WITHOUT PREJUDICE Magistrates Court of Victoria Ground Floor, 277 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000

C/o: Cc:

10-8-2011

5

Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court of Victoria C/o help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au Acting Chief Commissioner of the Victorian Police C/o heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au C/o Victoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com

10

15

Ethical Standards Department Victoria Police Unit, Victoria Police Centre, 737 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3005 Phone 1300 363 101, Facsimile 9247 3498 Ted Baillieu Premier of Victoria ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au

20

Ref: Infringement Court case Number 1158210495 Infringement Notice Number 0201683566 25 ADDRESS TO THE COURT Sir/Madam, a limited set out is provide d below as to why the purported Infringement Notice Order is null and void and should be revokes/set aside as being ULTRA VIRES, etc. 30
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.

35

[start page 2004] Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid. END QUOTE
.

40

45

When I first received an infringement notice (which commences the legal processes to subsequently lead to litigation if persisted with by the Prosecutor) I responded with to challenge the jurisdiction of any court that would be dealing with the matter. This is a tactic that obviously was never contemplated by the legislators but nevertheless because it is legally appropriate to object to the jurisdiction of a court then the entire legal process ordinary contemplated to be applied by this got stuck by this unless and until a court was to dismiss the objection to jurisdiction giving a formal ruling and reason of judgment as to why it dismissed the objection to jurisdiction. Obviously, a computer that purportedly acts as a decision maker cannot deal with
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p1

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

this and so the very computer program designed to simply enforce any Infringement Notice allegation as a matter of fact now was legally nowhere.
.

5

The Infringement Act 2006 does provide that the Infringements Registrar must consider the evidence as provided and so the question is what is required by the Prosecutor (the so called enforcement agency) to be submitted?
.

10

15

20

Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate) QUOTE As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court. END QUOTE
.

25

Now, what the role of the Prosecutor (the enforcement agency) was is to present to the Infringements Registrar all relevant details as after all my objection to the jurisdiction of the Court precedes any ability of the court to hear and determine the allegations by the Prosecutor.
.

30

35

40

As I did request in past correspondence to be made aware of the reasons of the Infringements Registrar as to the issue of the Infringement Notice Order considering that to my knowledge no formal order and reason of judgment was issued to dismiss the objection to jurisdiction then the said Infringements Registrar clearly acted without having invoked jurisdiction and therefore any and all orders issued are null and void and ULTRA VIRES. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am obviously very much aware that the States were created within s106 of the federal constitution and by this bound to adhere to the legal principles embedded in the constitution. One is that legislation once challenged to its validity then it is and remains ULTRA VIRES unless and until a competent court of jurisdiction was to dismiss the objection. During the 19 July 2006 litigation (a 5 year epic legal battle with the Commonwealth) I submitted that the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 was unconstitutional This was not challenged by the Victorian Attorney General despite that I did provide a s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS. And also unchallenged was that courts cannot be corporations and neither can share the same ABN number as the Victorian Courts do with the Prostitution Control Commission and the DPP. The County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 upheld my cases and the Commonwealth were comprehensively defeated by me in the process.
.

45

It should be made very clear that the County Court of Victoria didn‟t hand down any reservation as to any issues (submissions) I made as the Commonwealth didn‟t attempt to challenge any of what my more than 50 constitutional based submissions was about!
.

See my book published on 6-7-2006 which contained the relevant details of the case:
.

50

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really? A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3
.

10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

p2

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

15

20

What also should be understood is that the High Court of Australia is on record with it‟s judgments that the moment a party raises a federal issue then the matter that ordinary may be a state litigation issue be3comes a federal matter. (Sea quotations below also.) Now, obviously the Infringement Court is not suited to deal with a federal issue and while the Magistrates Court of Victoria is a court that can invoke federal jurisdiction as for juridical matters it cannot invoke federal jurisdiction for administrative decisions determining the guilt of the alleged offender upon the evidence of the Prosecutor. The Framers of the Constitution made clear that a “judicial” can only be made after hearing both parties, and as such the Infringement Act 2006 in kin conflict of this also. Further, the Magistrates Court of Victoria regards Infringement Notice Orders to be “Administrative “ orders and not “JUDICIAL” orders and for this also the orders are ULTRA VIRES and without legal force. When it comes to a registrar‟s decision then Kay J of the Full Court of Australia on 24 and 25 October 1994 in the matter of Abbot v Abbott made clear that there is no time restrains to seek a review against a registrars decision (And applied this for example in 19995 in the matter of Mitterer v Mitterer!). For this, the correspondence of the Infringements Registrar dated 27 July 2011 that he refused my request for revocation is beyond his legal powers as regardless what the Infringement Act 21006 may state otherwise as I disputed the court‟s jurisdiction from onset, regardless if the prosecutor did not reveal this to the say computer pretending to be the Infringements Registrar it nevertheless cannot undermine my constitutional rights. In my view the Infringements Registrar should have immediately ensured that the purported Infringement Notice Order was vacated if anything because no jurisdiction was ever invoked.
.

25

30

35

The issue that escalate this matter further in what seems to me to be corrupt conduct by the Infringements Registrar and others is that the Infringements Registrars response was dated 27 July 2011 but I received correspondence from what purports by the envelop to be “vicroads” while the letter head is under the VICTORIAN POLICE dated 19 July 2011 and as such before the Infringements Registrar made his decision known the VVICTORIAN POLICE had already applied a 1 Point demerit to my driver license and as such I was in effect punished despite that from onset I challenged the validity of the allegation of the VICTORIAN POLICE. What we therefore have is that not the Infringements Registrar but the VICTORIAN POLICE effectively decided the outcome of my request to revoke the Infringement Notice Order and as such it appears to me that there may be a case where the Infringements Registrar is FRATERNISING with the Prosecutor (the VICTORIAN POLICE) and that in itself invalidate the orders of the court!
.

40

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE
.

45

50

As was shown on Channel 7 television on 9-8-2011 taxi drivers for example are nominating other drivers as having committed alleged offenses even so the nominated person may not at all have been involved. Yet, the nominated person could by the current Infringement Notice system end up having demerit points issued against him/her and the Infringement Court can issue orders such as wheel clamping and even break in and entry and imprisonment where the nominated person may know of noting. What we have is to have vandalized the legal processes of being impartial; to courts operating as STAR CHAMBER COURTS this despite that this contravenes the Imperial Act Interpretation Act 1980 (Vic) and those judicial or other officers of the court participating in this scandalous government endorsed terrorism upon innocent people are to be
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p3

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

regarded the scum of the earth as they are employed as to ensure that JUSTICE is provided and they therefore are treasonous to their own position as well as to the general community at are.
.

5

10

Judicial decisions by a registrar can be based upon the evidence presented by the parties but an administrative decision by a court cannot deal with the evidence that may be in dispute between the parties but should be curtailed to precisely as the wording stated “administrative” decisions. Hence, I responded from onset to object to the jurisdiction of any court and as such the only “administrative” decision that possibly could have been made was for the Infringements Registrar to direct a “JURISDICTION HEARING” at which the onus was for the Prosecutor (the VICTORIAN POLICE) to prove that the court had and could invoke jurisdiction1 This was an issue I also successfully submitted on 19 July 2006 where I held the failure of the prosecutor (the Commonwealth) to prove jurisdiction was fatal to its case.
.

15

It appears the Prosecutor in error relied upon that the Defendant had to disprove jurisdiction but no such obligation exist upon an accused. What however the accused can do is raise specific objections and then each and every of those objections must be disproven by the Prosecutor as even if it fails on 1 objection then the court cannot invoke jurisdiction.
.

20

25

It must be understood that the allegation of speeding was never itself addressed by me as it is not relevant unless and until the court has determine, if ever at all, that it can invoke jurisdiction. Because of the manner the courts are now conducting matters it has undermined its own credentials and I view it now no longer can be deemed a fit and proper court to determine matters. After all the suspicion would remain that the court more than likely might just do anything to try to enforce its own decisions even so it was obtained unconstitutionally and unlawfully.
.

30

35

40

As I did challenge the validity of the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 as well as the validity of appointment of lawyers, etc, then no court could possible deal with this issue now where its own validity is now beyond q1uestion as the fact that the Victorian Attorney General didn‟t bother to oppose my submission means they were upheld unchallenged. What we have therefore is that the Prosecutor must first seek to obtain a court ruling, not being one where its own jurisdiction now is in question, and no court within the Commonwealth of Australia can deal with this because one of the issues I raised was that the Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional legislative powers to define/declare citizenship. Again, this too was not challenged by the Victorian Attorney-General. What this means is that unless the Prosecutor can somehow prove that the constitution allows the Commonwealth to declare/define “citizenship” there can be no validity even to the appointment of members of the parliament as each require an “Australian citizenship” as a “nationality” which again cannot be granted by the Commonwealth as it is a political right involving franchise rights to vote, etc, and has nothing to do with nationality. As such even judges of the High Court of Australia would fall foul on the citizenship issue. I am well aware that the 1988 Royal Commission “assumed” that the Commonwealth could legislate as to citizenship but the constitution doesn‟t provide for any Royal Commission to amend the constitution!
.

45

50

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of 10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p4

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

15

20

25

30

securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an 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. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly , that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted , inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of 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 Constitution-the 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 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 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. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well. END QUOTE
.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

35

40

45

50

Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament. Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

55

Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or 10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p5

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on. END QUOTE
.

5

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union. END QUOTE
.

10

15

20

As was made clear;
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

25

QUOTE As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. END QUOTE
.

30

35

40

45

HANSARD 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 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 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
.

50

The latter makes it very clear that the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 has no legal validity if it was not approved by State referendum. The Colonial “sovereign” Parliaments were free to amend their own constitutions but upon federation they became State “ constitution” Parliaments and from then on any State constitution was as s106 of the constitution stated “subject to this constitution” and so all legal principles embedded in the constitution applies also to the States.
.

55

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. THYNNE: I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says: 10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p6

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.

5

END QUOTE
.

10

HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. END QUOTE
.

15

While the Queensland Government pretended in 2001 to refer back to the original colonial constitution and then replace it with the 2001 Queensland constitution act the truth is that the original Queensland constitution act was a “sovereign” constitution whereas since federation it became a “constitution” constitution and as such the 2001 Queensland Constitution Act was an invalid exercise then and remains to be so. It must be obvious that governments and so Parliaments have tried to hoodwink citizens with deceptive State constitution amendments, etc, but that must stop.
.

20

25

30

35

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject? Mr. WISE.-I presume so. Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects. Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of inserting the words "the Commonwealth." I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case. Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien. Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders. Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out. END QUOTE
.

40

45

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 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. END QUOTE
.

50

Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. MUNRO: I do not see the necessity for considering the hon. member's proposal at the present time. I am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to be proud of that position. I have no desire to weaken a single link binding us to that empire, whether as regards the appointment of a governor-general or anything else. END QUOTE
.

55

It must therefore be clear that no matter what politicians may desire they are limited to only propose amendments to a State constitution and it can only be put in force if the State electors approve of it by referendum. If the State electors veto the proposed amendment then it has no legal force.
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p7

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

The judges of the High Court of Australia themselves have compromise the independence of this court because the judges were appointed under the British Crown and then went about to hand down a decision as to the purported Queen of Australia. This, even so the Framers of the Constitution made it very clear that the constitution didn‟t provide for this to be do.
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 subjects of the British Crown. END QUOTE Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN: In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this constitution. END QUOTE
.

10

15

20

25

30

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union. The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree. END QUOTE
.

35

If then the Constitution doesn‟t allow the definition of the Crown then how on earth can the High Court of Australia overrule the constitution, as it is created by the constitution and therefore is not above the constitution?
.

40

45

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution. The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the Constitution. END QUOTE
.

50

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 England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it. END QUOTE
.

55

Obviously neither can any “constitutional” Parliament override the constitution!
.

60

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GORDON.The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." END QUOTE 10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p8

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. CLARK.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
.

10

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution , END QUOTE
.

15

It must be clear that the Framers of the Constitution specifically expressed themselves that the Government, the Parliament and also the Courts would be bound by the limits of the constitution.
.

20

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception. END QUOTE
.

25

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE
.

30

35

It appears to me however that the very lawyers expected to understand legal language somehow are the worst offenders against the constitution and it‟s embedded legal principles.
.

40

45

50

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it. END QUOTE
.

55

QUOTE Thomas Jefferson: "The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.". END QUOTE
.

60

Hansard 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 10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p9

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the 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
.

10

15

What appears to me is that there is a collusion between the prosecutor and the court because my writings were not just forwarded to the Prosecutor (VICTORIAN POLICE) but also to others and as such it cannot be held that there was no intention to harm or indeed no conspiracy to pervert the course of JUSTICE existed because the appalling way the court as well as the Prosecutor conducted matters in blatant disregard of proper legal procedures being followed places in question what really is the purpose of it all also. After all it got nothing to do with “LAW ENFORCEMENT” because no law is enforced, rather it turns out to be was well organized TERRORISM upon the general population where the courts that are to be impartial so to say has sold itself out to the government and has allowed itself to become a tool of INJUSTICE..
.

20

I may refer to the London riots and as a person who has conducted for more than 30 years a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® I expressed previously in correspondence to the then Prime Minister John Howard that soon there be riots. Within weeks the Sydney riots eventuated. Currently what is eventuating in England may soon be realized within the Commonwealth of Australia because citizens are sick and tired of the kind of TERRORISM perpetrated upon them not just by the government or enforcement authorities but even involved the courts.
.

25

30

People innocent of any wrongdoing are subjected to an Infringement court system that denies them any constitutional valid legal process and by this an innocent person from onset is denied JUSTICE. People by this can loose their driver license, their income, perhaps their family life and then end up on the streets even so they may have done no wrong at all. This is government sponsored TERRORISM on a grand scale and must be stopped as if this is not curtailed then people may not just go along with a VELVET REVOLUTION but resort to riots and other destructive conduct and then those who are responsible for it have possibly blood on their hands.
.

How on earth can any Court allow itself to be manipulated to such an extent that JUSTICE is denied? 35
Law Encyclopedia: Coram [Latin, Before; in the presence of.] The term coram is used in phrases that refer to the appearance of a person before another individual or a group. Coram non judice, "in the presence of a person not a judge," is a phrase that describes a proceeding brought before a court that lacks the jurisdiction to hear such a matter. Any judgment rendered by the court in such a case is void. Bowers v Smith (1953) 1 ALL ER 320 (Re Clarke Hall) and (Morrison on Children, 7 Ed, P3) QUOTE "... the first business of the court is to try to issue whether or not the case is bought within the terms of the statute, and only if this be proven by proper evidence can the court proceed to decide upon treatment " END QUOTE Schorel v Elms (1994) Unreported M2944X of 1989 SA27 of 1993 Page 16 and 17: "Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done" Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: 10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p10

40

45

50

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which she/he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence ." END QUOTE
.

5

The legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur action” denies any remedy to a litigant (including a prosecutor) who does not come to court with clean hands. If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with “Dirty Hands” best not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!
Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector General of Government HCT-00-CV-MA-593-2003 QUOTE Modern principle of litigation demands that substantive justice should be dispensed readily without undue regard to technicalities. What matters is that the pleading must be clear enough on the remedy the court should award. In the instant case I do not consider citing the wrong law as compelling enough to dismiss the application. It was an innocent oversight which did not occasion any mischief on the respondent. It was not fatal to the application as it was subject to amendment without prejudice to the respondent. END QUOTE
.

10

15

20

Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector General of Government HCT-00-CV-MA-593-2003 QUOTE Constitution needles to mention is a supreme law of the land. END QUOTE
.

25

Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector General of Government HCT-00-CV-MA-593-2003 QUOTE The purpose of a review is to correct a glaring absurdity in light of discovery of new facts and circumstances. It is in light of the above that even courts of law also review their judgments and orders. END QUOTE
.

30

35

40

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 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 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 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

45

50

Well, considering I requested documentation why orders were issued against me and the refusal for this, and that at no time, at least to my knowledge, the court deal with the issue of the matter was within its jurisdiction then if for this kind of nonsense one need to have a law degree to accomplish this then I can do well without this.
.

55

Where is the legal principle of no fine before conviction?
.

The courts always have been so to say the backbone of a democratic system but it appears to me that those employed in the seat of JUSTICE simply are indirectly promoting for people to take
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p11

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

the law into their own hands because of themselves being incompetent to appropriately conduct their duties and obligations to ensure that the courts remain and are being seen as being impartial in its conduct.
.

5

10

QUOTE Re: Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458 James LJ A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something. END QUOTE.
.

15

There can be no doubt that having applied a demerit point despite that the VICTORIAN POLICE was well aware of my writings that I challenged from Set their allegation and the jurisdiction of any courts then their deliberate persistence to nevertheless as inflict harm upon me rather than to await legal processes to be followed
.

20

Because Infringement Notices have regretfully become a way of life that the parliament sought to circumvent the courts as to the traditional manner of hearing a dispute as to force onto the courts a system that will be in favour of the government then the courts had the opportunity to refuse to be swindled in such kind of TERRORISM upon the general community or simply participate in it and by this also participate in the destructing of the democratic system as we knew it. What we have now ended up with is the destructing of confidence by people in the legal system as well as in the government and law enforcement agencies and so in the democratic processes ordinary applicable to a democracy. That is why what transpires in English with the riots is so much of an expression of utter and sheer frustration with being able to defy the Governments and also combined with opportunist criminals who have no regard for the rights and wellbeing of others. The reported spontaneous joining of onlookers in the riots may underline that when you undermine the public‟s confidence in the legal processes and in law enforcement agencies then this can be the end result. That is why the courts must never tolerate law enforcement agencies to manipulate the courts as for example now eventuated in this case and must hold the relevant Infringements Registrar and the others involved, including the VICTORIAN POLICE accountable as to me this was nothing lets then seeking and accomplishing to pervert the courts of JUSTICE and to scandalise by this the courts integrity. As was announced on channel 7 Melbourne news that experts warn about riots eventuating in victoria (Remember the Bob Jane riot in 2010) because of the social and other disorder and 59% of people responded to a newspol that the expect such riots (as London) could eventuate in Victoria! Riots generally have an origin of slowly build up resentment amongst the general public feeling to be powerless to do anything about what is being done wrong, such as the conduct of the courts to turn itself in a cash collecting agency got the government and disregarding the democratic rights of citizens in the process. When the “Perin Court” was still as such operating the Registrar made clear that 95% of people pay up because it would be more expensive for them to fight the allegation and even if they do they still can lose their case and end up far worse. As such this is a calculated kind of EXTROTION and TERRORISM rather than any law enforcement and this in particular considering that from onset the system is against the accused no matter how innocent because even if proven not to be the person having committed any offenses nevertheless the accused will be severely out of pocket because of the litigation and attendances to the court. A clear example was where I attended on various occasions to a court allegedly of a speeding infringement in 2000 during cross examination I had the police officer drawing where all the
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p12

25

30

35

40

45

50

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

15

20

alleged speed sings were and he drew quite a few. I then submitted to the court a statement from “vicroads” that it had only one sign at the location and then the judge turned around that as I had not that statement at the time of the alleged offense then I couldn‟t use it. As such the judge was covering the ass of the lying police officer! Also, I questioned him about how he was operating the speed detecting unit and not once but twice I asked him to demonstrate it and then made known to the trail judge that the witness failed to show he switched on the unit, which is obviously required to be able to use it. Likewise did I point out that the Infringement notice had originally recorded a 100 speed limit but the original filed with the court had it altered to 80 kilometres I couldn‟t have been speeding. What really had occurred was that the police officer mistakenly had assumed that the place he held I was speeding was subject to an 80 kilometre sign but was in fact 100kilometres and so I was wrongly issued an infringement notice and he was not only willing to commit perjury in the witness box but the trial-judge was willing to cover his ass for this. Perhaps also because even the signature was incorrect and obviously the judge didn‟t like it that I was using all the legal skills to expose the gross deception of the police officer. After all the police officer claimed to have read the speed while I was in a bend of the road and that itself also is a question of correct reading! And the fact that the Infringement notice referred to an location that was neither applicable seemed not to deter the judge to still uphold the allegation against me as proven. Well when you have this kind of judicial interference with what is supposed to be an impartial court then no wonder people, given the opportunity or when an opportunity arises will resort to violence as somehow finally being able to express the long held resentment against law enforcement and government, etc, albeit regretfully generally other innocent members of the general public are then suffering as result.
.

25

30

35

40

At one hearing the Police Prosecutor complained to me afterwards as to why I gave her such a hard time about legal technicalities, after I had defeated her allegations upon which I explained she was doing this every time to defendants and should be able to take some of her own medicine. Because of the fact that I was assisting people in many cases the police basically used to target me and time and time again I was able to defeat most of their allegations because while the courts accept police officers to be honest the truth is many fabricate their allegations and regretfully get away with it. The courts should never accept that because a witness is a police officer that because of that their evidence is of a greater value to be relied upon because doing so is to be bias and deny the accused a fair and proper trial. After all many police officers are involved in rape, robberies, drug dealings and even murders and so going on the number as such involved in such crimes and many still serving in the police force then the courts cannot accept that because they wear a uniform they will be honest, as I proved with the “vicroads” statement (even so refused to be accepted) as after all it showed the police officer fabricated his evidence. What the courts do not seem to comprehend is that every time they excuse the criminal conduct of a police officer to perjure himself/herself then it undermines also the standing and credibility of the court itself and invites by this for the police to continue this kind of elaborate deception.
.

45

50

With all the publications about faulty speed camera‟s I view the courts must place the onus upon the enforcement agency to prove that the alleged speeding was as result of correct measuring and not merely take the word of the informant. After all there are ample of police officers who themselves successfully challenge speeding fines proving that the cameras were faulty or wrongly set and what we have therefore is a court system that is willing to enforce the faulty speed camera‟s against innocent people position against police officers when they are caught themselves. No court could accept that camera‟s so often found to be incorrectly reading speeds, some swaying in the wind or timing wrongly set or affected by weather or traffic conditions can be
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p13

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

relied upon. Indeed when did the Infringements Registrar attend to the issue of any equipment used for readings was actually calibrated and tested according to federal legislation as the Commonwealth alone had legislative powers for the measurement by instruments? What evidence was there before the Infringements Registrar that the camera used was not affected by the wind or other pressures caused by moving traffic while it purportedly was measuring a vehicles speed? Did any court ever considered that the very accused being a police officer challenging an Infringement Notice may actually have been enforcing Infringement Notices of the same camera against other motorist? So, the camera is faulty for the police themselves but not in regard of other motorist, is that it?
.

15

20

My writings challenged the reading of a camera and as it was a camera and not a police officer himself then where is the evidence because again ample of times cameras are set incorrectly and that also is one of the litany of cases where people were wrongly fined? Now, kind of nonsense nevertheless can cost innocent professional drivers their driver license , their lively hood and perhaps in the process the bust up of their family if they lose their home in the process and all this because the courts have lost their place as to be an impartial court acting on behalf of the general public to deal with evidence upon basis what is placed before it in a defended trail and have now resorted to what I would hold corrupt and terrorism conduct to enforce court decisions regardless of the innocence of the accused.
.

25

While the Infringement Notice does show that a person can elect to g9o to court this kind of terrorism never should be accepted as valid in a democrac7yy as unless and until the prosecutor institute litigation in the court there is nothing for the accused to answer. Neither is it for me to pay the enforcement agency monies to obtain some alleged photo because I am not making the allegation and the accuser (the police) must themselves then provide the relevant details.
.

30

35

40

I recall an incident where I was issued with an Infringement Notice in 2008 by Banyule City Council alleging that I had exceeded a three hour parking limit. Well to cut it short it turned out that I had been recorded to be parked there for 2 hours and 29 minutes but neither the parking warder or the lawyer for Banyule City Council understood that 2 hours 29 minutes was less than 3 hours until months of writing they finally learned they were wrong. Now, the Infringement Act 2006 provides that the Infringements Registrar must accept the evidence of the enforcement agency and in that way had it f=gone through the Infringements Registrar would have enforced an Infringement notice on the basis that I had exceeded parking of 3 hour limit by being parked for 2 hours and 29 minutes. Now surely this kind of nonsense never should eventuate and while I finally achieved to have the Infringement notice withdrawn others who were also booked for parking longer than 3 hours were ending up force to pay up or loose a day in court and if unaware of the inability of the council worker to appropriately read the clock then they have basically hope ion hell to obtain JUSTICE.
.

45

50

This case is a clear example how pervert the system operates as while for the alleged speeding I could only be issued with a 1 demerit point if upheld that is somehow non-payment of the fine but to legally challenge the allegation can result in a warrant issue and the deregistration of my motor vehicle registration, the suspension of my driver licence and even being imprisoned and this all on the say so of the police and/or the sheriff regardless that from onset I made clear I challenged the allegation and the court‟s jurisdiction. It means we have a legal system gone mad, because what eventuated was that while I wrote in immediately and the police responded to make clear the Infringement Notice would stand nevertheless I then had another Infringement Notice with a higher cost claiming I had not responded. Now who are the idiots or morons doing this as where the police themselves responded to my writings then obviously I had responded but just
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p14

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

not the way they wanted me to respond. Still, they increased the fine to $170.00 and again I reiterated my opposition to it all and to the Infringement Court increased it now to $245.00 obviously for me daring to pursue the proper application of my constitutional rights. Now this kind of insanity is how the Magistrates Court of Victoria is dealing with its ADMINISTRATIVE decision and you wonder why people may end up when they are given suddenly the opportunity to it and cause considerable destruction? Well, that is because people are sick and tired of what is going on but are just waiting to vent their anger when an opportunity arises. This appalling madhouse of a court system must be stopped and we need to return to a proper judiciary where the public can have confidence that they can be heard and obtain JUSTICE as if the courts themselves do not smarten up to provide a democratic process then soon or later the people will no longer tolerate this and then will for themselves take the action they deem appropriate to return to their democratic rights to have a proper legal system.
.

15

20

25

30

35

The purported Infringement Act 2006 purports the Infringements Registrars decision to be of a Court order even so it basically seems to me to be where an informant feeds details selectively into a computer and then this automatically issue court orders and then are pretended to be that of an Infringements Registrar. As such the system cannot deal with a person like myself who pursue what is constitutionally appropriate because those who terrorism is designed to deny the accused his/her constitutional rights. In my view any magistrate or judge who were to enforce this kind of nonsense doesn‟t belong to be adjudicating because if only the pride to be able to serve the people let alone the oath entered into to serve the seat of JUSTICE in themselves should be sufficient for any judicial officer to reject any inappropriate conduct to participate in this government sponsored kind of TERRORISM. The issue is not if the legislation exists as again on 19 July 2006 I proved that despite that legislation existed of compulsory voting it nevertheless was unconstitutional and the County Court of Victoria upheld this. Therefore it is for the court to attend to the first issue of the day and that is if it can invoke jurisdiction and the fact that it failed to attend to this in itself underlines it fails to be conducting litigation appropriately. If by now the courts still cannot manage to conduct their affairs in a democratic manner then this hardly is to its credibility. Normally a person‟s driver licence can be suspended for gaining 12 demerit points and yet with the 1 demerit point I can nevertheless have my driver licence suspended not because I was lawfully convicted of any wrongdoing but because the courts have lend themselves to participate in an elaborate government sponsored TERRORISM upon citizens,.
.

40

What wasn‟t apparently understood was that because I challenged the validity of the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 then the act became by tis ULTRA VIRES unless and until if ever at all a competent court declared it INTRA VIRES. It means that for this also that any legislation enacted since 1975 also is in question because if the parliamentarians all were not lawfully appointed then so any legislation is also ULTRA VIRES.
.

45

50

I CAN STATE THAT FOR MANY YEARS NUMEROUS PERSONS CONTACTED ME ABOUT THE GROSS INJUSTICE THEY HELD SUFFERED IN THE COURTS BUT I HELD THAT I CANNOT FIGHT EVERY PERSONS BATTLE AND INDEED HAVE NO CONTROL OVER HOW THEY CONDUCT THEIR CASES AND SO IT WAS MERELY WAITING TILL THE POLICE WERE TO TRY THE ELABORATE SWINDLE AND TERRORISM UPON ME. Obviously where I very successfully assisted Josepha van Rooy successfully in defeating 3 criminal charges where there were 4 police officers witnesses and a clerk of court and a deputy clerk of court (magistrates court) with filing a NO CASE TO ANSWER and the trail judge instructed the jury to return a verdict of NOT GUILTY after the prosecutor completed his case
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p15

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

after 5 days then obviously I can expect the police to target me again. As such what is now eventuating is no surprise to me because similarly the police in the past targeted me. The issue is of course if the Court should go along with their kind of conduct of should reject this abuser of the legal processes.
.

10

15

In the end it is faced with the fact that when the police made me aware of their allegation that I was speeding I then did provide them with my 23 February 2011 response and so the question is and remains did the relevant police officer inform whomever was dealing with the case about this or simply concealed this to pervert the course of JUSTICE and so to cause a subsequent Infringement Notice to be issued for $170.00 and again later so to say perverted the course of JUSTICE by concealing from the Infringements Registrar that I had opposed jurisdiction as to have an Infringement Notice Order issued for $245.00? If indeed this can be established then the court may take this to be a CONTEMPT IN FACE OF THE COURT by the relevant enforcement agency and should not hesitate to charge the relevant person(s) of contempt in face of the court and of conspiracy charges as to make clear to the public that no one is above the RULE OF LAW and the court will vigorously pursue the police if they are involved with perverting the course of JUSTICE.
.

20

QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords 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.

25

As such even so the police and the Infringements Registrar may claim they were simply doing what they otherwise permitted to do nevertheless where they knew or ought to have known (See my email and attached correspondence also to the Infringements Registrar) then their conduct may amount to a conspiracy.
.

30

35

I understand that in the case of MORIATY v LONDON, CHATMAM & DOVER RY Queen‟s Bench 1870 L.R. 5 Q.B. 314;39 L.T.Q.B. 109;22 L.T. 163;34 J.P. 692;18 W.R. 625 in which the plaintiff sued a railway company for personal injuries sustained and this plaintiff has gone about suborning false evidence and it was held by the Court that even so the plaintiff would have had a genuine and justify to case to sue normally, by the plaintiff conduct to suborn false evidence this was seen by the Court that this conduct amounted to an admission that he had no case. Therefore where the police went about to elaborately deceive the court to conceal my objection to the court, etc, than it must by this be deemed to have no case.
.

40

QUOTE In the Marriage of P.N. and J.S. Axtell 7 FLR 931 The test of judicial bias as laid down by the high court is „whether it has been established that it might reasonably be suspected by a fair minded person that the judge might not resolve the question before him with a fair and unprejudiced mind‟ END QUOTE.

45

Clearly there can be no question but there was bias by the Infringements Registrar because the very legislation (Infringement Act 2006) requires the Infringements Registrar to accept the evidence of the enforcement agency and as such there was no impartial decision being it “administrative” or otherwise in a “judicial” nature.
.

50

Let‟s be clear about it I am not scandalising the court as all I do is to expose the rot , the court itself is scandalising its own status, as I view it that has eventuated and as Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues I publish material as to seek to achieve that we have courts operating to what our democratic system requires them to do.
.

Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335 p16 10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

QUOTE The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance. END QUOTE No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice: LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335 QUOTE But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary man END QUOTE
.

10

15

20

25

The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts: THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER “THE EVENING NEWS” (1880) N.S.W. LR 211 AT 239.: QUOTE The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice of sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day, would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism. END QUOTE
.

30

As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice; (a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368 (b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59 (c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537 (d) SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31 .

35

It is safe to say the Infringements Registrar never did formally invoke federal jurisdiction and as such in that regard he neither could have provided any “administrative and/or judicial decision!
.

40

Marchesi v. Barnes at p.439 QUOTE If the particulars are not supplied the court has an inherent power to dismiss the information. END QUOTE

45

See also Whitehead v. Koulouklidis Supreme Court which held that the informant must supply sufficient particulars so as to identify not only the transaction or occurrence, but every ambiguous or non-specific element of the offence.
.

50

Johnson v. Miller (1938 A.L.R 104 at 112 per Dixon J. QUOTE The defendant is not only entitled to be appraised of the legal nature of the offence. But also with the particular act, matter or thing alleged as the foundation of the charge. END QUOTE
.

PLEADING AND PROCEDURE STATE AND FEDERAL, Cases and materials-FIFTH EDITION, University Casebook Series. QUOTE At page 32;

55

60

Maybe the adversary system would be satisfactory if there were no jury. But abolishing the jury system would require constitutional change that is practically impossible. Further more, in the participants‟ view many of the judges are not much better; at least with the jury there is always a chance of getting someone who is reasonably concerned, intelligent, and disinterested. There are good versions of the adversary system. A trial before a capable federal judge presented by p17

10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

competent counsel is a fair trial. But this doesn‟t happen very often. Just results can often be achieved when the judges are simply terrible. Litigants confronted by the ordeal of trial before a judge who is an idiot or bigot will quickly compose their differences-the Quasimodo techniques of justice. END QUOTE  QUOTE In the marriage of Smith v Saywell (1980) Fam LR 6 245 at 258 Where a case pending in a federal court other than the HIGH COURT or in a court of a state or territory involves a matter arising under the Constitution involving its interpretation, it is the duty of the court not to proceed in the cause unless and until the court is satisfied that notice of the cause, specifying the nature of the matter has been given to the Attorney General of the commonwealth and (a) if the cause is pending in a court of a state - to the Attorney General of that state; or (b) if the cause is pending in a Federal court and was initiated in a state - to the Attorney General of that state, and for a reasonable time elapsed since the giving of the notice for consideration by that Attorney General or by those Attorney General, of the question of intervention in the proceedings or the removal of the cause to the HIGH COURT. END QUOTE
..

10

15

20

QUOTE Bringinshaw v Bringinshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361,362 Not inexact proof, indefinite testimony or indirect inference (By prosecution) END QUOTE
.

25

QUOTE Re: Ratten (Vic Full Supreme Court) (1974) VR201 at 214 Fair Trial Present Evidence END QUOTE
..

The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm 30
QUOTE 37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." END QUOTE And QUOTE The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. END QUOTE Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
.

35

40

45

50

55

60

QUOTE CCH 92-217 page 78485 (1991) The Court could not make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties consent to it.. END QUOTE
.

Hansard 2-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates p18 10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS: I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets. END QUOTE
.

QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980). The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven. END QUOTE

10

QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533, Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven END QUOTE QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,

15

No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction. END QUOTE QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,

20

Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination. END QUOTE
.

25

QUOTE Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471. Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack. END QUOTE
.

30

35

Act Interpretation Act 1901; (Cth) 15AConstruction of Acts to be Subject to Constitution QUOTE Every Act shall be read and construed subject to the Constitution, and so as not to exceed the legislative power of the Commonwealth, to the intent that where any enactment thereof would, but for this section, have been construed as being in excess of that power, it shall nevertheless be a valid enactment to the extent to which it is not in excess of that power. END QUOTE
.

40

The High Court of Australia held that where a party pleads the non-application of a State Act because of Commonwealth legislation then the State Court is exercising Federal jurisdiction. (However only if the State Court can invoke jurisdiction, which VCAT cannot and neither is a court!) Troy v Wrigglesworth (1919) 26 C.L.R. 305; 25 (1926) 38 C.L.R. 441; 33 A.L.R. 66 .
.

45

Held by the High Court of Australia that the federal jurisdiction which is conferred on a State Court by the section is subject to any limitations imposed by the laws of the State upon its state jurisdiction, unless otherwise expressly declared. Federated Saw-mill Timberyard and General Woodworkers Employees Association v Alexander, (1912) 15 C.L.R. 308; 19 A.L.R. 22.
.

50

Held by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland that the police magistrate exercising Federal jurisdiction is not an officer of a Federal Court within the meaning of this paragraph (Section 39 of the Judicial Act 1903) R. v. Archdall and Others; Ex parte Taylor, 1919 St. R. Qld 207; 13 Q.J.P.R. 22 C.L.R. 437 in which the High Court (Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy and Ricch JJ ; Griffith CJ and Barton J dissenting) held that a Judge of an inferior Court of a State invested with and purporting to exercise Federal jurisdiction is not an officer of the Commonwealth within the meaning of s. 75 (v) of the Constitution.
.

55

Held by the High Court of Australia that a State Court, the appellated jurisdiction of which is limited by a State Act, has no federal appellated jurisdiction beyond those limits. R. v. Whitfield and Others’ Ex parte Quon Tat, (1013) 15 C. L.R. 689; 19 A.L.R. 97
.

Held by the High Court of Australia that under this section the Courts of the several States have federal appellated jurisdiction, as regard the matters enumerated in ss75 and 76 of the Constitution, to the same extent that, and subject 10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p19

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

to the same conditions as, under the State laws they have appellated jurisdiction in matters to which State laws apply. Ah Yick v Lehmert, (1905) 2 C.L.R. 593; 11 A.L.R. 306
.

5

10

Held by the High Court of Australia (Williams J.) that under this section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 the AttorneyGeneral for the Commonwealth or a State may apply for the removal into the High Court of a cause or part of a cause whether or not he is a party to the proceedings in which the cause arises, and if the cause really and substantially arises under the Constitution or involves its interpretation, the court MUST grant the removal as of right notwithstanding that the matter is apparently concluded by authority. Any distinct and divisible question may be “part” of such a cause within the meaning of this section. In re an Application by the Public Service Association of N.S.W. , (1947) 75 C.L.R. 430
.

15

Held that a State Court exercising federal jurisdiction when it erroneously applies Commonwealth Act to subject matter before the Court. Commonwealth v Cole, (1923) 32 C.L.R. 602 and Commonwealth v Dalton, (1924) 33 C.L.R.. 452; 30 A.L.R. 85
.

20

From the above it already ought to be clear that a State Court, subject to certain provisions, can exercise Federal jurisdiction. While the authorities below are USA Authorities, the legal concepts nevertheless are of a general nature that can be applied within the Commonwealth of Australia.
.

QUOTE  JURISDICTION the power to hear and determine a case. 147 P.2d 759, 761. This power may be established and described with reference to particular subjects or to parties who fall into a particular category. In addition to the power to adjudicate, a valid exercise of jurisdiction requires fair notice and an opportunity for the affected parties to be heard. Without jurisdiction, a court's judgment is void. A court must have both SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION and PERSONAL JURISDICTION (see below). See also territorial jurisdiction; title jurisdiction."

25

END QUOTE
.

30

QUOTE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION refers to the competency of the court to hear and determine a particular category of cases. Federal district courts have "limited" jurisdiction in that they have only such jurisdiction as is explicitly conferred by federal statutes. 28 U.S.C. §1330 [EDITOR'S NOTE: see also 40 U.S.C.S. §255] et seq. See LIMITED [SPECIAL] JURISDICTION. Many state trial courts have "general" jurisdiction to hear almost all matters. The parties to a lawsuit may not waive a requirement of subject matter jurisdiction. END QUOTE
.

35

40

45

And not to overlook: Held by the High Court of Australia that the expression “Court or judge of a State” does not include a Judge sitting in Chambers exercising the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Wilcox v Donohoe, (1905) 3 C.L.R. 83; 12 A.L.R. 54. therefore it must be clear that a Infringements Registrar as now eventuated never could have be deemed to validly issue orders not even of an administrative nature where the legislation in fact requires him to consider the evidence of the “enforcement agency” as this requires a judicial decision and nevertheless the failure also to conduct matters in an open court is a fatal error.
.

In the end I was entitled to a proper hearing and robbed of this.
.

50

Even if the Court were to now revoke the order issued nevertheless it is faced that I have an objection to the jurisdiction and I challenged the validity of certain legal provisions and they cannot be disposed of merely by revoking the orders which in any event are not and cannot be legally enforceable.
.

55

Again:
QUOTE 10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p20

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5
.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION refers to the competency of the court to hear and determine a particular category of cases. Federal district courts have "limited" jurisdiction in that they have only such jurisdiction as is explicitly conferred by federal statutes. 28 U.S.C. §1330 [EDITOR'S NOTE: see also 40 U.S.C.S. §255] et seq. See LIMITED [SPECIAL] JURISDICTION. Many state trial courts have "general" jurisdiction to hear almost all matters. The parties to a lawsuit may not waive a requirement of subject matter jurisdiction. END QUOTE

10

15

20

Therefore neither by consent of the parties, not that I were to do so) can the Court avoid the legal consequences of the various legal challenges and in fact is all along prohibited of enforcing any legislation that I all along disputed since 2002 in regard of the later 2006 case. It cannot be held against me that the Victorian Attorney General as first law officer of the State may not have acted appropriately at the time when needed in past litigation then before the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 as all I am concerned about is that I endured a 5-year epic legal battle in which I comprehensively and unchallenged defeated the Crown on all constitutional and other legal issues I raised and entitled to the benefits of that judicial determination and therefore for this also no alleged “administrative‟ decision of an Infringements Registrar can circumvent this as to undermine my rights to the benefits of those cases then determined, which now the Infringements Registrar purports to do with the Infringement Notice order.
.

25

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant matters but may indicate, considering also past correspondence in this dispute, that the Infringements Registrar had no place to deny the revocation of the unconstitutional issued orders and no court can enforce these unconstitutional issued orders and those orders must be revoked or otherwise disposed of and appropriate action must be taken against those who misused and abused the legal processes of the court.
.

30

35

I pursue a VELVET REVOLUTION to hold politicians and judges legally accountable so we can reclaim our constitutional and other legal rights but those who defy this may have to consider that the alternative may be that others are not going to go along any longer and the courts failing to act in a democratic manner may face that riots may eventuate instead. As I deplore any form of violence I view the court should welcome my attempt to clean up the rot by way of VELVET REVOLUTION and cooperate to ensure that never again an member of the general community will be terrorised by this kind of legal process as I had so far to endure but that the courts from now on will be acting as all along required to be impartially and to provide JUSTICE.
.

40

Obviously as I am aware what is so wrong with the entire purported democratic process that purports to be in place but isn‟t and those involved wouldn‟t have a clue this being so I will seek to attempt to educate this court why and how it all went so wrong, this, so that it may be able to deal appropriately with matters, not just in regard of myself but in regard of all accused.
.

45

The first issue is that any legislation is not enacted merely because of me or specifically designed to suit me but for the general community and therefore if it is by legal challenge ULTRA VIRES then it means it is so for all persons and not just merely because I happened to challenge it. Therefore the moment I placed a legal challenge against the constitutional validity of the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 then it should have automatically been passed on to all courts that the act was now to be held ULTRA VIRES unless and until, if ever at all, a competent court of jurisdiction were to declare the act intra vires.
.

50

Such procedure doesn‟t exist and because of this we have that the courts continued to rely upon the purported Victorian Constitution Act 19765 as if it was valid. While we have judges (including magistrates and other judicial officers) travelling the world purportedly to educate themselves in judicial matters I would rather say they better first learn the unique legal process
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p21

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

that is applicable within the Commonwealth of Australia as failing to do so you are totally incompetent to adjudicate in a democratic manner. As such forget about rorting the system to travel overseas on junkies but learn what the job is about to adjudicate in a fair and proper manner.
.

10

15

20

25

Prior to federation most Members of Parliament entered the parliament on the basis of it being an Honour to be a Member of the Parliament and to serve the People, these days however the entire election system has been so to say high jacked and indeed involves serious criminal conduct as I personally reported to the Parliament regarding three recent elections, where it no longer is that a person can be elected to serve the people but many candidates are having their opportunities railroaded even by how the Victorian Electoral Commission operates as well as the conduct of the political parties. What we therefore have is that the criminal element serves to ensure certain people are going to be successful to be elected and dominate the Parliament. This is because parliamentarians are given a cosy deal and long retirement packages, etc, where the very incentive to serve the people no longer exist as it all becomes to enter so to say the gold mine and many Members of Parliament are then gold diggers. Just consider how so many State MP‟s are traveling overseas on junkies where because of federation “external affairs” actually became a federal legislative power! As the Framers of the Constitution made clear the States would retain legislative matters within its own borders and the Commonwealth would deal with anything that was external of a State. As such why all the junkies of Members of Parliament travelling overseas, if not because they can so to say rort the system to travel with their family at cost of taxpayers and by this deplete also the States Consolidated Revenue Funds also. The same with judicial officers travelling all over the world when none, I repeat one, would be competent in constitutional matters and so cannot even understand let alone comprehend how to deal with constitutional issues placed before the court. Over the decades I even had to design for courts forms (needed for litigation) because they didn„t have them now how scandalous is this?
.

30

35

40

45

50

In 1985 I designed the ADDRESS TO THE COURT/TRIBUNAL which is a document where an unrepresented person can prior to a hearing place his/her legal arguments as to be able to get a fairer hearing. Well even in a recent case a person seeking to file it the registrar refused to accept this even so it is even used in the high court of au7stralia! The Legal Aid solicitor also refused to use it and in the process this person was duped in obtaining JUSTICE as the magistrate also refused to accept it, this even so on appeal a Court of appeal ruled that the court even if not reading the ADDRESS TO THE COURT nevertheless must consider the content of it. What we therefore have is that the courts have no internal system that operates that whenever a judicial decision is made then automatically it is made known to other judicial officers so that the unlettered persons appearing as Defendants is not robbed of their rights. We also have where lawyers are entering the court files and tampering with the files to alter the version of Affidavit material after the other party has already responded upon it so as to fabricate a different version of response by the other party. It is what commenced to expose more than 25 years ago but to my knowledge is still perpetrated by lawyers. We have also that lawyers are fabricating or falsifying cost and as such the courts are ordering cost that have no reality with the real cost that may have been incurred or that reasonably could have been incurred. It all has become a gigantic rip of system. There are numerous other ills within the legal system I have exposed in my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues where litigation is more the playground of lawyers to pervert the course of JUSTICE and regretfully at times aided by the judicial officer involved. I may deplore violence but I for one can UNDERSTAND why people are driven to it because I have been the one for decades dealing with them.
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p22

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

15

20

25

As if the at times corruptive conduct by courts/tribunals, etc, isn‟t enough the politicians in the parliament desire for their own political survival to pursue as many convictions as they can and by this corrupt the entire legal processes. No longer are Members of parliament there to serve the people but rather their own self political survival and then anything goes. We have some lawyer then appointed who may know next to nothing about what is legally appropriate let alone constitutionally permissible to become Attorney General and who then recommends to the Governor or Governor-General that certain legislation is constitutionally valid even so having not a clue if in fact this is so. It means that the courts then are enforcing legislation against the general community even so not a single judicial officer either has the competence to understand let alone comprehend if the legislation is constitutionally valid. Everyone is assuming it is and the poor unlettered Defendant is left in a lurge. When then a unlettered person objects to this then the judicial officers concerns lacking any skill to deal with constitutionally based objections will simply ignore the objection as no system seems to be in place to ensure that such an objection is appropriately dealt with. Indeed, in the Colosimo case, which I took over from a barrister, it was shown that Mr Colosimo ended up being declared mentally unfit to deal with certain matters and so placed under administration and had been by then already subjected to 5 CONTEMPT hearing whereas after I took over the case I proved that Mr Colosimo had done no legal wrong and got rid of the administration orders also which had been the product of deceptive conduct by the Office of the Public Advocate. In the end I also discovered that the trial judge even by the 6 CONTEMPT hearing actually never even had bothered to formally charge Mr Colosimo even so having threatened him with imprisonment. Now how on earth can such a system flourish in a democratic system one has to ask? How many others are like Mr Colosimo robbed of any competent judicial determination where incompetent governs the judicial processes? Yet despite that more than 20 lawyers were involved in the Colosimo case none of them ever understood that it was all so wrong and when I exposed it then none of them were held legally accountable for the TERRORTISM they had perpetrated upon Mr Colosimo! Regretfully not a single judicial officer from onset was willing to just consider appropriately what Mr Colosimo stated from onset, to object to the jurisdiction and that is an indictment against the entire court system that is currently operating because lawyers generally are so to say brainwashed during legal studies to accept some kind of legal process to be applicable regardless this is wrong. As such when a person appears before the judicial officer the judicial officer is more inclined to listen to the crap dished up by the lawyer then to listen to the genuine submissions of the unlettered person. Judicial officers are so to say training to listen to the crap of fellow lawyers and look down on the very people they are actually to serve.
.

30

35

40

I have exposed ion my books how lawyers are fabricating matters and judicial officers are accepting this nonsense at the detriment of innocent people! What kind of a legal system is this where so to say the judicial officer is in bed with the prosecutor or the lawyers involved and are fraternizing as to how they will conduct the case to defeat the unlettered person. Again my books fill pages of this rot and expose it all.
.

45

50

Most Members of Parliament are chosen by political parties for being more than likely a candidate that will succeed to be elected, being it because of sporting achievements or otherwise and not upon their competence. What we therefore have is a corrupt system where the People are robbed of any proper representation in the Parliament by people who seek to enter the parliament for the right reasons. Parliamentarians have made themselves cosy deals to be handsomely financially rewarded and have delegated much of their responsibilities as to have more photo opportunities then to attend to issues concerned. Obviously the public purse needs to fund their over indulgences and so they
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p23

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

15

20

25

have to design different ways to milk the general public and one of them is to use speed detection camera‟s regardless how faulty they might be. The courts have been perverted to accept this rot rather than to make clear that the Framers of the constitution embedded the Magna Carta in the constitution and as such unless and until the law enfcorcme3nt agency proves beyond doubt that its allegation is without any question as to credibility it will have no part in enforcing it. Indeed, law enforcement agencies now are merely private operators who even on national television have indicated to knowingly issue falsely infringement notices for the sake of keeping their jobs because they are required to issue a minimum number of infringement notices. So we have now an infringement court system of the Magistrates Court of Victoria designed to operate to enforce this kind of utter and sheer nonsense and deplete any credibility of the courts. Politicians are not likely to be competent to be aware what are constitutional issues let alone if proposed legislation is constitutionally permissible and often the Members of parliament who are holding law degrees lack also any competence in this but are generally so to say rule the roost in dictating to other members of parliament that because they have a law degree they know it all. Further, when it comes to political parties then one can say the leader of the political party generally dictates how the members are voting on a Bill and well the members will assume that their leader will be competent in constitutional issues relating to the bill, even so the leader has no clue at all. This is some of the background how we have Bills before the Parliament totally mismanaged and lack any proper system to deal with this even so for many years I have canvassed in my books that a constitutional permissible. As such, the moment the OFFICE-OF THE-GUARDIAN a constitutional commission is in place then it doesn‟t matter how ill-informed Members of Parliament ever may have been because they can obtain from the OFFICE-OF THEGUARDIAN all relevant details as can any member of Public, the Courts and the Government. In my view we have currently a gross incompetence that continues ongoing as to how the parliament operates and this then is perpetrated upon the courts also.
.

30

35

How on earth could the Parliament enact legislation that Infringement Notices can be deemed to be Magistrates Court orders, well aware it generally is merely a computer dealing with it, if enforced when it prevents any public hearing in the first place? If offend the very principles of an open court hearing and a judicial decision upon both parties being heard. It offend the notice of credible evidence because now any employee of a parking business can become the “enforcement agency” and a litany of false allegations and so issue of Infringement Notices are being issued that has so to say corrupted the entire court systems to enforce this kind of blatant government sponsored TERRORISM upon the general public.
.

40

45

50

Is there no pride within the judiciary that they will not lend themselves to participate in this kind of government sponsored TERRORISM? In a recent case, albeit it never came to the courts, I had to deal with a stubborn council for more than 6 months in regard of an Infringement Notice against an invalid person even so in law the person was parked lawfully, but due to administrative errors within the council itself it was not understood to be so. Now this resulted to months and months of terrorising the disable person, placing even the life of the child in the process ain jeopardy and was it not for my persistence to pursue JUSTICE the Infringement Notice may not have been withdrawn. Now when people‟s lives are even placed at risk because of what I consider to be the utter stupidity of a council and its staff then we must have grave concerns. Obviously because councils are aware that the courts are operating with bias in favour their allegations regardless how wrong the council might be in their allegations this causes an accumulation of injustices perpetrated upon many. What we need is a better educated judiciary who understand first of all the basics of what means to provide JUSTICE! Also what it means to be truly independent and impartial.
.

10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

p24

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

R 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 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 the impression of "protesting to much"... END QUOTE
.

10

15

20

25

30

Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 II,L.C. 759 QUOTE The fundamental rule of English (Australian) law is that " No man can be a judge in his own case". It has long been held that if there is bias or the appearance of bias such as to deny justice or create the impression that justice has not been done, then that bias, or apparent bias, is sufficient to invalidate the decision of those who made the decision. END QUOTE Reg v. The London County Council (1894) XI .L.R. 24 Sharp v. Carey (1897) 23 V.L.R. 248 Austin Digest 17. Reg. v. Moleswort (1893) 23 V.L.R. 582 Austin Digest 17. Black v. Black (1951) N.Z.L.R. 723 Ex Parte Blume (1958) W.N. (N.S.W.) 411Austin Digest 93,339,457,458
.

35

Here I requested a revocation of the Infringement court order and the very Infringements Registrar who issued the Infringement Notice order then refused revocation where obviously this is implied bias and makes the Infringement Re3gistrars decision also for this without legal force! Clearly the court hasn‟t even a system in place that the Infringements Registrar at the very least is required to appropriately deal with such a matter!
.

40

45

This caser obviously is not some average case because it is now faced with a CONSTITUTIONALIST who unlike others successfully challenged the validity of the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 and so no Magistrates Court by administrative or judicial decision can overturn or otherwise interfere with the County Court of Victoria judicial decision. The fact that the Parliament legislated that a “court” means the “Magistrates Court” in itself means that from onset this case was doomed to fail because no authority existed for any higher court to hear and determine the alleged infringement! I do not need to legally challenge the Infringement Notice order as constitutionally it is a non-existing order and any attempt by any court to seek to enforce it would not give it any judicial validity because a subsequent order can never validate an order that was issued without jurisdiction.
.

50

55

What has been established also is that the VICTORIAN POLICE using “vicroads” envelope to enforce 1 Demerit point then basically the VICTORIAN POLICE controls “vicroads” and the Court and by this has also compromised any separation of powers. This has not just been one gigantic blunder but perverting the course of justice initiated by the VICTORIAN POLICE and one then wonders why people in riots have such a disregard for law enforcement agencies when clearly their conduct is appalling at the very least and criminal also.
.

10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

p25

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

This court may not particular like my criticism but it would do better to accept there are major issues canvassed by me which indicates there is a total lack of proper law and order enforcement and that the courts are no more but a tool for the government to TERRORISE the general community in handing over their hard earned monies regardless of how innocent they might be of any wrongdoing.
.

10

15

IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE MOMENT I MADE MY OBJECTIONS KNOWN THE VICTORIAN POLICE WAS COMPELLED TO ENSURE THIS WAS APPROPRIATELY CATERED FOR. However, and likely because of my extensive assistance over decades to assist others wrongly accused by the VICTORIAN POLICE it may just have held that it would so to say teach me a lesson that they are all mighty and power full and can use and misuse taxpayers monies to perpetrate a gross injustice upon me and they the officers involved will be without legal redress no matter their conniving conduct. Well, let the court prove it will not only refuse to participate in such elaborate conspiracy but it will not tolerate this kind of fraudulent conduct and that those who are involved will be held legally accountable. It is when the courts show they will finally start holding lying police accountable that perhaps the general community may gain again trust in the courts.
.

20

25

30

Again, merely setting aside or revoking the purported Infringement Notice order will not get rid of the legal challenges I made against the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975, the Infringement Act 2006y and other purported legislation and it may have to be considered that all and any convictions by any court within the Victorian jurisdiction may be invalid! Now that is really a comprehensive problem is even murderers could find to be released from prisons because the validity of the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 was not determined and so remains ULTRA VIRUS and also because those charge with offenses which were not instituted in the name of the British Monarch also were invalid in law. If there is any lesson to be learned out of this all then surely it is that in future all legislation and any Bill and any amendment pursued to amend the constitution is being considered first by a constitutional council that has the competence of understanding and comprehending the appropriate application of the relevant constitution. Then no matter how uneducated any Member of the Parliament, the judiciary or others may be at least they can always fall back upon the constitutional council to provide them with relevant information pertaining what is pursued to be constitutionally permissible or not.
.

35

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out matters in any order of priority or refer to all issues and details and it also relies upon past correspondences provided to the VICTORIAN POLICE, the premier and others, including the Infringements Registrar.
.

40

45

The VICTORTIAN POLICE obviously has compromise itself by its own conduct that any persistence to pursue the allegations against me may be perceived to pursue matters to seek to justify its own co9nduct regardless of how wrongly it acted. “Which court?” then is going to hear and determine matters where the above set out clearly indicates that I successfully challenged the validity of any court to heart and determine matters because no court that is listed as a corporation can be deemed to be a court to act for the general community. If a court having attained an ABN number was to be able to adjudicate then any business could do so! Also the constitution provides for an elected Parliament and the Parliament to act as agents for the People, this clearly cannot be deemed to exist where the Victorian Government is registered on the stock market or otherwise as a business entity, as I exposed during the 5-year epic legal challenge before the County Court of Victoria and again comprehensively defeated the Crown in it.
.

50

Let‟s make it absolutely clear had instead of myself the Crown succeeded in the case it wo uld have ensured that I would have been faced to accept that the court made its decision and I was bound by it, well now that instead of the crown I succeeded then likewise I am entitled to all the
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p26

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

benefits of the cases and so regardless if this may not be appreciated by others nothing can undermine my legal rights of those benefits. Hence, the VICTORIAN POLICE somehow has to face it that unless and until, if at all, it can somehow have a judgment of a competent court of jurisdiction to overturn the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria decision, which I view is unlikely as the Victorian Attorney-General had the opportunity at the time to challenge my submissions but elected not to do so, then it has no business in the first placed to institute proceedings in the Infringement Court because this is not a court that somehow by an “administrative” decision can rob me of the legal rights associated with my 19 July 2006 orders.
.

10

15

As such any attempt by any magistrate to seek to enforce the unconstitutional and invalid Infringement Notice order can further place the magistrate in being liable to have acted maliciously and without jurisdiction because again where orders were issued without first having invoked jurisdiction then no subsequent court can invoke jurisdiction to enforce such an order, neither can the magistrate order a hearing as if it starts DE NOVO because so to say too much water has gone under the bridge to enable any impartial hearing to eventuate and again where I challenged the validity of the purported Victorian Constitution Act 21975 then everything arising from this, including the appointment of lawyers to the bar of the supreme Court of victoria is in question and so also then the validity of appointment of any judicial officer.
.

20

Now this is what is a comprehensive case to pursue JUSTICE and I anticipate that the court will realise it does better ensure the proper legal procedures are followed as to seek to regain the confidence of the general community also. . The 27 July 20211 correspondence of the Infringements Registrar states;
QUOTE Your application for revocation has been refused, as the Infringements Registrar was not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to revoke/cancel the order. END QUOTE
.

25

30

And
QUOTE The Infringements Registrar does not have the power to reconsider your application as this can only be done by a magistrate in open court. END QUOTE
.

35

40

45

50

No relevant references are stated to which part of the legislation this is claimed upon and more over no magistrate can hear the matter in open court where in the first place no jurisdiction was invoked. As such, it is very obvious that the Infringements Registrar purportedly having “considered” what I wrote nevertheless couldn‟t grasp what is legally applicable and that is that before he made any kind of decision at all he had to involve a process to invoke jurisdiction by way of a “jurisdiction hearing” and unless and until such a hearing had eventuated and my objection to the jurisdiction was dismissed (not that I seek to imply it would) there was not even any jurisdiction for the Infringements Registrar to determine if he could or couldn‟t revoke the Infringement Notice Order. Considering that the Infringements Registrar apparently has been dealing with hundreds of thousands of cases and yet still doesn‟t appear to me to have a clue how to deal in a proper legal manner with an objection to jurisdiction then one has to ask what is the competence of this Infringements Registrar? How often has the court in the past enforced such kind of ridiculous rulings? How many lives were destroyed in the process because of this and then you wonder why people participate in riots?
.

10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

p27

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

15

20

25

30

I am well aware that the government ever increasing desire for money, and so to waste more and more, has resulted to it seeking to devise a system that the courts will be acting like a STAR CHAMGBER COURT that instead of proven until GUILTY now the system is designed that anyone is GUILTY until proven innocent. What we have however accomplished in the process that the Courts conducting themselves as KANGAROO COURTS because of a kind of litigation that is not permissible and neither can be acceptable for a Court of Law. Let for argument sake have where a widow sells the motor vehicle of her late husband but the new owner doesn‟t register the motor vehicle on his name and rakes up numerous infringements and then the dead man can be not just have his diver license cancelled but also have the Sheriff breaking in to arrest him to hold him accountable before the Courts and answer the charges that may have arisen. Well, it would be comical besides being utterly stupid indeed if the Sheriff or other enforcement agency were to break into a grave and either take the ashes or the skeleton before a court to answer charges! Well one would have to be a complete idiot to contemplate holding a dead man legally accountable before the courts but it seems by the provisions of the Infringement Act 2006 this is possible. While this kind of system may serve the government of the Day to terrorise its citizens the courts never should participate in this kind of terrorism and should have from onset made clear that it will only deal with cases that are placed before it in a democratic permissible manner and not some computer parading as some Infringements Registrar making decisions that pretend to be administrative decisions but are in real terms judicial decisions and then magistrates are bound to accept them as being of the judicial kind of decisions because the purported evidence was relied upon. It might be interesting indeed how many magistrates ended up issuing orders to have a person’s residence broken into by warrant issue and even to arrest the man for non payments of fines when the man was already dead for many years and so the likely hood of such a man to be brought before the courts to answer any charges in my view would be zero. Every court has the right to refuse to turn itself into some KANGAROO COURT and/or STAR CHAMBER CLOURT but perhaps registrars/magistrates in particular are more concerned as to y-=their own personal job prospects then to serve the general community as an impartial adjudicator.
.

HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

35

40

45

50

Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-The only class of cases contemplated by this section are offences committed against the criminal law of the Federal Parliament, [start page 354] and the only cases to which Mr. Higgins' amendment would apply are those in which the criminal law of the state was in conflict with the criminal law of the Commonwealth; in any other cases there would be no necessity to change the venue, and select a jury of citizens of another state. Now, I do not know any power, whether in modern or in ancient times, which has given more just offence to the community than the power possessed by an Executive, always under Act of Parliament, to change the venue for the trial of criminal offences, and I do not at all view with the same apprehension that possesses the mind of the honorable member a state of affairs in which a jury of one state would refuse to convict a person indicted at the instance-of the Federal Executive. It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by this Constitution. END QUOTE 10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p28

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

.

5

10

15

20

Yet, despite this we have judges telling the jury time and time again that they (the jury) must consider matters upon the evidence only and not as to the issue of law, this even so the legal principle has been embedded in the constitution that a jury can decide both on evidence and on law and can “NULLIFY” any law it deems to be inappropriate to enforce. What we have however is that even prosecutors are deceiving the courts such as was reported causing a man to be convicted and serving time in imprisonment by the Prosecutor concealing relevant evidence that proved or could have proven the man to be innocent. Now, why was the Prosecutor not then subsequently imprisoned for 18 months to serve the same time as the innocent man had been caused to do? What we have is a total misconception what the function of the Prosecutor and the courts really are. Sure the Government of the Day desires to have a record of convictions and really isn‟t interested in the innocence or the guilt of the accused but in reality the role of a Prosecutor is not to pursue the conviction of anyone but to place before the Court all relevant evidence so the court can adjudicate and by way of an informed decision hand down its judgment. The Courts function is neither to pursue the conviction of any accused but to hand down a reason of judgment that demonstrated a proper informed consideration of all relevant matters as to what was the most acceptable situation and if this informed decision includes a conviction then so be it but to rate any court on his conviction it scores then the courts no longer are serving as impartial courts but have an self-interest to serve its own so to say survival for the sake of the Government of the Day
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate) QUOTE As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court. END QUOTE
.

25

30

35

40

45

There can be absolutely no doubt that the Prosecutor concealed the truth from the Infringements Registrar as had the prosecutor made known that from onset I challenged the jurisdiction of any court then clearly the Infringements Registrar could never have gone about to issue any purported Infringement Notice order. The Infringements Registrar would have to have ordered a “JURISDICTION hearing. But then again when the computer is really dealing with it all and the Infringements Registrar may not have a clue what the computer is being fed with but nevertheless allows his position to be used as to seek to validate whatever this computer is turning out as being purported “administrative” decisions by Infringement Notice orders then I view not just the Infringements Registrar is derelict in his duties as a registrar of a court but also the chief magistrate permitting such kind of a system to operate must be held accountable and so every other Registrar/magistrate/judge who participate in such utter nonsense and sheer robbery and TERRORISE to be perpetrated upon the general community and have turned the court in a KANGAROO COURT and/or STAR CHAMBER COURT!
.

50

The Chief Magistrate and indeed any judicial or administrative officer of any court should have absolutely no concern as to the interest of the government unless it is specifically related to the interpretation of the legislation in question and then only for so far it was expressed during the debates in the Parliament and recorded in the Hansard, as to do otherwise would undermine the
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p29

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

separation of power between the executives, the legislators and the courts (See also the Kable decision for this regarding appointment of judges, etc!)
.

5

10

15

It must be clear that as the Infringements Registrar never did bother to invoke jurisdiction then obviously the purported Infringement Notice order of 12 July 2011 is without legal force and ULTRA VIRES and so null and void. It cannot be set aside or revoked as it really doesn‟t exist at all in law. It simply should be removed from the re3cords as not being any6 legally valid decision but again we see the courts really have still no proper system in place how to deal with such non-existing order and that the danger is that some conniving person may still seek to use such an invalid decision as being legally enforceable. So, we may perhaps still see at times skeletons being difgge3d up and placed in handcuffs (after all to avoid any attempted escape from the law) and then placed before a magistrate to answer charges and as JUSTICE is blind to appearance of the accused then the magistrate may very well order this skeleton to be serving a stretch in imprisonment to teach it a lesson not to pay any defaulting Infringement Notices. Well if it is the Infringements Registrar then one can be assured it will eventuate and for a magistrate who due to non-appearance will proceed EX PARTE then too the skeleton risk to be suffering imprisonment not in a coffin but in a cell.
.

20

It is this mindless kind of circumstances that can eventuate from all this nonsense of legislation of the purported Infringement act 2006 that exposes how absurd the courts have allowed itself to be manipulated but the legislators as well as the Government of the Day and to abandon the separation of power even so this is a legal principle embedded in the constitution and the States by way of s106 are bound to observe „subject to this constitution”.
.

25

This is also an indictment upon the legal profession who have not earlier stopped this kind of rot being perpetrated against the general community as well as to the clients they represented. Surely oat least one of the lawyers should have had enough brains to realise that the purported Infringement Act 2006 was legally so to say a moron and could not be applied?
.

30

35

The very function of the court to nullify any legislation that may not be appropriate to enforce against the general community has clearly been abandoned by the court. For sure we all aware that when it comes to the rich and the famous then the courts will generally find some way to get the accused of any charges but when it comes to ordinary people then they must suffer the so to say legal consequences even so their circumstances are not as serious as to speeding, etc. What therefore the courts have gotten involved in is what often is perceived by the general public as selectively using nullification for their fellow lawyers and the suspicion of any financial kickbacks also is being suspected.
.

40

45

How on earth can an Infringements Registrar possible enforce any Infringement Notice that may be issued by a so called “enforcement agency” that makes its monies about the conviction rate of accused? Surely any court official dealing with such matters should be aware that the financial incentive to score more money in a conviction rate itself might be an inducement for the “enforcement agency” to manipulate the electronic system being used as to ensure innocent drivers are convicted.
.

50

I recall an incident where the police way back in 1976 alleged I was traveling at a speed of 90 kilometres an hours in a 60 kilometres zone. My passenger disputed I was travelling at that speed and in fact made clear to the police officer that I had pointed out to better watch my speed as I was doing close to 60 kilometres an hour. The police officer took no notice of this and nevertheless issued the Infringement notice. Even so I never paid it the matter never went to court for the simple reason that after dropping of my passenger I went so to say back to the scene of the crime and went to observe the police checking speed limits, as after all for me to accelerate
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p30

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

15

20

within a about one hundred meters to gain a speed of 90 kilometres an hour after having turned a corner having waited for red light itself underlines that the speed reading was defective. While standing there I would make the police alert how motorist were recorded to be doing speeds up to 120 kilometres an hour , while traveling amongst other vehicles and the police officer often commented that it was a faulty reading. Then I observed how the police stopped two motorists and offered one of the drivers to accept the Infringement Notice for speeding doing, yes 90 kilometres an hour in a 60 kilometres zone, one of the drivers then accepted to take the Infringement Notice on his name. Because the other driver already had previous charges against him. It was really nice to see how the police were operating and now Alan Fells (dealing with the taxi industry) and even lawyers are claiming it is unlawful to divert Infringement notices to another person when the VICTORIAN POLICE if anything introduced this system way back. I stayed around for a bit longer as it was really educational how the police would demonstrate to a motor vehicle driver having been speeding and show the reading that actually had been left on it and was previously claimed to have been an incorrect reading. When I was saying goodbye to the police officers one of them then suddenly commented that the Infringement Notice that had been issued against me was cancelled. I never heard of it again and so the police officers must have become aware that their little dirty scheme practiced by the police to score convictions and destroying in the process many livelihoods and perhaps lives they couldn‟t take the risk to take me to court as then I could expose their dirty system to cause Infringement Notices against innocent people to be issued.
.

25

In one case a man was issued with an Infringement Notice for failing to give way to the right on an incident allegedly a week after the car was a write off and so the incident never could have taken place as such. This is what we are having that police officers are fabricating incidents and issuing Infringement Notices disregarding how this impact upon innocent people and how this can destroy their livelihood, the ability to pay their mortgage, etc.
.

30

35

It is for this that we need a robust court that will not tolerate any nonsense of allegations but will demand that the accuser prove their case and not as the purported Infringement Act 2006 demands that the Infringements Registrar must accept the allegation and issue an Infringement Notice Order without even bothering to check the validity of the allegations and so neither checking what the accused has to say. This case is not where I am so to say on trial but where rather the entire system is on trial, in particularly so the courts themselves. There can be absolutely no excuse for any judicial/administrative officer to disregard the essence of democracy and to ensure that we have a democratic system in place and operating with courts that will not be bullied into scoring convictions against innocent people.
.

40

45

50

There is a hell of a lot more to it all, such as judicial officer using signature rubber stamps so that staff can issue orders as if the judge did so and in the process up to 5 different versions end up being issued of the same orders because every\one uses the signature stamp. Lawyers deliberately making false/misleading claims to achieve an adjournment, as for decades I have been investigating the conduct of lawyer and publish it in my books in the INSPECTORRIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues. The overall rot perpetrated against the general community is horrendous and Michael Alderton is but one of the many victims who hanged himself (1995) after he was railroaded in his case. That is the reality behind it all that nothing is done to ensure courts are operating in a democratic manner and the filth that uses their conniving ways to destroy people‟s lives are getting away so to say with murder and the courts are seemingly endorsing all this. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST, Professional Advocate, etc, I have experienced what the rot really is in the courts, and the Supreme Court of Victoria is not excluded of this either, neither so for that the High Court of Australia and there is an urgent need to clean up or we may just face
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p31

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

that riots will become every day‟s events in Australia also. I oppose any violence and so urge the court to ensure that this nonsense is stopped fro so far it is within its powers and it can start with declaring the Infringement Notice Order to be null and void and to then deal with the relevant persons who perverted the course of JUSTICE as to hold them legally accountable and in future will ensure that any accused is provided with the appropriate democratic right ordinary applicable, regardless if legislation purports otherwise.
.

10

15

In 2002 I filed a complaint with the Commonwealth Ombudsman but he refused to investigate, years later when the government ordered him to investigate this matter it was discovered that all those years while he refused originally to investigate my complaint hundreds of people had been wrongly detailed. The Ombudsman obviously wasn’t revealing this in his report! And this is why any person engaged to pursue a clean-up of the legal system must be a person who is not a lawyer but who has a considerable knowledge and understanding about legal matters and who has a proper grip as to what is actually constitutionally permissible and cannot be suspected of any loyalty with the legal profession as to enable a truly independent person to clean sweep the system and to provide recommendations for this to the relevant courts.
.

20

It should be obvious that those employed in the court system have no likelihood of understanding that their practices may be unconstitutional or just unlawful. They are so to say trained into a job and will perform as such irrespective they may all along do it wrong.
.

25

30

35

The refusal of the Registrar, and later the Magistrate, to accept the ADDRESS TO THE COURT of the Defendant in WOOKEY, RENAE (Applicant) And GILBERT, LUKE (Defendant) Case Nr. B11443389 may underline how disastrous matters are dealt with where a man seeking to provide the end result was that the Court issued orders which effectively prevent the Defendant now to go on circuit playing darts in a dart completion because it could be held at once a year near the location of the applicant. Now surely this kind of nonsense of ruling can be deemed a total absurdity? For sure the magistrate didn‟t specifically refer to the dart competition but should have had he read the ADDRESS TO THE COURT as then the magistrate would have been aware that his orders would be grossly intrusive and so uncalled for in the man‟s ordinary life. As an author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series I can and will certainly expose the details to show how absurd the magistrates Court deals with certain cases but surely the court itself should accept that it doesn‟t serve the general community to unduly infringe into the life of a man where there is absolutely no need to do so!
.

40

45

50

Truthfully, my 78 year old wife is fearful that the neighbour from across the road having a habit to have his waste-bin on our side the day after it is collected at his side, may one day result in an Infringement notice as council officers may assume we left it out for too long and then she might be ending up being imprisoned because the Infringements Registrar, being essentially a computer, will not consider the true realistic evidence and issue orders no matter what the real circumstances are. This is the fear that is being created amongst law abiding citizens because the Magistrates Court no longer is perceived by many as an impartial court, but is perceived by many as some corrupt court that cannot be trusted. My wife escaped long ago from a communist regime but now holds the view that Australia is now worse than the communist regime then ever was because now the courts are so to say hand in hand with the Government of the Day to TERRORISE innocent people. When people lose faith in the judicial system then society becomes unruling and soon or later one ends up with the kind of riots that is spreading around the world and so in particular in England where people are seeking to vent their anger but regretfully do so causing the innocent people to suffer rather than to hold legally accountable the real culprits.
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p32

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

The problem is however that who do you turn to when the courts themselves are perceived to act corruptly?
.

5

10

Time and time again this question is posed to me and I view this court can demonstrate now how it answer it by making clear it will not sanction the Infringement Notice Orders and hold the people involved in it legally accountable! This so in future no STAR CHAMBER COURT and/or KANGAROO COURT proceedings will eventuate within the Magistrates Court of Victoria as the court will refuse to have any interference into the proper democratic conduct of the court.
.

Also, any officer acting judicially and/or administratively must be instructed to provide any unrepresented person with an equal opportunity to have his/her case placed before the court and accept any ADDRESS TO THE COURT which relates to the matters in dispute.
.

15

The moment we curtail the rights of an unrepresented litigant for the sake of allegedly smoothing the proceedings while in fact causing by this more than likely protracted litigation and harming unduly a party so denied of his/her legal rights we have abandoned what the legal processes are about.
.

20

25

In my books I have shown the transcript of how a Barrister at the Bar table stated a version about a certain judgment and then produced the real judgment and how the lawyer had substituted the real judgment with words that actually resulted to the contrary intention then the judgment was about. Now surely it underlines that magistrates may prefer to hear lawyers talking but really what is the sense if they are swindled in the process and the course of JUSTICE is perverted because the lawyer fabricate authorities to suit his client? Is this the kind of JUSTICE a judicial officer really cares about, that really amounts to a gross INJUSTIC?
.

30

I have for decades exposed how lawyers serve upon another party a version of Affidavit material not at all being a true copy of what is filed in court. Meaning that the other party may agree to the content of an paragraph unaware that the version of the court is different and so could agree with a very serious allegation no know to him/her. And this is some of the litany of issues that are going on in the courts and then one wonder why people lose respect for the courts?
.

35

40

45

As I discovered transcript of proceedings also are a t time manufactured to present a kind of evidence not at all as such existing. For example where the witness “under oath” read out a document that stated “Scott is the husbands” the transcript then had the version “that Scottish bastard”. The transcript didn‟t show any comment by the trial judge as to denounce the term “Scottish bastard” and neither did the prosecutor do so and it was obvious that the witness never stated this. Yet, when comparing the transcript with what was actually read out by the witness there were up to 16 alterations on each page. While it might be very well for a person like myself to expose this kind of rot it should be kept in mind that most people would lack the ability to do so and so in particular because recording of a hearing is generally not permitted to be done by the general public.
.

50

I have been the subject of serious allegations by judicial officers but always challenged them to prove with both the audio recording as well as the transcript that I had made a certain statement and then obviously they fail because they just concocted it. And this is a very serious issue because when I am representing a party then that party is clearly robbed of proper representation because the judicial officer likes to have a go at me and fabricate matters for this merely because of not being able to handle that I had the judicial officer making a fool of himself/herself. As the courts have made clear it is JUSTICE that is the loser when courts fail toe to proper legal
10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com p33

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5

procedures. If my writings (that is being published around the world) can avoid even a single person to avoid to commit suicide or even murder but to return to the fold of the courts and the courts prove to be impartial and not going to be acting as a STAR CHAMBER COURT and/or KANGAROO COURT then I have accomplished what I set out to do.
.

10

Again the above stated is not intended and neither must be perceived to deal with all relevant matters but safe to say that it is the court that now must prove its credibility and get rid of the unconstitutional/unlawful purported Infringement Notice Order and act appropriately in the future while seeking to appropriately address past errors to whomever!
.

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to indicate that I accept the jurisdiction of the court as clearly I provide this set out to continue my opposition to the jurisdiction of any Australian court to deal with this matter!
.

15

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power? Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry. END QUOTE
.

20

25

30

The existence of the courts as independent entities within the separation of powers is because of the constitution and therefore the courts must honour their obligations and duties within the constitutional separation of powers, and as such cannot accept this unconstitutional provisions of the Infringement Act 2006 such as to interfere with its court processes and demanding it must accept evidence from one party without hearing the version of the accused and turning it in to some in some STAR CHAMBER COURT or KANGEROO COURT.
.

Either we have a constitution or we don’t!
.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
.

35
.

(

Our name is our motto!)
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

Awaiting your response,

10-8-2011 Infringement Court Case Number 1158210495 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

p34

Downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful