110830-Magistrates Court of Victoria - No 1158210495-Etc

p1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr Grey Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria Ground Floor, 277 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000
C/o help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au Cc:
30-8-2011
10
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 Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com Ted Baillieu Premier of Victoria ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au Infringement Notice Number 0201683566
15
Ref: Infringement Court case Number 1158210495
ADDRESS TO THE COURT COMPLAINT - ETC 20 Sir, unlike you I never had any formal education in legal studies and in fact neither in the English language as Dutch is my native language and as such it may appear that I am disadvantaged in this regard but to the contrary I am able to recognise and expose the cancer growing within the magistrates Court of victoria (as in other courts also I may add) because I am not brainwashed during legal studies. . Obviously when they appointed you Chief Magistrate this was for a purpose as I understand it that you exercise a supervisional role over other magistrates and other judicial officers being generally referred to as registrars, etc. I am on the record to pursue a VELVET REVOLUTION to hold politicians and judges legally accountable and in my view it would be very easy to have you prosecuted and convicted in that regard and I will attempt to give a limited set out. In my view you are responsible for the proper conduct of the magistrates Court of victoria and to ensure that proceedings are conducted according to law and not are an abuse of the legal processes. Well, the question is do you really at all understand what is the RULE OF LAW?
.
25
30
35
40
45
As Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues I exposed how the Magistrates Court of Victoria convicted me on 17 November 2005 for FAILING TO VOTE only for the purported conviction to be overturned on appeals where I relied upon more than 50 submission based on constitutional grounds, on 19 July 2006. The magistrate lacked from onset any understanding of the concept of OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and so went ahead with allegedly hearing the matter and then hand down a decision without first having invoked jurisdiction in the first place! That is what constitutes the term KANGAROO COURT. This is where a judicial officer when facing an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION has disregarded it to be dealt with first as to invoke jurisdiction and hence while the proceedings may be held within a building that is known to be a Magistrates Court nevertheless the proceedings themselves are not lawful as no jurisdiction was invoked.
.
30-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 - etc INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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
p1
Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
p2
Again, I never had any formal education within the Commonwealth of Australia as to its history and legal processes and because of this I have become an expert far beyond what lawyers (including judges) may ever achieve. I can state this because if it were not so then all the ex parte Intervention Orders issued without proper hearing would never exist in the first place.
.
What is the RULE OF LAW one has to ask?

.
10
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST it is my understanding that the States were created out of the colonies by way of s106 of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia constitution Act 1900 (UK)) and that section 106 does provide that the States are subject to this constitution which therefore includes all legal principles that were embedded by the Framers of the constitution.
.
15
20
Now here is a part I am willing to give you some free education. The Framers of the Constitution made clear that States judiciary were within the realm of the States but that a judicial determination can only be upon both parties being heard. As such, any ex parte hearing with interim intervention orders where the accused was not given a reasonable opportunity to attend to the hearing clearly therefore fails to be constitutionally valid and so are unconstitutional. Now you may argue that the Parliament enacted legislation that allows the Magistrates Court to issue interim orders but the following then is to be noted.
.
25
30
35
40
The Colonial Parliaments were what was termed sovereign Parliaments and they had the right to amend their own colonial constitutions as they pleased without needing any referendum to have electors approving this. The States however (again) were created by way of s106 and because they are subject to this constitution became to have constitutional Parliaments where they no longer could amend their own constitutions but required a State referendum to do so. Hence the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is not a constitution at all because it was never submitted to the State electors for them to approve or veto this proposed amendment. An amendment of the constitution, as like with the federal constitution, cannot be placed before the Parliament as a Bill but only can be submitted to the Parliament as a proposed amendment to the constitution. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168 It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is. The Framers of the Constitution also made it very clear that International Law couldnt be applied in the Commonwealth of Australia as can in other parts of the world.
.
45
50
The ultimate RULE OF LAW therefore is the constitution of 1900. There has been overtures by the Commonwealth and so with support of the States to create a parallel constitution of identical nature but termed Commonwealth of Australia Constitution act 1901 (Cth) but again as the commonwealth as well as the States are all constitutional Parliaments none can therefore create their own kind of constitution and so the purported 1901 constitution is without constitutional and so legal validity. We had that the then Premier of Queensland Peter Beattie devised to get rid of the Queensland constitution and replace it with the old colonial constitution of 1867 and then replace this with the purported Queensland Constitution Act 2001. The fatal error in this is that since federation
30-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 - etc INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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 p2
p3
10
the Queensland constitution could only be amended by State referendum approval and this never eventuated, not even with the abolition of the Upper House, hence it was never constitutionally validly abolished and as such not as single Bill passed since its purported abolition never was validly given royal assent because the physical nonexistence of the Queensland Upper House doesnt overcome the constitutional requirement to have Bills passed before they can legitimately be given royal assent. Politicians will also pursue to seek to devise ways to circumvent constitutional limitations and the courts are there to ensure that this is not tolerated but regretfully as I view it most lawyers are brainwashed to such an extent that they simply havent got a clue what really the RULE OF LAW is.
.
15
The RULE OF LAW is the (federal) constitution and any law enacted within the provisions of the constitution. As such State constitutions that exceed the constitutional limitations are no constitutions for so far it transgressed upon the constitution. Legislation, federal and/or State are not legislation for so far it transgressed upon the constitution.
.
20
25
In the constitution the embedded legal principle is POLITICAL LIBERTIES and CIVIL RIGHTS. As such when the commonwealth charged me for FAILING TO VOTE it made a cardinal blunder that within s245 of the CEA it allowed for religious exemptions and by s116 this is prohibited unless the religious exemptions included non-religious exemptions. Now, just go through your records and find how often people have been convicted in the Magistrates Court of Victoria for FAILING TO VOTE where constitutionally they cannot be compelled to vote because the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the constitution that they refused to give any legislative powers to make registration and/or voting compulsory? You see, despite all your legal training and education obviously you appear to me to lack this very basic understanding as if you had been aware of it and that is could have comprehended this then no magistrate would entertain a case of FAILING TO VOTE because the legislation is no legislation at all because it is ULTRA VIRES of the constitution and hence cannot be enforced.
.
30
35
40
45
Lets take another issue. So you think you are lawfully admitted as a solicitor to the Supreme Court of Victoria? You think you are an Australian citizens by nationality? Well if you dont even know that Australian citizenship is not a nationality but something that you can only obtain AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP when obtaining a POLITICAL status of State citizenship then you better get yourself some proper education in constitutional matters. For your information this too was extensively canvassed by me during the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria litigation. It is argued that the 1988 Royal Commission assumed that the Commonwealth could legislate as to Australian citizenship. Well, I challenge you to show me where in the constitution it is stated that a Royal Commission can amend the constitution or its meaning? You find it doesnt exist and not even the High Court of Australia has been given this power! It can only interpret the constitution as to the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution. So, here we have that lawyers were admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of Victoria purportedly holding a nationality of Australian Citizenship even so constitutionally no such kind of nationality exist or can exist because constitutionally we are and remain to be Subjects of the British Crown. Forget about the utter and sheer nonsense of the High Court of Australia in the Sue v Hill case because in my books I canvassed this already extensively that it was beyond the judicial powers of those judges to make such a judicial finding.
.
50
What we have or may have learned from the above is that any lawyer who pretends to be a legal practitioner may just discover not to be so because constitutionally the purported admissions to the bar were legally floored.
p4
10
15
20
25
30
35
The same with the Courts sharing the same ABN (Australian Business Number) with the DPP, the Prostitution control commission and numerous others. A court can only be a valid court that is operating as a court free from any business ties and so acting on behalf of We, the People. A business, cannot adjudicate for the people because of the interest it contains itself. One of the matters that was so essential to the constitution was the separation of powers between the executives, the legislators and the judiciary. Hence, the legislators cannot dictate how the judiciary must conclude a case. Where the so called ASIO (Terrorism) Act dictates that a court MUST issue a warrant if so directed by the Attorney-General then this is unconstitutional because it encroaches upon the independence of the judiciary. Likewise then the issue of a warrant regarding so called infringement notices this cannot be validated where the purported legislation (Infringement Act 2006) requires one to be issued. Neither so for the Infringement Registrar to having to accept the allegation of an enforcement agency because this too infringes upon the independence of the judiciary. As such, the proper course of action should have been that where the police alleges an offence it then places the matter before the court and a hearing date is allocated for the hearing of the matter as to that the accused is given sufficient time to respond. What we now have is that the police (in violation of the provisions of the Imperial Act Interpretation Act 1980 (Vic)) is issuing an Infringement Notice with a fine. This is then calculated to terrorise the accused to pay or face a higher cost. Indeed, I discovered the cost to go up with another Infringement Notice to $175.00 even so the alleged speeding had not altered. As such I was being penalised for exercising my democratic right to demand that the Police would follow proper legal procedures and I objected to any court (repeat: any court) to be able to invoke jurisdiction. Therefore from the moment I stated this in my 23 February 2011 correspondence (upon which the police later responded and so acknowledged I had written to them) any increase of fine was also unconstitutional. Then the purported Infringement Registrar increased this to $245.00 and all without any court hearing that invoked jurisdiction and had heard both parties and then terrorises me that my vehicle could be wheel-clamped, the sheriff could break in and arrest me, could deregister my vehicle and my driver licence suspended all this for a mere 1 demerit point because of failing to pay the unconstitutional demands! Now, get this clear I have already suffered 1 demerit point for the alleged speedings even so the Police since my 23 February 2011 correspondence failed to provide any evidence I had requested to substantiate their allegations. Then I am also advised that there is this Civil Compliance Victoria but what wasnt revealed is that others also can use this Civil Compliance Victoria even so this is clearly deceiving people that they are understanding to deal with one government entity but really may be dealing with a non-government entity.
.
40
Moreover we now have that non-law enforcement agencies are deemed to be enforcement agencies and so clouded by this the entire legal processes by this also. And you as Chief Magistrate are presiding over this rot to go on and on and allow the Magistrates Court of Victoria to rubber stamp this all?
.
45
It must be clear that ample of police officers, and so very successfully, have been contesting their own Infringement Notices and so how on earth can any Magistrates court enforce Infringement Notices merely upon the say so of an enforcement agency where there is proven doubt by the Magistrates Court of Victoria itself that many alleged infringements are in fact not incurred.
.
50
I am well aware that the Parliament and so the government has devised a system that it issue an Infringement Notice and then give the accused the option to either pay or elect to go to court., as this system is widely used across the world as to force the accused to make a decision. I on the other hand as a CONSTITUTIONALIST am well aware that because of the very unique
p5
10
15
constitution we have from the federation such a system simply is unconstitutional and so cannot perpetrated upon anyone despite that the courts tend to allow for this unconstitutional conduct. I am not interested what may be applied in other countries because they have their kind of constitutions and for example New Zealand has a Carbon Tax but they have a constitution that permits for this whereas our constitution doesnt and as such no good to argue what is applicable in New Zealand because New Zealand remained to be a Dominion whereas the Commonwealth of Australia never was as it was created as a POLITICAL UNION and similar to what is now known to be the European Union. Therefore, whatever legal processes may be applied in any other country or International Law it cannot override our constitutional provisions! Hence, if the Police or for that anyone else alleges some wrongdoing then it must follow proper legal procedures in accordance with what the constitution and so its embedded legal principles provide for and allows. Any fine before conviction in itself nullifies any subsequent legal process because then the police have already exceeded their powers. For sure the then Perin Court Registrar gave me the understanding that some 95% of people rather pay the fine then to litigate well knowing the cost could more than likely only increase, but surely for any Court to condone such a tactic is to be part of a STAR CHAMBER COURT system and this too is unconstitutional.
.
20
25
30
35
In my view the moment the Police or any so called law enforcement agency places before the Magistrates Court of Victoria an Infringement Notice that included a fine then the Court must act appropriately and dismiss the charge because the inclusion of a fine makes it unconstitutional. The constitution was based upon the Magna Carta and in my books I have extensively canvassed this also. Hence, no fine before conviction! Also, any enforcement agency not being a law enforcement agency such as the Police cannot be deemed to be constitutionally valid because the Framers of the Constitution specifically embedded in the constitution that it were to be the local police. As a matter of fact the Federal Police neither has any lawful authority to invade or arrest any person within the sovereign jurisdiction of a State! Again this too seems to be ignored. Obviously government are needing the monies obtained from infringement notices and will do anything to accomplish this because their spending drifts will have no limits but the Courts themselves must be clear about it that they are not there to be a tool for a government and act like a puppet on a string because to do so would invalidate the very purpose of the independence of the judiciary. What a court must do is to consider every matters as to what is constitutionally permissible, regardless if the accused may have no clue to what is constitutionally applicable, because the onus rest upon the judiciary officer to ensure he/she doesnt transgress the independence of the judiciary as to merely rubberstamp whatever the government desires regardless if it is unconstitutional.
.
40
45
As I made clear the Infringement Notice originally issued already included a fine of about $139.00 without any judicial determination and so pre-emptied the courts decision. Then the Police notify the Infringement Registrar about what it claims and the Infringement Registrar has issued an Infringement Notice Order even so this constituted private communication and invalidates the Infringement Registrars decision. See also R v Fisher [2009] VSCA 100 (18 May 2009). R v Fisher [2009] VSCA 100 (18 May 2009) & R v. Phillips [2009] QCA 57 (20 March 2009))
.
50
You cannot have a Registrar or other judicial officer issuing orders upon the private communication between one of the parties with the judiciary, as now is eventuating time and time again. What in my view has eventuated is that the magistrates court of victoria has undermined its own integrity and independence and so its credibility also by going along to issue numerous orders which really had no constitutional validity.
p6
. Because the moment a legislation is legally challenged on constitutional grounds then the legislation is and remains ULTRA VIRES unless and until, if ever at all, a competent court of jurisdiction declares it to be INTRA VIRES then for example the validity of the Infringement Act 2006 remains to be without legal force,. Not just in my case but for all cases! As such, the Magistrates Court of Victoria should have immediately seized all litigation involving the Infringement Act 2006 because it cannot purportedly enforce provisions which are already ULTRA VIRES.
.
10
15
In the Colosimo case where Mr Colosimo was represented by a barrister he ended up being subjected to at least 5 contempt hearings as well as was placed under administration upon medical evidence and then Mr Colosimo decided he better have me to represent him (and so FREE OF CHARGE) and I subsequently on the 6th contempt hearing showed no contempt was ever committed (neither was he in fact ever formally charged with contempt they forgot!) and the judicial officer had no jurisdiction in any event and then subsequently also had the orders for administration set aside. In truth Mr Colosimo had not committed any offences but the entire case was fabricated (involving more than 20 lawyers) as if he had, just that I exposed the entire rot!
.
20
25
30
In 2008 Banyule City Council issued an Infringement Notice that I had exceeded 3-hr parking limit. I wrote that I had done no such thing. The lawyer for the council made known he dismissed my appeal and the matter now had to go to court and provided me with evidence including photos and the times I had been recorded parking there. Well, using the clock I was parked there for a total of 2hrs and 29 minutes and to me that clearly was less then 3-hrs, yet it took several months more before finally the lawyer understood that 2hr 29 minutes is less than 3 hours. The Infringement Notice was then withdrawn but what about others who were also wrongly booked? They all ended up having to pay or the Infringement Registrar would have issued orders regardless if the allegation was correct or not, unless they are disputing it in court. The purported Infringement Act 2006 stipulates that the Infringement Registrar must accept the evidence of the enforcement agency and so no matter it is all a lot of nonsense the Infringement Registrar clearly doesnt consider all relevant facts of the matter. As such the Infringement Registrar merely so to say rubberstamp whatever nonsense is fed to him.
.
35
As result innocent people are losing their driver license, and many so their main source of income, even their ability to pay mortgage and so may end up losing their homes and all this because we have a court system that no longer represent JUSTICE but is corrupted to every extend to manipulate its powers against the very citizens it ought to act for.
.
40
45
50
For more than 30 years I have conducted a special life line service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL dealing with people desperate in life circumstances and seeing no other way out but suicide and at times even murder because the courts were deemed to have robbed them of their rights. . I created in 1985 a document titled ADDRESS TO THE COURT because I was fed up how judges were denying unrepresented parties to have appropriate time to present their cases. No matter what utter rubbish may fall from the lips of a lawyer somehow they nevertheless can get the courts time while a simple citizens speaking the truth is prevented from doing so. Not long ago a lawyer complained to a judicial officer that Mr Schorel-Hlavka is like a policeman to lawyers. This as I am ongoing exposing the gross deception by lawyers, even to go to the court file and unauthorised amend their clients affidavit so that the version before the judicial officer is different than the other party is aware of. Indeed, when I was representing parties I would
p7
10
15
20
insist on checking affidavits on court file and point out the numerous unauthorised amendments made. As such I proved it in court that this actually eventuated. This much because when a lawyer accesses a court file they get the free hand to do whatever they like whereas when an unrepresented party seeks to access the court file then strict supervision is there. In one case I asked a party to obtain copies of the other parties filed affidavit and he did and it proved to be identical as to what was served upon him. After he then filed his response again I asked him to obtain a copy of the other parties affidavit on court file and it was then discovered that this affidavit had various alterations hand written into it even so not initialled by the deponent! As such the trail judge would have a different version then the other party. Lets give an example how it can be used: A party in Paragraph 3 states: My husband was never violent. And the Husband responds; As to paragraph 3 I agree with the content therein. Now the lawyer goes to the wifes affidavit and delete the word never as follows: My husband was never violent.. So, the trial judge now had the purported evidence that the husband agreed he was violent! Transcripts also are tampered with where for example the transcript showed I told Mr Allen that Scottish bastard whereas later upon my complaint this was corrected to I told Mr Allen that Scott was the husbands! And I would at times detect up to 16 alterations in transcript, per page that is, and as such undermines any appeal because judges in an appelated court will rely upon the correctness of the transcript and unless a party can prove beyond doubt that the claimed incorrect version is in fact incorrect the appellant generally loses out. What I have often able to do is to check what a witness read out from a document with what was recorded in the transcript as purportedly having been stated. Still, recognising that not everyone has the ability to expose this rot it must be clear that most people who are unrepresented are robbed of any fair and proper hearing.
.
25
30
35
40
45
50
Again I created the ADDRESS TO THE COURT and since it has been used in all levels of courts, including the High Court of Australia, and permitted this concept to be used in other countries such as the USA, Canada, etc, without seeking any financial reward for this. The document is to give the accused an opportunity to sit at home with friends and then work on how to present a submission based upon law to the court. In one incident a trial judges refused to read it and on appeal the judges made clear the trial judge didnt have to read it but he must still consider the content in his reason of judgment! As such, it is clear that an ADDRESS TO THE COURT is to be considered. In a recent case a party had the Registrar of the Magistrates Court of Victoria refusing the unrepresented party to file (days before the hearing) the ADDRESS TO THE COURT and the Magistrate later refused the same and so intervention orders were issued that effectively even prevents this man to play darts in a completion when the completion is held near the address of the alleged aggrieved person parents address, even so she may not even be there on the one occasion a year this is held there. Now, this is the kind of nonsense that goes on in the Magistrates Court of Victoria where an unrepresented party has a set out of legal arguments and so the court can consider it but it simply refuses to accept it. Because the man in his own way objected to the jurisdiction of the court then technically the court issued orders without invoking jurisdiction. The fact that the court didnt become aware of it because it refused the document doesnt alter the fact that it never invoked jurisdiction because any party can object and it is not relevant if this person states this orally or in writing as the moment it is done then the court is bound by it and refusing to accept it for filing in itself is no excuse as it was handed over to the registrar and his subsequent refusal cannot circumvent the mans right. In this case the alleged aggrieved person was claiming that this man had made numerous text messages to her in one day alone. The man didnt even seek to deny this as after all he had in his material showing the content of her text messages of the same day and showing she was asking for him to do so and it was therefore a mutual communication as to their child and not at all a
p8
form of harassment as she had portrayed in her claims. What therefore was achieved in my view was a gross manipulation of legal powers by the Magistrates Court of Victoria and robbing this man of his legal entitlements of a fair and proper hearing. This is also why people at times contemplate suicide because the judicial officers simply dont want to bother to deal with the case on real facts because they want to go through as many cases as they can while in fact in the end creating more litigation because often aggrieved parties then appeal and appeal, etc, and then the court rather than decreasing its load unduly increases it.
.
10
15
20
25
30
In the van Rooy case the police had been exposed having tampered with tape recording it submitted as evidence with having deleted certain parts and it was only that unbeknown to the police then the accused had also tape recorded the same and so the deception was exposed. Yet, not a single police officer is then being dealt with for CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT even so they deliberately in the court room are deceiving or attempting to deceive the judicial officer. Now what kind of integrity is this for the Magistrates Court of Victoria where it so much relies upon the integrity of the police but then it is proven they are deceiving the court nothing is done against them? In the van Rooy case I submitted to the DPP that there was NO CASE TO ANSWER upon which the DPP then responded that it withdrew 2 of the 3 charges. Ordinary lawyers will only make a submission of NO CASE TO ANSWER at the conclusion of the prosecutors evidence, but the problem with this is that the trial judge then may mistakenly use any statement by the accused during cross-examination as evidence whereas by placing the NO CASE TO ANSWER nearly 2 years prior to the actual trial eventuating then it all along is clear that this is pursued as a NO CASE TIO ANSWER. In the van Rooy case after the prosecutor presented his case including 4 police officers as witnesses, the Clerk of Court (Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg) and also the Deputy Clerk then His Honour Wood instructed the jury to return a verdict of NOT GUILTY as there was NO CASE TO ANSWER. Now, what was done not only against the police but also against the clerk of court and the deputy clerk of court where clearly they had all fabricated this alleged injury and event to the police officer? Nothing was done against them!
.
Where is the credibility of the court when ordinary people are pursued for perjury but not the clerk of court, deputy clerk of court and police officer where they conspired to pervert the course of justice to give evidence that clearly was deceptive, misleading, etc.
.
35
40
45
50
I could fill reams of paper with all kind of incidents but my books canvass many already but what ought to be clear is that the cancerous growth within the courts system (not just the Magistrates Court of Victoria) is continue to expand until it becomes fatal. People are losing confidence in the legal processes because it is too much manipulated and people like yourself are allowing this to go on and on. You legal and other education in the end meaningless when the court system is becoming so corrupted. Over the years many a person asked them to assist them with Infringement Notices but I just cant assist everyone and held I can always address the issue if the occasion may eventuate that I am victimised as such and obviously when then the police did so upon me then I was well aware this I will have to fight the entire legal system so much build upon falsehood of perceptions rather then what is constitutionally applicable. I could have asked for the police to issue a mere warning instead of the Infringement Notice but I elected not to do so because I held that this would give in to the very government sponsored terrorism that so many suffered from. This is about having an impartial judicial system free from any dictatorship by the Parliament and/or the Government where judicial officers will consider only on a fair and proper manner the facts of the case before them and not be indulging in issuing orders because they are directed to do so.
p9
.
10
15
The police obviously had from onset a legal obligation to reveal to the Infringement Registrar that I had by 23 February 2011, and thereafter) objected to the jurisdiction of any court and as such why is it that the Magistrates Court of Victoria has not charged them with CONTEMPT IN FACE OF THE COURT where they deliberately obtained an Infringement Notice Order where they knew or ought to have known that they deceived the Infringement Registrar? The term CONTEMPT IN FACE OF THE COURT is different with its meaning and application then CONTEMPT OF COURT because CONTEMPT OF CLOURT can even occur where a party verbally abuses another party (so their legal representatives) to or from going to the court where as the CONTEMPT IN FACE OF THE COURT must be something that relates specifically to the hearing such as the courts held where a lawyer filed a document contrary to the directions of the previous court orders that were issued. Not every CONTEMPT IN FACE OF THE COURT therefore is held to be committed in the court room albeit generally relates to it. Likewise not every CONTEMPT OF CLOURT is committed against a particular judiciary officer or against court orders as clearly the mere verbal attack upon a legal representative of an opposing party can be sufficient for this to be established, as much as any conduct to incite others to prevent an opposing party to freely attend to a court hearing, such as blocking access to a court entrance
.
20
25
30
35
40
The courts themselves always must seek to avoid to become involved in the dust that is created from the litigation fight between the parties and must not only be but appear to be impartial. Where then the Infringement Registrar issue the Infringement Notice Order which can then be the springboard for a warrant issue then the Infringement Registrar has become part of the corrupted legal process because a magistrate may rely upon the validity of the Infringement Registrars Infringement Notice Order to then validate the issue of a warrant even so not a single legal process was appropriately complied with. It also means that the Magistrates orders of a WARRANT issue will be NULL AND VOID and so without legal force because if the Infringement Registrar in the first place never invoked jurisdiction by not having first formally dismissed the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the subsequent orders seeking to enforce this Infringement Registrars Order also falls by the wayside and so to say can be thrown out of the window. The problem is that the sheriff and others may act upon this WARRANT as if it is legally valid but then the problem is that as I notified the police to oppose jurisdiction then any so called law enforcement officer is liable if acting upon a WARRANT that is NULL AND VOID and without legal force. What the magistrates Court of victoria therefore is achieving is that instead upholding JUSTICE it is upholding TERRORISM. And by this is by this really forcing people to take the law into their own hands, that can result in riots, etc, because the court itself list any legitimatecy as it is seen nto support corrupt conduct rather than to be an impartial judiciary that will uphold the RULE OF LAW!
.
45
50
It should be understood that the very purpose of a driver license is to ensure that a person is competent to drive a class of vehicles that is recorded ion the driver licence and as such for the Magistrates Court of Victoria to issue any kind of order (Warrant or otherwise) that allows the suspension of a driver licence which has nothing to do with the competence of the person to drive a vehicle in itself is not only a sheer and utter nonsense but also a gross abuse of legal power and by this invalidate any legislative provision why a person must show competence in driving a motor vehicle. I am well aware that the government pursued the Parliament to legislate for this so as to try to get outstanding fines collected but this is the wrong way to go about and never should be condoned by the courts. The same with the registration of a motor vehicle, it never should be permitted to be deregistered for the issue of unpaid fines and any court operating with this kind of terrorism is failing in its
p10
duties because the purpose of registering a motor vehicle has nothing to do with any fines that may be unpaid but is to ensure that vehicles are compliance with legal provisions to ensure roadworthiness of a motor vehicle.
.
10
15
Say I am admitted to a hospital and my motor vehicle is without my knowledge and authorisation misused and unknown to me the Infringement Registrar issue an Infringement Notice Order and then a Magistrate issues a Warrant and when I am released from hospital the police pulls me over and charge me with driving without a drivers licence, driving an unregistered motor vehicle and have my vehicle wheel-clamped! Now this kind of TERRORISM may be permitted in some other countries but this is the Commonwealth of Australia which has its own unique constitution and if you and others dont like it then you are free to move to an y dictatorship of your liking and see what you can achieve there but as long as you are in the Commonwealth of Australia then you and any other judicial officer of any court or tribunal are bound by the RULE OF LAW and this is the constitution and then any legislation that is enacted within constitutional provisions and not that despite of the constitution.
.
20
25
30
To me, when the police directed me for a check (24-8-2011), I held it appropriate for them to do so as after all it is their right to check me for compliance of relevant legislative provisions, however their conduct became unlawful when I was directed to go than to the Sheriff who then checked for any outstanding warrants as that has absolutely nothing to do with driving a motor vehicle. As such had the police not directed me to the sheriff their conduct could have been deemed lawful but because of the direction to the sheriff it became a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice because they misused their legal authority of a police check for ulterior purposes. The courts have in the past struck down convictions where the police acted outside the function they were to perform when checking a person for a driver license or for alcohol testing. I am not aware that there is any law that could authorise a police officer to stop me for the purpose of checking if I have any outstanding warrants outstanding for a motor vehicle that might be in my name but not then being driven by me. Yet the Magistrates Court of Victoria now has WARRANTS used in this manner! As such the Magistrates Court of Victoria has become part of the elaborate problems!
.
35
40
Despite that the Magistrates Court of Victoria is to conduct proceedings in an OPEN COURT unless there are special orders to prohibit this, in special isolated cases, we now have that the Infringement Registrar is dealing with cases in the darkness of so to say a torture chamber to manipulate his powers to issue orders without any fair and proper consideration to the accused. My 78-year old wife is in fear that anytime we park in a carpark wheel-clamps might be put on our wheels because of my insistence to pursue the proper application of constitutional rights, etc. How dare you to preside over this kind of terrorism upon not just me and my wife but untold other persons?
.
45
50
As I made known from onset if the police held they had a case then the courts are there for them to litigate and for me to oppose it if I desired to do so but what is now facilitated is that the police use extortion that if I do not pay then I will have to pay more and more and in the end can have my driver licence suspended, etc, and this all about a 1 demerit point issue whereas ordinary one required to accumulate at least 12 demerit points to have a driver licence suspended? Moreover, the police using the enveloped of VicRoads have already applied the 1 demerit point even so they were well aware from my 23 February 2011 correspondence I opposed their Infringement notice. As such I have already be penalised regardless of my innocence. Now, I may have just the 1 point placed against me but many may have already 11 and then have their driver licence suspended even so they may in the end be found NOT GUILTY, if you can understand and comprehend the meaning of this expression?
.
p10
p11
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear the courts would never let themselves to allow this kind of conduct that a citizen is denied proper legal procedures but clearly that is now the norm, albeit unconstitutionally, and you seems to condone it because obviously you did nothing to stop this rot. And you wonder then why people commit suicide or even murder? I oppose any form of violence but can UNDERSTAND why people have lost faith in the legal system and seek then revenge, in whatever way they may contemplate to do it. It is sad that I even have to write this correspondence because it smacks to gross incompetence by the courts to do what they are supposed to do in the first place without that I set it all out.
.
10
My VELVET REVOLUTION would be to hold people like you legally accountable for what I consider a derelict of duties to uphold proper standards in the courts to ensure that those who has to rely upon the judiciary can actually obtain fair and proper hearings and not subjected to a form of terrorism, etc.
.
15
20
Every judicial officer should be made aware that the moment a party objects to the jurisdiction then nothing can be done unless and until, if at all, the objection is dismissed and a reason of judgment is given to set out upon what legal grounds such an objection was made. What this also means is that an Infringement Registrar cannot rely upon computers to automatically issue Infringement Notice Orders where there is no consideration of any OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION that may be on foot.
.
25
It also should be understood that when a party submits an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION then the hearing of this OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION cannot involve the hearing of the dispute itself albeit it can hear relevant details as to consider if the is jurisdiction or not. As such, a court that deals with an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION must first finalise the issue of OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and only after it has done so and if it has then dismissed the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION with handing down a Reason of Judgement with Orders then and then alone can it embark upon a hearing as to the issue in dispute.
.
30
35
40
45
50
For example parties are in dispute of the services provided within the terms of a contract but they also conflict over the terms of the contract itself to exist. The court to be able to decide if jurisdiction exists may have to determine first for this is what is the relevant terms of the contract and then upon this it may hold that the terms of the contract does or doesnt provide jurisdiction. Once the court then say dismissed the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and hand down orders and reason of judgment then the court can address the issue of the failure of services but either party can still re-litigate the issue of the terms of the contract and the court may very well conclude at a later time that the contract terms were not as was originally perceived for the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION hearing (judicial hearing) and then by hindsight conclude that no jurisdiction exist after all. Even if it concluded there was jurisdiction and maintains this in subsequent proceedings the parties are still entitled to litigate all issues as the jurisdiction al hearing was a separate hearing and neither party can assume and neither so the court, that matters placed in evidence during a judicial hearing therefore are known to the court because each party must take the hearing as a hearing as if the jurisdictional hearing never existed. You find however that generally most judicial officers are unaware of this kind of process and most combine the jurisdictional hearing with the hearing of the case itself and so invalidate any orders issued because they failed to invoke jurisdiction in the first place. You also find that there is no proper information available for unrepresented parties to advise them of their rights as to make an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. Judicial officers, albeit utterly wrong with this, assume that because the legislation provides for something then it is giving them jurisdiction, the truth is that when a person makes an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION than the onus is upon the prosecutor/applicant to prove
p12
10
jurisdiction and the court cannot assume anything but must leave it to the prosecutor/applicant to prove jurisdiction and this includes all and any elements of objections that the opposing party may raise. As such unless and until the prosecutor has set out before the court why the Court has jurisdiction the court itself has nothing to adjudicate upon to decide there is jurisdiction. If the prosecutor/applicant fails to present any evidence at all then the court must uphold the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION even so the judicial officer may have different personal views because his personal views are not relevant because they can be utterly and totally wrong and hence must5 uphold there is no jurisdiction. Regretfully the courts/tribunals have failed to ensure that there is a known set conduct to be followed to ensure that an objection by a party is appropriately considered. After more than 150 years the Victorian Courts have still failed to provide for this and this is an indictment that certainly is not complimentary.
.
15
20
25
30
35
40
We also have the nonsense that the police make known I can obtain a photo if I pay a certain amount of monies. Well with the 2008 alleged infringement I then was provided with photos (albeit free of charge) and all it did was to show my vehicle but not prove any offence. As the police alleged an offence then it should have provided the relevant photo if that is what they seek to rely upon in litigation and their failure to do so itself underlines their contempt to proper procedures to be followed because it demands an accused to pay monies for a photo that may in fact not be at all showing the vehicle of the accused! (Ample of media reports have been about this also.) Likewise the Police failed to provide relevant details as to the accuratecy of any equipment it used. It is not the function of the court to assume that the police are correct in their all egations as again ample of police officers when themselves subjected to Infringement Notices are successful to claim the equipment was not correct in measuring, and as such the onus is upon the police (or for that any other so called enforcement agency) to prove that their equipment was correct. Not just that but also that it was calibrated in the right circumstances because one can calibrate a measuring instrument in an controlled environment but then when it has to operate on the road or on the side of the road then all kinds of influences may occur being it earth tremors, passing traffic causing wind forces, and a host of other conditions. After all it was found that even measuring equipment used on a bridge turned out to provide faulty readings even so the equipment was correctly calibrated because of the movement of the pillar it was mounted upon. Therefore the court cannot assume that the details provided by the informant is correct but must allow this to be subject to a rigid challenge, when made, as I did, yet the Infringement Registrar never provided for. It is not my issue if the Infringement Registrar was or wasnt given all relevant information by the informant (prosecutor or whatever you desire to call them) as the Infringement Registrar in the first place could avoid being compromised in his judicial position by simply not engaging in what can be deemed private communication and to ensure that upon proper scrutiny of the alleged facts matters can be considered
.
45
50
While the Infringement Registrar may and appears to be resort to administrative orders, again the issue of any administrative order must be surely where the innocence or guilt of an accused is not determined. As such, the moment the Infringement Registrar by the provisions of the purported Infringement Act 2006 is to accept the evidence of the prosecutor (informant) then it is not and cannot be an administrative decision because it is dealing with a determination of evidence! Therefore I view that in thousands upon thousands of cases the Infringement Registrar abused and misused his position also as to issue Infringement Notice Orders as to purportedly being administrative orders which clearly not. Moreover, the magistrates who enforced such purported administrative orders also I view betrayed their laid up duties as they should never have enforced this kind of judicial nonsense.
p13
.
What I view has been created an elaborate (outlawed) STAR CHAMBER COURT system to ensure that accused are ending up with orders against them regardless of their innocence and again it appears to me you preside over this elaborate kind of terrorism upon the general community.
10
15
In 1999 the then newly elected State government under Jeff Kennett then had the Minister for Small Business introducing a Bill to hold that Invalid federal courts orders were to be deemed Supreme Court orders, as the federal orders were issued within the then but now defunct Cross vesting Act. The Minister then also pointed out that it might not be constitutionally valid but the people may deal with this. The point is that constitutionally the legislation was ULTRA VIRES but that is what I have set out in books I have already published and I am not contemplating to go into it then now extensively but it is obvious that the Parliament has knowingly allowed legislation to be purportedly enacted without any protection whatsoever for those who suffered from it as result.
.
20
25
30
The Parliament, albeit supposedly to be independent of the executives (government) nevertheless is controlled generally by the Government of the Day who couldnt care less about the constitution, unless it serves its purpose, and this is why we need the courts to be vigilant against any abuses that erodes or is intended to erode the constitutional rights of a citizens. I am mighty proud of never having had a formal education in legal matters because at least I have not been brainwashed! I am proud to never have had English as my native language because of this I tend often to expose how those who allegedly were highly educated at Oxford University, etc, in the end never even could understand/comprehend what the real meaning of certain English terminology was. For example where the Court rules require 6 mm between the lines then that is not double spacing as lawyers do to generate more pages, wasting more trees and so against environmental conditions, but is from base line to baseline as a 6mm lined page. When a barrister to me on about this some decades ago in the end I defeated him ion this because the man simply couldnt understand plain English. As I explained to the trial judge at the time if one had the word moon on the next line or the word hoon then if you were to measure the lines as to the space between the letters to be 6 mm then the lines would be all over the place whereas if one use 6mm lined paper then it makes not one of iota difference what letters are used because the spacing remains constant.
.
35
40
45
50
In the Colosimo case the barrister provided elaborate evidence that Mr Colosimo was in breach with a 90-day order and this was relied upon for years to be so until I took over the case and exposed that the purported evidence was no evidence at all because the report was made about 89 days and 12 hours and as such failed to provide for the minimum 90-days. It was not relevant if Mr Colosimo could comply with the orders within the hours that were left as what was relevant was that the entire report was failing to allow for the 90-days and as such was not evidence to be relied upon. You see lawyers generally fail to exclude the day of the order being made and so make a cardinal error in counting days as one must commence counting from midnight of the day the order is issued and not include the day or the order unless the order specifically states so. Still the fact that more than 20 lawyers had been involved in the case (including Victoria Legal Aid and the Office of the Public Advocate) and none were aware of this may underline that having a law degree doesnt mean you are competent in law let alone ion constitutional matters. After all if people represented by lawyers were deemed to be competently represented then why are so many losing their cases despite their lawyer having indicated they have a good case, etc? Many of the Framers of the Constitution were eminent lawyers but they also made clear the constitution is not a lawyers constitution but a peoples constitution that unlettered persons should be able to understand.
p14
10
15
. Many so called constitutional lawyers do not have a clue what is constitutionally applicable and indeed even judges appointed to the High Court of Australia appear to me to lack the basic understanding and competence in constitutional matters as my books have exposed extensively. Yet, one can attend to numerous court cases where lawyers may be claiming to be constitutional lawyers and yet havent got a clue what is constitutionally applicable but the judges simply rely upon them that they know what they are talking about. As I have indicated for years, we need a CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL which advices the Government, the People, the Parliament and the courts as to the true meaning and application of the constitution. This so we all regardless of our position in life can all be provided with the same information. Judges who are then faced with a constitutional argument can seek to be provided with relevant information, apart if they seek their associates to research the matters as well as that the parties are provided with the same information as such applicable all around. No longer judges merely assuming something because they happen to think a certain way but they will be able to rely upon well researched material provided to the parties, the court and other interested in these matters.
.
20
25
30
Here we have a Registrar of the Court titled Infringement Registrar issuing a letter dated 27 July 2011 setting out how I can make a payment using Bill Pay and other facilities. Now how often has a Magistrate in court issued orders setting out how the person is to use BillPay and the account details? How often has a magistrate issued orders to show how a person AUSTRALIA POST: Present this notice intact at any Australian Post outlet.? Clearly the Infringement Registrar even in this went beyond his duties and powers because what he appears to have done is to so to say being a stooge for the government to issue a letter not being orders itself but being pretended administrative order and claiming my application was refused. Well, Registrars ordinary cannot review their own orders as it must be done by a magistrate as it is implied bias by the Registrar to review his own orders. Moreover, he clearly disregarded the fact that I had all along objected to the jurisdiction of the court. As such disregarded the fact that he issued orders without having formally invoked jurisdiction. Come on if this type on conduct is the product of legal studies and experiences then I am glad I never had any.
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
.
35
40
45
50
Now lets get this right, an order was purportedly issued upon what evidence? How did the Infringement Registrar invoke jurisdiction at all despite my comprehensive OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION? Which Infringement Notice did he really enforce as was it the first one or the second one? After all I have exposed previously that a police officer filed an amended original in court while not having provided the same amendments to the accused!! So, how can an Infringement Registrar rely upon any details from the informant if this might not be at all what was stated on the original Infringement Notice? Or is the Court just in this also bias as to assume that the informant is disclosing the truth, even if not?
p15
10
Why should any accused be subjected to a heavier penalty merely for exercising his constitutional rights to oppose an allegation? Surely the courts couldnt endorse this kind of TERRORISM which undermines our democratic system? After all the Parliament may just legislate that any person who opposes an Infringement Notice has to pay $1,000 deposit before able to challenge the Infringement Notice as to seek to prevent most if not all accused to object to the validity on the Infringement Notice and then it seems to me the Magistrates Court of Victoria will happily enforce this and so to say the hell with democracy! Well we either have an impartial so independent judiciary or we can do without it because if the separation of power doesnt exist then the courts so to say had their USE BY DATE and it EXPIRED to operate as a proper impartial court long ago, and must be set aside to be replaced with a court system that is impartial and operating within the framework of the constitution and so without any business affiliation with anyone so that citizens will be guaranteed their constitutional rights will not be eroded or otherwise undermined.
.
15
20
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335 QUOTE The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance. END QUOTE
.
25
30
No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice: LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335 QUOTE But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary man END QUOTE
.
35
40
The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts: THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVENING NEWS (1880) N.S.W. LR 211 AT 239.: QUOTE The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice of sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day, would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism. END QUOTE
.
45
As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice; (a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368 (b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59 (c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537 (d) SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31
.
50
Yes even the Government Solicitors tried to get me for CONTEMPT OF COURT but miserably failed because rest assure that I am entitled to exercise my political liberties and my criticism is justified to pursue the courts to operate within the provisions of the constitution and not despite of its limitations.
.
55
In my view the moment the Infringement Registrar became aware that I had opposed jurisdiction from onset he had a legal obligation to nullify his Infringement Notice order because it was issued without jurisdiction ever having been invoked.
p16
We cannot have a system that ignorance can be used to try to validate unconstitutional or other invalid orders and indeed the High Court of Australia made this clear in Wakim HCA27 of 1999. 5 Where the Registrar stated in his 27 July 2011 correspondence that Your application for revocation has been refused then even if this was an administrative decision it couldnt have been made where the material clearly referred to an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as it first then required a JURISDICTION hearing by way of a judicial determination and not an administrative decision! What we therefore seem to me to have is an Infringement Registrar who doesnt even comprehend let alone apply the RULE OF LAW as to proper procedures, etc. Clearly by his own writings he refused and as such must be deemed to have implied that he considered my writings and yet nevertheless disregarded to first invoke jurisdiction and goes on with administrative decisions as if there is no tomorrow and couldnt care less what is legally appropriate.
.
10
15
20
How often has he done similarly in other cases one may ask and this and not my criticism is what scandalises the courts because it is the failure of conducting matters appropriately that ultimately is causing the loss of faith in the judiciary system and that promotes, even if indirectly, people to take the law into their own hands. Courts seems to be obsessed with that one has to be a lawyer, etc, but really shows that if you end up with some mor4on who has some law degree but totally misled or deceives a party to what is legally applicable then the party in the end is the one suffering horrendously and the lawyer walk all the way smiling to the bank being well paid for his deception.
.
25
30
Obviously I am not asking you to interfere with any orders against me because there are no orders as the Infringement Registrar Infringement Notice Order haven legal justification as no jurisdiction was ever invoked and so it is well within your right and in fact your legal duty to ensure the purported infringement notice order is not wrongly enforce and neither used before any magistrate because to do so would only underlines sheer incompetence to appropriately deal with the matters at hand.
.
35
The police cannot re-institute proceedings for an alleged offence they already inflicted a punishment for, and so have set themselves up as judge, jury and executor regardless what a court may have determined!
.
40
45
No magistrate can enforce the Infringement Notice order and neither hear and determine any case DE NOVO because the police already applied 1 demerit point, albeit unconstitutionally, and so the court can no longer deal with it DE NOVO as punishment was already inflicted upon me and any hearing could be deemed to try to cover up the police wrongdoing. Also the police have compromised its own integrity by pursuing an Infringement Notice order and obtaining an Infringement notice order by concealing the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION. How could then the court rely upon any alleged evidence in the circumstances the police compromised its own credibility as such? Obviously the police should not only unconditionally withdraw the 1 demerit point but also provide an unconditional apology for its gross abuse and misuse of powers to inflict harm upon me and so my wife and in the process also to the general community, but that is a separate issue.
.
50
For sure the I demerit point isnt making a real difference as I had no other points but it can make a huge difference to many and the issue is not if it makes a real difference but the principle that was used and misused and a deliberate calculated abuse and misuse of power. For sure as I mentioned above I was involved in the van Rooy case that involved the Heidelberg police and the current allegations also involves the Heidelberg Police and so it might be
p17
10
concluded by some that the Police at Heidelberg now can use this to inflict punishment upon me for having darted to expose their deceptive conduct in the van Rooy case but if that is what is behind the deception now to deceived the Infringement Registrar in the first place then they should have been well aware about the fact I am not one to let things go by as such. We need a credibly police force and one that is and can be seen by the general community to be honest and without any question to its integrity as the spate of police crimes has already severely damaged its integrity, and yet the police may be hell bend as to so to say teach me a lesson and so willing to continue their nonsense with the Infringement notice allegations. The question is how often have they done simular in other cases?
.
15
As Chief magistrate I view it is your duty and obligation to ensure that any orders that have been issued without jurisdiction having been invoked do not proceed further and are not used by others either who may not be aware of all details. Clearly a letter stating that the Infringement Notice Order that was issued without jurisdiction would be without legal force and could not be relied upon would be of assistance as after all the orders were issued wuit5h you holding the ford=t and so ultimately you must be held accountable for it.
.
20
25
Ordinary a judicial officer cannot be sued unless one can show the judicial officer didnt invoke jurisdiction and /or acted maliciously. A judicial officer who fails to invoke jurisdiction is then not acting as a judicial officer regardless if it is in administrative or judicial capacity and as such acts without protection of what might ordinary be applicable. Therefore it is in the interest of every judicial officer (as such also judges) that when as party objects to the jurisdiction then they better follow proper legal procedures to avoid being personally sued.
.
30
35
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 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
.
This legal principle is embedded in the constitution and applied also to State Ministers and their officials.
.
40
45
Judicial officers should understand that as long as they conduct their duties and obligations within an impartial court system they can rest assure to be protected even if at times by error making an incorrect decision but when they venture out to disregard the constitutional rights of citizens and abuse and misuse their duties powers and in the process ignore to appropriately invoke jurisdiction then they must suffer the legal consequences of this.
.
50
It appears to me that what the police have achieved, with some cooperation by the Magistrates Court of Victorias is to cause a exposure of how defective the system operates and scant regard for the rights of parties. Like it or not but as I have challenged the validity of the Infringement Act 2006 it is irrelevant if these proceedings are terminated or not because it has no effect upon the validity of the Infringement Act 2006 as it is now ULTRA VIRES and remains to be so unless and until if ever at all a competent court of jurisdiction pronounces it to be INTRA VIRES. As such all orders issued upon basis of the Infringement Act 2006 are now without legal validity, in all cases, not
p18
just mine. Therefore the Sheriff nevertheless enforcing past warrants issued by the magistrates Court of Victoria shows the underlining problem that no proper system exist to protect citizens of that kind of harm because all those warrants now also are without legal force. I did , yesterday, take photographs of certain vehicles clamped with wheel-clamps as to have evidence that despite that the Infringement Act 2006 being ULTRA VIRES the magistrates court of victoria failed to immediately stay all Warrant issue and the Sheriff Office remains to continue wheel-clamping despite of the warrants no longer having any legal validity.
.
10
15
We should never have this fragmented system where the Magistrates Court of Victoria issues orders and has no proper control as to how to immediately stop the enforcement of any orders where it becomes aware that the orders are issued without legal validity. It is against the community interest also that sheriffs are enforcing orders (including Warrants) which are without legal validity. We must revise the entire system and do so not as to engage some lawyer who has been brainwashed or otherwise unable to realise the disaster inflicted upon the general community but rather the Parliament/Government/Court should engage a person like myself who are CONSTITUTIONALIST without having the so called constitutional lawyers corrupting the system.
.
See also my previous correspondence such as this acknowledged by the email below; 20 QUOTE 30-8-2011 email confirmation
Re: see attachment 110828-Magistrates Court of Victoria -No 1158210495 1 recipients CC: recipientsYou More FROM: TO: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka Monday, 29 August 2011 10:15 AM help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au
25
30
Message Body Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka Thank you for your email.
35
Your email has been forwarded to the Chief Magistrate. m Many thanks help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au
40
"Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka" <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au> 28/08/2011 01:24 Please respond to "Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka" <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au> To "help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au" <help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au> cc "Gerrit H." <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>, "heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au" <heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au>, "traffic_inquiries@tenixsolutions.com" <traffic_inquiries@tenixsolutions.com>, "ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au" <ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au>
p18
p19 Subject see attachment 110828-Magistrates Court of Victoria -No 1158210495 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria 28-8-2011 Ground Floor, 277 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000 C/o help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au
10
Cc: 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 Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com
15
Ted Baillieu Premier of Victoria ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au Ref: Infringement Court case Number 1158210495 Infringement Notice Number 0201683566 ADDRESS TO THE COURT COMPLAINT - ETC
20
Sir/Madam,
25
see attachment 110828-Magistrates Court of Victoria -No 1158210495 . Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka . 28-8-2011 Gerrit for Governor-General to reclaim our constitutional rights! (Do note that donations are welcome because what I have been doing and still am is financially a very costly exercise as to assist people, without charge, over the decades! How much really is your constitutional and other legal rights worth to protect?)
30
35
40
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, GUARDIAN (OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN) 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia Ph (International) 61394577209 . Email; mayjusticealwaysprevail@schorel-hlavka.com "CONSTITUTIONALIST" and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues. . EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON'T! . Website; http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog; http://scribd.com/InspectorRikati
45
50
55
"JUSTICE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER AND CLOUDED BY HIS/HER SIGHT DEFICIENCY" . 30-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 - etc INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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 p19
p20 Make sure the candidate you vote for can deliver on his/her promises even if his/her party doesn't get into government!
Self-Help for Pro Se and Pro Per Litigants - Lawsuit Self-Help Step-by-Step - Jurisdictionary [attachment "110828-Magistrates Court of Victoria -No 1158210495.pdf" deleted by Georgia Rochester/Person/DOJ] PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL The content of this e-mail and any attachments may be private and confidential, intended only for use of the individual or entity named. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you must not read, forward, print, copy, disclose, use or store in any way the information this e-mail or any attachment contains. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this email and any attachments. Our organisation respects the privacy of individuals. For a copy of our privacy policy please go to our website or contact us..
10
15
END QUOTE email confirmation

.
Also consider;
.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. 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. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted , inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? 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 Constitution-the 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. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well. END QUOTE
.
60
And
p21 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), 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
.
10
HANSARD18-2-1898 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
.
15
This letter is not intended and neither must be perceived to present all relevant details and neither in any order of importance but in itself ought to give grave concerns how our democracy has been grossly undermined because of how the courts are operating.
.
20
25
30
35
Do try to make sure that when unrepresented litigants are seeking to file an ADDRESS TO THE COURT then the Court doesnt deny the party to file it but rather should welcome this kind of litigation as did for example the Family Court of Australia on 20 June 1994 when the 3 judges made clear to the opponent barrister that lawyers could follow this example. Now, lawyers are presenting at the bar-table all kind of utter and sheer nonsense well aware that by the time the unrepresented party can discover their deception the hearing is all done and over with, and so the courts are in fact providing them the opportunity to pervert the course of JUSTICE. What should be done is that lawyers should be bound to file an outline of their case and legal arguments so as to give unrepresented litigants a better opportunity to be aware beforehand what the legal arguments are about. In the Colosimo case the opposing barrister filed documents including Authorities along the Bar table only I scanned within mere second the Authorities and immediately noticed that contrary to what the Barrister was submitting the Authority actually was against the case of her own client and I did alert Her Honour of relevant passaged in the very authority that was just referred to. (And for the record the trial judge dismissed the other partys application!) Regretfully most people would never be able to be aware of this, and so the court will be deceived and hand down a judgment based upon Authorities albeit wrongly. We need better trained judicial officers who are not bias towards the legal profession as such!
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

.
( 40
.
Our name is our motto!)

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
Awaiting your response,
p21

110830-Magistrates Court of Victoria - No 1158210495-Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

110830-Magistrates Court of Victoria - No 1158210495-Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

p1

Ref: Infringement Court case Number 1158210495

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

What is the RULE OF LAW one has to ask?

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Message Body Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka Thank you for your email.

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

END QUOTE email confirmation

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

Awaiting your response,

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

You might also like