreme Court of Victoria orders that existed at the
19
10
time of the Imprisonment or the purported Supreme Court orders which were invalid (read unconstitutional) Family Court of Australia orders at the time of imprisonment? Get the picture how an innocent was railroaded that while he did no legal wrong nevertheless he was still imprisoned and the State of Victoria couldnt care less about this grave injustice it caused upon him! So, lets stop the pedantics and lets be clear about it this time. Either it are Court orders issued by a Infringement Registrar or they are not. So lets be known the identity of the Infringement Registrar because if we have a person who can dispose of say 2 cases every minute then we may better review the entire judicial system as consider the few cases a week magistrates ordinary may go through. Certainly not 2 cases every 1 minute. So, we can reduce waiting time for court hearing with having such a person on the job as a magistrate, but obviously we do have to consider also the following:
. Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
15
Mr. OCONNOR.-With reference to the meaning of the term due process of law , there is in Baker's Annotated Notes on the Constitution of the United States , page 215, this statementDue process of law does not imply that all trials in the state courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. The requirement is met if the trial be in accordance with the settled course of judicial proceedings, and this is regulated by the law of the state.
20
If the state law provides that there shall be a due hearing given to the rights of the partiesMr. BARTON .-And a judicial determination. Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, and a judicial determination-that is all that is necessary. END QUOTE
.
25
30
Ok, a judicial determination hardly can be made by some computer and so lets have the identity of the judicial officer who heard and determined the case! Which OPEN courtroom is used for this or again was it all an abuse of power and no court really was in session? Is this the kind of Law & Order you so much promoted, being a perverted version of what really is constitutionally permissible?
.
35
40
It should be clear that any dispute between a government (so any of its Departments) and a citizen must be dealt with by the courts if either party seeks to litigate before a Court of law that is impartial and that acts without bias. Clearly, a Court that is forced to issue ( must issue) clearly is not a competent court of law at all because the very adjudication is denied to the court and cannot stand up as to constitutional scrutiny of being an impartial court. Fancy I have a claim against the Government and then wheel clamp the Governments vehicle unless the Government first pay up! Quick smart the Courts would deem that the courts are there to adjudicate the issues and one cannot take the law into once own hands. The State government has no better position then a citizen and the fact that the parliament may legislate to give it a better position is ULTRA VIRES because it interfere with the judicial impartiality that is required (see Kable also).
QUOTE Infringement Act 2006 Part 1Preliminary Infringements Act 2006 Act No. 12/2006 10 7. Infringement offences to which this Act applies (1) This Act applies to lodgeable infringement offences. (2) This Part and Parts 2 and 3 and Part 13 (other than sections 165 and 166) of this Act apply to infringement offences. p19 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
45
50
10
20 (3) This Act does not apply to infringement notices issued or served under local laws or the enforcement of offences against local laws by infringement notice under section 117 of the Local Government Act 1989 , other than a local law which is a parking infringement within the meaning of the Road Safety Act 1986 . (4) Subject to anything to the contrary in the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 or this Act, this Act does not apply to infringement notices issued to or served on a child within the meaning of the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 or to the enforcement of an offence for which an infringement notice or a penalty notice within the meaning of Schedule 2A to that Act could be issued or a prescribed offence within the meaning of that Schedule. (5) Regulations made under this Act must not prescribe an offence referred to in sub-section (3) (other than a parking infringement) or subsection (4) to be a lodgeable infringement offence. END QUOTE
.
15
Consider that medical centres and other privately owned entities now can issue an INFRINGEMENT NOTICE and then can be dealt with by administrative decision then we have a loony of a legal process where ordinary citizens are ongoing robbed of their constitutional rights of a FAIR and PROPER trail.
.
When clicking on FAQ 20

http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/Magistrates+Court/Home/Fines+and+Penalties/Inf ringements+Court/MAGISTRATES+ -+Infringements+Court+-+FAQs QUOTE Infringements Court - FAQs For contact details of the Infringements Court and Civic Compliance Victoria, please go to the 'Fines and Penalties' - 'Infringements Court' page of this website. Q: Who may apply to lodge unpaid infringements? The Infringements Court has over 130 registered issuing agencies which can include: hospitals and medical centres municipal councils universities A: Victoria Police the Environment Protection Authority the Melbourne Market Authority Victorian Taxi Directorate. These agencies have the authority to issue infringement notices which can be lodged with the Infringements Court for further enforcement. Q: How are unpaid infringements lodged with the Infringements Court? When an agency seeks to lodge unpaid infringement penalties with the Infringements Court, they are requesting that the Court enforce the outstanding penalty amount of infringement plus any added costs. To do this, the Infringements Court makes an Enforcement Order (Court Order) against the offender. The Enforcement Order is made by the Infringements Court Registrar and has the same effect as an order made by a Magistrate in open court, and is enforceable as an order of the Magistrates Court. A Notice of Enforcement Order is then sent to the offender. If payment is not made within 28 days, or a successful application is not received for either a payment order or revocation of the order, a warrant is issued to the Sheriff which includes additional costs. Can I pay my fines by instalments? A person may apply for a Payment Order under Section 76 of the Infringements Act 2006. Applications for a Payment Order can be lodged up until a warrant is executed and p20 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
A:
Q: A:
21 must include: The name and current address of the applicant; A statement setting out the financial circumstances of the applicant; and, Reasons for making the application. Where an Enforcement Order is made against a corporation, then that entity is not entitled to apply for a payment order. The corporations only options are to pay the fine in full or apply for revocation of the order. When will applications for revocation or payment orders not be considered by the Infringements Court Registrar? The Infringements Court Registrar will not consider applications for revocation or payment orders if any of the following conditions exist: The defendant is released on a Community Work Permit The defendant is bailed to appear before a Magistrate\ A: The Sheriff seizes property to recover the debt (including walking possession where goods have been seized but not yet removed) and a 7 day notice has expired There is an order made against real estate in relation to the enforcement order Q: If I do not pay the infringement penalty and prescribed costs what action can be taken against me? If an infringement penalty and costs remain unpaid, the following actions may be taken against the offender: An infringements warrant may be issued authorising the seizure of the offenders personal property and driver licence or motor vehicle registration may be suspended, refused to be renewed or not transferred; The offenders motor vehicle may be immobilised (for example, by wheel A: clamping), seized and sold; The offender may be subject to an Attachment of Earnings or an Attachment of Debt Order; The offenders real estate may be subject to a Charge Order and sale; or, The offender may be arrested pursuant to the Infringements Act 2006 and brought before the Magistrates Court of Victoria. END QUOTE
.
Q:
10
Obviously with the over indulgence of the Parliament to legislate anything to be offensive, other then government sponsored terrorism, then hardly can it be argued this is for peace, order and good government but rather to for ever seek to fill the coffers of the government of the day and nothing to do as to act as agents for the People. Indeed, acting as agents for the people then its rights, as any agent, can be no greater then that of the granter. Meaning that if a citizen has no such rights then the government cannot have any better position.
.
http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/Magistrates+Court/Home/Fines+and+Penalties/Inf ringements+Court/MAGISTRATES+ -+Infringements+Court+Warrant+Hearings+-+FAQs QUOTE p21 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
22 Infringements Court Warrant Hearings - FAQs For contact details of the Infringements Court and Civic Compliance Victoria, please go to the 'Fines and Penalties' - 'Infringements Court' page of this website. Q: What is an Infringement Warrant Hearing? An Infringement warrant hearing occurs when a person fails to take any action on a seven day notice served under a valid Infringement Warrant, and does not possess any seizeable assets. The defendant is arrested and enquiries are made by the Sheriff to ascertain if the person is eligible for a Community Work Permit. If that person is not deemed suitable, theyre bailed to appear before a court for an Infringement Warrant A: Hearing, or they may be held in custody for up to 24 hours and to be brought before a court within that period. Where a person is to appear before a Magistrate, he/she must sign an undertaking of bail, and their failure to attend the Infringement warrant hearing will result in the Court issuing a bench warrant for their arrest. Q: What will happen at an Infringement Warrant Hearing? The Magistrate in an infringement Warrant Hearing may choose to pursue any of the following options to resolve the matter: Order a Community Based Order Order imprisonment in lieu of payment, up to two thirds can be deducted off A: the total amount owing before the Court on warrant Partially or fully discharge a defendant (includes Special Circumstances situations) Make an Instalment Order after an imprisonment order has been set Reduce up to two thirds of the imprisonment period Adjourn the hearing for up to six months with conditions attached.
END QUOTE
.
So now we have a magistrate who can order a term of imprisonment upon (Infringement Court) STAR CHAMBER COURT orders and this means that the Magistrates Court Victoria by this endorses this kind of STAR CHAMBER COURT procedures despite being outlawed by the Imperial Act Interpretation Act 1980 (Vic). 10
.
15
When clicking on FAQ http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/Magistrates+Court/Home/Fines+and+Penalties/M AGISTRATES+-+Fines+-+Your+options+for+dealing+with+fines+-+Booklet-+VLA QUOTE Fines: your options for dealing with fines This booklet is for anyone who has been fined in Victoria. It gives you options for dealing with your fines. It has information about: how the infringement system works what to do if you disagree with the fine
20
what happens if you dont pay the fine what special circumstances means what to do if you have special circumstances what happens at the Magistrates' Court p22 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
23 where to get help. Victoria Legal Aid also produce the following resources on fines; an information sheet called Fines: how to sort them out which uses simple messages and stories. This is produced in English, Arabic, Turkish, Chinese and Vietnamese.
a more detailed booklet for workers who help people with infringement problems in Victoria called A workers guide to fines. Published: December 2010 Availability: in stock Order now
10
New law Since this booklet was published there have been changes to the law. Please check the following updates: Changes to hoon driving new law Increased penalties for drug drivers archived New law to help prevent dog attacks archived
15
Fines - PDF, 653.0kb Brochure about your options for dealing with fines END QUOTE
.
Checking out the material nothing whatsoever sets out the right of a person to object to the jurisdiction of the Infringement Court/Magistrates Court Victoria and so people are induced to capitulate their rights to this kind of Government sponsored terrorism. 20
.
Again there is overwhelming material to induce if not terrorize a person to end up paying because after all the magistrates Court Victoria publish this kind of nonsense that people, and many lawyers will be unaware it is utter crap and of no legal value or force.
.
25
30
35
The following shows also the bias by the Magistrates Court towards practitioners where they can obtain an adjournment whereas the same to unrepresented litigants (usually an accused) is not provided for it. Likewise the filing of an appearance where again practitioners get a cosy deal whereas a litigant in person has to appear personally. This to me undermines the independence of the Magistrates Court of Victoria as any provision should not be to favour the legal profession but should be for all persons appearing before the court to be the same. Indeed, where I appear before the court assisting a party albeit being a CONSTITUTIONALIST and not a so called ;legal practitioner but nevertheless being the legal representative be robbed of the same provisions as anyone else who represents a party merely because they happen to be a legal practitioner. The courts should never ever show favouritism towards the legal profession!
http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/Magistrates+Court/Home/Court+Lists/MAGISTR ATES+-+Electronic+Filing+Appearance+System QUOTE Electronic Filing Appearance system (EFAS) What is EFAS? EFAS utilises the Magistrates' Court website court lists to allow practitioners to enter appearances and request adjournments. This system encourages all practitioners to file their appearances electronically prior to the hearing date thereby providing a more accessible and efficient means to coordinate daily lists and utilise staggered listings. The appearance system has been developed to enhance the Court's ability to best manage the increasing demands on judicial resources and will work in conjunction with the current staggered listings protocol. It is a modernisation of lodging appearances p23 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
40
45
24 instead of legal practitioners joining lengthy queues to enter their appearance at Court. The system creates enormous efficiencies for Court Users as well as the Court. Who will use EFAS? Legal Practitioners, Prosecuting Agencies, Magistrates Court Coordinators
What can EFAS be used for? Add representation Enter appearance and update hearing details Enter appearance and request adjournment What type of matter can it be used for?
10
Criminal o Summary o Committals o Sex Offences List o Diversion
15
Civil o Prehearings o Hearings Whats next for EFAS? EFAS will be available at all Magistrates Courts on Monday 21 February 2011.
20
To register for EFAS access the daily hearing lists page - and enter the information on the REGISTER (EFAS) tab. For more information contact: Karen King, Registrar Business Analysis Tel: 8615 3813 Brett Cain, State Coordinating Registrar Tel: 9603 9326
25
END QUOTE
.
Ok talk about lawyers and they get special treatment which also indicates that the magistrates Court Victoria fails to be impartial and is bias towards the legal Profession.
.
30
" The Rule against Bias. A true judicial decision can be reached only if the judge himself is impartial. This is an obvious requirement in a court of law or a tribunal. In R. v Rand (1866) it was held that a judge is disqualified where (i) he has a direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject-matter in dispute; or (ii) there is real likelihood that the judge would have a bias in favour of one of the parties. For example, if a judge is related to, or is a friend of, one of the parties to a dispute there would be real likelihood of bias. It is immaterial whether a judicial decision was in fact biased, for as was said by Lord Chief Justice Heward in R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924): 'Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.' As an example of pecuniary bias we may quote: Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852). Lord Chancellor Cottenham made decrees in a Chancery suit in favour of a canal company. Lord Cottenham held several shares in the company. Held: (by the House of Lords): that the decrees be set aside on the ground of pecurniary interest. No bias was proved in fact, nor could it be shown that Lord Cottenham was in any way influenced by his shareholding. p24 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
35
40
45
25 As an example of likelihood of bias we may quote:
10
.
R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924). A was summoned before magistrates for a motoring offence. The acting clerk to the justices was a member of a firm of solicitors representing A in civil proceedings arising out of the same accident. The acting clerk did not advise the magistrates, but he retired with them to consider their decision. Held: that as the acting clerk was connected with the case in the civil action he ought not to advise the magistrates in the criminal prosecution. Conviction accordingly quashed, despite the fact that the acting clerk took no part in the decision to convict and had not been asked by the justices to give his opinion or advice. "
As the Infringement Registrar is part of the Magistrates Court Victoria but is acting bias towards the government and its Department then this severely compromises the independence of the Magistrates Court Victoria! 15
.
20
R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236 QUOTE However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be suck as to lead the parties reasonably to think that the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and then prohibition may issue. Of course, the court which is asked to grant prohibition will not lightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected of bias in this sense; it must be "firmly established" that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered in the minds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553-4, in the passage cited in R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (132 CLR at 262). The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a question, but whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect has occurred (see per Lord Denning MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgment cited with approval by this court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well convey the impression of "protesting to much"... END QUOTE
.
25
30
35
40
45
Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 II,L.C. 759 QUOTE The fundamental rule of English (Australian) law is that " No man can be a judge in his own case". It has long been held that if there is bias or the appearance of bias such as to deny justice or create the impression that justice has not been done, then that bias, or apparent bias, is sufficient to invalidate the decision of those who made the decision. END QUOTE Reg v. The London County Council (1894) XI .L.R. 24 Sharp v. Carey (1897) 23 V.L.R. 248 Austin Digest 17. Reg. v. Moleswort (1893) 23 V.L.R. 582 Austin Digest 17. Black v. Black (1951) N.Z.L.R. 723 Ex Parte Blume (1958) W.N. (N.S.W.) 411Austin Digest 93,339,457,458
.
50
55
QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780 As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes the appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made in the lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the respondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the absence of reason for the magistrates decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal process, there is the basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to controvert the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they lost. If they are given no reason they may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice . In such a case not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser. END QUOTE
.
60
QUOTE R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236 p25 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
10
15
26 However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be such as to lead the parties reasonably to think that the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and then prohibition may issue. Of course, the court which is asked to grant prohibition will not lightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected of bias in this sense; it must be "firmly established" that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered in the minds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553-4, in the passage cited in R v Watson; Ex Parte Armstrong (132 CLR at 262). The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a question, but whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect has occurred (see per Lord Denning MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgement cited with approval by this court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well convey the impression of "protesting to much... END QUOTE
Well, why on earth was an ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICE issued when no judicial determination eventuated but an administrative decision by some computer but purportedly by a Infringement Registrar?
.
20
25
QUOTE In American Cyanamide v Ethicon Ltd. (9175) AC 396 at 405 and 407 ..The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial; But the plaintiff's need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having be en prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not adequately be compensated under the plaintiff's undertaking in damages if the uncertainty were resolved in the defendant's favour at the trial. The court must weigh one need against the other and determine where the 'balance of convenience' lies END QUOTE
. It
30
35
could hardly be argued that the ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICE was an interlocutory order because clearly it seeks to demand payment with fines and cost as a purported court order of the Magistrates Court Victoria. It is beyond me that a Chief Magistrate would cooperate to perpetrate such kind of constitutional vandalism and government sponsored terrorism upon citizens who need to respect the legal procedures and the integrity of the court!
.
I wonder if the Chief magistrate was willing to betray his oath of office for the sake of perhaps a future appointment (consider Kable)? 40 Now let us have a look at the details of the ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICE ; It fails to reflect the original claimed infringement notice cost, even so the original infringement notice was not withdrawn. So we have a infringement notice superseded by another infringement notice for failing to respond to the first infringement notice even so my 23 February 2011 stated the following: QUOTE 23-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Victorian Police
Victoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913 Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA
45
23-2-2011
50
C/o heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au
Cc; Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001
55
Ethical Standards Department Victoria Police Unit Victoria Police Centre, 737 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3005 p26 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
27 Phone 1300 363 101, Facsimile 9247 3498
Ref: Obligation Number 1106575301 Sir/Madam, It may not been known to you but in recent State elections I was a candidate promoting very much the (federal) constitution because this is the basis of all Australian law. After all it is within s.106 of this constitution that the States are created out of the colonies.
.
10
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I consider it essential that we do adhere to the constitution and so its true meaning and application as to do otherwise would invite dictatorship, tyranny and anarchy and surely the Victorian Police would not want to promote this?
.
15
20
25
30
35
Within the constitution we have the embedded legal principle of CIVIL RIGHTS and as the Victorian Police is noted on the Infringement Notice to The Operator (0201683566) then obviously you refer to the Operator of the vehicle concerned and not to the owner. I admit I never had any formal education in the English language and neither was English my native language but to me the term Operator is the person that actually controls the vehicle where as the owner may be a person who may not even drive any motor vehicle at all but has others doing so. So, the issue is if you forwarded the Notice to the Operator or not. Obviously the issue then is who is the person (Operator) referred to. Well It refers to SCHOREL-HLAVKA GERRIT H I am not aware such a person exist by such a name. I am Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka and within my CIVIL RIGHTS I am entitled to have people using my correct name and as such if you are referring to some fictional upper case name then have your litigation against a fictional person but if you do mean to refer to me then kindly refrain from interfering with my CIVIL RIGHTS as to the usage of my surname. As the Infringement Notice does indicate that under the Crimes Act 1958 (which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years) to provide false or misleading information then whomever concocted my surname in all upper case letters clearly gave misleading information! The legal doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur action (You cannot come to court with dirty hands) denies any remedy to a litigant (including a prosecutor or defendant) who does not come to court with clean hands. As such the Victorian Police cannot go to court to pursue proper enforcement of law against me when it violates my CIVIL RIGHTS to be referred to as I have my name and that is Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka. After all unless and until the police does appropriately refer to my name it has no position to go to court in that regard because it would indicate to the court it TAKE THE LAW INTO ITS OWN HANDS and so has no position then to seek the court to enforce the rule of law.
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I also am well aware that the Framers of the Constitution specifically devised a democratic system based upon the Magna Carta and other provisions!
.
40
45
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50 QUOTE Constitutional interpretation The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51] . END QUOTE
.
50
55
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced , will all have been the work of Australians . END QUOTE
.
28 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. END QUOTE
.
10
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten, END QUOTE
.
15
20
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution; 25
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates ( Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention ) QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. END QUOTE
.
30
35
HANSARD 18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention ) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS .The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution , END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON .-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are.
40
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power?
45
Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right. END QUOTE
.
50
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I have mentioned before the reasons, and they appear to me to be very strong, why these words should be retained. The honorable member will not deny that there should be a guarantee in the Constitution that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The simple object of this proposal is to insure that no state shall violate what is one of the first principles of citizenship . END QUOTE
.
55
60
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE p28 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
29 Mr. OCONNOR.-With reference to the meaning of the term due process of law , there is in Baker's Annotated Notes on the Constitution of the United States , page 215, this statementDue process of law does not imply that all trials in the state courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. The requirement is met if the trial be in accordance with the settled course of judicial proceedings, and this is regulated by the law of the state. If the state law provides that there shall be a due hearing given to the rights of the partiesMr. BARTON .-And a judicial determination. Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, and a judicial determination-that is all that is necessary. END QUOTE
10
END QUOTE 23-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE

.
15
20
25
QUOTE 23-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE I am also a bit surprised that the Infringement Notice states that I can obtain a image at a payment of $7.50 as I understood that in law no witness can charge for giving evidence as to the fact but may claim to the court for expenditure to attend, etc. So, I will look forwards for the speed camera to make its own application to the court for cost it incurred. If the camera cannot produce its own images but this is to be done by some other computer system then oh boy now we get it the camera isnt bearing witness at all because it has no control over who print an image. So, we now have perhaps some other computer system coming to court to give evidence as to that the particular image is that as provided by the speed camera. More evidence and I then have to cross examine the computer as to how did it know it didnt misinterpret any transfer of bytes (that is how ordinary computer language is used) or other computer related programs. We cannot merely assume that this doesnt occur because again the darn blue screen on computers are evident it can happen to anyone. And we can hardly have a police officer giving evidence this didnt eventuate because how would a police officer know that the bytes of one computer wasnt misinterpreted by another computer program and by this incorrectly printed out an image? END QUOTE 23-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE QUOTE 23-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE This means that the offer of paying by Infringement Penalty Payment Method obviously is neither constitutionally valid because it fails to comply with constitutional provisions. Look, the Victorian Police as a law enforcement agency obviously must itself comply with the RULE OF LAW and not disregard the proper application of constitutional meanings and provisions (embedded legal principles or otherwise) and so we better make sure that the Victorian Police itself follows proper legal procedures as permissible under the (federal) constitution! Obviously, we have also the issue of the Imperial Act Interpretation Act 1980 (Vic) which makes clear that no fines can be issued before conviction. Moment, are you claiming that some court convicted me without judicial determination and without having heard first both parties? I like to have a print out of the evidence given under oath or under affirmation by the relevant speed camera and any computer used to produce the said image, if that was at all printed out at the time for the purported court hearing. So, I better get the full transcript of the entire hearing so I can establish what the legal process, if any, was and how it followed constitutional legal principles, etc. . I am concerned as to the demand of payment BEFORE CONVICTION BY A COURT OF LAW and the inclusion of FURTHER COSTS WILL BE INCUIRRED IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE DUE DATE because it is basically an act of terrorism to induce/cause a person to pay up in disregard to his/her constitutional rights. Surely this kind of what I perceive to be BLACKMAIL to extort monies from a citizen without DUE PROCESS OF LAW of a JUDICIAL DECISION after hearing both parties cannot be sanctioned and neither should the Victorian Police as a law enforcement agency get involved with such a practice of sheer terrorism because it then has no credibility as a law enforcement agency. END QUOTE 23-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE
.
30
35
40
45
50
55
QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780 As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes the appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made in the lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the respondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the absence of reason for the magistrates decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded p29 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
30 for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal process, there is the basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to controvert the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they lost . If they are given no reason they may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice . In such a case not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser. Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not mere ordinary trivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of responsibility which administrations of the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail. [ Baker v Baker (1906) 95 LT 549; In Robinson v Robinson (1898) p135; and again in Cobb v Cobb (1900) p145] it was stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is the duty of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his decision, but to give the reasons for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required, but the reasons which lead the magistrate to make his order must be explicitly stated. END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
30
So where is the reason of judgment where it is shown that the judicial officer considered all relevant evidence, including my past correspondences as after all they were also forwarded to the police and Civic Compliance Victoria and as such should have been before the Infringement Registrar at the time the Infringement Registrar considered all relevant matters as obviously I contested matters and even am on record to have challenged the constitutional validity of the courts and the judicial officers way back in my 19 July 2006 case then before the County Court of Victoria and as such entitled upon the benefits of that court ruling! The question then is how on earth can an Infringement Registrar disregard a County Court of Victoria ruling and since when can an Infringement Registrar overrule a County Court of Victoria judgment? Boy, you were so much talking about Law & Order but it seems you did better to stick to Real Estate matters (I understand you were a Real Estate Agent) because obviously Law & Order isnt what you seem to have a grasp about.
.
35
40
45
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitutionthe Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE
.
50
55
QUOTE 23-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE This means that where the Infringement Notice claims that I have Demerit Points: 1 then unless this is applicable as such to every other citizen in the Commonwealth of Australia who allegedly committed the same offence (again not that I admit to such an offence having eventuated) then this too is unconstitutional. After all each state has its own point system and by this the application of a demerit point to a Victorian driver is not applied likewise to certain Interstate drivers and as such by this is unconstitutional. And, again such a fine, as it is perceived to be a penalty, cannot be applied unless there was a judicial determination after both parties were given the opportunity to present their respective cases. . I then wonder why the Infringement Notice refers under 3 refers to Have the matter heard and determined in Court as this implies to me the Victorian Police so to say is operating some kind of shonky business of an extortion racket to terrorist motorist/owners of motor vehicles, etc, as to pay up on an alleged fine without any p30 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
31 judicial decision and so without DUE PROCESS OF LAW! Fancy this to be called LAW ENFORCEMENT !
.
10
Hansard 17-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER (South Australia)[4.10]: I have none of the fears of my colleague, who has just resumed his seat. The safety-valves he spoke about are created in the governments which we know as constitutional governments by providing judicious checks on hasty legislation. My hon. friend has just been arguing that these most necessary and legitimate checks are in themselves dangerous to society, likely to produce rebellion, and to land us in civil war. END QUOTE
.
15
20
25
You may find plenty of lawyers in any Parliament but none are CONSTITUTIONALIST as I am but they might also be plenty of rock stars, sport stars, etc, and none of them having a clue what is constitutionally appropriate, applicable and permissible. And I recognise the Victorian Police may continue this charade against me in the courts and then faced I will OBJECT TO THE JUSRISIDICTION OF THE COURT because of what is stated above as well as upon what was before the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 and so the Court cannot proceed against me but in the alternative I also am aware the Victorian Police can instead apologise for writing my name incorrectly, making unsupported allegations against me and withdrawing its purported Infringement Notice 1106575301unconstitutionally and will not pursue the matter ever again against me because failing this I can assure you I will defend my constitutional rights and the Victorian Police may also have to realise that it could ill afford to be comprehensively defeated as then all other persons may likewise rely upon this. END QUOTE 23-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE
.
30
Ok, I did make clear I OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT and so as the PURPORTED Infringement Registrar was seemingly part of the Magistrates Court of Victoria then once I objected by this the magistrates Court of Victoria had no judicial powers to issue any ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICE against me because legally when an objection to jurisdiction is made then unless and until the Court first disposes of it then it cannot invoke any judicial powers. Hence the purported ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICE is of no legal value.
.
The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to federal laws in the USA; 35
http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm QUOTE The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .
40
45
50
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
55
END QUOTE Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256) p31 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
32
Quick & Garran's "Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia" more accurately and more meaningfully says that; 5
QUOTE A law in excess of the authority conferred by the Constitution is no law; it is wholly void and inoperative; it confers no rights, it imposes no duties; it affords no protection. END QUOTE Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GORDON.Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised. END QUOTE Again; QUOTE and it leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law if it is ultra vires. Mr. GORDON.-It would be law by acquiescence. It would remain a law until it was attacked. It might injure a few individuals, but that might be to the benefit of the whole. Or if it were not, the party whose area of power was infringed on would attack if. END QUOTE Again; QUOTE It would remain a law until it was attacked. END QUOTE
.
25
30
35
40
45
QUOTE 23-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE With a RULE OF LAW to be upheld I have concerns that a so called Infringement Court is not a court that is constitutionally valid and I urge you to avoid anyone, not just myself, to be denied our constitutional rights and privileges. After all if the Infringement Court is not a court that facilitate for a proper and fair hearing and doesnt provide for a judicial determination upon hearing evidence of both parties then it is unconstitutional and lacks any enforcement powers! As indicated above if the above purported provisions do not apply likewise to Interstate motorist, then they are unconstitutional! And, as the Victorian Parliament has no legislative powers over Interstate drivers to have their interstate drivers licence cancelled, their vehicle registration not being renewed, their vehicle being wheel clamped in another State, their property being seized and sold or hey being arrested interstate then all and any such provisions cannot be enforced upon Victorian motorist either. This is the problem not having a CONSTITUTIONALIST as a member of parliament because rock stars may have rocks in their head but certainly are not CONSTITUTIONALIST , They can sing to the tune of the Government of the day and play to the tune of the government policies but it still will not be constitutionally valid. END QUOTE 23-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE
.
50
So what we now have is that the original acclaimed fine was increased to $170.50 and now added with $47.70 lodgement fee and another $25.70 enforcement order cost and this all even so no proper judicial determination so far existed as I for one never had any notification to any court hearing and while I am aware the act states:
QUOTE Infringement Act 2006 s. 70 Part 4Lodging Infringement Penalties and Enforcement Orders Infringements Act 2006 Act No. 12/2006 60 (c) the Court must (i) allocate a time and place of the hearing of the offence; and p32 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
55
10
33 (ii) at least 14 days prior to the hearing date, cause the hearing details referred to in sub-paragraph (i) and the prescribed information lodged under paragraph (a) to be served on the enforcement agency and the person who was served with the enforcement order notice. (2) Without limiting any other powers of the Court, the Court may proceed to hear and determine the matter of a lodgeable infringement offence even though a charge has not been served on the person who was served with the infringement notice. Note: See also section 41 of, and clause 7 of Schedule 2 to, the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 . END QUOTE
.
15
20
The truth is that constitutionally no court can hear a case without giving both parties a FAIR and PROPER hearing and this means unless and until it has heard my side of the story there could not have been any FAIR and PROPER hearing. So what is all this rubbish about. Is this how you are governing to be a government sponsored terrorist by allowing this kind of idioticy going on? Is this what you perceive to be Law & Order? As indicated above a Court must be impartial and yet we find that the legislation refers to a court must issue then you give shit about must issue ! Well it seems to me why have any court at all as after all if you dictate the independence of the judiciary! Ok you may not like the expression but it is nothing to what I would have like to have stated and after all if you are willing to undermine our constitutional rights then cop the criticism!
QUOTE PART 6INFRINGEMENT WARRANTS 80. Issue of infringement warrants (1) An infringements registrar must issue an infringement warrant against a person to whom an enforcement order notice is sent (including a director to whom a declaration under section 91 applies) if the person for a period of more than 28 days (a) defaults in the payment of the outstanding amount of the fine; or (b) in the case of a natural person other than a director to whom a declaration under section 91 applies, defaults in the payment of a payment under a payment order. (2) An infringements registrar who issues an infringement warrant against a natural person, including a director to whom a declaration under section 91 applies, may endorse the warrant with a direction that the person arrested must be released on bail as specified in the endorsement. (3) An endorsement under sub-section (2) must fix the amounts in which the principal and the sureties, if any, are to be bound and the amount of any money or the value of any security to be deposited. END QUOTE
.
25
30
35
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution; 40
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates ( Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention ) QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. END QUOTE
.
45
50
HANSARD 18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention ) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS .The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution , END QUOTE
.
55
.
Mr. BARTON .-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are. END QUOTE Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates p33 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
34 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power?
Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right. END QUOTE
.
Remember I did write in my 10-6-2011 correspondence also:

QUOTE 10-6-2011 CORRESPONDENCE
10
15
20
.
I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and also Author of books in the INSPECTORRIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues and can assure you that as the States are created within s106 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then this kind of government sponsored terrorism upon me isnt going to work. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that DUE PROCESS OF LAW is where there is a judicial determination after both parties have been heard! As such, it is not relevant what alternative legal processed the Parliament of Victoria may have provided for because no Parliament can overrule the constitution! Now, if you got some police wanting to take the matter to court then that is up to the police concerned but unless and until they do so I have no legal responsibilities as the Imperial Act Interpretation Act 1980 prohibits a fine before conviction and certainly increasing a fine before conviction.
Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 No. 9426 of 1980 (Vic) QUOTE 11. And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and cruel punishments inflicted.
25
12. And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures, before any conviction or judgement against the persons, upon whom the same were to be levied. All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes, and freedom of this realm: END QUOTE
30
And
Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 No. 9426 of 1980 (Vic) QUOTE 12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void.
35
13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws, parliaments ought to be held frequently. And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premisses, as their undoubted rights and liberties; and that no declarations, judgements, doings or proceedings, to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premisses, ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example. To which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his highness the prince of Orange, as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. END QUOTE .Ass I indicated in my previous correspondence that the Infringement Act 2006 is unconstitutional and while this may not be properly understood by lawyers it means that from the date (30 May 2011) when I made this claim it was not just unconstitutional in regard of what I claimed AB INITIO but so it applied to everyone else also as there is no such thing as a law being unconstitutional for one person but not for another. Either it is constitutionally valid or it is not and as I challenged the constitutional validity of the Infringement Act 2006 then from that moment the legislation is no more unless and until, if ever at all, a competent court of jurisdiction declares the legislation to be INTRA VIRES. QUOTE 10-6-2011 CORRESPONDENCE
40
45
50
Ok I made my views very clear that I challenged the validity of the 2006 Infringement Act and I am not aware of any Court ruling to having declared the purported Infringement Act
35
2006 to be INTRA VIRES and so would it be too much asked to follow Law & Order and first have this matter dealt with and clearly the purported ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICE of 12 July 2011 has no legal force! 5
QUOTE 10-6-2011 CORRESPONDENCE Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law which is ultra vires. END QUOTE
And 10
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-Do you think acquiescence would make a law if the law passed by the Commonwealth Parliament was ultra vires?
15
Mr. GORDON.-It would until the law was impugned. If the state did not impugn that law it would remain in force. It is a law, and it could be allowed to be valid by the force of acquiescence. END QUOTE
And
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
20
Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law if it is ultra vires. Mr. GORDON.- It would be law by acquiescence. It would remain a law until it was attacked. END QUOTE
And 25
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power? Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right. END QUOTE
30
And
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GORDON.Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised. END QUOTE
.
35
40
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed. [start page 2004] Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
45
END QUOTE
.
50
What should now be considered is that all and any infringement payments so far extorted or otherwise obtained under terrorism must be refunded to the people concerned because where this legislation is ULTRA VIRES then so was any previous payments or other monies collected within those provisions.
.
Hansard 15-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE p35 to 16-7-2011 COMPLAINT - ETC INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1 st 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 Free download of documents (constitutional issues) from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRiakti
36 Mr. HIGGINS.-With all respect, no. The Governor-General in Council, as the honorable member knows as well as any one, has to obey the law as well as every one else. Mr. SYMON.-But suppose the Governor -General in Council grants the bonus, and suppose its operation derogates from freedom of trade, then the Federal High Court will sit in judgment on an act of the Governor-General in Council which involves a question of policy. Mr. HIGGINS.-Does not the honorable member recognise that even the legislation of the Federal Parliament is subject to the decision of the Federal High Court? Mr. SYMON.-But not a question of executive administrative policy.
10
Mr. HIGGINS.-The Federal High Court goes still further than that. It has the function of deciding whether the Acts of the Parliament are valid or not, and why should it not have the function of deciding whether the acts of the Ministry are valid or not? Mr. SYMON.-That was not the intention in determining the functions of the Federal High Court. Mr. HIGGINS.-Our British system is that every official under Her Majesty is amenable to the law -that everybody is under the law.
15
Mr. SYMON.-But this is a question of Ministerial responsibility. Mr. HIGGINS.-Of course it is; but supposing the Ministry were to consent to a bonus or bounty which interfered with freedom of trade, then the Federal High Court could be asked to interfere, and it therefore has the ultimate decision of the matter. If the court decided against a bonus or bounty, I rather think that the money would have to be refunded.
20
END QUOTE QUOTE 10-6-2011 CORRESPONDENCE
Within our democratic system a citizen is entitled to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and no court could operate otherwise then enforce this legal principle. Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: 25
QUOTE Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which she/he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence . END QUOTE
30
35
The legal doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur action denies any remedy to a litigant (including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands. If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with Dirty Hands best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics! As I understand it this was the Victorian Police who pursued this matter and so rather then enforcing the law they must be deemed to have concealed relevant details from the Infringement Registrar by not disclosing the content of my previous writings.
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate) QUOTE As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his clie nt. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court. END QUOTE
40
45
37
10
15
20
How can anyone trust the Victorian Police (and considering its long record of criminal activities by the Victorian Police officers themselves) when it is going about obtaining purported court orders without disclosing all relevant details, such as the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION ? .The obvious problem now existing is that an ENFORCEMENT ORDER NOTICE was issued and this where there was a perversion of JUSTICE and the government must now deal with this because it cannot tolerate that those who are engaged for law enforcement themselves corrupt the system for their ulterior purposes. It is not good enough to perhaps argue that I could have from onset elected to go to court and failing to do so more then double the total charges resulted because this is not about the accused taking it to court and failing to do so being penalised but where the onus was upon the accuser (prosecutor) to take the matter to court. No such thing as being GUILTY INTIL PROVEN INNOCENT! I made it clear from onset if the Police wanter to take the matter to court I disputed its jurisdiction and so why on earth would I apply to go to court when in the first place objecting to its jurisdiction? Is this a gimmick to seek to railroad my constitutional rights? Well democracy doesnt permit this kind of utter and sheer nonsense and any court that is a true Court of law will reject any such overtures to place its independence in question and to prevent a FAIR and PROPER hearing and never endorse any fines before conviction. It should be understood that in a democratic system a government is like any other party before a court and the Courts must be impartial in evaluating the evidence of both parties before it. Any notion that it must accept the evidence of one party and must issue certain orders undermine the independence of the judiciary and itself is a sustained attack upon democracy as we know it and are entitled upon. This cannot be tolerated!
25
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power? Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
30
END QUOTE
35
I call upon you and anyone else to support also this VELVET REVOLUTION to ensure that we as sentries all reclaim our constitutional and other legal rights and hold politicians and judges and others legally accountable for their evil acts to undermine in any way our democracy! The RULE OF LAW must always prevail, as to allow any inroads upon it is to allow a slow degradation of what democracy is about. Stop the government sponsored terrorism and ensure the true meaning and application of Law & Order!
.
40
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to raise all relevant issues/details and neither has stated any matter in order of priority!
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

.
(
.
Our name is our motto!)

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
45 Awaiting your response,

110716-Premier Ted Bailliue - COMPLAINT - Etc

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

110716-Premier Ted Bailliue - COMPLAINT - Etc

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

Ted Baillieu Premier of Victoria ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au

Ref: Obligation Number 1106575301

Re: COMPLAINT - ETC

Link to website: Daily Hearing Lists END QUOTE

Email: help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au END QUOTE

More over he also wrote the following:

HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Law Encyclopedia: Coram

QUOTE 10-6-2011 CORRESPONDENCE

. Again notice: Infringement Court 40

HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

When clicking on FAQ 20

Criminal o Summary o Committals o Sex Offences List o Diversion

25 As an example of likelihood of bias we may quote:

27 Phone 1300 363 101, Facsimile 9247 3498

END QUOTE 23-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE

HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

34 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power?

Remember I did write in my 10-6-2011 correspondence also:

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

END QUOTE QUOTE 10-6-2011 CORRESPONDENCE

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

45 Awaiting your response,

Вам также может понравиться