You are on page 1of 4

Page 1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Brendan Facey
5

22-8-2015

Director, Infringement Management & Enforcement Services (Sheriff)


Brendan.Facey@justice.vic.gov.au
Cc: Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

Victorian Police Ashton Chief Commissioner of Police C/o heidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au


10
M Hoyle, Quality and client support Coordinator , Civic Compliance Victoria
GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au

15
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
Email:admin@inspector-rikati.com

20

Ref: 20150822-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Brendan Facey Sheriff's Office-Victorian Police


OBL 1106575301 legal issues etc

COMPLAINT

Ref: Measurements-etc

Sir,
I received your 17 August 2015correspondence claiming that there was an outstanding
25 warrant for unpaid fines and that you own $297.70. As I referred to in numerous previous past
correspondences since I received an Infringement Notice in March 2011 alleging that I had been
detected exceeding the speed limit by 5 kilometres, that I challenged the jurisdiction of any court
as I view no court could invoke jurisdiction. Despite my request for further details none were
provided. I did set out elaborately why no jurisdiction could be invoked by any court and as such
30 the Victorian Police had a legal obligation to place this before the relevant court it pursued the
matter. If the Victorian Police did so then the Infringement Registrar was bound by law not to
proceed with the matter unless the OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION was first formally heard
and dismissed. I am not aware this eventuated. Obviously the Victorian Police may have
concealed my OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and in that case the Infringement Court was
35 deceived by the Victorian Police by it concealing relevant details of the OBJECTION TO
JURISDICTION and as such any judgment obtained by fraud cannot be used against me!
Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408; 4
Bouv Inst. n. 4411.
o Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.
40

o Fraus et jus numquam cohabitant. Fraud and justice never agree together. Wing. 680.
http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
Page 1
22-8-2015
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

Page 2
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
QUOTE R.V. Crimmins (1959) VR 270
Suppression of relevant evidence
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343


Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true.
END QUOTE
.

15 Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

20

25

QUOTE
In my opinion, the words 'false evidence' in s79A(1) do not mean evidence which is wilfully false. The subsection should be read according to its terms. To say that 'false evidence should be read as 'wilful false
evidence' is to introduce a provision not expressed by the provision; cf s6H of the Royal Commission Act
1902 which speaks of a witness 'who knowingly gives false testimony'. This interpretation is reinforced by
reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and suppression of evidence which
would comprehend cases of wilful false evidence. At common law, a judgment will be set aside if it has
been obtained by fraud. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, it has been held that an applicant must show
something more than perjury, ie. new facts (Baker v. Wadsworth [1898] 67 LJQB 301; Everett V. Ribbands
[1946] 175 LT 143). This tends to suggest that the words 'false evidence' should be given their literal
meaning
END QUOTE
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)

30 QUOTE

35

40

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
.

When the Infringement Registrar issued his orders I appealed it. As the High Court of Australia
decided in Harris v Caladine a registrars decision must always be reviewable before a judge.
45 However the Infringement registrar simply refused this and issued purportedly as warrant.
What therefore should be clear is that the Infringement registrar never invoked jurisdiction in the
first place, regardless if the Victorian Police concealed it from the Infringement registrar that I
had made an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION, this as no formal hearing and subsequent
decision was handed down declaring the Infringement Court to have jurisdiction. Neither could
50 the Infringement Registrar make such a decision not being a court invested with federal
jurisdiction, where I raised constitutional issues. The Infringement Court is not an open court
as required within Chapter III of the federal constitution of the judiciary to exercise federal
jurisdiction.
55 The 2-1-1901 Gazetted Letters Patent provides that the Governor of the State of Victoria is to
provide for a impartial administration of justice and as such the Infringement Court not
being so (I have set this out extensively in past correspondences- such as ABN- etc) then the
Infringement Court is not one that can adjudicate against citizens.
Page 2
22-8-2015
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 3

It should be clear it doesnt matter if the Governor at some latter time provided Royal Assent for
the Infringement Act 2006, as the Governor is bound by the limitations of the Letters Patent and
therefore any legislation in violation of the Letters Patent, including any subsequent Letters
Patent issued by the Governor himself are and remain to be without legal force.
.

I have for example set out in the past that s16 of the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is
not applicable for that this act itself is not a valid constitution act.
I received various correspondences in the past under the letterhead of the Victorian Police, The
10 Sheriffs Office and even VicRoads but which are I view mostly issued fraudulently by Civic
Compliance Victoria, as I did set out in the past.
.

I understand that you used to be employed with the Liquor Licencing Department and while I am
aware people who drink a lot may have their so to say brains shot because of the excessive
15 alcohol, I am not aware that merely working in such a Department may have the same effect that
so to say one loose his/her marbles and cannot understand common sense. Then again there
always can be a first. In my view you ought to have been returning the warrant way back in 2011
to the Infringement Court making note that the legality of the warrant is disputed.
.
20 If you are a Sheriff for the enforcement of Court orders, then you shouldnt be employed by
the inappropriately called Department of Justice because you should be employed with the
courts itself. Again a failure of separation of powers.
What appears to me to be is you are so to say the nasty dog that is unleashed using the excuse to
enforce court orders which clearly are not valid court orders at all. Perhaps you may not have
25 understood this but a person employed by the government cannot pretend to be acting for the
courts, as the separation of powers require that any person working within the court system is
employed by the courts themselves. If no one bothered to raise this with you in the past that in
itself doesnt mean your lack of understanding/comprehension can be excusable.
.

30 What you fail to understand is that you make yourself personally liable if you or someone on
your behalf were to pursue to enforce the unlawful warrant.
I therefore deny there is any valid outstanding warrant against me and also I deny that I owe
$297.70 relating to any fines.
.
35 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE

Part VPowers of the Parliament


51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]
40

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order,
and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
END QUOTE

You may notice this is a legal provision relating to the legislative powers of the Commonwealth
and it doesnt provide one for the States. Not even ss51(xxxvii) provides any legislative powers
45 for the States as it merely states that the Commonwealth can accept any reference of powers.
However, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware that the legal principles embedded
in the constitution provide that the states can legislate in regard of each subject matter until the
Commonwealth commences to do so.
50 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE
Page 3
22-8-2015
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Page 4
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.

Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

10

Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

Therefore, when it comes to weight & measures the implied legislative powers for the States
no longer remained the moment the Commonwealth commenced to legislate upon the subject
matter. Hence all and any legislation, such as radar speed cameras are beyond the legislative
15 powers of the State of Victoria. If you seek to rely upon implied legal principles then you must
do so correctly and not take it out of context. As such, I maintain the speed radar detection
devices used by the Victorian Police are and remain to be unconstitutional to be used.
As I in 2011 challenged the validity of the Infringement Act 2006, then this act is effectively
20 ULTRA VIRES, and cannot be used against any other person either, unless and until, if ever at
all, a court of competent jurisdiction were to decide otherwise. Hence, effectively all
Infringement Notices and Infringement Court orders/warrants are unconstitutional and without
legal force.
.

25 Perhaps the community will wake up on this and every person subjected to an
Infringement Notice may immediately make an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION as to
stall any further proceedings. The Victorian Police had at least since March 2011 to have this
matter placed before a court of competent jurisdiction to have the legal issues considered and a
judgment handed down upon it. The fact that the Victorian Police ignored to do so may underline
30 it rather itself desires to get involved in criminal activities to enforce unconstitutional legislation/
orders/warrants rather than to uphold the rule of law.
If you didnt authorise the 17 August 2015 correspondence I refer to then obviously you will file
immediately a complaint with the Victorian Police, for someone impersonating you for unlawful
35 conduct. Failing to do so you may bed held legally accountable for adding and abetting in
criminal conduct.
For the record I have still not received an appropriate reply regarding my 29 December 2013
COMPLAINT to the Chief Commissioner of Police, regarding this matter. It seems to me that if
the Police already take nearly 2 years and still not responding then you may have to wait until
40 eternity for this matter to ever to be appropriately resolved.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all issues and or
details and neither has anything been stated in order of priority.

45 Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL


.

Our name is our motto!)

Page 4
22-8-2015
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati