• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
 p1 16-2-2012
COMPLAIT & REQUEST
 
Re UCOSTITUTIOAL ORDERS/warrants-etc
 
ISPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the COSTITUTIO-DVDA 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, See alsoHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comBlog atHttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE 
Ian Grey
Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria 16-2-2012233 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000
 
C/o
 
help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au
 
5
Cc:
Ted Baillieu
Premier of Victoriated.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria
C/ocosts.court@supremecourt.vic.gov.au.
Paul Linsdell & Associates
Email C/oCasey.Xuereb@bstone.com.au 
Brendan Facey
 Director, Infringement Man. & Enforc. Serv.
Brendan.Facey@justice.vic.gov.au
10
Civic Compliance Victoria
 
Ccom639
 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com 
Mr Robert Clark 
MP Attorney-Generalrobert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au 
Great Body Works 
202 William Street, St Albans, Vic 3021greatbodyworks@hotmail.com 
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
,
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
®
 
Email:mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com
 
15
Senior Sheriff Officer Saneeta Magsambol
 Saneeta.Magsambol@justice.vic.gov.au 
Sheriff Officer Andrew Kilpatrick Andrew
 Kilpatrick@justice.gov.gov.au 
Senior Sheriff Charles Defina
 Charles.Defina@justice.gov.gov.au 
Sheriff Officer Joun Scott
 Joun.Scott@justice.gov.gov.au
 20
Re: 120216-Ina Grey Chief Magistrate MCV - COMPLAIT & REQUEST -
 MG110077388
 
Sir,
on request of Mr Raymond Victor Vella also
I am providing you with this correspondenceas to seek to have matters appropriately attended to.25
From onset I wish to point out that all and any WARRATS issued by the Magistrates’Court of Victoria by a Registrar without a hearing and so without any possibility to have are-hearing DE OVOare unconstitutional and therefore are without legal force. It meansthat Sheriff Officers are placing themselves daily at personal risk because where the ordersare unconstitutional, then the action of the sheriff officers are not protected by law where
30
they act upon such purported WARRATS.
It is incredible that the Sheriff’s Officers are lacking any appropriate training/knowledge tounderstand that they can only act upon constitutionally valid WARRANT and any WARRANTissued otherwise, including those by the Infringement Registrar without judicial review are andremain without legal force.35It should be understood it makes not one of iota difference if a lawyer or myself asPROFESSIONAL ADVOCATE represents Mr Vella in legal matters because in the end wherelawyers fail to understand and comprehend the lack of legal force of any WARRANT issued thenwhatever their legal opinion cannot assist their clients rather put them astray to their constitutional rights.40
It is regrettable that for more than a year nothing was done by the Department of Justice toenlist my assistance to perhaps iron out the problems within the judiciary and the variouslegislations as many a person who suffered an injustice at the hands of the Sheriff’sOfficers now may personally sue them for this and this where Sheriff’s Officers reallyattempted to do their job but were deceived by what they were instructed or otherwise
45
taught to be applicable.
Below I delve into the Colosimo case also as an example how the current Magistrates’ Court of Victoria
modus operandi 
endanger innocent people.
 
 
 p2 16-2-2012
COMPLAIT & REQUEST
 
Re UCOSTITUTIOAL ORDERS/warrants-etc
 
ISPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the COSTITUTIO-DVDA 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, See alsoHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comBlog atHttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 
QUOTED from below:Because the Registrar of the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, in my presence, advised Mr Ray Vella thatthere was no review possible then all and any WARRAT issued by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoriathat were without the legal ability for a hearing DE OVO are and remain to be unconstitutional and
5
so without legal force. Therefore for this also the Sheriff’s Officers had no legal position to enforce anysuch WARRAT because the supervision of a judge that is required for a Registrar to deal withadjudication of matters was not existing!
 END QUOTE
I attended, on request, to Mr Ray Vella’s workshop address, 202 William Street St Albans on10Wednesday 15-2-2012 in view that the Sheriff was due to attend regarding a WARRANT issuewhich as
MG110077388
had been issued by the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Sunshine on 2-12-2011, allegedly without any hearing. I used to represent Mr Ray Vella as a
COSTITUTIOALIST
and
Professional Advocate
(
PRO BOO
) in VCAT mattersregarding a civil dispute where Mr Ray Vella had paid for good to Eurotec but it failed to provide15the goods as was ordered and so he applied to VCAT for a refund. I detected fraternizing between Eurotec’s legal representatives and VCAT and filed an
OBJECTIO TOJURISDICTIO
this was never disposed off and so VCAT never invoked any jurisdiction.Subsequently Eurotec took the matter before the Cost Court of the Supreme Court of Victoriawhich on 24 May 2011 ordered Mr Ray Vella by no later then 10 June 2011 to file an20
OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO
this he did on 1 June 2011. However on 27 September 2011 the court simply ignored to deal with the
OBJECTIO TO JURISDICTIO
and hencenever invoked jurisdiction either and therefore its 27 September 2011 are without legal force.Mr Ray Vella has certain medical problems including
DYSLEXIA
, fits, etc, and this also became clear after the Sheriff’ Officers arrived, being
Senior Sheriff’s Officer Saneeta
25
Magsambol
(Mobile 0437661375) and
Sheriff Officer Andrew Kilpatrick 
and later joined (onrequest of 
Saneeta Magsambol
by
Senior Sheriff Charles Defina
(mobile 0418 146 701) and
Sheriff Officer Joun Scott
.Undoubtly
there was a very explosive situation at hand
, as Mr Ray Vella demanded that theSheriff’s Officers would leave the premises as they were trespassing but they refused to do so,30claiming that by the High Court of Australia ruling they could enter, etc, because of the warrant,this even so I explained that where the Warrant was issued by the Magistrate Court of Victoria atSunshine to enforce orders which had been issued without jurisdiction then the Warrant waswithout legal force. I indicated to Saneeta Magsambol that we could forward to her office anelectronic copy of a 14 February 2012 correspondence that had been forwarded to the Robert35Clark, Attorney General regarding the matter 
but she declined this
as her office had informedher the warrant was enforceable and she declined to read the copy of the 15-2-2012correspondence (with some amendments) as did the other officers.
 
It is my view there was nomalice intended by any of the officers and that they appeared to me to believe that they wereacting under authority this even so of what I stated that the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at40Sunshine could not enforce invalid orders and so the WARRANT was without legal force.Mr Ray Vella’s partner 
Alice Zablocki
was very emotional and in tears as was Mr Ray Vellavery upset and obviously defiant to invasion to his rights but this didn’t seem to resolve anything because the officers were determined to proceed as they explained they were legally obligated.Charles Defina at one stage interrupted me as he held I was expressing the wrong view that they45could not execute the WARRANT because as I expressed it was to enforce orders which wereissued without jurisdiction and therefore had no validity. Charles Defina urged me to check theSheriff’s Act. I understood from Charles Defina that WARRANTS issued regarding allegedtraffic infringements are in fact issued by a computer. What the Sheriff’s Officers didn’t appear to understand is that any WARRANT issued by a Registrar/Infringement Registrar that is not50subject to an hearingDE NOVObefore a Judge/Magistrate has no legal force because it fails tofall within the provisions of the Chapter III of the Constitution courts where a Registrar cannot
 
 
 p3 16-2-2012
COMPLAIT & REQUEST
 
Re UCOSTITUTIOAL ORDERS/warrants-etc
 
ISPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the COSTITUTIO-DVDA 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, See alsoHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comBlog atHttp://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 act without being subject to the supervision of a judge/magistrate. See below CCV 13-2-2012correspondence also)The Sheriff’s Officers did recommend Mr Ray Vella to seek the WARRANT to be set aside if heheld it was inappropriately issued but in the meantime they had the right to act upon it but theywould give about 30 days before coming back to seize any goods, etc, provided Mr Ray Vella5signed a statement not to dispose of certain goods. It was made clear he couldn’t sign “under objection” as that was not acceptable. I understood from Joun Scott that he claimed that Mr RayVella by signing the form he would not admit to the fine or any debt, but it appeared to me JounScott didn’t understand that it was not about an admission of fine or debt but about there not being any valid orders at all to legally justify a Warrant issue. In the end, I expressed my view to10Mr Ray Vella that it might be better for him in the circumstances to allow the Sheriff’s Officer under objection to proceed so that he would not give up his objection against them being andremaining on his property despite being advised they were trespassing if they didn’t leaveimmediately.
.
15http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1954/46.html 
R v Davison [1954] HCA 46; (1954) 90 CLR 353 (10 September 1954)
QUOTEA court is composed of the judges which form it, but courts are provided with officers and, under a unitarysystem of government, it is not uncommon to find that certain duties falling upon a court are executed, subject
20
to judicial confirmation or review, by an officer of the court, such as a master. There is no distinct decision of this Court that under Chapter III no authority can be given by statute for the discharge in this way of theduties of a Federal court, although there are dicta to that effect: cf. per Isaacs J. and Starke J. in Le Mesurier v. Connor (1929) 42 CLR, at pp 511, 512, 522-525 . The decision of Long Innes J. in Re Malcolm Fraser Grant; Ex parte Edgley(1928) 29 SR (NSW) 31, perhaps necessarily implies it.
But the registrars and
25
deputy registrars are not officers of the court but functionaries placed under the "control of the Court"in the peculiar manner described in the passage already quoted from Bond's Case
[1930] HCA 24;(1930) 44 CLR 11.END QUOTE
 30
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/9.html Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)Regarding:
Delegation of powers to Registrar - Decisions of Registrar reviewable by Court - Hearing de novo -Validity of delegation -
 
QUOTE
35
In Reg. v. Davison (1954)[1954] HCA 46;90 CLR 353Dixon C.J. and McTiernan J. regarded the question whether certain duties falling upon a ChIII court could be executed, subject to judicial confirmation or review, by an officer of the court as being open: at p 365. Subsequently, in The Commonwealth v. HospitalContribution Fund[1982] HCA 13;(1982) 150 CLR 49("the HCF Case"), Mason J. said (at p 64) that the vesting of judicial power in a federal court "should not necessarily exclude the exercise of some jurisdiction
40
and powers by a master or registrar of the Court ... provided that the exercise is subject to review or appeal".In the same case Murphy J. considered that, in respect of any federal court, "Parliament may authorize theexercise of its jurisdiction by officers or others who are not justices provided that these are under the realsupervision and control of the justices of the court": at p 66.END QUOTE
45http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/9.html Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)
QUOTE The first condition is that the delegation must not be to an extent where it can no longer properly be said that,
50
as a practical as well as a theoretical matter, the judges constitute the court. This means that the judges mustcontinue to bear the major responsibility for the exercise of judicial power at least in relation to the moreimportant aspects of contested matters. The second condition is that the delegation must not be inconsistentwith the obligation of a court to act judicially and that the decisions of the officers of the court in the exerciseof their delegated jurisdiction, powers and functions must be subject to review or appeal by a judge or judges
55
of the court. For present purposes it is sufficient for us to say that, if the exercise of delegated jurisdiction, powers and functions by a court officer is subject to review or appeal by a judge or judges of the court onquestions of both fact and law, we consider that the delegation will be valid. Certainly, if the review is by wayof hearing de novo, the delegation will be valid. The importance of insisting on the existence of review by a
of 00

Leave a Comment

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