Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
110810-Magistrates Court of Victoria -No 1158210495-ADDRESS to the COURT

110810-Magistrates Court of Victoria -No 1158210495-ADDRESS to the COURT

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Another document see details
Another document see details

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka on Aug 31, 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

08/31/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
 p1 10-8-2011
Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495
 
INSPECTOR-RIKATI
® 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 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 
Downloading of documents from bloghttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE 
Magistrates Court of Victoria 10-8-2011Ground Floor, 277 William StreetMelbourne Vic 30005
C/o: Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court of Victoria
C/o
Cc: Acting Chief Commissioner of the Victorian Police C/o heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au  C/o Victoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA
 
10
Civic Compliance Victoria
GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com 
Ethical Standards Department
 Victoria Police Unit, Victoria Police Centre, 737 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3005
15
Phone 1300 363 101, Facsimile 9247 3498
 
Ted Baillieu
20Ref:
Infringement Court case Number 1158210495
 Infringement Notice Number 0201683566
ADDRESS TO THE COURT
25Sir/Madam,a limited set out is provide d below as to why the purported Infringement NoticeOrder is null and void and should be revokes/set aside as being ULTRA VIRES, etc.
Hansard
8-3-1898 
Constitution Convention Debates
 
30
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN
.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but thegeneral courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of 
ultra vires
arising after a law has been passed.[start page 2004] 
35
Mr. ISAACS
.-
No. If it is
ultra vire
of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
 END QUOTE
.
When I first received an infringement notice (which commences the legal processes tosubsequently lead to litigation if persisted with by the Prosecutor) I responded with to challenge40the jurisdiction of any court that would be dealing with the matter. This is a tactic that obviouslywas never contemplated by the legislators but nevertheless because it is legally appropriate toobject to the jurisdiction of a court then the entire legal process ordinary contemplated to beapplied by this got stuck by this
unless and until a court was to dismiss the objection to jurisdiction
giving a formal ruling and reason of judgment as to why it dismissed the objection45to jurisdiction. Obviously, a computer that purportedly acts as a decision maker cannot deal with
 
 
 p2 10-8-2011
Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495
 
INSPECTOR-RIKATI
® 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 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 
Downloading of documents from bloghttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati this and so the very computer program designed to simply enforce any Infringement Noticeallegation as a matter of fact now was legally nowhere.
.
The Infringement Act 2006 does provide that the Infringements Registrar must consider theevidence as provided and so the question is what is required by the Prosecutor (the so called5enforcement agency) to be submitted?
.
Foste
(1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
QUOTE
 
As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his
10
clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All hehonourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which isparamount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: orhis tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It isthe cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly
15
conceal the truth.
He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it.
Hemust produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him.
He must see that his clientdiscloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case.
He must disregard thespecific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.
 
END QUOTE
 
20
.
 Now, what the role of the Prosecutor (the enforcement agency) was is to present to theInfringements Registrar all relevant details as after all my
objection to the jurisdiction
of theCourt precedes any ability of the court to hear and determine the allegations by the Prosecutor.
.
25As I did request in past correspondence to be made aware of the reasons of the InfringementsRegistrar as to the issue of the Infringement Notice Order considering that to my knowledge noformal order and reason of judgment was issued to dismiss the objection to jurisdiction then thesaid Infringements Registrar clearly acted without having invoked jurisdiction and therefore anyand all orders issued are null and void and ULTRA VIRES.30As a
CONSTITUTIONALIST
I am obviously very much aware that the States were createdwithin s106 of the federal constitution and by this bound to adhere to the legal principlesembedded in the constitution. One is that legislation once challenged to its validity then it is andremains ULTRA VIRES unless and until a competent court of jurisdiction was to dismiss theobjection.35During the 19 July 2006 litigation (a 5 year epic legal battle with the Commonwealth) Isubmitted that the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 was unconstitutional This was not challenged by the Victorian Attorney General despite that I did provide a
s78B NOTICE OFCONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
. And also unchallenged was that courts cannot becorporations and neither can share the same ABN number as the Victorian
Courts
do with the40
Prostitution Control Commission
and the
DPP
. The County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006upheld my cases and the Commonwealth were comprehensively defeated by me in the process.
.
It should be made very clear that the
County Court of Victoria
 
didn‟t hand down any
reservation as to any issues (submissions) I made as the Com
monwealth didn‟t attempt to
45challenge any of what my more than 50 constitutional based submissions was about!
.
See my book published on 6-7-2006 which contained the relevant details of the case:
.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
50
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3
.
 
 
 p3 10-8-2011
Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495
 
INSPECTOR-RIKATI
® 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 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 
Downloading of documents from bloghttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati 
What also should be understood is that the High Court of Australia is on record with it‟s
 judgments that the moment a party raises a federal issue then the matter that ordinary may be astate litigation issue be3comes a federal matter. (Sea quotations below also.) Now, obviously the Infringement Court is not suited to deal with a federal issue and while theMagistrates Court of Victoria is a court that can invoke federal jurisdiction as for juridical5matters it cannot invoke federal jurisdiction for administrative decisions determining the guilt of the alleged offender upon the evidence of the Prosecutor.The Framers of the
Constitution made clear that a “judicial”
can only be made after hearing both parties, and as such the Infringement Act 2006 in kin conflict of this also.Further, the Magistrates Court of Victoria regards Infringement Notice Orders to be10
Administrative
“ orders and not “
JUDICIAL
” orders and for this also the orders are ULTRA
VIRES and without legal force.When it comes to a registrar 
s decision then Kay J of the Full Court of Australia on 24 and 25October 1994 in the matter of 
Abbot v Abbott 
made clear that there is no time restrains to seek areview against a registrars decision (And applied this for example in 19995 in the matter of 15
Mitterer v Mitterer 
!). For this, the correspondence of the Infringements Registrar dated 27 July2011 that he refused my request for revocation is beyond his legal powers as regardless what theInfringement Act 21006 may state otherwise as I disputed the court
s jurisdiction from onset,regardless if the prosecutor did not reveal this to the say computer pretending to be theInfringements Registrar it nevertheless cannot undermine my constitutional rights.20In my view the Infringements Registrar should have immediately ensured that the purportedInfringement Notice Order was vacated if anything because no jurisdiction was ever invoked.
.
The issue that escalate this matter further in what seems to me to be corrupt conduct by theInfringements Registrar and others is that the Infringements Registrars response was dated
27
25
July 2011
but I received correspondence from what purp
orts by the envelop to be “
vicroads
while the letter head is under the VICTORIAN POLICE dated
19 July 2011
and as such beforethe Infringements Registrar made his decision known the VVICTORIAN POLICE had alreadyapplied a 1 Point demerit to my driver license and as such I was in effect punished despite thatfrom onset I challenged the validity of the allegation of the VICTORIAN POLICE.30What we therefore have is that not the Infringements Registrar but the VICTORIAN POLICEeffectively decided the outcome of my request to revoke the Infringement Notice Order and assuch it appears to me that there may be a case where the Infringements Registrar is
FRATERNISING
with the Prosecutor (the VICTORIAN POLICE) and that in itself invalidatethe orders of the court!35
.
Hansard
1-2-1898 
Constitution Convention Debates
(
Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention
),
 
QUOTE
 Mr. OCONNER 
(New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of 
40
 justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
 END QUOTE
.
As was shown on Channel 7 television on 9-8-2011 taxi drivers for example are nominatingother drivers as having committed alleged offenses even so the nominated person may not at all45have been involved. Yet, the nominated person could by the current Infringement Notice systemend up having demerit points issued against him/her and the Infringement Court can issue orderssuch as wheel clamping and even break in and entry and imprisonment where the nominated person may know of noting. What we have is to have vandalized the legal processes of beingimpartial; to courts operating as
STAR CHAMBER COURTS
this despite that this contravenes50the
Imperial Act Interpretation Act 198
(Vic) and those judicial or other officers of the court participating in this scandalous government endorsed terrorism upon innocent people are to be

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)//-->