Page 1

Mr Robert Clark MP Attorney-General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au

23-7-2013

5
Cc: D. Napthine MP Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au Brendan Facey Director, Infringement Management & Enforcement Services (Sheriff) Brendan.Facey@justice.vic.gov.au Ian Grey Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria 10 233 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000, C/o help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au M Hoyle, Quality and client support Coordinator Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com
15

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® Email: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com

COMPLAINT
20

Re: -COMPLAINT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301

Sir,

I received an email (reproduced below) which refers to issues that I raised in my previous correspondences, but as yet never received any reply upon, and so I urge you to address the 25issues as to the validity of speed camera being used without specific approval by the Commonwealth of Australia and other issues raised in this correspondence. Below some pictures of workers (on 13 April 2012) at a red light camera, but to me seemingly not Commonwealth of Australia qualified and authorised technicians. 30120413-Swanston Street camera (13 April 2012)

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 1

Page 2

As I challenged the validity of the legislation, at least since 30-5-2011, in my correspondence to the then Premier of Victoria Ted Baillieu, then it remains ULTRA VIRES unless a court 5pronounces against it and declares it INTRA VIRUS, not that I concede this should or ought to eventuate. However, one also has to consider the issue of CONTEMPT OF COURT. It is widely accepted that those who place a court in disrepute may be found guilty of CONTEMPT OF COURT. Therefore those who are purporting that the Infringement Court is part of the Magistrates Court of Victoria but then using the Infringement Court in a manner that 10is contrary to the Court's position as a Chapter III court of the constitution and those involved manipulating the system for this also can be deemed to commit CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Lewis v Ogden [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682 (15 May 1984) QUOTE
15

20

8. At common law words or conduct in the face of the court or in the course of proceedings, in order to constitute contempt, "must be such as would interfere, or tend to interfere, with the course of justice" (Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. King-Emperor (1945) AC 264, at p 268 ). Instead of making interference, or tendency to interfere, with the course of justice an element in the offences which it created, subs. (1) introduces the new element of conduct which is wilful in pars. (a) and (c). In these two paragraphs the word "wilfully" means "intentionally", or "deliberately", in the sense that what is said or done is intended as an insult, threat, etc. Its presence does more than negative the notion of "inadvertently" or "unconsciously" (Bell v. Stewart [1920] HCA 68; (1920) 28 CLR 419, at p 427 ). The mere voluntary utterance of words is not enough. "Wilfully" imports the notion of purpose. (at p688)

9. It is submitted that the section should be read in the light of the common law of contempt and that, when so read, there should be imported into pars. (a) and (c) the common law requirement that the acts must be such as to interfere, or tend to interfere with the course of justice. The short answer to this argument is that all the acts mentioned in pars. (a) to (d) inclusive are acts which in their very nature interfere or have a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice and have been so regarded traditionally. To take but one example, a wilful insult to a judge or jury during a trial necessarily interrupts the course of the trial and tends to divert 30 attention from the issues to be determined. So in Ex parte Pater (1864) 5 B & S 299 (122 ER 842) where a barrister was adjudged guilty contempt in that he wilfully insulted a juryman during the course of his address to the jury, the wilful insult was treated as an obstruction of the administration of justice and, accordingly, as a contempt. Cockburn C.J. observed (1864) 5 B & S, at p 310 (122 ER, at p 846) : " . . . they are words which counsel might have uttered in the honest discharge of his duty for the purpose of 35 vindicating the interests of his client and preventing the other jurors from being prejudiced or unduly influenced by the opinion of the foreman; and if they had been so uttered, though they were harsh and offensive to the juryman to whom they were applied, that would be within the right and privilege of counsel. Page 2 23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 5 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
25

5

Page 3 But if they were uttered with the intention to insult the juryman, then they were an abuse of the privilege of counsel, and the judge might treat the uttering of them as a contempt . . . ." Blackburn J., after referring to the power of Quarter Sessions to punish "an unwarrantable obstruction of the administration of justice in the face of the Court", continued (1864) 5 B & S, at p 312 (122 ER, at p 847) : " . . . if counsel under colour of addressing the jury, insults a juryman, or the Court, I cannot doubt that it would be such an obstruction as would be a contempt . . . ." It follows that a person who wilfully insults a judge in the course of proceedings in court does something which necessarily interferes, or tends to interfere, with the course of justice. (at p689)

END QUOTE 10 Lewis v Ogden [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682 (15 May 1984) QUOTE 20. The critical question then is whether in the way in which he made those points the appellant trespassed beyond the bounds of legitimate advocacy and wilfully insulted the judge. Although the question is by no means easy to answer, we have come to the conclusion that what was said was neither insulting nor intended to be so. As we have already indicated, the appellant's remarks are susceptible of the interpretation that the judge had expressed a consistently adverse view of the accused's case and its presentation, that the judge's treatment of it was one-sided, and that, accordingly, there was a real risk that his summing up would be of the same character. The appellant had no means of knowing in advance what the trial judge would say in his summing up. Having concluded that there was a risk that adverse comments would or might be made, the appellant was placed in the difficult position of endeavouring to counter such comments in advance by raising the matter directly in his address. The appellant, in embarking upon this delicate undertaking, by his reference to the Collingwood umpire and the statement from the dock, and the manner and tone of his delivery - a matter to which the judge referred - came close to insulting the judge. However, having regard to the interpretation which we place on what the appellant said, namely that his Honour's attitude to Paul's case was adverse and unfair in the sense of being "one-sided", we do not consider that the learned judge could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's comments amounted to an insult. The appellant's conduct was extremely discourteous, perhaps offensive, and deserving of rebuke by his Honour, but in our view it could not be said to constitute contempt. (at p693) 21. In conclusion three comments should be made. The first is to recall that the contempt power is exercised to vindicate the integrity of the court and of its proceedings; it is rarely, if ever, exercised to vindicate the personal dignity of a judge (Ex parte Fernandez (1861) 30 LJCP 321, at p 332 ; Reg. v. Castro; Skipworth's Case (1873) LR 9 QB 219, at p 232 ; Bellanto (1962) 63 SR (NSW), at pp 200, 202 ). The second is that the summary power of punishing for contempt should be used sparingly and only in serious cases (Shamdasani (1945) AC, at p 270 ; Izuora v. The Queen (1953) AC 327, at p 336 ). The final comment is that the charge of contempt should specify the nature of the contempt, i.e., that it consists of a wilful insult to the judge, and identify the alleged insult. (at p693) 22. In the result we would allow the appeal. (at p693) ORDER
40

15

20

25

30

35

Appeal allowed.

END QUOTE SEE ALSO: Bell v Stewart [1920] HCA 68; (1920) 28 CLR 419 45 di Suvero v Bar Association (LSD) [2001] NSWADTAP 9 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Elisabeth Sexton [2008] NSWSC 352 McGuirk v University of NSW [2010] NSWSC 448 Principal Registrar, Supreme Court of New South Wales v Katelaris Prothonotary v Wilson [1999] NSWSC 1148 50 REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA v MOORE-MCQUILLAN

Rondel v Worsley [1967] UKHL 5 (22 November 1967)
Trajkovski and Department of Transport and Regional Transport [2000] AATA 1073 TRANSPANTHERS- THE GREYING OF TRANSGENDER AND THE LAW

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 3

Page 4

Whereas ordinary a Parliament may not be held in CONTEMPT OF COURT, as its conduct ordinary is protected b y privileges. However, a Parliament sitting in clear defiance of a Court order then those participating in the sitting may be deemed guilty of CONTEMPT OF COURT,. For example, where a Court has declared an election to be invalid and order a new 5election and issue an order that the Parliament cannot sit unless and until a new election has been held and those elected then are to form the new Parliament, then if nevertheless those held not elected ignore to hold a new election (through the Electoral Commission) and sit in Parliament to enact legislation to retrospectively validate their election, then clearly this would be deemed CONTEMPT OF COURT. Likewise, an Attorney-General acting in blatant violation of a Court 10order can be and has been held in CONTEMPT OF COURT. Even a judge or a prosecutor can be held in CONTEMPT OF COURT.
http://www.visupremecourt.org/wfdata/frame1769-1163/File34.pdf On Order to Show Cause for Indirect Criminal Contempt 15In Re The Honourable Leon A. Kendall QUOTE OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM. This Court, in an August 13, 2009 Order, required Leon A. Kendall, a judge of the 20 1 This Court, in a September 16, 2009 Order, appointed Attorney Hall.a disinterested private attorney.to serve as the special prosecutor in this matter because, given the procedural history of this case, allowing a prosecutor employed by the Department of Justice to prosecute this matter could be perceived as a conflict of interest by the public. See In re Special Proceedings, 373 F.3d 37, 43 (1st Cir. 2004) (affirming appointment of private counsel as special prosecutor because use of government prosecutor ¡°would not necessarily have 25 banished the public impression of a conflict in this case.¡±). See also Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 811, 814, (1987) (explaining that prosecutors of contempt action must be ¡°guided solely by their sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice¡± and that selection of a prosecutor must not ¡°create[] an appearance of impropriety that diminishes faith in the fairness of the criminal justice system in general.¡±). 30 In re Kendall S. Ct. Misc. No. 2009-0025 Opinion of the Court Page 2 of 29 Superior Court,2 to show cause as to why he should not be held in indirect criminal contempt.3 On December 35 18, 2009, this Court appointed the Honorable Edgar D. Ross, a retired Superior Court judge, to serve as a Special Master, with the authority to, among other things, conduct a 2 While this matter was pending, Kendall retired from his position as a Superior Court judge at the conclusion of his term in October 2009. 3 The August 13, 2009 Order required, in pertinent part, 40 that Judge Leon A. Kendall . . . SHOW CAUSE . . . why he should not be held in indirect criminal Contempt of Court for (1) Obstructing the administration of justice through a. inflammatory remarks and other characterizations in his July 7, 2009 opinion that appear calculated and intended to prejudice this Court in public estimation, destroy or call into doubt this Court.s function and 45 position as the highest local court in the Virgin Islands, and to reduce confidence in the administration of justice in this jurisdiction; and b. purporting to review the validity and legality of this Court.s May 13, 2009 opinion and order, including, but not limited to, stating that the issuance of this Court.s order was ¡°clearly improper,¡± that its conclusions ¡°make[] no sense¡± and are ¡°erroneous,¡± and that this Court.s mandate should be given ¡°no credence,¡± 50 despite this Court.s status as the highest local court in the Virgin Islands; (2) Failing to comply with this Court.s May 13, 2009 opinion and order by a. refusing to schedule the matter for trial and proceeding to trial in the absence of a valid plea disposition; b. refusing to consider a change of venue or a continuance to minimize pre-trial publicity in the underlying matter; and 55 c. recusing himself from the matter below for the purposes of avoiding future compliance with this Court.s mandate, leading to additional scheduling delays; (3) Misbehaving in his official transactions as an officer of the court by

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 4

Page 5 a. failing to comply with this Court.s May 13, 2009 opinion and order in violation of Rule 1.1 of the American Bar Association.s Model Rules of Judicial Conduct, made applicable to Judge Kendall pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 205 and Virgin Islands Bar Association Bylaw X.8(D); b. calling into question, through his July 7, 2009 opinion, the integrity of the Virgin Islands judiciary through 5 inflammatory language directed at this Court and concluding that this Court.s May 13, 2009 opinion and order was ¡°clearly improper,¡± that its conclusions ¡°make[] no sense¡± and are ¡°erroneous,¡± and that this Court.s mandate should be given ¡°no credence,¡± in violation of Rule 1.2 of the American Bar Association.s Model Rules of Judicial Conduct, made applicable to Judge Kendall pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 205 and Virgin Islands Bar Association Bylaw X.8(D); 10 c. refusing to hear a matter properly assigned to him by recusing himself for reasons not authorized by law, in violation of Rule 2.11 of the American Bar Association.s Model Rules of Judicial Conduct, made applicable to Judge Kendall pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 205 and Virgin Islands Bar Association Bylaw X.8(D)[.] In re Kendall S. Ct. Misc. No. 2009-0025 15 Opinion of the Court Page 3 of 29 show cause hearing and make and submit to this Court proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. After presiding over the show cause hearing and considering the parties. submissions, the Special Master has recommended that this Court acquit Kendall of all charges. After an exhaustive review of the record, 20 including a transcript of the show cause hearing, a video of the majority of the proceedings, and numerous documents entered into evidence by both parties, we accept in part and reject in part the Special Master.s findings, conclusions, and recommendations. END QUOTE
25http://www.visupremecourt.org/wfdata/frame1769-1163/File34.pdf On Order to Show Cause for Indirect Criminal Contempt In Re The Honourable Leon A. Kendall QUOTE III. CONCLUSION 30 Based on the foregoing, we find that the People proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Kendall is guilty of indirect criminal contempt by obstructing the administration of justice, failing to comply with the May 13, 2009 Opinion and Order, and misbehaving in his official transactions. Accordingly, we accept in part and reject in part the Special Master.s December 22, 2010 Recommendation, and shall set this matter for a sentencing hearing. 35 Dated this 12th day of October, 2011. ATTEST: VERONICA J. HANDY, ESQ. Clerk of the Court END QUOTE 40The Government must be deemed to be no more but a party before the Courts and not one who can manipulate the legislative powers of the parliament as to so to say give it an easy ride through some purported court process that basically guarantees that a Infringement notice is enforced regardless if it was ill conceived. We must have and maintain a robust judiciary which is to question the legal validity of any plaintiff/applicant regardless if this is the Government and/or any authority to act for it or an ordinary citizens. 45. Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on terms that are just to both. 50END QUOTE . This no longer exists when the State violate the independence of the judiciary by dictating a legal process or better to state a purported legal process that is designed to rob the citizen of a FAIR and PROPER trial. Indeed, VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) is precisely such a creature where a citizen is forced to appear before 55it rather then being entitled to the protection of a Court of law, as it suits the government better to manipulate its powers through its own government departments such as VCAT. Judicial officers who support this kind of conduct by this in my view are betraying the oath of office they made and so to say are selling their sole to their corporate masters. 60Blair v Magistrates' Court of Victoria & Anor [2002] VSC 242 (19 June 2002) QUOTE 5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 5

Page 6 HIS HONOUR: 1.
5

In this proceeding the plaintiff, Ian Blair, challenges the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court to hear a proceeding against him in which he is charged with an offence under sub-section 49(1)(e) of the Road Safety Act 1986. The challenge to the Magistrates' Court jurisdiction was made before Magistrate Cottrill who decided on 13 October 2000 that the court did have jurisdiction to hear the charge and adjourned the proceeding to a date yet to be fixed. The basis of the challenge to the Magistrates' Court jurisdiction is the absence from the court file of the original document fitting the description of the charge and original summons in sub-section 30(2) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989. Sub-section 30(1) provides that a prescribed person may issue a summons to answer a charge for a prescribed summary offence. Sub-section 30(2) sets out certain requirements when a prescribed person issues a summons under sub-section 30(1). Sub-section 30(2)(a), provides, in particular, that a prescribed person issuing a summons under sub-section 30(1), must file the charge and original summons with the appropriate registrar within seven days after signing the charge-sheet. Sub-section 30(3) provides that "if it appears" to the court that sub-section 30(2)(a) has not been complied with "the Court must strike out the charge" and may award costs against the informant. The procedural requirement imposed by sub-section 30(2)(a) is, thus, mandatory and non-compliance with it compels the Magistrates' Court to strike out the charge.

2. Section 30 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 deals with when a prescribed person may issue a summons.
10

15

3.
20

25

The plaintiff contended before Mr Cottrill, and also by way of hearing de novo before me, that the charge had to be struck out because the original document required to be filed under sub-section 30(2)(a) could not be produced. The Magistrate found as fact that the document which was to be filed under sub-section 30(2) (a) had been filed and was satisfied that sub-section 30(2)(a) had been complied with. His Worship was able to find the relevant facts by referring to, and relying upon, evidence of the Magistrates' Court's file and his knowledge of the process and procedures of that court. He was able to conclude, in my view correctly, that the original of the document which was to be filed under sub-section 30(2)(a) had been filed and, on the basis of the facts before him, it appeared to him (as it does to me) that the terms of sub-section 30(2)(a) had been complied with. His Worship has helpfully described the Magistrates' Court process and procedures by which proceedings are initiated in cases such as this. I was taken to that description, as being factually correct, by both parties. His Worship explained the commencement of the process and procedures as follows: "For the purpose of initiating proceedings for a charge and summons pursuant to s.30 of the Magistrates' Court Act, the proscribed [sic] person process, the police informant utilises a set of documents which are joined together by a perforated strip. There are four relevant documents: first page, white, headed CDEB, Police Brief Copy; second page, green, headed Charge and Summons To Be Filed At Court After Service; third page, green, headed Charge and Summons, Original To Be Retained By The Court; fourth page, blue, headed Charge and Summons, Bring This With You To Court. The balance of the document consists of two pages being notice and advice proscribed [sic] pursuant to the Magistrates Court General Regulations and which are not relevant for the purposes of these proceedings."

4.
30

35

40

END QUOTE Munro v Brack & Anor [2000] VSC 229 (5 June 2000) QUOTE

45

30. It was submitted therefore that as his Honour cannot have considered the matters he was required to
consider by s.5(2) and that his failure in that regard constituted an error of law on the face of the record sufficient to justify bringing the orders up into this court and quashing them.

31. There is no absolute duty upon a judge to state his reasons. However it is difficult to conceive of a case in
50

which a County Court judge, after hearing evidence on an appeal from the Magistrates' Court, would not be required to give reasons. See R. v. Arnold[4].

32. Expressed another way, a case must be exceptional for a judge not to have a duty to state reasons. See
Soulemezis v. Dudley (Holdings) Pty. Ltd.[5] 23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati Page 6

5

Page 7

33. See also Powter; re Powter[6]; and Farrugia v. The County Court of Victoria & Anor[7].
34. But there is no obligation on a judge dealing with an appeal of the nature of the appeal in this case to give elaborate reasons for his decision let alone incumbent upon him to state in those reasons that he has given consideration to the various matters he is required to by s.5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991.
5END QUOTE

How indeed can any purported legal process be in existence that defies ordinary legal procedures for an accused to challenge the allegations once place before a court? What we have is that a person alleged to have infringed a traffic code then is given the alleged option to take it to court or not, which would induce a citizen to incur loss of income, 10etc, regardless if the Infringement Notice is ill conceived. This never can be deemed a legitimate legal process as it must be held that unless and until the allegations has been filed in court (not just lodged) the accused has no obligation to answer anything. there me fact something is alleged against a person doesn't place any person upon that person then having to go to court to prove his "innocence"! If my neighbour was to alleged that I had weakened the fence in some manner, it doesn't mean that I then have to select to go to court or by my refusal to do so can be 15deemed to be guilty as alleged. Likewise, where the Government or any of its authorities makes an allegation then it is open to them to place the matter before the Court and not unless and until; it is filed in a Court of law there is no obligation to an accused to somehow elect to go to court. Infringement Act 2006 20QUOTE s. 53 Part 4—Lodging Infringement Penalties and Enforcement Orders Infringements Act 2006 Act No. 12/2006 44 25 PART 4—LODGING INFRINGEMENT PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT ORDERS Division 1—Lodgement 54. Lodgement of infringement penalty with infringements registrar (1) An enforcement agency may lodge details of any outstanding amount of an infringement penalty in respect of a lodgeable infringement offence together with the prescribed costs (if any) with an infringements 30 registrar if— END QUOTE

While the Infringement Act 2006 refers to "lodged"/"lodging"/"lodgeable", the truth is, that anyone can lodge an application or other document in the Court but this in itself doesn't mean it 35is "filed'. The Registrar or other officer, including a judge may refuse to accept the lodged document for filing and then it is and remains a document not subject to litigation between parties.
Infringement Act 2006 40QUOTE S3 Definitions "lodgeable infringement offence" means an infringement offence prescribed under this Act to be an infringement offence which is enforceable under this Act; END QUOTE

45While it is provided for that and infringement offence can be enforced it does however not stipulate that the lodgement of an Infringement Notice itself is deemed to be as to filing of a document ordinary applicable in the Magistrates Court of Victoria.
Infringement Act 2006 50QUOTE S3 Definitions "enforcement agency", in relation to an infringement offence, means— (a) a person or body authorised by or under an Act to take proceedings for the infringement offence in respect of which the infringement notice or official warning was issued or served; or (b) a person by whom, or body by which, a person or body referred to in paragraph (a) is employed or engaged to provide services if the 55 taking of the proceedings referred to in that paragraph would occur in the course of that employment or in the course of providing those services; or (c) a prescribed person or body or person or body which is a member of a prescribed class of person or body; END QUOTE Page 7 23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 5 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 8

The above doesn't show any indication as to "file" or "filed".
QUOTE 57. Reliance on lodged material An infringements registrar is entitled— (a) to rely on the accuracy of the material provided by an enforcement agency when the details of an infringement penalty and prescribed costs (if any) in respect of a lodgeable infringement offence are lodged under section 54; and 10 (b) to assume that the details are true and correct. 58. Agency may request enforcement order not be made At any time before an enforcement order is made, an enforcement agency may request an infringements registrar not to make an enforcement order in respect of details of any outstanding amount of an infringement penalty and prescribed costs (if any) in respect of a lodgeable infringement offence lodged under section 54. 15 Division 2—Enforcement Orders 59. Enforcement orders (1) If an infringements registrar has not received a request under section 58 from an enforcement agency, the infringements registrar may make an enforcement order that the person pay to the Court the outstanding amount of the infringement penalty and the prescribed costs in respect of a lodgeable infringement offence. 20 (2) An enforcement order is deemed to be an order of the Court. s. 57 Part 4—Lodging Infringement Penalties and Enforcement Orders Infringements Act 2006 Act No. 12/ END QUOTE 25 Infringement Act 2006 QUOTE S3 Definitions "infringement notice" means a notice in respect of an infringement offence served in accordance with Part 2; "infringement offence" means an offence under an Act or regulations which, under that Act or those regulations, 30may be the subject of an infringement notice; "infringement offender" means a person who has been arrested under an infringement warrant; s. 3 Part 1—Preliminary Infringements Act 2006 Act No. 12/2006 5 35"infringement penalty" means the amount stated in an infringement notice as payable in respect of the infringement offence to which the notice relates; "infringements registrar"— (a) means a registrar within the meaning of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 who is a registrar on whom functions under this Act or the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 have been conferred in respect of any proceeding or class of 40proceeding or procedure under this Act; and (b) includes any deputy registrar employed pursuant to section 17 of that Act to whom duties, powers and functions under this Act are delegated under the Magistrates' Court Act 1989; "infringement warrant" means a warrant issued under Part 6; "issuing officer" means— 45(a) a person appointed by an enforcement agency to issue or serve an infringement notice in respect of an infringement offence; or (b) a prescribed person or person who is a member of a prescribed class of person; "lodgeable infringement offence" means an infringement offence prescribed under this Act to be an infringement offence which is enforceable under this Act; 50END QUOTE
5

It does however claim;
QUOTE "infringements registrar"— 55 (a) means a registrar within the meaning of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 who is a registrar on whom functions under this Act or the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 have been conferred in respect of any proceeding or class of proceeding or procedure under this Act; and (b) includes any deputy registrar employed pursuant to section 17 of that Act to whom duties, powers and functions under this Act are delegated under the Magistrates' Court Act 1989; 60END QUOTE 23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati Page 8

5

Page 9

If the Infringement Registrar is a Registrar of the Magistrates Court of Victorias then I view the term "deemed" ("2) An enforcement order is deemed to be an order of the Court. ") is not appropriate, as any order of a Registrar of any Court ordinary can be held to be a Order of the Court unless a party objects to it, as I did, and then a hearing DE NOVO must be granted. Upon that basis the 5Order of the Registrar seizes to exist once a hearing De Novo is undertaken. In my view the legislation known as Infringement Act 2006 is deliberately designed to turn the Magistrates Court of Victoria for financial benefits of the Government as well as those operating the scheme as a closed court without DUE PROCESS. If the infringement Registrar was to be validly operating as a Registrar of the magistrates Court of Victoria then the Infringement Act 102006 must show the provisions for a alleged infringement offender to be able to file any documents in opposition of the alleged claims by the enforcement agency. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/nsw-drivers-stung-with-mistaken-citylinkcharges/story-fn7x8me2-1226265158730
15QUOTE NSW drivers stung with mistaken CityLink charges

• • •
20

Greg Thom From: Herald Sun February 08, 2012 12:00AM Thousands of motorists have been mistakenly charged for using CityLink. Picture: Mark Smith Source: Herald Sun A BILLING bungle has resulted in thousands of motorists being charged for travelling on CityLink despite being nowhere near the toll road.

25

New South Wales drivers with the same registration plates as Victorians were stung up to $7 a trip for driving on the network, despite being thousands of kilometres away. While the toll operator has vowed to issue a full refund, Victorian drivers who thought they might have had a free ride won't be so lucky. They will have to cough up the cost of their trips.

30

CityLink yesterday was checking up to 10,000 interstate licence plates to determine how many people were eligible for a refund. The issue affects those who travelled on the toll road between mid-December and Friday, when it was detected in a review. The embarrassing mistake came on the day the tollway's operator, Transurban, revealed a $96.7 million profit.

35

Related Coverage • • • • NSW drivers charged with VIC tolls Courier Mail, 1 day ago Victorian toll for Sydney drivers The Daily Telegraph, 1 day ago Investors in the clearway Herald Sun, 1 day ago Glitch delivers toll slug interstate The Australian, 1 day ago Lynch has faith in Transurban drivers Herald Sun, 9 days ago End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. CityLink-generated revenue surged 8 per cent to $235.4 million in the six months to December, compared with the same period in 2010.

40 •

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 9

Page 10 CityLink general manager Elizabeth Mildwater said the problem had been isolated and refunds were on the way. "We apologise for the inconvenience caused and would like to assure affected customers that they will not be out of pocket," she said. 5 "We are going through the process of reversing the incorrect charges and this may take a few days to come through." Ms Mildwater said it was believed only a small percentage of customers had been affected. END QUOTE

What the article shows is that of mid December 2011 about 10,000 NSW drivers may have been 10affected. but it was not until 8 February 2012 (outside the ordinary allowable time to make the payment demanded by the Infringement Notice) before it was reported that it was admitted to be an error. People may have been overseas or elsewhere, unaware of the Infringement Notice that may have been delivered in their mailbox, and yet no provision exist for them to object to the Infringement Notice, by the time they return to their homes and discover the alleged 15infringement accusation. Others who may have travelled in that time on the freeway but didn't commit any offence may wrongly hold to have been in offence. After all the system that should operate should be as such as to be trustworthy and where then a possible 10,000 motorist may have been wrongly issued a fine, just on that occasions alone then this place grave doubts about the system used. 20It also places a question as to the privacy of the NSW drivers for their details having been accessed regardless of not having committed any offences. What we have is a private operator going about delving into peoples private details causing embarrassment to them in the process and upsets and those people may assume that because their precise details were known then it must be applying to them, only to discover that this private operator simply has unlimited access 25and basically in my view shows a total disregard to what the "Privacy Act" stands for. What this all also indicates is the lack of transparency as to the filing process and the conduct by the purported Infringement Registrar. Who is the Infringement Registrar or the Deputy Infringement Registrar really? What is the relevant name of the person and what was the time 30and date of the hearing? How many of the NSW drivers, or that any other driver were wrongly issued with an Infringement order regardless of their innocence of any wrongdoing, where the Infringement Act 2006 prevents them to file any objection against any Infringement Notice lodged in the Infringement Court? Who really is the " enforcement agency" when for example I can receive correspondences from the Police, the Sheriff and Civic Compliance Victoria" all 35seemingly dealing with the same matter? Surely, any accused has a right to know with whom he is dealing and be provided with the precise details of the allegations lodged in the Infringement court, before he might exercise the right to object to any material/details lodged with the Infringement Court and well before the Infringement Registrar in an "open court' hears and determines the matter considering what both parties may have submitted. 40 What we now have is that the Infringement registrar has basically been set up to issue Infringement Notices and issuing Infringement orders in total disregard of DUE PROCESS OF LAW, where an accused can seek to object to the jurisdiction of the court as well as submit any material/details he may deem relevant for the case. 45Indeed, a person may have committed an offence due to excruciating circumstances, such as being severely injured and driving to a hospital. I recall that during 2012 I found my leg, of a recent operation, to suddenly open up and because of the large wound on the left leg decided to immediately drive myself to the hospital. While I was cautious not to exceed speedlimits, nevertheless in the circumstances such as this it could eventuate that a driver may be faced with 50that every second can mean the difference of life and dead and that ordinary a Court of law would consider this before passing judgment. Clearly the Infringement Court doesn't provide for
23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati Page 10

5

Page 11

any such opportunity. It leave it at most up to the police officer to determine if the proffered excuse is acceptable, but a camera used for detecting speed cannot consider this. I had this incident where I desired to go to the Art Centre in Melbourne but found , too late, to be heading into the tunnel to Richmond. I immediately drive back from Richmond to the Art Centre 5and parked there, obtaining a parking slip. That evening I wrote to the premier about the issue that I held the signage was insufficient to avoid driving into the tunnel, in the circumstances of the traffic. I nevertheless received an Infringement Notice that I had not paid the toll for travelling into the tunnel. However this was withdrawn when I forwarded a copy of my correspondence to the Premier (then Steve Bracks) and a copy of the parking slip. 10what however is to be considered is that if the issuing authority had not withdrawn the Infringement Notice then I would have had so to say hope in hell to combat the issue before an Infringement Registrar as there are no legal provisions for this. Likewise, as I eluded to in past correspondences when Banyule City Council in error issued an Infringement Notice that I had exceeded a 3 hours parking limit, this even so by their own 15records I had parked fro 2 hours and 29 minutes, it took several months before they finally understood that 2 hours and 29 minutes is less then 3 hours, and then finally withdrew the Infringement Notice. However, had they not, considering it took Banyule City Council about 6months before finally withdrawing the Infringement Notice, then I would have had no opportunity to still defend the matter before the Infringement Registrar because the system in 20place doesn't allow for this. it would have been sheer and utter notice for me to elect from onset to go to Court where I knew by the very details Banyule City Council provided that parking for 2 hours and 29 minutes could never have been to exceed the 3 hour parking limit, and then lose a day to go to court, etc. Nor can it be deemed appropriate that a Infringement Registrar accept the details, so to say, 25punched into a computer as reliable merely because they were provided by an "enforcement agency" without having regard to the actual records held by Banyule City Council and by this may have issued Infringement Notices without allowing for any person so affected to oppose it, even so a competent Infringement Registrar would have so to say thrown out of the window the case if he had been provided with the details of any driver having been alleged to have exceeded 30a 3 hour parking limit when being recorded to have parked there for 2 hours and 29 minutes. what therefore is clear is that the legislation fails totally to ensure that any so called EX PARTE hearing (if one can call it to be so) then the "enforcement agency" must produce all relevant records upon which the Infringement Notice is issued. Including photo's and other records, and where it relates to camera's their approved testing certificate by the Commonwealth, etc. 35Without such provisions in legislation the entire system in my view is a elaborate scam , involving Members of Parliament (having voted for such draconic legislation they knew or ought to have known was designed to deny citizens of DUE PROCESS OF LAW, etc.), the government, and those involved in the practice of acting as an enforcement agency and so to involving the Sheriff's Office.
40.

Again:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/nsw-drivers-stung-with-mistaken-citylink-charges/story-fn7x8me21226265158730 QUOTE
45

New South Wales drivers with the same registration plates as Victorians were stung up to $7 a trip for driving on the network, despite being thousands of kilometres away. While the toll operator has vowed to issue a full refund, Victorian drivers who thought they might have had a free ride won't be so lucky. They will have to cough up the cost of their trips.

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 11

Page 12 CityLink yesterday was checking up to 10,000 interstate licence plates to determine how many people were eligible for a refund. The issue affects those who travelled on the toll road between mid-December and Friday, when it was detected in a review.
5

The embarrassing mistake came on the day the tollway's operator, Transurban, revealed a $96.7 million profit. END QUOTE

As such, I view that the Infringement Registrar cannot and shouldn't act on any Infringement Notice that was lodged, but not filed! As the Infringement Act 2006 appears to be silent of any 10filing of an Infringement Notice then clearly the ordinary legal procedures ordinary applicable to the Magistrates Court of Victoria must be considered to be applicable. The Parliament cannot have any powers to dictate to any Court that a document "lodged" but not filed according to the rules of the Court nevertheless can be used for litigation, merely because the party happens to benefit the government, whereas the same is not applicable for an ordinary citizens. 15Again:
. Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on 20 terms that are just to both. END QUOTE .

Therefore, any legislation enacted within constitutional powers must likewise be just between state and its people!
25

Also, the Commonwealth Constitution act 1900 (UK) provides for 4 separate powers 1. The executives (Government of the Day) limited to " uniform" application of laws through the Commonwealth of Australia. 2. The Parliament (legislators) 303. Judiciary 4. (Federal level only) Inter-State Commission (Permitted to make decision in a non-uniform manner as may be required relevant to the needs of each particular state) under supervision of the High Court of Australia as to appeals only in regard of "error of law", but not being part of the Judiciary nor under the control of the government, this, as its powers as to Trade and 35 Commerce is derived from the Constitution itself, which may be complimented by any Act of Parliament to provide additional powers in other matters to which the Parliament possesses the legislative powers, being health funding, education funding, etc. We now have to consider the following:
40QUOTE 114 States may not raise forces. Taxation of property of Commonwealth or State A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State. 45END QUOTE

In my view the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to dictate the Courts that it must be operating with a ABN/ACN number as if it is a registered business for GST purposes. This, as it would undermine the Courts function. so to say it would leave the Government to interfere with 50the Courts processes by making clear that if the Court were in a certain litigation rule adverse to the government then it may increase specific taxation for the Courts, or other such draconic measures. In my view the Chief Justice is responsible for the conduct of the Court and liable to answer for monies used from Consolidated Revenue funds. If we cannot trust the Chief Justice then he shouldn't be in that position in the first place. the Chief Justice task is to ensure that the
5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 12

Page 13

courts remain viable and acts appropriately and not engage in misuse/abuse of public monies as after all it is designed to enforce the law, not to abuse it. In my view the GST registration of the Court therefore is unconstitutional and shouldn't be permitted to be used. the mere usage of an GST identification being it ABN and/or ACN itself is 5for the Court to submit to the Executive rather then to remain impartial. How indeed could the Court make an impartial ruling as to the proper application of the GST legislation where it is deemed to accept that it is valid by using it for itself, where a party may seek to challenge the validity of the legislation?
10Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2006] HCA 44 (5 September 2006) QUOTE 12. That is, if the institutional integrity of a court is distorted, it is because the body no longer exhibits in some relevant respect those defining characteristics which mark a court apart from other decisionmaking bodies. 15END QUOTE

And;
Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2006] HCA 44 (5 September 2006) QUOTE 66. As explained in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, effect has been given to the fundamental 20 importance which is attached to the principle that a court must be independent and impartial by the development and application of the apprehension of bias principle. Even the appearance of departure from the principle that the tribunal must be independent and impartial is prohibited lest the integrity of the judicial system be undermined. As further explained in Ebner, the apprehension of bias principle admits of the possibility of human frailty and its application is as diverse as human frailty. Thus when reference is made 25 to the institutional "integrity" of a court, the allusion is to what The Oxford English Dictionary describes as "[t]he condition of not being marred or violated; unimpaired or uncorrupted condition; original perfect state; soundness". Its antithesis is found in exposure, or the appearance of exposure, to human frailties of the kinds to which reference was made in Ebner. END QUOTE

30And
Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2006] HCA 44 (5 September 2006) QUOTE 208. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("the ICCPR") provides, relevantly, in Art 14(1), that: 35 "[a]ll persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of ... his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law." This provision supplements Art 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are analogous provisions in each of the regional human rights instruments[206]. 40 209. In order to decide whether a court or tribunal may be considered "independent" for these purposes, regard is usually had (amongst other things) to the manner of the appointment of its members; their terms of office; the existence of effective guarantees against outside pressure; and the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence and impartiality END QUOTE 45

As set out below the colonial " sovereign" Parliaments became State "constitutional" Parliaments. You cannot have that the Federal "constitutional" Parliament cannot overrule the Chapter III Courts, such as the High Court of Australia, yet a State parliament could be deemed to be a "sovereign" Parliament and then could overrule the State Courts exercising Federal 50jurisdiction. either Chapter III courts are standing alone courts not under the control of the Federal parliament as this is a "constitutional" Parliament and in line with this the State Parliaments are also "constitutional" Parliaments or they all have to be considered subject to Parliaments grills. To claim that there are two versions of Chapter II courts would make a mockery of the Court system. 55Neither could federal jurisdiction be invested in a State Court not being of the status as the High Court of Australia as to be an independent judiciary (see also Kable). Once it is accepted that the State Court invested with federal jurisdiction are not under the control of the State Parliaments
5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 13

Page 14

because those Parliaments are also "constitutional" Parliaments, in that the States are created by the force of section 106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then it flows from that that no state can amend its own constitution as purportedly was done since federation, but must rely upon the State electors to veto or approve of any amendment of the 5respective State constitution. The sinister conduct by States to allow the purported reference of legislative powers to the Commonwealth but so with the real hidden agenda to enable the Commonwealth to adjudicate in matters, is in my view unconstitutional, as the States cannot so to say give away to the Commonwealth directly or indirectly State judicial powers, as this requires legislation of a 10"sovereign" Parliament. This matter is far more extensive then that can be canvassed in this correspondence and again as Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues I have canvassed this already extensively in the past.
15 http://www.theage.com.au/national/false-speed-readings-used-to-issue-tickets-20091007-gn8k.html QUOTE theage.com.au

National
20

'False speed readings used to issue tickets' STEVE BUTCHER October 8, 2009

Afrain Asaf
25

30

35

40

45

50

A VICTORIAN police officer has alleged that some colleagues have corruptly used old readings from laser and radar devices to issue speeding tickets against unsuspecting motorists. Senior constable Afrain Asaf claimed yesterday in court she had seen other police officers retain previous readings and show them to new ''offenders'' who queried their speed. She said she had been working with colleagues when she saw the practice, described as ''retained readings'', happen a ''few times''. She told her barrister, Serge Petrovich, some colleagues had issued notices based on an estimation of the speed and had used a correct reading kept from the previous person intercepted. She appeared in Ringwood Magistrates Court to plead not guilty to a charge of exceeding the speed limit after she was detected by a colleague from the traffic management unit (TMU). Senior Constable Brett Shenton told the court he did not issue an infringement notice after detecting her speed at 79 km/h in a 60 zone in Burwood at 9.05am on August 16 last year. But he was directed to five days later by acting Inspector James Cooke after a verbal direction by Senior Sergeant Kim Pluim. Mr Petrovich said she alleged this decision was partly motivated by a history of complaints about her alleged treatment she had made against the TMU office. This included her claims that while on sick leave, a dead rat with a note that read ''If you f---ing come back we will kill you'' was left at her front door. The Iranian-born officer said she had been bullied, ostracised and suffered derogatory remarks about her race, weight and sex life. Mr Petrovich said there had been continuing conflict at the TMU - made up of Whitehorse, Boroondara and Monash units - that ''manifested'' itself against his client. Senior Constable Shenton told Mr Petrovich he knew one senior officer felt there was a political agenda to remove non-Whitehorse members from the TMU. He agreed he had heard ''retained readings'' being discussed among some colleagues, but said it was ''just banter and joking'' and was not something ''anyone seriously considered''. Senior Constable Asaf, who estimated her speed at between 60 and 65 km/h, said she had mentioned retained readings at work, but was told to ''pretty much mind my own business''. She said she was also scared of being further bullied or ostracised, but was now prepared to co-operate with the Office of Police Integrity and the police ethical standards department. In finding the charge proved and fining her $200, with $42 costs, without conviction, magistrate Lionel Winston-Smith said serious allegations had been raised, but he accepted the evidence of Senior Constable Shenton. Senior Constable Asaf is expected to appeal. Page 14

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 15 END QUOTE

The following also ought to be considered where the Infringement Registrar doesn't provide a reason of Judgment and so the affected person has no way of knowing if the Infringement 5Registrar considered all relevant matters placed before the Court and if there was NATURAL JUSTICE provided, as well as a proper consideration of admissible evidence and not of inadmissible evidence, etc. . What we have now is that the implied bias exist because the purported prosecutor doesn't show 10up and the defendant is not notified of any hearing and so the Infringement Registrar sits for and on behalf of the prosecutor, to deal with the alleged claims of offence(s) taking the alleged details for granted. This is totally contrary to the adversarial system embedded in a Chapter III court. There is therefore an implied bias by the Infringement Registrar "assuming that one party , the "enforcement agency" is in full disclosure of all relevant details, while it actually has a 15financial interest not to do so with a denial to the defendant to challenge the manner in which the claim is presented to the Infringement Registrar as to be correct or not in the circumstances. The following article must be understood to relate to a traffic court and not to a Chapter III court, the latter having a higher standard of legal requirements to be followed!
http://www.articlesbase.com/football-articles/traffic-court-no-prosecutor-or-the-cop-is-acting-as-the20prosecutor-are-both-legal-grounds-for-dismissal-202252.html QUOTE

Traffic Court – No Prosecutor or the Cop is Acting as the Prosecutor are Both Legal Grounds for Dismissal!
25

Posted: Aug 22, 2007 |Comments: 1 | Views: 3,801 | The state of New York decriminalized minor traffic offenses in 1934 with the creation of the 'civil traffic infraction'. New York blazed the legal path that other states quickly followed in decriminalizing minor traffic offense by also adopting the civil traffic infraction. The creation of the civil traffic infraction allowed the courts to do away with costly jury trials for traffic tickets. The courts reasoned that jury trials were not necessary because the infraction was a 'civil offense' carrying only a 'small' civil fine as a possible penalty and no possibility of jail time. The next causality of the civil infraction was the prosecutor. Lawyers are expensive and therefore, many states decided that the lawyer/prosecutor was not needed for civil traffic infraction cases — the cop could be the prosecutor. Some other states, such as California, correctly legally rationalized that the cop could not bed the prosecutor (People v Marcroft (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th) However, a California court also (People v. Carlucci , 23 Cal.3d 249) concocted the irrational decision that no prosecutor was necessary to conduct a civil traffic trial. The decision to make the officer the prosecutor presents a great constitutional problem for traffic courts. Justice and the Constitution demands that courts are to be fair and impartial — not favoring one side over the other. The court, by allowing the state to be represented by a non-attorney (the cop), is favoring the state over the defendant. If the defendant elects to be represented in traffic court, the court demands that the defendant go out and hire a Bar attorney at their expense.. Such treatment of the defendant by the court is indisputably biased and blatantly unfair treatment and is solid grounds for dismissal of the defendant's traffic case. Civil traffic cases where there is no prosecutor present in the court are treated by traffic courts much like a small claims court action. In small claims courts both sides simply tell their stories to the judge and are allowed to cross examine one another under oath and the judge is allowed to ask questions of both sides.

30

35

40

45

50

55 5

Traffic courts treat the traffic court hearing like a small claims court only to the degree that it serves their purpose (collection of revenue). Where it does not serve the court's purpose (threat of loss of revenue), they treat traffic court cases like a different legal animal altogether. For instance, in a civil small claims court the plaintiff must show up at the time of trial, or the case is dismissed. However, in a traffic trial where there is no prosecutor, the plaintiff (the state or the People) never shows up and never does ther court dismiss the case. Page 15

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 16 Who is present in court to legally uphold the claim of the state or the People the defendant when there is no prosecutor? The judge? The Constitution requires the judge to remain fair and impartial. How about the cop? For the reasons explained already, the cop cannot be the prosecutor and in regards to California, an appeals court in the Marcroft case ruled that the cop is the witness, no more, no less. When there is no prosecutor, there is no one present in court who can legally uphold the claim of the state or the People against the defendant. In this instance, the state or the People (the plaintiff) have legally abandoned their claim against the defendant in the exact manner as a plaintiff in any other civil court proceeding except traffic. Traffic courts are not concerned with justice or protecting people's rights under the Constitution, but maximizing the collection of revenue is the traffic court's real and true agenda. Lest anyone be inclined to believe otherwise, try challenging a traffic court judge sometime by moving to dismiss your traffic case because the state or the People have abandoned their claim against you by not having a prosecutor in court. Watch as the judge's temperament and demeanor instantly change. The judge will be quick to remind you that the state grants the court the right to try a civil traffic case absent a prosecutor. If that doesn't immediately shut you up, then the judge will invoke a judicially intimidating tone of voice accompanied by some strong facial expressions, as the judge instructs you to move on to something else. The abandonment of the state's or the People's claim for lack of prosecution is a raw nerve that traffic court judges do not want exposed in open court. Such a claim exposes to everyone the fraud of the court and the court's mere pretense at justice. Slay your traffic ticket with Ticket Slayer! Ticket Slayer has a National Traffic Dismissal Rate of 85% — 92% in California TicketSlayer.com Author Contact: GregS@TicketSlayer.com
30END QUOTE

5

10

15

20

25

The book "Law Made Simple" by Colin F. Padfield, LL.B.,D.P.A.(Lond.) on page 55: QUOTE "The Rule against Bias. A true judicial decision can be reached only if the judge himself is impartial. This is 35 an obvious requirement in a court of law or a tribunal. In R. v Rand (1866) it was held that a judge is disqualified where (i) he has a direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject-matter in dispute; or (ii) there is real likelihood that the judge would have a bias in favour of one of the parties.
40

For example, if a judge is related to, or is a friend of, one of the parties to a dispute there would be real likelihood of bias. It is immaterial whether a judicial decision was in fact biased, for as was said by Lord Chief Justice Heward in R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924): 'Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.' As an example of pecuniary bias we may quote:

45

Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852). Lord Chancellor Cottenham made decrees in a Chancery suit in favour of a canal company. Lord Cottenham held several shares in the company. Held: (by the House of Lords): that the decrees be set aside on the ground of pecurniary interest. No bias was proved in fact, nor could it be shown that Lord Cottenham was in any way influenced by his shareholding. As an example of likelihood of bias we may quote:

50

R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924). A was summoned before magistrates for a motoring offence. The acting clerk to the justices was a member of a firm of solicitors representing A in civil 55 proceedings arising out of the same accident. The acting clerk did not advise the magistrates, but he retired with them to consider their decision. Held: that as the acting clerk was connected with the case in the civil action he ought not to advise the magistrates in the criminal prosecution. Conviction accordingly quashed, despite the fact that the acting clerk took no part in the decision to convict and had not been asked by the justices to give his opinion or advice. " 60END QUOTE
5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 16

Page 17 . Director of Public Prosecutions v Serratore Nos. Ca 40642/95 and Crd 72680/95 Criminal Law and Procedure Statutes - Human Rights - Telecommunications - Law Reform [1995] NSWSC 154 (14 November 1995) QUOTE 5 It is well established that the Court should not impute to the legislature an intention to interfere with fundamental rights, freedoms or immunities; such an intention must be clearly manifested by clear and unmistakable language: Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427 at 436-437. ... The close link between the fundamental right to be secure against trespass and the right to privacy is illustrated by the observations by Lord Scarman in Morris v Beardmore (1981) AC 446 ... Parliament itself 10 has ... recognised, in the context of telecommunications, the fundamental importance of protecting individual privacy, although also recognising that the value of privacy can be over-ridden where it conflicts with other significant community values, provided that detailed safeguards are observed. The recognition and protection of privacy in the Intercept Act, in my view, justifies a restrictive approach to the construction of the statutory exceptions to the prohibitions on interception. ... where there is a genuine doubt as to whether the statutory 15 language authorises the use of intercept information for a particular purpose, that doubt should be resolved in favour of a narrow, rather than a broad construction of the statutory authorisation. END QUOTE . 20R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236 QUOTE However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be suck as to lead the parties reasonably to think that the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and then prohibition may issue. Of course, the court which is asked to grant prohibition will not lightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected 25 of bias in this sense; it must be "firmly established" that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered in the minds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553-4, in the passage cited in R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (132 CLR at 262). The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a question, but whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect has occurred (see per Lord Denning MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgment cited with approval by this court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well convey 35 the impression of "protesting to much"... END QUOTE . Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 (10 December 2002) QUOTE
30

40

1. In this regard, the estoppel was seen to be an aspect of "the extended principle expressed by Sir
James Wigram VC in Henderson v Henderson[59]"[60]. 2. It was said in Henderson v Henderson that: "where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a Court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case."[61]

45

END QUOTE 50 City of Melbourne v Barnett [1999] VSCA 171 (21 October 1999) QUOTE 18. The judge's reasons make it a very difficult matter for this Court to determine on what basis his Honour decided that there was repair carried out to the hole in the bluestone kerbing, or misfeasance by the Council, or, for that matter, negligence on the part of the Council as a cause of the plaintiff's injuries. In this context it is well-established that the extent of a judge's duty to give reasons will depend upon the circumstances of the case, but that reasons given will be inadequate if an appeal court is unable to ascertain the reasoning upon which the decision is based: Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd. v. Massoud Page 17

55

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

5

Page 18 [1989] V.R. 8 per Gray, J. (with whom Fullagar and Tadgell, JJ. agreed) at 18; Pettit v. Dunkley [1971] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 376 per Moffatt, J.A. at 387-388; Soulemezis v. Dudley (Holdings) Pty. Ltd. (1987) 10 N.S.W.L.R. 247 per McHugh, J.A. at 279-280; Cropp v. Transport Accident Commission [1998] 3 V.R. 357 at 376. In our view, the reasons given by his Honour, with respect, were wholly inadequate in the areas already mentioned.

END QUOTE . QUOTE In the Marriage of Tennant (1980) 5 FLR 777 at 780 As no grounds for appeal are required to be specified in the notice of Appeal, which, on filing institutes the 10 appeal (reg 122), there is no limitations of the scope of the appeal and all findings of fact and law made in the lower court in relation to the decree appealed are in challenge and cannot be relied on by the appellant or the respondent. All the issues (unless by consent) must be reheard. This of course brings me to the point of the absence of reason for the magistrate’s decision in this case. Perhaps reasons were given orally but not recorded for the record. Apart from the requirement of such reason for the purpose of the appeal process, there is the 15 basic ground of criticism that litigants who go to court, put their witnesses up, argue their case and attempt to controvert the opposing case are entitled to know, if they lose, why they lost . If they are given no reason they may be entitled to feel the decision against them was conceived in prejudice, bias, or caprice . In such a case not only the litigant, but justice itself, is the loser. Magistrates should realise, even more than they seem to do, that this class of business is not mere ordinary trivial 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) p145] it was stated that when making orders of this kind, from which lies an appeal to other courts, it is the duty 25 of the magistrate not only to cause a note to be made of the evidence, and of his decision, but to give the reasons for his decision and to cause a note to be made of his reasons... Elaborate judgements are not required, but the reasons which lead the magistrate to make his order must be explicitly stated. END QUOTE
20

. 30As I objected to the jurisdiction of the Court and this was made clear in my writings then the question is and remains to be did the Infringement Registrar consider this and if so did he make a ruling upon this? More over, he couldn't have dealt with the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION at the same time of dealing with the alleged offence as it must be separate proceedings. 35It must be clear that there is no known record of how the proceedings actually were dealt with, if not just being a computer that spits out orders without any proper consideration to the relevant facts. Such a closed court system is subject to the question of abuse and manipulation of the legal processes and cannot be accepted as pertaining valid court orders. 40It is my view that former Attorney General Rob Hulls and former Minister for Police and Emergency Services Bob Cameron conspired with Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd to misuse/abuse court facilities by this placing the Court, such as the Magistrates Court of Victoria in disrepute and by this committed CONTEMPT OF COURT It is my view that the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court of Victoria by failing to take 45appropriate action contributed to this form of what I view to be CONTEMPT OF COURT. It is my view that the former Premier John Brumby likewise must be deemed to have participated in this by failing to take appropriate action, as is the same with former Premier Ted Baillieu. It is also my view that current Premier of Victoria Dennis Napthine and Current Attorney General likewise by failing to take appropriate action likewise are in CONTEMPT OF COURT. 50Likewise I view that Brendan Facey Director, Infringement Management & Enforcement Services (Sheriff) by his conduct seeking to enforce Infringement Court orders/warrants where he knew or ought to have known that they are not made in a lawful manner by this also must be deemed to be in CONTEMPT OF COURT. 55As I have set out in my 19 July 2013 and 20 July 2013 as well as previous correspondences that the purported Infringement Court is using operating and under the letterhead of the Magistrates
5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 18

Page 19

Court of Victoria, a Chapter III court provided with federal jurisdiction which must be an " open court".
QUOTE PART 1—PRELIMINARY 1 5 1. Purposes 1 2. Commencement 2 3. Definitions 2 4. Act to be read as one with Magistrates' Court Act 1989 8 END QUOTE

10 The Magistrates Court of Victoria is bound to conduct matters in accordance with the Magistrates Court Act 1989 and the Infringements Act 2006, Act No. 12/2006 provides for a summons and further legal provisions as to filing document such as in Section 30 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989, which in my understanding has not been applied in the matter 15Obligation Number 1106575301 Tenix Solution IMES Pty Ltd to my understanding has engaged in conduct which I view are to abuse/misuse the Magistrates Court of Victoria standing and credibility by issuing order a/warrants as if they are those issued by the Infringement court as part of the Magistrates Court 20of Victoria, by accessing its computer network and/or otherwise and to engage in a line of conduct to deny me and/or others of their rightful legal entitlements to have a matter heard in "open court", as well as impersonating an officer of the court or other officers, including but not limited to the Sheriff's Office and by this causing undue harm upon my person, my wife, and/or others. 25It is my understanding that the former Attorney General Rob Hulls and former Minister for Police and Emergency Services Bob Cameron had no legal standing to engage in a "deed of charge" (14-8-2007) with Tenix Solution IMES Pty Ltd which was intended for Tenix Solution IMES Pty Ltd to access Magistrates Court of Victoria computer and/or other files for purporting civil and/or other enforcement of purported Infringement Notices and related charges 30using the Victorian trademark Civic Compliance Victoria® and/or other identities into a nonregistered entity also known as Civic Compliance Vic (Westpac Bank Account) instead of into consolidated Funds of the State of Victoria, for so far any charges were to be deemed lawfully enforceable which is not conceded, and use such terrorism and other conduct, including but not limited to extortion to force upon me and/or others to pay monies, including but not limited to the 35issue of a warrant and threats of conduct which may and likely will harm my person and/or others. It is my understanding that while the Infringement Act 2006 allows for the lodgement of Infringement Notice it doesn't nullify the legal requirements provided for in Section 30 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989, not that the Infringement Court operating as part of the magistrates Court of Victoria then can issue orders/warrants in blatant violation of the legal requirements that 40are associated with an "open court" procedure to which the Magistrates Court of Victoria as a Chapter III court of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is required to be where it is invested with federal jurisdiction.
Brennan v Brennan [1953] HCA 28; (1953) 89 CLR 129 (18 May 1953) QUOTE 45 The section gives effect to what has always been a fundamental conception of a trial in English law, quite apart from statute, that every court of law is open to every subject of the Crown: Scott v. Scott (1913) AC 417 . A trial that is not conducted in open court, apart from some exceptional circumstances, is not a proper trial at all. END QUOTE
50

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2009/4.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="OPEN %20COURT%20PRINCIPLE%20" QUOTE 47. There is also a well established and conservative principle of interpretation that statutes are 55 construed, where constructional choices are open, so that they do not encroach upon fundamental rights and Page 19 23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 5 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

5

Page 20 freedoms at common law[38]. That is to say, there is a presumption against a parliamentary intention to infringe upon such rights and freedoms[39]. That presumption has been described in the United Kingdom as an aspect of a "principle of legality" governing the relationship between parliament, the executive and the courts. It was explained by Lord Hoffmann in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Simms[40]: "[T]he principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified meaning may have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual." Gleeson CJ described the presumption as "a working hypothesis, the existence of which is known both to Parliament and the courts, upon which statutory language will be interpreted". He added, "[t]he hypothesis is an aspect of the rule of law"[41].

10

15

20

25

48. It is an aspect of the rule of law that courts sit in public and that they accord procedural fairness. The importance of these two principles requires a conservative approach to the interpretation of statutes affecting them. 49. The open court principle is of long historical standing and well established in all common law jurisdictions. It was enunciated by the House of Lords in Scott v Scott[42] and affirmed by this Court in Dickason v Dickason[43]. It was discussed in Russell v Russell[44] which was concerned with the question whether a provision of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), requiring that State courts exercising jurisdiction under that Act sit in private, was valid. The provision was held invalid on grounds not material to this appeal. It was held not to be an exercise of the constitutional power to invest State courts with federal jurisdiction. Relevantly to this case, however, the open court principle in relation to State courts was affirmed as "an essential aspect of their character"[45]. Established exceptions to the general rule were recognised, as was the power of the Parliament to extend the categories of such exceptions [46]. The exceptional character of departure from the open court principle was emphasised by the observation of Stephen J[47]:

30

"To require that a Supreme Court, possessing all the attributes of an English court of justice, should sit as of course in closed court is, I think, in the words of Lord Shaw, to turn that Court into a different kind of tribunal and involves that very intrusion into its constitution and organization which s 77(iii) does not authorize."
END QUOTE

35Wainohu v New South Wales [2011] HCA 24 (23 June 2011) QUOTE The provision of reasons for decision is also an expression of the open court principle, which is an essential incident of the judicial function. A court which does not give reasons for a final decision or for important interlocutory decisions withholds from public scrutiny that which is at the heart of the judicial function: the 40 judicial ascertainment of facts, identification of the rules of law, the application of those rules to the facts and the exercise of any relevant judicial discretion. END QUOTE

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/7.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="OPEN 45%20COURT%20" Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 7 (14 March 2013) QUOTE Like most cases about constitutional limits the answer is not black and white. The deeply rooted common law tradition of the open court, presided over by an independent judge according procedural fairness to both 50 parties, is adapted to protect the public interest in cases such as those involving national security, commercially sensitive documents and the protection of police informants. END QUOTE http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2003/52.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="OPEN 55%20COURT%20" Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52; 216 CLR 327; 201 ALR 184; 77 ALJR 1739 (11 September 2003) QUOTE
5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 20

Page 21 16.In Kimber v The Press Association[7], Lord Esher MR said: "The rule of law is that, where there are judicial proceedings before a properly constituted judicial tribunal exercising its jurisdiction in open Court, then the publication, without malice, of a fair and accurate report of what takes place before that tribunal is privileged. Under certain circumstances that publication may be very hard upon the person to whom it is made to apply, but public policy requires that some hardship should be suffered by individuals rather than that judicial proceedings should be held in secret. The common law, on the ground of public policy, recognizes that there may be greater danger to the public in allowing judicial proceedings to be held in secret than in suffering persons for a time to rest under an unfounded charge or suggestion."

5

10

17. In the same case, Kay LJ[8] explained the basis of the privilege as the "extreme importance that publicity should be given to all judicial proceedings". It is the public interest in the openness of the administration of justice that sustains the privilege or protection. END QUOTE 15 SEE ALSO: Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4 (10 March 2011)

CAN A PUBLIUC OFFICER BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT? 20Let us first consider what the Framers of the Constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) had to say:
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 25QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE . Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates 30QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE .

35As such, I might so to say be the kind of person the Framers of the Constitution held had to be able to understand what the true meaning and application of the constitution was about. As the States are created from the Colonies in section 106:
QUOTE

Chapter V—The States
40 106 Saving of Constitutions
The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.
END QUOTE 45 QUOTE

And Section 107 is:

107 Saving of Power of State Parliaments 50
Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution exclusively vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from the Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be.
END QUOTE

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 21

Page 22

What has been misconceived by this is that somehow the State Parliaments therefore remain to be "sovereign" Parliaments. But as Section 106 clearly states " shall, subject to this Constitution, continue " then we cannot ignore embedded legal principles. 5The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution as well as that Colonial "sovereign" Parliaments became State "constitutional" Parliaments.
HANSARD 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates 10QUOTE Mr. MUNRO: We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us, I am happy to say, are very clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the book which he was good enough to distribute amongst us. He puts it in this form: That it is desirable there should be a union of the Australian colonies. That is one of the principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments. Second, 15 that such union should be an early one-that is, that we should remove all difficulties in the way in order that the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third, that it should be under the Crown. Now, I am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with which we have to deal-that the union that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown. Fourth, that it should be under one legislative and executive government. That also is laid down by our various parliaments. 20END QUOTE . HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of 25 England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it. END QUOTE . Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
30QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-

When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass 35 the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much care has not been exercised. END QUOTE . Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 40QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used 45 the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should 50 have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution. 55END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON. 23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati Page 22

5

5

Page 23 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution , and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."

END QUOTE . HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 10 Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee. END QUOTE And HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 15QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians. 20END QUOTE And HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an 25 Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. END QUOTE . HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 30QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten , END QUOTE And HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 35QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. 40END QUOTE And HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the 45 people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty ; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves . 50END QUOTE And HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of 55 the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitutionthe Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions , then by slow 60 degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the Page 23 23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 5 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 24 court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. 5END QUOTE . HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. CLARK.10 for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. END QUOTE . HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 15Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution , END QUOTE . 20HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are. END QUOTE 25. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty QUOTE Parliamentary sovereignty From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 30 Jump to: navigation, search The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. Parliamentary sovereignty, parliamentary supremacy, or legislative supremacy is a concept in constitutional law that applies to some parliamentary democracies. Under parliamentary sovereignty, a legislative body has absolute sovereignty, meaning it is supreme to all other government institutions (including any executive or judicial bodies as they may exist). Furthermore, it implies that the legislative body 35 may change or repeal any prior legislative acts. Parliamentary sovereignty contrasts with most notions of judicial review, where a court may overturn legislation deemed unconstitutional. Specific instances of parliamentary sovereignty exist in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. END QUOTE
40HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN: 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 parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present 45 are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in 50 one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution. END QUOTE 55. Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 24

Page 25 Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a Federal Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government. Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear. Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter of the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is , the same circumstances 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 is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether 10 consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might be dangerous to the Constitution itself. END QUOTE
5

It should therefore be very clear that State Parliaments no longer are the " sovereign" Parliaments 15of the Colonies but being created within s106 of the (federal) constitution they are subject to the legal principles embedded in this constitution, and not despite of it and by this are "constitutional" Parliaments of the States What we have however is that while in the USA the original 13th Amendment of its constitution 20banner Members of the Bar to practice in the Courts, we have that they have basically taken over the Courts and the Parliament as well as the governments, to such an extend that with their brainwashed idea's and applications they have undermined the rights of citizens to be judges by a FAIR MINDED and IMPARTIAL judiciary. We have that instead of respected citizens in the community being magistrates, now one has to be a member of the legal profession. We have that 25to be a judge of a court one now has to be a member of the legal profession. It is argued that the complications of laws require people trained in law. Really? Let me repeat it again:
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 30QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE
.

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates 35QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE

40As such, every piece of legislation must be in the terms as the power to legislate is from the constitution. The servant cannot exercise a greater power then its master! Hence, legislation that requires a lawyer to interpret and explain to an accused is unconstitutional, because it is then to be deemed beyond the understanding of the "unlettered people". 45In my view, each time the Attorney General therefore provide the Governor with a Bill to be enacted where the language used in the bill requires a lawyer to explain it then this Bill must be deemed unconstitutional and the Attorney General certifying to the Governor or GovernorGeneral that the Bill is constitutionally valid in essence is deemed to commit CONTEMPT OF COURT as well as CONTEMPT AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION (Ordinary referred to as 50TREASON).
.

We had the judiciary making out that the constitution doesn't stipulate which Crown (EG British Crown or Australian crown) is referred to and so it is the Queen of Australia.
55HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HOLDER: 5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 25

Page 26 I pass from these two general principles to a discussion of the only other preliminary I shall have to touch, and that is the question of the appointment of the representative of the British Crown in the person of the Governor-General. I do not take it that the words of the Enabling Act requiring us to frame a Constitution for a Federation "under the Crown" bind us in the matter of whether or not we shall elect our own Governor5 General, because I take it that the legal bonds which bind us to the mother-country, to the great British Empire, are chiefly, first the right of veto which the Imperial authorities have over any Acts our local Legislature may pass, and which the Federal Legislature may pass, and next the right of the Imperial Legislature at any time to pass legislation which may affect us, or which may revoke any legislation affecting us. These are the great legal bonds which bind us to the British Empire. 10END QUOTE HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike 15 subjects of the British Crown. END QUOTE
.

Therefore, the understanding at time of federation was for the unlettered person that this constitution was created under the British Crown. having therefore members of the legal 20profession professing that somehow there is a Queen of Australia is not only insulting to the crown as well to its people in Australia but ought to be deemed a CONTEMPT OF COURT as well as a CONTEMPT AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION (TREASON), and underlines that lawyers say brainwashed in legal studies are now seeking to twist and infringe upon the true meaning and application of the constitution.
25Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution: 30END QUOTE . Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (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 . Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 40QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on terms that are just to both. END QUOTE
.

45Therefore, what we have experienced is that instead the Courts filled with lawyers as judicial officers is the better for it the courts have lost their impartiality and are no more then corporate courts known in the State of Victoria as "Business Unit 19" and not the legal impartial courts they ought to be. Judges have lend themselves to be in CONTEMPT OF COURT in regard of the very courts they are serving by deliberately misstating the true meaning and application of 50the constitution. It cannot be in doubt that the Courts have held that where a Court issue an order against a clerk as to not present a certain Bill to the Governor-General or Governor (which ever is applicable) then this is not a CONTEMPT OF THE PARLIAMENT, because the parliament has completed its part of the passing of the Bill. Indeed, even if a bill is passed the Attorney General 55may on instructions of the Government of the Day never present the bill for Royal Assent. therefore the act to present the bill to the governor/Governor-General is a separate matter. As such, if the Attorney General presents a Bill for Royal Assent then where such a Bill is unconstitutional, being it due to the usage of language beyond the understanding of the unlettered
5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 26

Page 27

person and/or that it conflicts with the legal principles embedded in the constitution then I view the Attorney General commits CONTEMPT against the constitution and also may be deemed to show a CONTEMPT AGAINST THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR/GOVERNORGENERAL.
5

THE SAME WHEN REGISTERING THE STATE AS A CORPORATE ENTITY IN THE USA THIS I VIEW CONSTITUTES A CONTEMPT AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT 1900 (UK) AS IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR A CORPORATE GOVERNMENT, CORPORATE PARLIAMENT OR A CORPORATE 10JUDICIARY Likewise, the notion that a person can ordinary only be represented by a legal practitioner in my view is also a CONTEMPT AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, because where unlettered person can only be represented in litigation by a legal practitioner then this defies the legal 15principles embedded in the constitution. We therefore have, that lawyers having not just so to say infiltrates but corrupted the government, the Parliaments and the Courts to make this as much as possible an exclusion zone for lawyers by this have undermined the very legal principles embedded in the constitution. And not seemingly satisfied with this kind of destruction to our democratic system they have now ventured about to deceive the people to create a purported 20Infringement Court as if it is a Court of Law within the Magistrates Court of Victoria but by this thwarting the constitutional rights of citizens in a manner the Framers of the Constitution held could never be permitted to be exercised by any State. It would be beyond the scope of this document to list all issues, safe to say I canvassed a considerable amount in books I published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain 25constitutional and other legal issues as well as on my blog at www.scribsd.com/inspectorrikati. . The following authority (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html) Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908) may underline that State officials can be held in CONTEMPT OF COURT even being an Attorney General. As even judges can be held in CONTEMPT OF COURT, then I 30view nothing can save a Premier, former premier, Sheriff and others who are participating or remain silent about the misuse and/or abuse of the courts processes. It is a matter of criminal law that when a person observes someone to commit a crime and fails to report this or take such action as may be deemed appropriate in the circumstances, then such person could be dealt with for aiding and abetting in the criminal act, etc. 35Here we have even the Chief Magistrate failing to act to stop the misuse and abuse of the Magistrates Court of Victoria letterhead, its procedures, etc. It is also clear, albeit it doesn't have to be proven as such, that the State of Victorian is gaining a financial benefit out of the conduct complained about using the Magistrates Court of Victoria in such a manner as to enable the Infringement Court to operate as such in a gross denial of a 40persons legal rights and in clear violation of what an "open court" is about. It cannot be argued that the Magistrates Court of Victoria is an " open court" for exercising federal jurisdiction but otherwise can be anything it likes. Those who are dealt with by the magistrates Court of Victoria being under the umbrella of the Infringement Court or not, are entitled to face a court that is consistent in its conduct as an "open court' unless the court itself for 45special circumstances hold that the hearing must be a "closed court' because of certain sensitive details, but then the Court must first declare this to be a "CLOSED COURT" and only do so in exceptional circumstances. This however cannot be claimed of the Infringement Court which seems to be no more or less but a computer generated court orders and warrants where the very purpose is to exclude the accused/alleged offender of any opportunity to present his case. 50In my view the Attorney General may have indeed deliberately misled the governor to provide Royal Assent on the basis the Infringement Act 2006 was valid in constitutional terms where in fact the very purpose of the legislation was to circumvent the judicial processes and to have the
5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 27

Page 28

Infringement Registrar acting as some government dictated system where the right of a FAIR and PROPER hearing deliberately was intended to be prevented. In my view the Attorney General had no legal powers to enter in a deed of charge intended to 5undermine if not violate the independence of the judiciary by creating some private contract with Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd, as the State executive nor the Parliament could make inroads in the judiciary how it conducts judicial matters. Neither could the Chief Magistrate permit or consent to such inroads, this, as it goes against the principles of separation of powers. Indeed, it is a conduct that precisely was what the framers of the Constitution held no State would ever 10engage in. In my view Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd may be dealt with for colluding in deceiving citizens whom are subject to Infringement notices , as to have collaborated with the abuse of the magistrates Court of Victoria powers. Citizens who are faced with correspondences that show a heading of the Magistrates Court of Victoria are generally led to believe that the proceedings they have and/or are subjected to are formal proceedings involving the Magistrates 15Court of Victoria. The confidence of citizens in its judicial system such as the Magistrates Court of Victoria should never be eroded. I found however that even my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was ignored, this as obviously a computer system cannot provide for this reasoning and those who are so to say pumping out correspondences using the letterhead of the Magistrates Court of Victoria may not have a clue what is legally required. Also Tenix Solutions 20IMES Pty Ltd using the trademark Civic compliance Victoria (not a registered business name) using the letterhead of the Sheriff's Office, in my view, itself ought to be deemed a violation of the court processes, this as the Sheriff's Office is deemed to be part of the judicial system to enforce court orders and not some government utility to have its own government decisions enforced.
25

It also should be kept in mind that there appears to be no transparency as to the charges and in who's pockets the monies eventually are ending up in. As the Victorian Police also directs payments to be made to the "Civic Compliance Victoria" to be made but now such registered company exist, , and neither any "Civic Compliance Vic" company either exist (as the name on 30the Westpac Bank details) at least to my knowledge then I view it is a system open to fraud. Indeed, when cost is charged, then what are those cost and are they ending up payable to the Magistrates Court of Victoria or are they syphoned off by whomever, but pretending to be court cost? One may question why indeed the Victorian Police directs payments to be made to an unregistered business enterprise purportedly named Civic Compliance Victoria instead of to the 35Consolidated funds? This kind of conduct in my view might have been rather set up as an elaborate scam, and I for one do not know if the Ministers involved may get some kickback from the kind of arrangements they have put in place as there appears to my understanding no proper accountability of how the system operates. How indeed was this matter tendered, if at all, and what are the precise details. It is that the government allows Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd to 40operate on its behalf, as well as the Sheriff's Office and the Magistrates Court of Victoria, a clear violation of separation of powers? The Attorney General of the State of Victoria had no powers to so to say give away or allow interference with the State (impartial) judiciary, not even if the State of Victorian "constitutional" 45Parliament had legislated for this, and certainly not an Attorney-General as right of being an Attorney General for the Government itself, and likewise so regarding the Minister for Police. Fancy a Minister (Attorney General or other) not wishing to accept a certain decision of a court, then simply go forum shopping, to hand it over to whomever to get his way. in my view neither the State "constitutional" Parliament and/or the Attorney-General or for that 50the minister for police had any powers to hand over the function of the Sheriff's Office to a private entity known as Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd, this as the Sheriff's Office is a part of the
5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 28

Page 29

judiciary and not part of the Government. This has to be also as if the Sheriff's Office were instructed by the Court to arrest (detain) and bring to the court the Attorney-General, such as in (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html) Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Fancy the Sheriff faced with the dilemma that he has an order of the Court to detain the Attorney 5General in regard of alleged CONTEMPT OF COURT but the Attorney General overrides the court by instructing the Sheriff instead say to arrest the judge for interfering with his function as a Minister of the Crown. it must be clear that the separation of powers include the Sheriff's Office and therefore the Sheriff's Office is part of the impartial judiciary or is a Department of the Government, but cannot be both. if therefore the sheriff's office is part of the independent 10Judiciary, then I for one cannot accept that Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd using the State of Victoria trademark (not a business registered entity) Civic Compliance Victoria® can then nevertheless issue correspondences for and on behalf of the Sheriff's Office or otherwise direct or instruct the Sheriff's office what it can or can't do or what it should or shouldn't do or use the letterhead of the Sheriff's Office to impersonate a Court official as to so to say scare the living 15daylights out of citizens that they are dealing with a Sheriff rather then with some imposter and/or someone acting for the government being it a subcontractor or otherwise, which has no larger powers then the grantor (the government) has in litigation issues. Indeed, it is a well known legal principle that for a party in proceedings to conduct itself against a opponent party that may be deemed harassment, etc, in itself can constitute CONTEMPT OF COURT. 20Therefore the conduct of the government, through its contractors and/or others, to employ tactics to so to say scare the living daylight out of citizens, and we must not ignore the NSW incident here innocent citizens were subjected to false claims and, this as I view it to be extortion record, netted the Government contractors about $100 million may underlines how extensive this is in just one mentioned case.
25

For completion I am setting out below some quotations of Authorities relevant to the issues raised by me.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html 30Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908) QUOTE A temporary restraining order was made by the Circuit Court, which only restrained the railway company from publishing the rates as provided for in the act of April 18, 1907, and from reducing its tariffs to the figures set forth in that act, the court refusing for the present to interfere by injunction with regard to the 35 orders of the commission and the act of April 4, 1907, as the railroads had already put them in operation; but it restrained Edward T. Young, Attorney General, from taking any steps against the railroads to enforce the remedies or penalties specified in the act of April 18, 1907. Copies of the bill and the restraining order were served, among others, upon the defendant Mr. Edward T. Young, Attorney General, who appeared specially and only for the purpose of moving to dismiss the bill as to 40 him, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over him as Attorney General; and he averred that the State of Minnesota had not consented, and did not consent, to the commencement of this suit against him as Attorney General of the State, which suit was, in truth and effect, a suit against the said State of Minnesota contrary to the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Attorney General also filed a demurrer to the bill on the same ground stated in the motion to dismiss. The 45 motion was denied and the demurrer overruled. Thereupon, on the 23d of September, 1907, the court, after a hearing of all parties and taking proofs in regard to the issues involved, ordered a temporary injunction to issue against the railway company restraining it, pending the final hearing of the cause, from putting into effect the tariffs, rates, or charges set forth in the act approved April 18, 1907. The court also enjoined the defendant Young, as Attorney General of the State of 50 Minnesota, pending the final hearing of the cause, from taking or instituting any action or proceeding to enforce the penalties and remedies specified in the act above mentioned, or to compel obedience to that act, or compliance therewith, or any part thereof. Page 209 U. S. 133 END QUOTE
55

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908) Page 29 23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 5 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 30 QUOTE The day after the granting of this preliminary injunction, the Attorney General, in violation of such injunction, filed a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus in one of the courts of the State, and obtained an order from that court September 24, 1907, directing the alternative writ to issue as prayed for in the petition. The 5 writ was thereafter issued and served upon the Northern Pacific Railway Company, Page 209 U. S. 134 commanding the company, immediately after its receipt, "to adopt and publish and keep for public inspection, as provided by law, as the rates and charges to be made, demanded, and maintained by you for the transportation of freight between stations in the State of Minnesota 10 of the kind, character, and class named and specified in chapter 232 of the Session Laws of the State of Minnesota for the year 1907, rates and charges which do not exceed those declared to be just and reasonable in and by the terms and provisions of said chapter 232. . . ." Upon an affidavit showing these facts, the United States Circuit Court ordered Mr. Young to show cause why he should not be punished as for a contempt for his misconduct in violating the temporary injunction issued 15 by that court in the case therein pending. Upon the return of this order, the Attorney General filed his answer, in which he set up the same objections which he had made to the jurisdiction of the court in his motion to dismiss the bill, and in his demurrer; he disclaimed any intention to treat the court with disrespect in the commencement of the proceedings referred to, but, believing that the decision of the court in the action, holding that it had jurisdiction to enjoin him, as 20 Attorney General, from performing his discretionary official duties, was in conflict with the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as the same has been interpreted and applied by the United States Supreme Court, he believed it to be his duty, as such Attorney General, to commence the mandamus proceedings for and in behalf of the State, and it was in this belief that the proceedings were commenced solely for the purpose of enforcing the law of the State of Minnesota. The order adjudging him in 25 contempt was then made. Page 209 U. S. 142 MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. We recognize and appreciate to the fullest extent the very great importance of this case not only to the parties now before the court, but also to the great mass of the citizens of this country, all of whom are interested in 30 the practical working of the courts of justice throughout the land, both Federal and State, and in the proper exercise of the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, as limited and controlled by the Federal Constitution and the laws of Congress. That there has been room for difference of opinion with regard to such limitations the reported cases in this court bear conclusive testimony. It cannot be stated that the case before us is entirely free from any possible 35 doubt, nor that intelligent men may not differ as to the correct answer to the question we are called upon to decide. The question of jurisdiction, whether of the Circuit Court or of this court, is frequently a delicate matter to deal with, and it is especially so in this case, where the material and most important objection to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is the assertion that the suit is, in effect, against one of the States of the 40 Union. It is a question, however, which we are called upon, and which it is our duty, to decide. Under these circumstances, the language of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264-404, is most apposite. In that case, he said: Page 209 U. S. 143 "It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take 45 jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot 50 avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty." END QUOTE http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908) 55QUOTE In Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466 (another rate case), it was again held that a suit against individuals for the purpose of preventing them, as officers of the State, from enforcing, by the commencement of suits or by indictment, an unconstitutional enactment, to the injury of the rights of the plaintiff was not a suit against a State within the meaning of the Amendment. At page 169 U. S. 518, in answer to the objection that the suit 60 was really against the State, it was said: 23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati Page 30

5

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Page 31 "It is the settled doctrine of this court that a suit against individuals, for the purpose of preventing them, as officers of a State, from enforcing an unconstitutional enactment, to the injury of the rights of the plaintiff, is not a suit against the State within the meaning of that Amendment." The suit was to enjoin the enforcement of a statute of Nebraska because it was alleged to be unconstitutional on account of the rates being too low to afford some compensation to the company, and contrary, therefore, to the Fourteenth Amendment. There was no special provision in the statute as to rates, making it the duty of the Attorney General to enforce it, but, under his general powers, he had authority to ask for a mandamus to enforce such or any other law. State of Nebraska ex rel. &c. v. The Fremont &c. Railroad Co., 22 Neb. 313. The final decree enjoined the Attorney General from bringing any suit (page 169 U. S. 477) by way of injunction, mandamus, civil action, or indictment, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the act. The 5th section of the act provided that an action might be brought by a railroad company in the supreme court of the State of Nebraska; but this court did not base its decision on that section when it held that a suit of the nature of that before it was not a suit against a State, although brought against individual state officers, for the purpose of enjoining them from enforcing, either by civil proceeding or indictment, an unconstitutional enactment to the injury of the plaintiff's right. Page 169 U. S. 518. Page 209 U. S. 155 This decision was reaffirmed in Prout v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537, 188 U. S. 542. Attention is also directed to the case of Missouri &c. Rwy. Co. v. Missouri R.R. &c. Commissioners, 183 U. S. 53. That was a suit brought in a state court of Missouri by the railroad commissioners of the State, who had the powers granted them by the statutes set forth in the report. Their suit was against the railway company, to compel it to discontinue certain charges it was making for crossing the Boonville bridge over the Missouri river. The defendant sought to remove the case to the Federal court, which the plaintiffs resisted, and the state court refused to remove, on the ground that the real plaintiff was the State of Missouri, and it was proper to go behind the face of the record to determine that fact. In regular manner, the case came here, and this court held that the State was not the real party plaintiff, and the case had therefore been properly removed from the state court, whose judgment was thereupon reversed. Applying the same principles of construction to the removal act which had been applied to the Eleventh Amendment, it was said by this court that the State might be the real party plaintiff when the relief sought inures to it alone, and in whose favor the judgment or decree, if for the plaintiff, will effectively operate. Although the case is one arising under the removal act, and does not involve the Eleventh Amendment, it nevertheless illustrates the question now before us, and reiterates the doctrine that the State is not a party to a suit simply because the state railroad commission is such party. The doctrine of Smyth v. Ames is also referred to and reiterated in Gunter, Attorney General v. Atlantic &c. Railroad Co., 200 U. S. 273, 200 U. S. 283. See also McNeill v. Southern Railway, 202 U. S. 543, 202 U. S. 559; Mississippi Railroad Commission v. Illinois &c. Railroad Co., 203 U. S. 335, 203 U. S. 340. The various authorities we have referred to furnish ample justification for the assertion that individuals who, as officers Page 209 U. S. 156 of the State, are clothed with some duty in regard to the enforcement of the laws of the State, and who threaten and are about to commence proceedings, either of a civil or criminal nature, to enforce against parties affected an unconstitutional act, violating the Federal Constitution, may be enjoined by a Federal court of equity from such action. It is objected, however, that Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, has somewhat limited this principle, and that, upon the authority of that case, it must be held that the State was a party to the suit in the United States Circuit Court, and the bill should have been dismissed as to the Attorney General on that ground. We do not think such contention is well founded. The doctrine of Smyth v. Ames was neither overruled nor doubted in the Fitts case. In that case, the Alabama legislature, by the act of 1895, fixed the tolls to be charged for crossing the bridge. The penalties for disobeying that act by demanding and receiving higher tolls were to be collected by the persons paying them. No officer of the State had any official connection with the recovery of such penalties. The indictments mentioned were found under another State statute, set forth at page 172 U. S. 520 of the report of the case, which provided a fine against an officer of a company for taking any greater rate of toll than was authorized by its charter, or, if the charter did not specify the amount, then the fine was imposed for charging any unreasonable toll, to be determined by a jury. This act was not claimed to be unconstitutional, and the indictments found under it were not necessarily connected with the alleged unconstitutional act fixing the tolls. As no state officer who was made a party bore any close official connection with the act fixing the tolls, the making of such officer a party defendant was a simple effort to test the constitutionality of such act in that way, and there is no principle upon which it could be done. A state superintendent of schools might as well have been made a party. In the light of this fact it was said in the opinion (page 172 U. S. 530): Page 209 U. S. 157 Page 31

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Page 32 "In the present case, as we have said, neither of the state officers named held any special relation to the particular statute alleged to be unconstitutional. They were not expressly directed to see to its enforcement. If, because they were law officers of the State, a case could be made for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of the statute by an injunction suit brought against them, then the constitutionality of every act passed by the legislature could be tested by a suit against the Governor and the Attorney General, based upon the theory that the former, as the executive of the State, was, in a general sense, charged with the execution of all its laws, and the latter, as Attorney General, might represent the State in litigation involving the enforcement of its statutes. That would be a very convenient way for obtaining a speedy judicial determination of questions of constitutional law which may be raised by individuals, but it is a mode which cannot be applied to the States of the Union consistently with the fundamental principle that they cannot, without their assent, be brought into any court at the suit of private persons." In making an officer of the State a party defendant in a suit to enjoin the enforcement of an act alleged to be unconstitutional, it is plain that such officer must have some connection with the enforcement of the act, or else it is merely making him a party as a representative of the State, and thereby attempting to make the State a party. It has not, however, been held that it was necessary that such duty should be declared in the same act which is to be enforced. In some cases, it is true, the duty of enforcement has been so imposed ( 154 U. S. 154 U.S. 362, 154 U. S. 366, § 19 of the act), but that may possibly make the duty more clear; if it otherwise exist, it is equally efficacious. The fact that the state officer, by virtue of his office, has some connection with the enforcement of the act, is the important and material fact, and whether it arises out of the general law or is specially created by the act itself is not material, so long as it exists. In the course of the opinion in the Fitts case, the Reagan and Page 209 U. S. 158 Smyth cases were referred to (with others) as instances of state officers specially charged with the execution of a State enactment alleged to be unconstitutional, and who commit, under its authority, some specific wrong or trespass to the injury of plaintiff's rights. In those cases, the only wrong or injury or trespass involved was the threatened commencement of suits to enforce the statute as to rates, and the threat of such commencement was, in each case, regarded as sufficient to authorize the issuing of an injunction to prevent the same. The threat to commence those suits under such circumstances was therefore necessarily held to be equivalent to any other threatened wrong or injury to the property of a plaintiff which had theretofore been held sufficient to authorize the suit against the officer. The being specially charged with the duty to enforce the statute is sufficiently apparent when such duty exists under the general authority of some law, even though such authority is not to be found in the particular act. It might exist by reason of the general duties of the officer to enforce it as a law of the State. The officers in the Fitts case occupied the position of having no duty at all with regard to the act, and could not be properly made parties to the suit for the reason stated. It is also objected that, as the statute does not specifically make it the duty of the Attorney General (assuming he has that general right) to enforce it, he has, under such circumstances, a full general discretion whether to attempt its enforcement or not, and the court cannot interfere to control him as Attorney General in the exercise of his discretion. In our view, there is no interference with his discretion under the facts herein. There is no doubt that the court cannot control the exercise of the discretion of an officer. It can only direct affirmative action where the officer having some duty to perform not involving discretion, but merely ministerial in its nature, refuses or neglects to take such action. In that case, the court can direct the defendant to perform this merely ministerial duty. Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U. S. 531, 92 U. S. 541. Page 209 U. S. 159 The general discretion regarding the enforcement of the laws when and as he deems appropriate is not interfered with by an injunction which restrains the state officer from taking any steps towards the enforcement of an unconstitutional enactment, to the injury of complainant. In such case, no affirmative action of any nature is directed, and the officer is simply prohibited from doing an act which he had no legal right to do. An injunction to prevent him from doing that which he has no legal right to do is not an interference with the discretion of an officer. It is also argued that the only proceeding which the Attorney General could take to enforce the statute, so far as his office is concerned, was one by mandamus, which would be commenced by the State, in its sovereign and governmental character, and that the right to bring such action is a necessary attribute of a sovereign government. It is contended that the complainants do not complain and they care nothing about any action which Mr. Young might take or bring as an ordinary individual, but that he was complained of as an officer, to whose discretion is confided the use of the name of the State of Minnesota so far as litigation is concerned, and that when or how he shall use it is a matter resting in his discretion, and cannot be controlled by any court. Page 32

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 33 The answer to all this is the same as made in every case where an official claims to be acting under the authority of the State. The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and, if it be so, the use of the name of the State to enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of complainants is a proceeding without the authority of, and one which does not affect, the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity. It is simply an 5 illegal act upon the part of a State official in attempting, by the use of the name of the State, to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which the state Attorney General seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such enactment, comes into conflict with the Page 209 U. S. 160 10 superior authority of that Constitution, and he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. See In re Ayers, supra, p. 123 U. S. 507. It would be an injury to complainant to harass it with a multiplicity of suits or litigation generally in an endeavor to enforce penalties under an unconstitutional enactment, and to 15 prevent it ought to be within the jurisdiction of a court of equity. If the question of unconstitutionality, with reference, at least, to the Federal Constitution, be first raised in a Federal court, that court, as we think is shown by the authorities cited hereafter, has the right to decide it, to the exclusion of all other courts. The question remains whether the Attorney General had, by the law of the State, so far as concerns these rate acts, any duty with regard to the enforcement of the same. By his official conduct, it seems that he regarded it 20 as a duty connected with his office to compel the company to obey the commodity act, for he commenced proceedings to enforce such obedience immediately after the injunction issued, at the risk of being found guilty of contempt by so doing. The duties of the Attorney General, as decided by the supreme court of the State of Minnesota, are created partly by statute and exist partly as at common law. State ex rel. Young, Attorney General v. Robinson 25 (decided June 7, 1907),112 N.W.Rep. 269. In the above-cited case, it was held that the Attorney General might institute, conduct, and maintain all suits and proceedings he might deem necessary for the enforcement of the laws of the State, the preservation of order, and the protection of public rights, and that there were no statutory restrictions in that State limiting the duties of the Attorney General in such case. Section 3 of chapter 227 of the General Laws of Minnesota, 1905 (same law, § 58, Revised Laws of 30 Minnesota, 1905), Page 209 U. S. 161 imposes the duty upon the Attorney General to cause proceedings to be instituted against any corporation whenever it shall have offended against the laws of the State. By § 1960 of the Revised Laws of 1905, it is also provided that the Attorney General shall be ex officio attorney for the railroad commission, and it is made 35 his duty to institute and prosecute all actions which the commission shall order brought, and shall render the commissioners all counsel and advice necessary for the proper performance of their duties. It is said that the Attorney General is only bound to act when the commission orders action to be brought, and that § 5 of the commodity act (April 18, 1907) expressly provides that no duty shall rest upon the commission to enforce the act, and hence no duty other than that which is discretionary rests upon the Attorney General in 40 that matter. The provision is somewhat unusual, but the reasons for its insertion in that act are not material, and neither require nor justify comment by this court. It would seem to be clear that the Attorney General, under his power existing at common law, and by virtue of these various statutes, had a general duty imposed upon him which includes the right and the power to enforce the statutes of the State, including, of course, the act in question, if it were constitutional. His power, by virtue 45 of his office, sufficiently connected him with the duty of enforcement to make him a proper party to a suit of the nature of the one now before the United States Circuit Court. END QUOTE Ex p Howe [1828] NSWSC 55 (11 July 1828) 50QUOTE "There are three different sorts of contempt [p. 256] One kind of contempt is scandalizing the Court itself. There may be likewise a contempt of Court in abusing parties concerned in causes here. There may be also a contempt of this Court, in prejudicing mankind against persons before the cause is heard. 55END QUOTE Ex p Howe [1828] NSWSC 55 (11 July 1828) QUOTE
60

"It is perfectly clear as to the Courts at Westminster that contempts may not only be in the face of the Court, that they may be committed out of the Court. In the [p. 258] argument of Wilmot CJ in Rex v Alman Wilmots Notes 243 he shews clearly that publications libelling the Supreme courts may be punished as Page 33

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 34 contempt. The cases cited from Mkyns as well as that before Lord Erskine establish that anything done either for the purpose of obstructing justice or which will have that effect, may be punished as a contempt of the Court before whom the proceedings are had". END QUOTE
5

We therefore have to consider is if the conduct the Attorney General and the Minister of Police, Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd and others can be deemed to have been nothing less but a deliberate conduct to pervert the course of justice time and time again 10The documents (such as parts reproduced below) of the deed of charge cannot but indicate that the enforcement was intended.
Signed, Sealed and Delivered by The Honourable Rob Justin Hulls , Attorney General of the State of Victoria for and on behalf of the Crown in the right of the State of Victoria
15

Signed, Sealed and Delivered by The Honourable Bob Cameron, Minister for Police and Emergency Services of the State of Victoria for and on behalf of the Crown in the right of the State of Victoria QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords 20 In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy. END QUOTE
25Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the 30 Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. END QUOTE

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2010/39.html 35South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39 (11 November 2010) QUOTE 58. There is no doubt, and it was not contended otherwise, that the Magistrates Court of South Australia is a court in which the Parliament of the Commonwealth can invest federal jurisdiction under s 71 of the Constitution. Nor is there any doubt, and it was not contended otherwise, that a member of the Magistrates Court is a judge for the purposes of s 79 of the Constitution, which provides that "[t]he federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as the Parliament prescribes" [138]. In 2008 there were no fewer than 72 Commonwealth statutes which conferred jurisdiction on the Magistrates Court of South Australia[139]. Established as a court by the State, the Magistrates Court cannot be deprived by the State "of those minimum characteristics of the institutional independence and impartiality identified in the decisions of this Court"[140]. For, as appears below, the continuing existence of those characteristics is an assumption which underlies Ch III of the Constitution. Constitutional assumptions about courts

40

45

50

59.

55

The essentials of the British justice system travelled to and settled in the Australian colonies long before the Federation movement began. The courts of Britain's colonies, including the Australian colonies[141]: "in exercising their power to hear and determine, ... did so in the manner of their judicial counterparts in the place of the law's origin". As Windeyer J said in Kotsis v Kotsis[142]: "The nature of a court and the functions of court officers were matters that were well known in England long before the Australian colonies began. The meaning of the word 'court' has thus come to us through a long history; and it is by the light of that that it is to be understood in ss 71, 72 and 73 of the Constitution." Page 34

60

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

Page 35 The 19th-century understanding of a "court of justice", extant at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, was explained in part in the frequently cited judgment of Fry LJ in Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd v Parkinson[143]. His Lordship spoke of "the fairness and impartiality which characterize proceedings in Courts of justice, and are proper to the functions of a judge"[144]. He described courts as "for the most part, controlled and presided over by some person selected as specially qualified for the purpose" and said "they have generally a fixed and dignified course of procedure, which tends to minimise the risks that might flow from [their] absolute immunity" [145]. The application of that concept to courts contemplated as repositories of the judicial power of the Commonwealth was accepted by Isaacs and Rich JJ in Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd, citing Fry LJ in connection with the proposition that[146]: "the Federal Constitution is specific that judicial power shall be vested in Courts, that is, Courts of law in the strict sense". The understanding of what constitutes "Courts of law" may be expressed in terms of assumptions underlying ss 71 and 77(iii) in relation to the courts of the States.

60.

15

61.

20

25

There are three overlapping assumptions which, as a matter of history and as a matter of inference from the text and structure of Ch III, underlie the adoption of the mechanism reflected in s 77(iii) of the Constitution. The first is the universal application throughout the Commonwealth of the rule of law, an assumption "upon which the Constitution depends for its efficacy"[147]. The second is that the courts of the States are fit, in the sense of competent, to be entrusted with the exercise of federal jurisdiction. As Professor Sawer observed[148]: "The State Supreme Courts were of a very high and uniform calibre – a situation in marked contrast with that which obtained in the United States shortly after its establishment – and there was no substantial ground for fearing that they would be biased or parochial in their approach to federal questions." The generality of the wording of ss 71 and 77(iii) indicates that the assumption of competence extends to all courts of the States, albeit the supervisory role of the Supreme Courts, as was submitted by the SolicitorGeneral of the Commonwealth, reinforces the independence and impartiality of inferior State courts and contributes to the fulfilment of the constitutional imperative recognised in Kable[149].

30

62.

35

The third assumption is that the courts of the States continue to bear the defining characteristics of courts and, in particular, the characteristics of independence, impartiality, fairness and adherence to the open-court principle. This formulation is deliberately non-exhaustive. In considering the attributes of courts contemplated by Ch III of the Constitution it is necessary to bear in mind the cautionary observation of Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ in Forge that[150]: "It is neither possible nor profitable to attempt to make some single all-embracing statement of the defining characteristics of a court." Nevertheless, as their Honours added[151]: "An important element, however, in the institutional characteristics of courts in Australia is their capacity to administer the common law system of adversarial trial. Essential to that system is the conduct of trial by an independent and impartial tribunal." At the heart of judicial independence, although not exhaustive of the concept, is decisional independence from influences external to proceedings in the court, including, but not limited to, the influence of the executive government and its authorities[152]. Decisional independence is a necessary condition of impartiality. Procedural fairness effected by impartiality and the natural justice hearing rule lies at the heart of the judicial process[153]. The open-court principle, which provides, among other things, a visible assurance of independence and impartiality, is also an "essential aspect" of the characteristics of all courts, including the courts of the States[154].

40

45

50

63. The Convention Debates reveal implicit reflection on the principle of separation of powers in the context of a provision, later omitted, which would have barred any person holding judicial office from being appointed to or holding any executive office[155]. The limited record of consideration of judicial independence by delegates to the Convention otherwise centred around debate about the mechanism for the 55 removal of federal judges. A leading contributor in this respect was the South Australian Charles Kingston. He spoke of his desire "to preserve intact the absolute independence of the judges, both in relation to the Federal Executive and the Federal Parliament; that they may have nothing to hope for, and nothing to fear either; and that in doing their duty they may feel secure in their office"[156]. The absence of any recorded debate about the principle of independence enunciated by Kingston indicates that it was 60 uncontroversial. The historical record does not indicate that the members of the Convention expressly adverted to the broader concept of the separation of judicial power in their debates [157]. However, that Page 35 23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 5 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 36 does not detract from the conclusion that the Constitution was framed on the basis of common assumptions, at least among lawyers of the day, about the nature of courts and their independence in the discharge of judicial functions. The assumption of the continuity of the defining characteristics of the courts of the States as courts of 5 law is supported by ss 106 and 108 of the Constitution, which, by continuing the constitutions and laws of the former colonies subject to the Constitution of the Commonwealth, continued, inter alia, the courts of the colonies and their various jurisdictions. That continuity could accommodate the extension, diminution or modification of the organisation and jurisdiction of courts existing at Federation, the creation of new courts and the abolition of existing courts (other than the Supreme Courts). Those powers in 10 State legislatures are derived from the constitutions of the States END QUOTE (Bold and colouring added)

When originally I received the Infringement Notice I responded with a 12 page 23-2-2011 correspondence such as: 15
QUOTE MY 23-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE TO VICTORIAN POLICE (Page 1)

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Victorian Police
20

23-2-2011

Victoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913 Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA

C/o heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au
Cc; Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001

25
Ethical Standards Department Victoria Police Unit Victoria Police Centre, 737 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3005 Phone 1300 363 101, Facsimile 9247 3498

30 Sir/Madam,

Ref: Obligation Number 1106575301 It may not been known to you but in recent State elections I was a candidate promoting very much the (federal) constitution because this is the basis of all Australian law. After all it is within s.106 of this constitution that the States are created out of the colonies.
.

35

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I consider it essential that we do adhere to the constitution and so its true meaning and application as to do otherwise would invite dictatorship, tyranny and anarchy and surely the Victorian Police would not want to promote this?
40

.

45

50

55
5

Within the constitution we have the embedded legal principle of “CIVIL RIGHTS” and as the Victorian Police is noted on the “Infringement Notice to The Operator” (0201683566) then obviously you refer to the “Operator” of the vehicle concerned and not to the owner. I admit I never had any formal education in the English language and neither was English my native language but to me the term “Operator” is the person that actually controls the vehicle where as the owner may be a person who may not even drive any motor vehicle at all but has others doing so. So, the issue is if you forwarded the Notice to the “Operator” or not. Obviously the issue then is who is the person (“Operator”) referred to. Well It refers to “SCHOREL-HLAVKA GERRIT H” I am not aware such a person exist by such a name. I am “Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka” and within my “CIVIL RIGHTS” I am entitled to have people using my correct name and as such if you are referring to some fictional upper case name then have your litigation against a fictional person but if you do mean to refer to me then kindly refrain from interfering with my “ CIVIL RIGHTS” as to the usage of my surname. As the Infringement Notice does indicate that under “the Crimes Act 1958 (which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years) to provide false or
23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati Page 36

Page 37

5

10

misleading information” then whomever concocted my surname in all upper case letters clearly gave misleading information! The legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur action ” (You cannot come to court with dirty hands) denies any remedy to a litigant (including a prosecutor or defendant) who does not come to court with clean hands. As such the Victorian Police cannot go to court to pursue proper enforcement of law against me when it violates my “ CIVIL RIGHTS” to be referred to as I have my name and that is “ Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka”. After all unless and until the police does appropriately refer to my name it has no position to go to court in that regard because it would indicate to the court it TAKE THE LAW INTO ITS OWN HANDS and so has no position then to seek the court to enforce the rule of law.
.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I also am well aware that the Framers of the Constitution specifically devised a democratic system based upon the Magna Carta and other provisions!
END QUOTE MY 23-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE TO THE VICTORRIAN POLICE
15

QUOTE MY 23-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE TO THE VICTORRIAN POLICE (Page 3) Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
20

Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I have mentioned before the reasons, and they appear to me to be very strong, why these words should be retained. The honorable member will not deny that there should be a guarantee in the Constitution that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The simple object of this proposal is to insure that no state shall violate what is one of the first principles of citizenship.

END QUOTE
25.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-With reference to the meaning of the term due process of law, there is in Baker's Annotated Notes on the Constitution of the United States, page 215, this statement30

Due process of law does not imply that all trials in the state courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. The requirement is met if the trial be in accordance with the settled course of judicial proceedings, and this is regulated by the law of the state. If the state law provides that there shall be a due hearing given to the rights of the partiesMr. BARTON.-And a judicial determination.

35

Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, and a judicial determination-that is all that is necessary.

END QUOTE END QUOTE MY 23-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE TO THE VICTORRIAN POLICE QUOTE MY 23-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE TO VICTORIAN POLICE (Pages 5-6)

40Also, why on earth should I have to pay $7.50 for a print out that besides not reliable is allegedly evidence against me? Surely if the speed camera is alleging I was speeding (not that I concede I was in breach of any laws and neither that I was the person referred to in upper case letters) then it must provide the evidence free of charge. As any accused is entitled to be made aware of what purported evidence is used against him/her.
45.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (The Constitution) QUOTE Part V—Powers of the Parliament 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11] 50 The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: END QUOTE
.

QUOTE
5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 37

Page 38 (xv) weights and measures; END QUOTE
.

Oops, I will have to cross-examine the speed camera and the computer if they both were actually 5approved within the legal provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia as to measuring, etc.
.

Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. REID
10

The object is this, that for some time to come it will not be possible for the Federal Legislature to pass laws on these subjects, and it is necessary to have some laws on them-the state laws if they exist-until federal laws are enacted; but the moment a federal law is passed on any one of these subjects, under the provision under the head of "States" the federal law prevails over the state law.

END QUOTE
15.

Therefore, unless the equipment used was confirming with and approved under federal laws then the alleged speed infringement notice is of no value for this also.
.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 20(The Constitution) QUOTE Part V—Powers of the Parliament 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11] The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good 25 government of the Commonwealth with respect to: END QUOTE
.

QUOTE (xii) currency, coinage, and legal tender; 30END QUOTE
.

QUOTE 115 States not to coin money A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and 35 silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts. END QUOTE
.

This means that the offer of paying by “Infringement Penalty Payment Method” obviously is neither constitutionally valid because it fails to comply with constitutional provisions.
40END QUOTE MY 23-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE TO THE VICTORRIAN POLICE

QUOTE MY 23-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE TO THE VICTORRIAN POLICE (Pages11-12)

45

Those who are wheel clamping, etc, may just discover they are in violation of constitutional rights of the motor vehicle owners/drivers and may just discover that they can be personally sued for doing so. As the Neurenberg trials made clear that claiming to following orders is no excuse! We have a constitution and we are bound to act within its provisions!
.

50

55

As for making an application to go to court, now isn’t that darn silly? I object to the jurisdiction of the Court and as such cannot make an application that undermines my objection. If the Victorian Police pursues this matter then it must be by now aware it and it alone has to take the matter to court as the legislation cannot be constitutionally valid to place the onus upon me to apply to a court for the prosecutor to litigate against me. That is the job of a prosecutor and failing the prosecutor to take the matter to court there is in that case neither any jurisdiction for any court under whatever name it may purport to operate to invoke jurisdiction.
.

The above stated must not be perceived and neither is intended to indicate that I in any way implied or otherwise conceded to have been in breach of law and/or that this is the totality
5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 38

Page 39

5

of what I had to state because it must be obvious that my reference to the 19 July 2006 decision of the County Court of Victoria regarding constitutional and other legal issues then also is now relied upon by me and the Victorian Attorney-General at the time, despite having been given an opportunity to dispute my submissions didn’t do so and neither appealed the courts decision and as such the State of Victoria, so any law enforcement agency, is bound by it!
END QUOTE MY 23-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE TO THE VICTORRIAN POLICE QUOTE MY 30-5-2011 CORRESPONDENCE TO Premier Ted Baillieu

10 Ted Baillieu Premier ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au C/o Victorian Police
15

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 30-5-2011

Victoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA

heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au
Cc; Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com
20

Ethical Standards Department Victoria Police Unit, Victoria Police Centre, 737 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3005 Phone 1300 363 101, Facsimile 9247 3498

Ref: Obligation Number 1106575301
25

Re: COMPLAINT Ted, Is it too much to ask if “Law & Order” is to be applied according to law?
END QUOTE MY 23-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE TO Premier Ted Baillieu 30 QUOTE MY 30-5-2011 CORRESPONDENCE TO Premier Ted Baillieu

35

As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that DUE PROCESS OF LAW is where there is a “judicial determination” after both parties have been heard! As such, it is not relevant what alternative legal processed the Parliament of Victoria may have provided for because no Parliament can overrule the constitution! Now, if you got some police wanting to take the matter to court then that is up to the police concerned but unless and until they do so I have no legal responsibilities as the Imperial Act Interpretation Act 1980 prohibits a fine before conviction and certainly increasing a fine before conviction.
.

40

45

50

While the Infringements Act 2006 legislation refers to “infringements registrar” and warrant issue, etc, lets make it very clear I hold this kind of legislation is unconstitutional and so is and remains ULTRA VIRES unless and until the prosecutor can obtain a ruling otherwise. As such, if the police prosecutor cannot obtain an order to declare the legislation and/or any part thereof to be INTRA VIRES then the legislation is not enforceable from this moment. And this means that the Infringement Act from now on neither is enforceable to any other citizen within the State of Victoria either. I will not make this correspondence of great length as neither is there any need for this because the same argument was litigated by me previously extensively in the Magistrates Court at Heidelberg on 4 December 2002 and in the end on 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria upheld both my cases against the Crown!
END QUOTE MY 23-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE TO Premier Ted Baillieu

I will now quote the email I received:
55 5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 39

Page 40 QUOTE 22-7-2013 EMAIL 1.22AM

1:22 AM wins against traffic fines in Australia.
FROM Donna Aussie TO 1 recipient 5From To BCC •

inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au

Link to website: http://www.asmd.org.au/
10Speed Cameras A controversial Topic
Q. Are speed cameras used by governments in all States and Territories of Australia actually legal? A. No they are not. Q.So why aren't they legal?

15legislation in Australia governing measuring instruments for Trade or any other Legal
purpose, and ii) None are 'certified legal measuring instruments' in accordance with the National Measurement Act 1960 and Regulations 1999. See More here

A. i) Because NONE have 'pattern approval' as required under the single and only

20AND Speed cameras and Red Light cameras etc, appear to not comply with
Federal legislation and also the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and in particular we list below the relevant sections of the above Constitution Act and also the NSW Constitution Act 1902

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51
25Legislative powers of the Parliament

(xv) weights and measures; COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - CLAUSE 5 Operation of the Constitution and laws This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth
30under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and

people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 109 Inconsistency of laws
35When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth,

the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 40

Page 41

CONSTITUTION ACT 1902 5 General legislative powers The Legislature shall, subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, have power to make laws for the peace, 5welfare, and good government of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever. ROAD TRANSPORT (SAFETY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) ACT 1999 NSW 44 Approved speed measuring devices
10

(1) In this Act, an "approved speed measuring device" is a device of a type approved by the Governor by order published in the Gazette as being designed to measure the speed at which a vehicle is travelling. (2) The Minister is not to recommend the making of an order by the Governor for the purposes of subsection (1), except with the concurrence of the Attorney General NATIONAL MEASUREMENT ACT 1960 - SECT 19A says Patterns of instruments (1) The regulations may make provision for or in relation to:

15

20(a) the examination of patterns of measuring instruments;

(b) the approval and verification of patterns of measuring instruments as patterns of measuring instruments suitable for: (i) use for trade; and (ii) any other legal purpose;
25

30

(7) Before the Governor-General makes a regulation for the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister must also either: (a) be satisfied that the regulation is not inconsistent with a specification published by the International Organisation of Legal Metrology regarding the examination and approval of patterns of measuring instrument;

It can be seen from the above Section 44 of the (NSW) ROAD TRANSPORT (SAFETY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) ACT 1999, that it is in conflict with the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT 35Section 51 and the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 109 as well as the (NSW) CONSTITUTION ACT 1902 SECT 5.
5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 41

Page 42

This is a little more complicated than the Section 109 issue, it’s about “pattern approval not being mandatory”.

However, Dr Thurgood, who wrote the Federal National Measurement Act, said if pattern approval was not mandatory, this applied to every 5measuring device in the country, rendering them all invalid and not subject to standardisation. This article is from USA – But c'mon soon here from a good Judge ?

Cincinnati Judge orders all speed cameras confiscated, manufacturer held in contempt (Natural News) Chalk one up for 10privacy, at least in one part of the country. Traffic cameras have been a part of the urban scenery for years now, but in Elmwood Place - a suburb of Cincinnati - they are history.
END QUOTE 22-7-2013 EMAIL 1.22AM
15http://www.fox19.com/story/21541848/judge-ruehlman-rules-on-elmwood-place-speed-cameras QUOTE ELMWOOD PLACE, OH (FOX19) A Hamilton County judge's decision to allow a permanent injunction on controversial speed cameras in Elmwood Place is garnering national attention. 20 "We've heard from news outlets all over the country as well as citizens," attorney Mike Allen told FOX19. "I think what this is going to do start a brush fire of lawsuits just like this from other citizens and other lawyers that are willing to take it on." Judge Robert Ruehlman issued a permanent injunction against the cameras on Thursday. Allen filed the lawsuit on behalf of drivers cited by the Village of Elmwood Place, demanding that the 25 cameras be taken down. He has called the cameras a violation to drivers' constitutional rights. "People do not like these speed cameras. They're not fair, they don't give you an adequate chance to contest them," he said Friday. The plaintiffs in the case claimed the people and businesses in Elmwood Place had suffered damage as a result of the speed cameras. They claimed that businesses had lost customers and churches have lost members 30 because people were afraid to get a ticket while visiting the village. The judge ruled that the ticket policy fails to give people a chance for due process. In his decision, the judge goes on to state that the optional $25 hearings are "nothing more than a sham." In the strongly worded opinion, the judge states that "Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a hightech game of 3 CARD MONTY. It is a scam that the motorists can't win." 35 Elmwood Place police Chief William Peskin says they don't agree with the ruling and plan to appeal. The cameras have been at the center of controversy since being installed in September of last year. The cameras have caused thousands of citations to be issued at a cost of $105 a piece. Peskin says refunds will not be given to drivers who previously received tickets due to the cameras and says drivers who have received tickets and have yet to pay will still be required to make payment as the law was in 40 effect until Thursday afternoon. Mike Allen says the ruling does not discuss payment but says that is something he is investigating. "We're conducting legal research to see if that's a viable option," Allen said. Allen recognizes the case is only at the beginning stages, saying he had anticipated an appeal. FOX19 reached out to Optotraffic, the company who owns and runs the speed-detecting equipment. A 45 spokesperson for the company says they will stand behind the village as it appeals the judge's ruling. Refunds will not be given to drivers who previously received tickets due to the cameras. Drivers who have received tickets and have yet to pay will still be required to make payment as the law was in effect until Thursday afternoon. END QUOTE
50

http://www.morningjournalnews.com/page/content.detail/id/330037/Ohio-House-approves-proposed-redlight-camera-ban-.html?isap=1&nav=5020
QUOTE 23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati Page 42

5

Page 43

Ohio House approves proposed red-light camera ban
June 27, 2013 Associated Press COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Law enforcement authorities across Ohio would not be able to use cameras to determine whether drivers have run red lights or driven over the speed limit under a measure endorsed Wednesday by members of the state's House. Lawmakers approved the measure by a 61-32 vote. Supporters touted it as a way to eliminate the abuse of the cameras that some municipalities have seen. 10 Local governments have installed cameras with the purpose of swelling their coffers through ticket fines, but not to increase public safety, said the sponsor of the measure, Lebanon Republican Rep. Ron Maag. "It is unacceptable to allow these cameras to pry on citizens this way," Maag said. Critics of the ban said the cameras prevent accidents and save lives. "What are we trying to do in jeopardizing and eliminating safety because we are so worried about traffic 15 tickets?" said Rep. Robert Hagan, a Democrat from Youngstown. A common pleas judge in March invalidated an ordinance in Elmwood Place, a Cincinnati suburb, criticizing the cameras and the thousands of $105 citations that resulted from their installation. "Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech game of three-card monty," Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman wrote in his decision. "It is a scam the motorist cannot win." 20 He ruled that the tickets violate motorists' constitutional rights to due process and said the village's enforcement was stacked against drivers. The village began using the cameras in September, resulting in some 6,600 speeding citations in the first month, triple the number of village residents. Revenues that are shared with the company that operates the cameras quickly topped $1 million. The proposed legislation includes an exemption for school zones, where cameras would be allowed to operate 25 during school recess, opening and closing hours provided that a police officer is present. Several leaders of law enforcement organizations testified against the proposal Tuesday before a committee that analyzed the bill. They acknowledged that cameras do generate revenue for their localities. They said, however, that the money in some cases is used by the departments to purchase equipment, implement new programs or hire more officers. 30 More than a dozen Ohio cities use traffic-enforcement cameras. Some were installed to detect motorists who run lights, and others to track speed. In some cities, the cameras have both functions. Local governments and the companies that set up the cameras split the revenue from the tickets. The 40 cameras set in 38 intersections in Columbus yielded the city $2 million last year, according to the city's police department. Cleveland collected nearly $6 million during the same period. 35 Backers of the measure also fiercely criticized on Wednesday the inequality created by the way cameragenerated tickets are processed. Unlike tickets written by police officers, camera-issued tickets are not criminal offenses, do not count against a person's driving record and are not reported to a driver's insurance company. The House's approval moved the bill to the state's Senate for further discussion. Subscribe to Morning Journal News See more at: http://www.morningjournalnews.com/page/content.detail/id/330037/Ohio-House-approvesproposed-red-light-camera-ban-.html?isap=1&nav=5020#sthash.WGOLtlPY.dpuf END QUOTE 45 http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region_central_cincinnati/elmwood_place/elmwood-place-collected-48000-fromspeed-camera-tickets-after-judge-ordered-them-shut-down QUOTE Posted: 06/27/2013 50 By: Greg Noble, WCPO Digital ELMWOOD PLACE - Judge Robert Ruehlman has ordered Elmwood Place and its camera vendor to pay back $48,500 they collected from speed camera tickets after Ruehlman ordered the village to shut down the cameras on March 7. Ruehlman found the village and Optotraffic in contempt of his order on Thursday, directed the sheriff’s office 55 to confiscate the camera equipment and ordered Elmwood Place to pay for towing and storage. The judge also granted attorney Mike Allen's request to certify a class action. Allen, who represents hundreds of drivers who received $105 speeding tickets from the three cameras, said he intends to get refunds for every one. "Judge Ruehlman said the program is shut down. The cameras are off. Stop collecting money. They didn't," 60 Allen said. "They got their hands in the taxpayers' pockets again to the tune of $48,000. Judge Ruehlman did the right thing and ruled for them to give it back, and they're astounded by that. They act like they're offended. "I don't get it. I don't think the Village of Elmwood Place gets it. But thankfully Judge Ruehlman gets it."
5
40

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 43

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Page 44 Drivers paid nearly $1.8 million for speed camera tickets in Elmwood Place after the cameras were installed last September. Elmwood Place split the pot 60-40 with Optotraffic, the Maryland company that installed and operated the cameras. Elmwood Place’s share was $1,056,515, according to an April 5 email accounting from Optotraffic. The Maryland company got roughly $704,000. Drivers who opted for a hearing also paid a $25 fee. Allen said Elmwood Place and Optotraffic continued to operate the cameras after March 7. “The chief (William Peskin) testified that they were collecting data on speeding, but that’s still a direct violation of the judge’s order,” Allen said. “The chief testified that he advised people not to make payments after March 7, but I take that at face value. The testimony shows he knew that Optotraffic was still collecting payments (after March 7).” Allen submitted copies of emails between Optotraffic and Peskin as well as other records. Optotraffic sent weekly emails to Peskin accounting for ticket payments received and money distributed. Emails dated March 22, March 29 and April 5 recorded ticket payments collected after March 7. In a March 27 email, Optotraffic notified Peskin it had disabled the ability to make ticket payments online, by phone or by mail. In an April 5 email, Optotraffic told Peskin it wouldn’t disburse any more funds coming into the Elmwood Place lockbox. In a May 10 email, Optotraffic advised Peskin they could use the camera on Vine Street to gather data. Other emails to Peskin revealed a new idea from Elmwood Place for issuing speeding tickets and attempts by Optotraffic to lobby against an Ohio House bill that would outlaw speed cameras and red-light cameras in the state. In a March 25 email to Peskin, Elmwood Place Mayor Stephanie Morgan shared a link to a story about license plate readers and wrote: “Hey saw this on the news and wanted to share it since we are getting them sometime.” In an April 15-17 email string, Optotraffic employees discussed lobbying against Ohio House Bill 69. They suggested getting Peskin to testify against the bill and emailed Peskin on April 17 asking him to call them. Optotraffic was subpoenaed but didn’t respond and didn’t show up in court for Thursday’s hearing. Elmwood Place officials said they will have to go through Optotraffic to make refunds because they don’t know who got ticketed. Drivers paid their tickets through Optotraffic and Optotraffic sent the village its share of the money. Ruehlman said he would return the camera equipment and lift the contempt ruling when the $48,500 is returned. Allen had filed a contempt motion claiming the village continued using the cameras after Ruehlman's March 7 order. Ruehlman called the ticketing operation "a scam that the motorists can’t win" and said the purpose was to collect revenues, not to control traffic. “The entire case against the motorist is stacked because the speed monitoring device is calibrated and controlled by Optotraffic,” he wrote, noting that Optotraffic got a cut of the ticket money. Ruehlman's contempt order came one day after the Ohio House passed the legislation that would ban using cameras for traffic enforcement in the state. The bill moves to the Senate for consideration. 9 On Your Side reporters Tom McKee and Mario Ramirez contributed to this story. Read the e-mails and other testimony presented by Allen at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/717981-elmwood-place-documents-re-speed-cameras.html

45

(WCPO Digital removed some pages that displayed personal checks and private information and others not specifically related to this case.)

Read more: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region_central_cincinnati/elmwood_place/elmwood-placecollected-48000-from-speed-camera-tickets-after-judge-ordered-them-shut-down#ixzz2ZhSSwlkp END QUOTE
50

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region_north_cincinnati/hamilton/hamilton-raffic-van-slows-downmotorists
QUOTE

Hamilton traffic van-cam slows down motorists
55

Posted: 07/06/2013 • By: Mekialaya White Page 44

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 45 HAMILTON, Ohio - Police in Hamilton credit a unique traffic enforcement tool for a recent drop in issued speeding tickets. Since 2010 citations have decreased as much as 50 percent in some areas. The reason? Officers like Sgt. Ed Burns believe a special "traffic van" placed in high-traffic areas has deterred motorists from putting the pedal 5 to the metal. Hamilton police say the van helps them issue tickets based on video-captured images. It is calibrated before every use, said Sgt. Burns, traffic supervisor for the Hamilton Police Department. The system is currently used in 13 different locations around Hamilton. Those locations are varied and include parks, schools and other high-speed accident areas. 10 One area that continues to be a problem in Hamilton is near Bypass 4, where motorists have been clocked traveling up to 40 mph over the speed limit. Sgt. Burns said he hopes continued use of the van will eventually improve that number. Some critics, though, don't believe the system should be used long enough to affect those figures. They contend the van is little more than a speed trap and liken it to the controversial Elmwood Place automated 15 speed cameras that have been the subject of multiple court battles. Sgt. Buns said that's not the case. He says the van works as nothing more than a deterrent to motorists. He also said the city is trying to be transparent about where and how the camera system is used. “We do things every Monday. The location of our speed cameras is put out on the City website, on Facebook, paper, news media. We want people to know where it's at. We want people to slow down,” Sgt. Burns said. 20 Burns did not indicate how much revenue has been collected as a result of the ticketing system. END QUOTE

The mere conduct of the Sheriff to place a sticker on a windscreen itself may be deemed unlawful as it makes the 25vehicle unroadworthy and no legal provisions, to my understanding, exist to permit such kind of vandalism to a registered motor vehicle.

Now I will quote some parts of the Deed of Charge: 30 QUOTE Deed of Charge 14 August 2007 Picture 1

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 45

Page 46

END QUOTE Deed of Charge QUOTE Deed of Charge 14 August 2007 Picture 2

5

END QUOTE Deed of Charge

What constitute Infringement Management and Enforcement Service Project one may ask? 10Enforcement being done by the Sheriff's Office (for the Court) then hardly could be handed over to be controlled by a private company!
QUOTE Deed of Charge 14 August 2007 Picture 3

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 46

Page 47

END QUOTE
5QUOTE Deed of Charge 14 August 2007 Picture 4

END QUOTE
10QUOTE Deed of Charge 14 August 2007 Picture 5

END QUOTE
15QUOTE Deed of Charge 14 August 2007 Picture6

END QUOTE
20QUOTE Deed of Charge 14 August 2007 Pictur7

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 47

Page 48

END QUOTE

And now the Sheriff's Office in action, albeit after the police directed them to drive into a car 5park, not for a roadworthy check but just (unlawfully) for the Sheriff's Office to check for any outstanding warrants, etc. Placing the labels on the screen themselves I view is an act of vandalism and unlawful as it prevents a driver from operating the vehicle even if the wheelclamp is removed. what this amount to is not a Court sanctioned conduct but as I view it rather a Government organised extortion record for a person to pay up no matter the gross denial of any 10legal rights.

In my view this kind of conduct is a form of TERRORISM and EXTORTION not permitted within the provisions of the (federal) constitution. 15This, as the warrants issued by the Infringement Courts fail to satisfy the legal principles embedded in the (federal) constitution. In my view the above sets out a case against the government, and those acting for and on behalf of it, for CONTEMPT OF COURT as to intimidate and extort from parties monies without 20them having been given any reasonable opportunity, as ordinary permissible in a Court of Law to challenge the veracity of the allegations. .
Marriage of Baines (No. 2) (1981) 7 Fam LR 232 at 237;Page 48 23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 5 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 49 QUOTE We recognise that each party is entitled to a Fair and Proper trial and to an adequate opportunity to adduce relevant evidence and to test the quality and veracity of the evidence adduced by the other party. END QUOTE 5. 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 representations to the court. The role of the judge is that of adjudicator. This does not mean that he can ask 10 no questions but he is at common law restricted in that he cannot in general call witnesses himself. END QUOTE

. Well what we have in my view is a Chapter III court turned into some STAR CHAMBER COURT and KANGAROO COURT, with a gross denial of your constitutional and other legal 15rights. where indeed, as eluded to above, is the prosecutor to pursue the case? It is just that now the Infringement work, so to say, is doing the dirty work for the Government, ensuring that the Court cannot be accepted as operating as a Chapter III court. Therefore it would in my view be inappropriate for the Magistrates Court of Victoria while violating the independence of the judiciary in such manner shouldn't be permitted to exercise federal jurisdiction in any matter 20whatsoever. In my view the High Court of Australia should declare all court order of the Magistrates Court of Victoria to be null and void, because it fails to act as an impartial judiciary. Nor can you have that some private company under the guise of Infringement Registrar is actually issuing Infringement Court orders/warrants as if they are Chapter III Magistrates Court of Victoria court orders.
25

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all issues and or details and neither has anything been stated in order of priority.

Awaiting your response, 30

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
.

(

Our name is our motto!)

5

23-7-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - COURT – etc Obligation Number 1106575301 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 49

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful