Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766INSPECTOR-RIKATI
about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD
: You may order books in the
the clouded day avoided the batteries to be fully charged, but that cannot be an excuse for failingto display the appropriate speedlimit for drivers to be able to be aware off.) Because I am seekingto be very alerts to speedlimits and aware what the signs ordinary provide for, I keep it to thesafe speedlimit but it is unfair to other motorist that they may incur a speeding offence because
of the circumstances causing it beyond their intention to speed.While the court in
Agar v Dolheguy & Anor
 VSC 506 (11 November 2010) held that onecould reduce ones speed by 10 kilometres an hour, this in my view would be to obstruct theordinary flow of traffic. Speedlimits are provided, as I understand it, to provide a maximum
speed if safe to do so. To reduce ones speed by 10 kilometres endangering others, who requiredor desire to travel to the maximum allowable speed limit is in my view irresponsible. It are slowdrivers who cause others to overtake and hence enhances the risk of accidents. Also, the cost tothe economy to have travel times reduced by say 10% for the sake of perhaps avoiding exceedingunintentionally a speed limit cannot be justified.
Again, as I am aware of the 40 kilometres speed limit on the freeway, generally, but not always, because of roadworks in progress, I maintain to stick to the speedlimit, but can understand, evenso I may not approve, of other drivers being frustrated as to the unjustified speedlimit when noone is working, or when speedsigns lights are out and so it is a guess work what the speedlimit
might be, other then using a normally applicable 100 kilometres speedlimit.At times speedlimit signs are partly hidden behind a wall of roadwork constructions and if someare out then a single light can be prevented from being noticed when one is behind a large truck, blocking the view ahead. And traffic signals should be clear and again, I did way back when Mr Steve Bracks was still Premier of Victoria recommend that like the GPS one should be able to
have a speed limit electronic signage on the dashboard, so a driver instead of having toconstantly being side tracked to look for speedsigns, and so can incur an accident, due to this,then have the appropriate speedlimit displayed on the dashboard. This to me would anygovernment pursue to be implemented if
: rather then
free taxation contribution
As Iunderstand Premier Naptine held it was, would be the real issue.
.At 3 am, this morning I decided to go to bed as I was too tired to continue to read the judgmentof
Agar v Dolheguy & Anor
 VSC 506 (11 November 2010) but intend to do so further.However, I must express my concern as to the Judgment and HCA 27 of 1999
ought to be a reminder that no matter what a court may have ordered as the High Court of Australia made
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi
 HCA 27(17 June 1999)QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity
. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders
made in Gould v Brown
. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
Uniform Tax \case, 1942
(65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham,"sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power
never has been
alaw at all.
Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it.
Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a50 decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law.The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it isinvalid