• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
 p1
 
 p1 11-12-2011 111201- Brendan Facey Director IM&ES -Sheriff) OBL 1106575301
ISPECTOR-RIKA
TI® 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 OTE
: You may order books in the
ISPECTOR-RIKATI® series
by making a reservation, by fax0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mailINSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.comSee alsowww.schorel-hlavka.com  Downloading of documents from bloghttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE 
 
Bendan Facey
Director, Infringement Management & Enforcement Services
11-12-2011
 
C/oM
r Robert Clark 
MP Attorney-Generalrobert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au 
5
Re: Obl 1106575301
Sir,I refer to the judgements of Fernando and from the judgments it must be clear that the courtsrefer to the RULE OF LAW as I have been from onset where our constitution is the Supreme ruleof law and any legislation offending the constitution is therefore ULTRA VIRES.10
Hansard
8-3-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
 
QUOTE[start page 2004] 
Mr. ISAACS
.-
o. If it is
ultra vires
of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
 END QUOTE
 15As shown below the Court makes clear that an Infringement Registrar “must” issue a warrant andclearly this means the parliament dictates the Court what to do which violated the separation of  powers between the legislators, the executives and the judiciary. Hence this is unconstitutional.Also, as is clear it refers to “OPEN COURT” but only when it comes to a magistrate, where infact a Chapter III court of the Constitution can only hand down a “judicial determination” after 20“both parties” have been heard. Therefore the Infringement Court offend the status of being partof a Chapter III court and as such a magistrate could never enforce a Infringement Registrar’sorder nor could sanction a Warrant issue by a Infringement Registrar.Oin my case what eventuated was that when the Victorian Police issued an Infringement Notice Iimmediately challenged the jurisdiction of any court to deal with the matter and this is a very25unique approach something that didn’t seem to be part of the Fernando case at all. Neither appears from the judgments that the lawyers involved challenged the constitutional validity of the Infringement Act as I have done from onset. If anything the judgements underline a relianceof the Hansard records of the Victorian parliament and so it cannot then disregard the Hansardrecords of the Constitution Convention debates that resulted in the creation of our supreme law30the constitution.In the Fernando case there appeared to be the issue of a total disregard by Mr Fernando to dealwith matters whereas in my case from onset I challenged the validity and so there is a totaldifferent concept in place and the Fernando judgment do not undermine my reasoning rather infact support my reasoning.35The fact that Fernando may have had incompetent representation is not my issue as Fernandorelied upon lawyers whereas myself being a
COSTITUTIOALIST
do not do so.The court also makes clear that imprisonment is the last resort after everything else failedwhereas in my case (if there is any at all) having from onset challenged the legal validity of matters then where this was disregarded from onset any attempt to enforce any kind of purported40warrant would have the hazard that it could be deemed inappropriate use of a warrant in thecircumstances and those involved with the execution of the warrant be personally liable for anyharm inflicted because it is beyond a shred of doubt I gave ample of written notification aboutmy legal position and that I indeed rely upon the
RULE OF LAW
. Again my conduct has not
 
 
 p2
 
 p2 11-12-2011 111201- Brendan Facey Director IM&ES -Sheriff) OBL 1106575301
ISPECTOR-RIKA
TI® 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 OTE
: You may order books in the
ISPECTOR-RIKATI® series
by making a reservation, by fax0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mailINSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.comSee alsowww.schorel-hlavka.com  Downloading of documents from bloghttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati 
 been “
and the undermining of the rule of law”.
1
” rather to the contrary my writings have been toenforce the RULE OF LAW our supreme law being the Constitution.I am well aware ample of morons are employed in the public service who couldn’t give one of iota about misusing their powers but I would urge you to be careful about matters and to ensurethat every legal issue has been appropriately canvassed before anyone seeks to take any action.5I make it very clear that my wife is so to say on a knife edge that she is panicking whenever someone enters the driveway that she wants me to erect a second gate as well as further alarmsystems. Now take for example that if I were to be in hospital for my next operation and a Sheriff were toenter the property and my wife in fear ends up with a heart attack then rest assure I will sue the10hell out of you because by now you should be well aware that the warrant issue wasunconstitutional and so no Sheriff has any legal authority to enforce a warrant. Hence, any harmflowing from any conduct to enforce or seeking to enforce a warrant would be on your neck also!.A proper reading of the Fernando judgments do not reveal the Courts to have considered the15constitutional validity of any warrant issue.As the Court made clear also “
and the confidence of members of the community
.” Andobviously this is so to say a double edged sword in that the court nor the parliament or theexecutive must undermine “
the confidence of members of the community
.” By violatingconstitutional limitations and legal principles embedded in the constitution.20.Again, the Infringement Act 2006 offend the separation of powers where it demands a nonChapter III court conduct to issue a warrant as this violates the impartiality of the court andclearly denies a judicial officer to determine what sanction, if any, to apply. Indeed, thelegislation demands that a non-judicial decision is enforced by a warrant issue for not paying a25fine even so no court decision was made in accordance with a Chapter III court judicialdetermination AFTER both parties have been heard..I consider it totally deplorable that the courts failed to appropriately consider the constitutionalvalidity of the Infringement Act 2006 and allow a person to be imprisoned by this for such a30length of time where clearly the legal processed followed were unconstitutional. While mr Fernando may not have argued his constitutional rights as I did from onset, hence it is a federallitigation with me, nevertheless when a person challenged the validity of legislation uponconstitutional grounds then the legislation for so far challenged is ULTRA VIRES and cannot beenforced, not just against myself but likewise against no one else. This to me means that Mr 35Fernando and others were wrongly imprisoned because the constitutional validity being inquestion then prevents any sheriff or for that any court to enforce the challenged parts of theInfringement Act 2006 unless and until it has been determined that the Infringement Act 2006 isINTRA VIRES. Where the issue of the Infringement Notice constitute the commencement of alegal process then my objections are relevant as to the question of the validity of the40Infringement Act 2006 and for this I view all and any litigation within the provisions of the purported Infringement Act 2006 should have been stayed pending the outcome of my legalchallenge. Fancy that in the end it is held that indeed the Infringement Act 2006 isunconstitutional and yet despite my legal challenge from onset the Sheriff and others disregardthis and caused innocent persons to be imprisoned nevertheless. That is why the Framers of the45Constitution made clear that ministers and their officials could be held personally liable. It alsomeans that judicial officers who disregard my legal challenge and in the meantime imprison people could be setting themselves to be personally sued for this.
 
 
 p3
 
 p3 11-12-2011 111201- Brendan Facey Director IM&ES -Sheriff) OBL 1106575301
ISPECTOR-RIKA
TI® 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 OTE
: You may order books in the
ISPECTOR-RIKATI® series
by making a reservation, by fax0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mailINSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.comSee alsowww.schorel-hlavka.com  Downloading of documents from bloghttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati 
Politicans will always seek to devise system to benefit themselves and this is why we need a judiciary that will be ensuring that the democratic rights embedded in the constitution are not permitted to be violated.In my view the Supreme Court of Victoria seemed to fail to provide for this in the Fernando case,as I view did the Magistrates Court of Victoria and to me this is a very serious issues which soon5or later may very well result to civil unrest, etc. The judicial officers themselves should haverealised that no judicial officer can be dictated to having to issue a warrant where no judicialdecision existed of any liability to pay a certain amount of monies. In my view judicial officerswho do not understand/comprehend this constitutional legal principle should not be sitting at the bench, as they do not seem to understand the superior RULE OF LAW being the constitution,10and by this cause the erosion of the community trusting the judiciary.It is not my issue of the lawyers acting for Fernando were competent or not albeit it appears tome they failed to properly argue the case, at least if the court did reflect the case appropriately inits judgment, but that there appears to be a lack of proper system in place that ensures that whena person challenges the validity of a certain Act or part of this, then this is immediately placed on15record and all and any litigation in regard of the same is stayed pending the outcome of thechallenge. This I view is missing from our court system and is a very bad omission as it allowsinnocent people to be imprisoned where in the end they may find that the Act was ULTRAVIRES but because the court failed to have a proper system in place it was not known to the trial judge. Well, if judicial officers cannot even manage a proper system within the courts how then20can they argue against those appearing before them?.In the matter of 
 ATHOY FERADO
, MAGISTRATE: Jelena Popovic 31 March 2011DATE OF DECISION: 15 April 2011 CASE MAY BE CITED AS: In the matter of Fernando inthe CRIMINAL DIVISION Case no. B10347109 & B1034987525
QUOTE at 26 If payment is not made under the enforcement order, the infringements registrar 
must issue
an infringementwarrant under s 80. The warrant authorises the seizure of personal property, or the arrest of the infringementoffender in order to bring them before the Magistrates’ Court. (s 82)END QUOTE
 30And
QUOTE at 2628. Clearly, a purposive construction of an Act is to be applied. I have endeavoured tosource information in order to ascertain the purpose of the Infringements Act.
Section 1 of the Infringements Act outlines the Act's purposes and does not set out
35
a ‘framework’
, but this is ascertained through the use of extrinsic Parliamentarymaterials and the Attorney-General’s Guidelines.8END QUOTE
 And
QUOTE at 37
 40
37. The discretion in relation to infringement defaulters without special circumstances provided for in s.160(3) must, in my view, be sparingly appliedin order to maintainthe credibility of the Infringements regime and the confidence of members of thecommunity.
 
END QUOTE
 45and the subsequent appeal
 ATHOY FERADO v PORT PHILLIP CITY COUCIL ADOTHERS 
2330 of 2011in the Supreme Court of Victoria which states;
QUOTE at 43Her Honour went on to analyse the relevant provisions of the Infringements Act, against the Act’s legislative
50
history. After observing – correctly – that a purposive construction of the Act was required
2
,
she considered
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...