• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
 p1
 
 p1 (Date)
Infringement Court Case umber (case number(s))
WARIG
:
This information is not provided as and neither must be perceived to be legal advice! 
Again:
.
5
WARIG
:
This information is not provided as and neither must be perceived to be legal advice!
 To: From:Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (Name of person)10(INFRINGEMENT COURT) (Address)277 William StreetMelbourne Vic, 3000
C/o
 
help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au
 
Reference: your correspondences to me.15Sir/Madam, I received notifications as INFRINGEMENTS COURT CASE NUMBER 
(CASEUMBER(S)
regarding alleged Enforcement Order Noticed by a Registrar to which I have noknowledge of receiving any prior notification that the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria would hold proceedings in
OPE COURT
as is ordinary required to be held unless a Judge of the Court20determined that in the public interest the hearing is conducted in
CLOSE COURT
, and for thisrequest you to provide me with all and any relevant detail as to what notification was issued tome to attend to particular hearings in regard of the above mentioned cases, which judicial officer  presided over the matter and on what day and as to what time so I can apply to the Chief Magistrate (for the authorisation) for the issue of transcript/audio recording of the said hearings25as to enable me to become aware of what was actually before the Court at each time of any particular hearing. It is my understanding that I am entitled to be made aware of the precisenature of any evidence that may have been alleged against me where any court hearing wasconducted against my person resulting to court orders to which I am held accountable so as that Ican challenge the validity of any such evidence that purportedly may have been used against me,30if I desire to do so.
.
Hansard
1-2-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
(
Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention
),
 
QUOTE
Mr. OCOER 
(New South Wales).-
35
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
 As you may be aware any hearing held without proper notice to my person having been heldconstitute to be
EX PARTE
hearing(s) and are legally challengeable
DE OVO
, and as such40any orders allegedly issued at the time are being challenged by me as in my view theMagistrates’ Court of Victoria has no jurisdiction to enforce any provisions of the purportedInfringement Act 2006 (Vic) where I understand the Act is purportedly an Act (resulting of  passing the Infringement Bill 2006 by the Victorian Parliament), having been given purportedlyRoyal Assent, this even so as I understand it Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka before the County Court45of Victoria on 19 July 2006 successfully in two appeals challenged the validity of the purportedVictorian Constitution Act 1975 upon the basis that the sovereign Colonial Parliaments byfederation became Constitutional Parliaments within s106 of the Constitution (
Commonwealthof Australia Constitution Act 190
0 (UK) and by this no Parliament and so neither the Parliamentof the State of Victoria could amend its own constitution but only propose to the State electors to50approve a referendum to amend the State constitution. I am unaware of any referendum having been held, let alone succeeded, to enable the State of Victoria to amend its State Constitution byway of the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975, hence the purported VictorianConstitution Act 1975 was clearly defeated by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka and in particularly so asI understand it where at the time the then Attorney General for the State of Victoria albeit55notified also by way of a s78B
OTICE OF COSTITUTIOAL MATTERS
didn’t
 
 
 p2
 
 p2 (Date)
Infringement Court Case umber (case number(s))
challenge any of Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka’s submissions on constitutional issues or in any other opposed the appeals to succeed.
.
HASARD
10-03-1891
Constitution Convention Debates
 QUOTE
5
Dr. COCKBUR:
All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty.Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentarysovereignty overboard.
Parliament is no longer supreme.
Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies.
They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending theirconstitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. o
10
parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing itsconstitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federationare coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than allthat, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there beinga high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all
15
powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard
15-9-1897 
Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
20
The Hon. A. DEAKI:
I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to refutation if I amwrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but, indisputably, the great bulk of them, aresubjects on which no question of state rights and state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is,as the right hon. gentleman admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be leftfor all time to be determined in a purely states house,
or by a state referendum
, when those questions are not
25
state questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on national lines,
and by a nationalreferendum
.END QUOTE 
.
Hansard
20-4-1897 
Constitution Convention Debates
 
30
QUOTE
Mr. BARTO:
I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a FederalConstitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government.
Mr. KIGSTO:
Hear, hear.
Mr. BARTO:
Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter of the laws
35
as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is, the samecircumstances remain in part;
 
 but where you will have a tribunal constantly charged with the maintenance of the Constitution against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by Parliament, then it isessential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected weakness-for we do not knowexactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether consciously or not, in biasing his decisions
40
in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might be dangerous to the Constitution itself.END QUOTE 
.
I understand that the appeals originated from decisions by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoriawhere Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka at the time had
OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTIO
of the45Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. Again he succeeded in both appeals at the time.As it appears to me is that where the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 isunconstitutional then any action, including alleged passing of any bill such as the VictorianConstitution Act 1975 would be
ULL AD VOID
(
ULTRA VIRES
) and cannot be heldagainst me nor legally justify any litigation for the same.50.I understand that in fact the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria itself actually never issued the purported Enforcement Order Notices but this is done allegedly by a private company that mayor may not act for the State government, which I understand is in breach of the separation of  powers as embedded in the constitution and therefore any such purported orders for this also are55
ULTRA VIRES
(
ULL AD VOID
).
.
Article 11 of the United ations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
provides:"
 Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guiltyaccording to law in a public trial at which she/he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence
."
 
60
END QUOTE
.
 
 
 p3
 
 p3 (Date)
Infringement Court Case umber (case number(s))Marriage of Baines (o. 2)
(1981) 7 Fam LR 232 at 237;-
QUOTE
 
We recognise that each party is entitled to a Fair and Proper trial and to an adequateopportunity to adduce relevant evidence and to test the quality and veracity of the evidenceadduced by the other party.5
ED QUOTE
.
Marriage of Baines (1981)
7 Fam LR 226 at 229
QUOTE
 The adversary system involves the presentation of facts ascertained by questions put to witnesses, or legal
10
representations to the court. The role of the judge is that of adjudicator. This does not mean that he can ask no questions but he is at common law restricted in that he cannot in general call witnesses himself.
ED QUOTE
 
.
QUOTEIn the Marriage of Tennant
(1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780
15
As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes theappeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made in thelower court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or therespondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of theabsence of reason for the magistrate’s decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded
20
for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal process, there is the basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up, argue their case and attempt tocontrovert the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they lost
 .
 If they are given no reason theymay be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice.
In such a case notonly the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser.
25
Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not mere ordinarytrivial work, and they should deal with these cases with a due sense of responsibility which administrations of the summary jurisdiction Act and the far reaching consequences of the orders that they make thereafter entail.[
Baker v Baker
(1906) 95 LT 549; In
Robinson v Robinson
(1898) p135; and again in
Cobb v Cobb
(1900)
30
 p145] it was stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts,
it is theduty of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his decision, but to givethe reasons for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his reasons... Elaborate judgements are notrequired, but the reasons which lead the magistrate to make his order must be explicitly stated.
 
ED QUOTE
 35
.
 
For the above I request that you clarify to me some of the following:
.
(Not stated in any order of priority)
•
By which means did the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria or any other party allegedly notify40me as to the date and time of any hearing? Also provide duration of the hearings, andover what number of days each hearing lasted?
•
At which dates were the alleged hearing held? Also provide the details of each judicialofficer involved.
•
Why was I not provided with any transcript or audio record of any alleged evidence used45in court by the other party upon which on each occasion the Court deemed it fit and proper to issue orders against me, so as to ensure that I would be fully aware of the precise nature of details allegedly used against me.
•
What, if any, Reason of Judgment was issued by the Court at each occasion during any
EX PARTE
hearing as to show legal justification for the nature of the orders that were50issued?In my view it is essential that the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria provide transparency inlitigation and in which manner the alleged orders were issued or any notice of it as if this is a
modus operandi
of the court to issue orders in defiance of my (and perhaps others)55constitutional rights to have a judicial determination after both parties have been heard then thisclearly is undermining the integrity of the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and no one could availhimself as to validity of any orders purportedly issued by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.
.
of 00

Leave a Comment

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