Part 1 Page 2
Page 2
ADDRESS TO THE COURT
including
SUBMISSIONS
By the Defendant, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka.For 19-7-2006 County Court of Victoria proceedings Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
"When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace."
R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw
(1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236
“However in some cases the words or conductof 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, thecourt whichis asked to grantprohibition willnot lightlyconcludethat 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 theminds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in
R v Commonwealth Conciliation andArbitration Commission; Ex Parte AnglissGroup
(1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553-4, in the passagecited in
R vWatson;Ex ParteArmstrong
(132CLRat 262).”“The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a question, but whetherthat 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 approvalby 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 theimpressionof "protestingto much"...
Where the magistrate
refused to hand down a reason of judgment
, and so in writing also,despite specifically requested by the Defendant, then this may indicate the magistrate was bias,along with his comments that he was not going to consider “
citizenship
” issue as part of groundsof the
OBJECTION TO LEGAL JURISDICTION
, even so this was also critical to anydecision to INVOKE LEGAL JURISDICTION or not.This Court may hear matters
DE NOVO
but ought to be careful not to make the same or similarerrors and rob the Defendant of a
FAIR
and
PROPER
trial.
UNREPRESENTED DEFENDANT A SELF EDUCATED “CONSTITUTIONALIST”
The matter before this court is a very complex and serious matter, as the end result could be acriminal conviction. The unrepresented Defendant native language is Dutch and the Defendanthas not had any formal education in the English language and neither in legal studies. Hence, theDefendant in that way is disadvantaged to some degree while on the other hand this was to hisbenefit in that as a self trained “
constitutionalist
” he has been able to understand constitutionalprovisions without being, so to say, brainwashed by legal fictions and other incorrect perceptionsthat exist.
Andrei Sakharov, Authority quote:(http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/andrei_sakharov_quote_30a9
Add a Comment