Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
130812-COMPLAINT Ref Brendan Facey Director IM&ES -Sheriff) OBL 1106575301

130812-COMPLAINT Ref Brendan Facey Director IM&ES -Sheriff) OBL 1106575301

Ratings: (0)|Views: 19|Likes:
We had a Supreme Court of Victoria decision, but as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, it appears to me the Court simply failed to appropriately consider constitutional matters. Just read the correspondence.
We had a Supreme Court of Victoria decision, but as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, it appears to me the Court simply failed to appropriately consider constitutional matters. Just read the correspondence.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka on Aug 12, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
 p1 12-08-2013
Sheriff 
’ 
s Office
Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766INSPECTOR-RIKATI
®
about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD
ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE
: You may order books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series
by making a reservation, by fax0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mailINSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.comSee alsowww.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blogHttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
WITHOUT PREJUDICE  Mr Brendan Facey
12-8-2013Department of Justice
5
Infringement management & Enforcement Services
 Mr Robert Clark 
MP Attorney-General
10
Ian Grey Chief Magistrate
 
, Magistrates Court of Victoria233 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000, C/ohelp@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au15
M Hoyle
, Quality and client support Coordinator 
Civic Compliance Victoria
GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
,
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
®20 Email:
Your Ref: BC/15766
Sir, became aware of your 9 August 2013 correspondence to me on about 00.38 am this morning,
25
at least that is the time I copied your email to me onto my harddrive.I noticed that you refer also to
Agar v Dolheguy & Anor 
[2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) adecision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, and it appears to me that this decision is to me of grave concern, such as:
30
QUOTE
Agar v Dolheguy & Anor 
[2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010)
66 A driver might misconstrue his or her actual speed because the error tolerance latent in thevehicle
s speedometer is greater than that in the detection device. But drivers can meet that risk byhaving their instrument
s actual error tolerance measured, or drivers can drive at a speed that allows
35
for a potential under-reading of 10 per cent of actual speed.END QUOTE
Agar v Dolheguy & Anor 
[2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010)
I am a motorist who frequently used the Northern Ring Road (between Greensborough andCampbellfield area, where reportedly hundreds of motorist have been booked for speeding,
40
exceeding a 40 kilometres speed limit. Often, at the peril of my life, travelling at just below the40 kilometres speedlimit indicated signage, where motorist often would zoom past me atestimated double the speed I was doing. Many honking their horns when passing me. One problem is that at times the speedlimit in force is I view abused in that no one can be seenworking in that area, and so ignorance is to leave nevertheless speedlimit of 40 kilometres
45
applicable. Indeed, I also wrote to the former Premier Mr Ted Ted Baillieu that up to 5 of theelectronic speed limit signs in a row were not working. Clearly, it is unfair if drivers areunaware of a speed limit, because the contractors of the little trailers displaying the speedsignshave not provided sufficient power for the lights to remain activated during the night.(Perhaps
 
2
 p2 12-08-2013
Sheriff 
’ 
s Office
Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766INSPECTOR-RIKATI
®
about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD
ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE
: You may order books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series
by making a reservation, by fax0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mailINSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.comSee alsowww.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blogHttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
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
5
of the circumstances causing it beyond their intention to speed.While the court in
Agar v Dolheguy & Anor 
[2010] 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
10
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.
15
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
20
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
25
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 
safety
: rather then
free taxation contribution
As Iunderstand Premier Naptine held it was, would be the real issue.
30
.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 
[2010] 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
Wakim
ought to be a reminder that no matter what a court may have ordered as the High Court of Australia made
35
clear:
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi
[1999] HCA 27(17 June 1999)QUOTE
 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity
 . No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail 
40
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.
END QUOTE.45
Uniform Tax \case, 1942
(65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
QUOTE
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 
is not
and
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
ab initio
.
END QUOTE
 
3
 p3 12-08-2013
Sheriff 
’ 
s Office
Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766INSPECTOR-RIKATI
®
about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVDA 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD
ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE
: You may order books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series
by making a reservation, by fax0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mailINSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.comSee alsowww.schorel-hlavka.com Free download of documents at blogHttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
In Re O (infants)
(1971) Ch 748,754 and 755
QUOTE
In my considered opinion the law now is that if an appellate court is satisfied that the decision of the lower 5 court is wrong, it is it's duty to say so and act accordingly.
END QUOTE
It should be understood that courts at times may be required by convention, to follow a previousdecision but it never can be a bar to the constitution, as
Wakim
proved!
10
 Agar v Dolheguy & Anor 
[2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) refers to:
QUOTE
Agar v Dolheguy & Anor 
[2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010)
52 I will not deal in detail with the provisions of that Act, but I will mention a few. The objects of theAct include to establish a national system of units and standards of measurement of physical quantities
15
and to provide for the uniform use of them throughout Australia. Importantly, the Act does not applyto the exclusion of any State law except in the case of inconsistency (s 4). Thus, if a State has legislatedon a matter of measurement, and it is not inconsistent with a provision of the Commonwealth Act, theState Act applies unaffected.END QUOTE
Agar v Dolheguy & Anor 
[2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010)20
To respond to the above quoted judgment part and some other parts will take a considerable timefor me to do so appropriately. Unlike the Supreme Court of Victoria, not being a lawyer, I tend tonot assume but to actually rely upon what is constitutionally applicable. As a
CONSTITUTIONALIST
I do not fancy to twist the true meaning and application of the
25
constitution to suit anyone, not even myself for that!
 Agar v Dolheguy & Anor 
[2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) refers to:
QUOTE
Agar v Dolheguy & Anor 
[2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010)55 Under those powers, regulations have been prescribed in theNational Measurement Regulations 199930
[14]
No regulation has beenmade in relation to a speed measuring device.END QUOTE
Agar v Dolheguy & Anor 
[2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010)35
As with the previous quote, this too requires further in depth explanation. Safe to say that because a person has no all around fencing on a property it doesn
t mean a person is trespassingwhen entering the property where reasonable this person would be aware entering private property.As I understand it the High Court of Australia is on record that the police can enter a property to
40
go to the doorbell to alert the occupier of their presents but they are not permitted to stray fromthe most direct way to the doorbell. the fact that a occupier may not have signs on display towarn about trespassing cannot overcome the fact that there are limits applicable. the same is withthe issue of Commonwealth legislative powers versus the State legislative powers. Again, Iintend to provide an extensive set out in regard of these and other issues,.
45
 Agar v Dolheguy & Anor 
[2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) refers to:
QUOTE
Agar v Dolheguy & Anor 
[2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010)
Forensic argument 
59 Such a conclusion does not preclude a person from challenging the factual conclusion of the tester
50
that the device was in proper electrical condition or calibrated to the correct tolerance limits, or thatthe tester was satisfied about those matters, or that the correct records were adequately made andretained. A person may indeed do so to seek to undermine, as a question of fact, the prima facieconclusion derived from the schedule 2 certificate that the device was properly tested and sealed orthat proper records were made and retained.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->