130923-mr g. h. schorel-hlavka o.w.b. to mr ken lay chief commissioner of police-terrorism- etc

7/29/2019 130923-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Ken Lay Chief Commissioner of Police-Terrorism- Etc

1/32

p1 23-9-2013INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0PLEASE 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

Mr Ken Lay Chief Commissioner of Police 23-9-2013

5 Ref: 130923-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Ken Lay Chief Commissioner of Police-terrorism- etc

Sir,as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I express my concerns as to the misuse and abuse of police

powers which I view may constitute a form of terrorism. As shown in the quotation belowterrorism can have different meanings, however, in the language of the Framers of the

10 Constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK)) within which in section 106 theStates were created, they held.

HANSARD 26-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE15 Mr. ISAACS: If he is a South Australian, is he prepared to disfranchise the women of his colony; if he is a

New South Welshman, is he prepared to give way on the question of proportional representation in thepeople's House; if he is a Victorian is he willing to allow a property qualification for the electors? Now thisestablishes, I think, beyond any possibility of doubt, the position we must take up; that while we are preparedto admit the necessity-not only the advisability, but the necessity of compromise-for that is very evident from

20 the diverse opinions which have been expressed all round the Chamber, there are limits which cannot bepassed. There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to pass that linewould be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely to abandon the principle ofresponsible government, when we are invited to surrender the latest-born, but, as I think, the noblest childof our constitutional system-a system which has not only nurtured and preserved, but has strengthened the

25 liberties of our people-then,END QUOTE

.HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

30 Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for anExecutive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,

therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.

END QUOTE

35 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVILRIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-

40 for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled toclaim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.END QUOTE.

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates45 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution ,END QUOTEHANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

50 Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crownin prosecuting criminals are.

END QUOTE
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati


2/32




Again, it can only act as the agents of the people. and it is well known in law that an agent (TheGovernment of the Day /the Parliament/ the government authorities (including the Police andSheriffs Office) cannot exercise a greater power then the grantor (The people).

5 No one can be a criminal for exercising his/her constitutional rights!

No law no matter its intention can in any way deny a person his/her constitutional rights!

No court can deny a person his/her constitutional rights!10

Yet, we find time and time again that ordinary citizens are subjected to a form ofterrorism/extortion etc that involved the police. It is general held that not knowing the law is notexcuse, well that should likewise apply to the police and the sheriff!.

15 In my correspondence (130921-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbullt Re republican versusmonarchist-etc) to Mr Malcolm Turnbull Minister in the Mr Tony Abbott led Federal Government, Istated the following:

QUOTE 21-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE20 Recently, I wrote to the Sheriff of Victoria Mr Brendan Facey, and pointed out how the Supreme Court of Victoria

in its 2010 decision erred in constitutional law. It somehow held that because the Commonwealth had not legislatedthat then the Victorian Parliament legislation as to radar units was lawful!

.Well this is what then Framers of the Constitution stated;25 .

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealthlegislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.

30 END QUOTE

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 will35 nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.

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

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 beall the more forced on the Commonwealth.

40 END QUOTEEND QUOTE 21-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

QUOTE 21-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCEHansard 30-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates

45 QUOTE Mr. REID:We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points

enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two

laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal

criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any50 complication of the kind.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 30-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE55 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the

commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that thispower is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate

on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to

exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from

60 that field of legislation.END QUOTE


3/32




END QUOTE 21-9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

In my correspondence 130904-COMPLAINT Ref Brendan Facey Director IM&ES -Sheriff)OBL 1106575301-CONSTITUTIONAL issues etc I did very much set out why the Agar v

5 Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) decision by the Victorian SupremeCourt of Victoria was without legal validity as to hold that the state somehow could legislatewhere the Commonwealth had not for a particular radar unit.

No one in his right mind could possibly expect any Parliament to legislate for every particular

item that may be created in the world. It would be for those who pursue legislation to request the10 rightful legislator to provide for legislation. If the request is not made or made but refused or not

attended to then this doesnt mean that somehow then the State can do its own thing disregardingconstitutional limitations. That is taking the law into its own hands, unconstitutionally, and theVictorian Police should never be aiding and betting in criminal conduct like this, where thisresult in the denial of citizens constitutional rights.

15 Therefore, it is not relevant if the State of Victoria or others did request the Commonwealth tolegislate as all that is relevant is if the Commonwealth did or didnt legislate for it.As the Supreme Court of Victoria held that the Commonwealth had not legislated for it

then it had no judicial powers to nevertheless enforce the radar equipment alleged findings

merely because the Victorian Parliament had legislated for this.

20 As the States were created within s106 of the constitution subject to this constitution then it isbound by the true meaning and application of the constitution, and it is irrelevant if a judge mayfancy to ignore this as no judge can override the constitution and implied legal principles.The Supreme Court of Victoria made a finding of fact in Agar v Dolheguy & Anor[2010] VSC506 (11 November 2010) decision that the particular speed detection equipment was not

25 certified by the Commonwealth of Australia, and as such on that basis the Court had in my viewno legal authority to ignore this, but was bound to accept that the failure of appropriate

jurisdiction didnt exist.The court cannot assume jurisdiction merely because it fancy to do so! And because it is acorporated court using the same ABN number as the Department of Justice then clearly its

30 impartiality is in question. This I successfully litigated also on 19 July 2006 against the

Commonwealth in the County Court of Victoria..

The same as I did previously extensively set out to Sheriff Brendan Facey, that the purportedInfringement Court is unconstitutional, as it cannot have a registrar as a head of a court but must

35 be under supervision of a judge. And the claimed association with the Magistrates Court ofVictoria would be unconstitutional as the Magistrates Court of Victoria is a designated ChapterIII court of the constitution and the High Court of Australia made clear that this must be anopen court. Clearly the spitting out of more than 4 million pluss orders/warrants without anyopen court hearing violates the constitutional requirement for a Chapter III court.

40 .

All taxation should go into Consolidated Revenue Funds, and as I understand it PremierNapthine made known that Infringement fines are a form of taxation. Well then why is it allgoing into an unregistered business entity Civic Compliance Vic bank account? At least this isthe title by Westpac!

45 As owner of the trademark MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL I was not permitted totrade under this trademark unless I had it registered as a business name, as I have. Neither was I

permitted to operate finances unless I had a bank account with this identity, as I have. Then whyis the Victorian Police ignoring the rule of law and allow some private corporation to use theVictorian trademark Civic Compliance Victoria and demand monies? also failing to disclose as

50 required by the deed certain details! Indeed, as I view it the Attorney-General (at that time) MrRobert Hulls and the police minister had no legal authority to authorise and sign a deed with a

private company that allowed this private company to access court records and issue court orders

and warrants through its computer system as if they are a competent court of jurisdiction court


4/32




orders. The separation of powers means that the government cannot interfere with the courts norgive away access to the court system.

Below I quote part of my 23-1-2013 submission as Professional Advocate representing solicitor5 and barristor Mr Harold James Johnson

QUOTEWe find however that the State Parliament has corrupted the system of separation of powers between theexecutives, the government, and the judiciary, and by this now basically the government dictates as a how thecourts are to conduct themselves. Actually, having now allowed a private corporation under the government

10 trademark Civic Compliance Victoria to issue court orders, using court computers, and to fine people and issuewarrants without any real judge being involved, there is no proper judicial system in place. I will not dwell onthis further as the CCV issue is too large to detail all this. This also underlines why a VELVETREVOLUTION is the only alternative to clean up this corrupt conduct, because it is unlikely any judge iswilling to stand up for the oath he/she made. Indeed, as I referred to at the previous hearing a Supreme Court of

15 Victoria judge made clear, that he speaks out just before he retires, that the Courts are now Business Unit 19by the government, and that the Government has access to the courts compute.It is the PERCEPTION that first of all undermines the judiciary, where a government has access to courtcomputers. But worse is that now a private company actually issues even warrants, and other court orders, usethe Police emblem and Sheriff emblem (to issue correspondence as if they are the police and/or the sheriff

20 office) all to terrorise people in paying up. As a matter of fact it was reported that by error Civic ComplianceVictoria did to against more than 2,000 NSW motorist. Now, how on earth could any judicial officer accept thiskind of elaborate rot to be permitted to continue, I may well ask. As a Registrar made clear to me, some 96% of

people rather pay then to fight, because they know it cost them more to fight and generally they will looseanyhow irrespective if they are in their rights. Now, this is the STAR CHAMBER COURT mentality that now

25 is part of the modus operandiof our legal systemAn innocent professional driver can lose points, and so his ability to earn an income, his ability to pay off histruck payments, and in the end his entire life is disintegrating, and often marriage goes bust, and then later it isfound that the speed detection camera was incorrectly set, or that it was unstable, etc, to me this is terrorism!

END QUOTE.30

Further, in Harris v Caladine the High Court of Australia made clear that a registrars decisionmust always be reviewable as otherwise it is unconstitutional and null and void. Well, when theInfringement Registrar purportedly issued an order against me he refused my request for areview before a judge, Instead subsequently issued a warrant against me. THE ORDERS

35 AND SUBSEQUENT WARRANT WERE AND REMAIN TO BE WITHOUT LEGALFORCE!.

My aging wife (81 years old) travels with me generally in the car registered with RIKATI

number plate. and if the police were to say intercept me and or the Sheriff were to do so

40 and say my wife were to get a heart attack and dies then I can assure you I will sue the

pants of you all for causing her dead. In my view what you and other police officers are

involved in is nothing less but terrorism. To abuse and misuse powers for ulterior purposes..

In 1988, a warrant was issued against my 2 year old daughter, and the police then executed this45 warrant. the Supreme Court of Victoria, a few days later, held the warrant was unlawful (The

warrant sought to achieve precisely contrary to the Supreme Court of Victoria orders, I had

obtained previously!). Later, I discovered that the police had actually gone to a nursing home andgot an elderly former Justice of the Peace signing the warrant, even so she suffered ofAlzheimers and didnt know what she was signing for. It was her son who gave me the

50 understanding that even so he had long ago cancelled her to be a Justice of the Peacenevertheless the police kept pestering her to sign warrants, etc. This to me is terrorism, becausethe Police were willing to pervert the course of justice, and arrest peopple on that basis, andconcealing this from the courts! While this was about 25 years ago, and so long before you wereChief Commissioner, nevertheless, it shows the dirty conduct by certain police to achieve a

55 warrant. And to me this constitutes terrorism, as it is not only swindling the courts in that a validwarrant was issued but also grossly denying an victim of his legal rights. and lawyers generallywould realise this con job when representing their clients.


5/32




Recently, there was an issue about police seemingly picking upon coloured persons. Well about25 years ago I had a passenger in my private vehicle which was from Fiji and never had seen a

police car. I was lawfully parked (waiting for my children) in a parking bay on an estate and thepolice then commanded my passenger to get out of the vehicle and started to ask him questions,

5 such as his identity, etc. I then intervened to explain he was a passenger and I viewed the policehad absolutely no right to make demands upon him, merely because he looked from the

passenger seat to the police car. So, the police then made clear they had a smart person on theirhands, and they would deal with that. They then declared my vehicle to be unroadworthty andhad bold tyres, etc. And made clear that if the car was still there in an hour then they would issue

10 further notices, and I was not permitted to drive the car away, as it had to be towed. Iimmediately phoned the sergeant of Flemmington police and explained matters and he advisedme to drive the vehicle to Flemmington Police Station. This I did. A constable there advised methe Sergeant was not in for the day, and he would inspect my vehicle. He did and he announced Idid better to pay the infringement notice, even so he could find nothing wrong with my vehicle. I

15 made clear that I had spoken with the sergeant earlier, and so he was in. Subsequently theconstable got the sergeant out, and he inspected the vehicle, noticing that in fact I had the

previous day fitted new tyres on the vehicle, and that there was absolutely nothing wrong withmy vehicle, and so he ripped the infringement notice up. I then filed a formal complaint with the

then Chief Commissioner of Police, and was subsequently advised that the two police officers20 were sent on a training course, how to inspect vehicles for road worthiness.What was clear was, that the police simply were terrorising me, and the constable at the stationeven sought to let them get away with it but I would not take it as such. I do not accept that acoloured person because of the colour of his skin should be picked upon by the police, as I viewwas the way the police were operating in Flemmington then already. And, because I correctly

25 stood up for this passengers right then they abused and misuse police powers..

Also about 25 years ago, a police officer pulled me over, while I was driving in the country, andmade known to me one of my tail lights was out. I was able to fix it on the spot. He noticed that Ihad 5 of my youngest children in the car, albeit all were in a seat belt, and he friendly wished me

30 a safe trip home. Minutes later he pulled me over again, and alerted me to that a warrant wasoutstanding against me apparently issued in Williamstown. As it was close to midnight and with5 little children in the car he accepted to come to my residence in a few weeks to seek to clarifymatters. He attended some weeks later, with the local police officer, and I then showed him aletter form the Attorney-General that the police and the court had been unable to locate any files

35 as to why a warrant was issued against me, and the police had withdrawn the case, and thewarrant was no more. It was beyond me why on earth the Williamstown located MagistratesCourt would have issued any warrant as I had not being in that area for years and had no policeconflicts then either anywhere in the western part of Melbourne. Therefore, it was of concern tome that somehow a warrant could be issued without court files! Then again, as I for decades

40 assisted people in their cases involving the police it may have been yet another police abuse of

powers. Going to court without any real case, and obviously without that I knew about it. So thewarrant is issued vexatiously. And it is no good to claim it doesnt happens because a magistrateonce faced with a police officer claiming to have served a summons upon me on a particulardate, and even claiming my (then) wife served him with coffee, made clear that unless I could

45 disprove he served the summons I had no way to get the previous conviction overturned, that wasissued in my absenteeism. Well, I showed the Magistrate my gas and electricity bills (of a

property I had 6 months earlier for residence), that I had moved out of that address 6 monthsbefore the police claimed to have served the summons and my (then) wife gave him coffee.More over when I cross examined the police about the alleged speed he claimed I was doing 75

50 kilometres in a 60 kilometres zone. I asked him if perhaps it could have been 74 or 76 but heinsisted it was 75 when I drove past the petrol station. I then submitted photos of that petrol


6/32




station which displayed a 75 kilometres speed zone . The magistrate told the police officer of forhaving lied about serving the summons, and falsely claiming it was a 60 kilometre speed zonewhere in fact it was clearly proven it was a 75 kilometre speed zone. But how many times do

police get away with them perverting the course of justice as this police officer had done to have5 me in absenteeism convicted of speeding?

.

Why is it that in court police officers never have to disclose averse findings of their past

dishonesty in court?

I have been subjected to untold incidents of police abuse and misuse of power, and I do not10 wonder at all why the youth of today may have little respect for police in particular the level of

criminality within the police force.Including a police officer altering the Infringement Notice original afterwards whereas my copydidnt show the alteration!After all, no use for the police to hold that they can assist police against criminals not paying

15 traffic fines, because ample of police also are subjected to traffic fines, and so likewise aredeemed criminals. But you find that somehow often when a police officer challenges it then the

police officer wins the case but all other motorist who were fined by the use of the same camerasomehow still are criminals.

20 Now consider this:And the High Court of Australia also stated:Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27(17 June 1999)QUOTE

25 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevailagainst the Constitution. Mr Gouldis entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as

Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".

That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.

END QUOTE

30 Well, as I indicated above the police officer who assisted in regard of my taillight (shining historch, while I replaced the faulty light bulb with a spare, I had with me) subsequently didnt

pursue the warrant but let me sort it out, we now find the police pulling over drivers anddirecting them albeit I view illegally, to the Sheriff. At least it did so years ago in Broadmeadowswith me!

35 .

While the police may have powers to stop a motorist to inspect the vehicle for road worthiness, ithas to my understanding no powers to stop a motorist and then direct him to the Sheriff who thencheck out if there is a warrant out or not. As such to me the police become terrorist abusing their

police powers for ulterior reasons.40

http://www.northernweekly.com.au/story/1736859/joint-operation-to-clean-up-a-fine-mess/QUOTE

Joint operation to clean up a fine mess

By TARA MURRAY and BENJAMIN MILLAR45 Aug. 28, 2013, 2:17 p.m.

END QUOTE

http://www.northernweekly.com.au/story/1736859/joint-operation-to-clean-up-a-fine-mess/QUOTE

50 The Sheriff s Office arrested more than 2000 people and took action over more than 1.1 million warrants lastyearup more than 27 per cent on the previous year.

Clearly some people dont get the message until a sheriffs officer clamps their car, suspends their driverslicence or arrests them, Mr Facey said. Across the state, 728,549 people racked up 3,760,798 unpaid finesvalued at $1,316,218,549.

55 END QUOTE


7/32




http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1709327/sheriffs-blitz-on-unpaid-fines-in-ballarat/http://www.standard.net.au/story/1695720/sheriffs-office-bags-43000-clip-at-sheepvention/

http://www.monashweekly.com.au/story/1557662/high-noon-as-sheriff-nabs-fine-dodgers/

5 .

The rule of law is that the moment a person objects to the validity of legislation it is ULTRAVIRES ab initio, unless and untill, if ever at all, a court of competent jurisdiction declares thelegislation to be INTRA VIRES.Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942

10 QUOTECommon expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham,"sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been alaw at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has adecision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law.

15 The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it isinvalid ab initio.

END QUOTE

Well, it seems the Victorian Police could give a damn about the terorism conduct it engage in by20 assisting the Sheriff and his deputies to extort monies from people who are going on their daily

business, all because of unconstitutional and so illegal Infringement Court orders/warrants..

After all, as since Febraurty 2011 I objected to the jurisdiction of any court to deal with thismatter then unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction had overruled this no court could

25 invoke jurisdiction. The Infringement Court is not a court of competent jurisdiction nor investedwith federal jurisdiction to determine issues relating to the constitution, and as such its purportedissue of orders/warrant cannot be valid.More over, when an objection against legislation is made then this is not only applicable for theobjector but so anyone else. Hence, when I objected to the constitutional validity of the

30 Infringement Act 2006 then the entire act could no longer be enforced against anyone, not justonly against me! But with the Victorian Police willing and able to assist in the terrorism by theSheriff against citizen s then why would the Sheriff and his deputies concern themselves about

what is lawful or not.35 The Framers of the Constitution made clear that all that was needed was a JUDICIAL decision

AFTER both parfties were heard. Well, the Infringement Court clearly doesnt hear both partiesand so fails on this legal principle also. More over, the Magistrates Court has cedrtain legal

provisions and if the Infringement Court were to operate as part of the Magistrates Court ofVictoria then its legal procedures do not comply with the Magistrates Court Act

40 ,

When I commenced to represented Mr Colosimo, as a Professional Advocate, before Her HonourHarbison J, in the 6th contempt hearing, after Mr Colosimo got rid of his barrister, in a case thatinvolved more then 20 lawyers, I pointed out to Her Honour that she had no jurisdiction, therewas no legitimate evidence to rely upon, etc. Upon my submission Her Honour ordered a

45 permanent stay the contempt case, acknowledging that I was correct in law, that once filed theother party could not withdraw the contempt application, and I opposed it to be withdrawn. Wellaware that if it was withdrawn they could file it again whereas a permanent stay would preventthis.

50 I may use my self proclaimed crummy English, in view English was not my native languageand neither did I have any formal education in the English language, but I proved often enoughtto defeat lawyers. and, it seems I better give you also a lesson in constitutional matters, but thevalue of it is left up to the inteligence you may or may not posess to comprehend it all..

55 People who grew up in Australia are living with notions of procedures even so it can be totallyand utterly wrong.
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1709327/sheriffs-blitz-on-unpaid-fines-in-ballarat/http://www.standard.net.au/story/1695720/sheriffs-office-bags-43000-clip-at-sheepvention/http://www.monashweekly.com.au/story/1557662/high-noon-as-sheriff-nabs-fine-dodgers/http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1709327/sheriffs-blitz-on-unpaid-fines-in-ballarat/http://www.standard.net.au/story/1695720/sheriffs-office-bags-43000-clip-at-sheepvention/http://www.monashweekly.com.au/story/1557662/high-noon-as-sheriff-nabs-fine-dodgers/


8/32




As I wrote to Mr Malcolm Turnbull on 21 September 20013:

QUOTE 2 SEPTEMBER 2013 CORRESPONDENCEMalcolm,

5 as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I put the challenge to you to disprove my reasoning in my 130920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re various issues-Republic by stealth!

correspondence to Mr Tony Abbott, of which you were provided a copy via email at the same time.

While your email refers to MP it must be clear you are not a Member of Parliament until the writs

10 are returned, and you are sworn in for the seat elected for. If in fact you fail to accept the seat then youwill not become an MP (Member of Parliament) either.

It is of concern to me what we have people running around using the references of MP even so they arenot, and worse are fraudulently using Consolidated Revenue Funds for this.

15 With all those lawyers in the parliament it seems not a single one understand the true meaning andapplication of the constitution and many are therefore fraudulently using monies from Consolidated RevenueFunds as result, but if a pensioner was to do the same then politicians would argue they deserved to bepunished as they are stealing from the taxpayers. Well to me every politician doing the same likewise shouldbe facing the courts and no excuse for not knowing what is applicable.

20 .I can accept that any successful candidate for purpose of travelling to the Parliament to take up the seat wouldbe entitled to compensation in regard to this, including a limited overnight accommodation cost. That the

Framers of the Constitution considered and for this also provided for an allowance. Therefore a Minister ofthe Crown is entitled, when having taken up a seat in the parliament, to an allowance and as a Minister also

25 entitled to receive remuneration for being a Minister of the Crown. the allowance is payable fromConsolidated Revenue Funds whereas the salary is payable by the Queen, for which Her Majesty receivesmonies from Consolidated Revenue Funds.It is important that it is understood that a Minister is and remains entitled to any allowance; when alsobeing a Member of Parliament. A Minister, such as yourself, not now being a Member of Parliament

30 therefore cannot receive the same amount of monies as you would once you become a Member of Parliament,if at all. For example, so to say, you could be declared a bankrupt before being able to take up the seat andthen by s44 of the constitution you would not be able to take up the seat and your appointment as Ministerwould expire by no later then 3 months after the appointment commenced (Section 64 of the constitution).

35 Obviously, my issue is if you and other former Members of Parliament, since the House of Representatives

was dissolved, nevertheless continue to use the perks as a Member of Parliament, such as mobile and othercommunications at expenses of the taxpayers and likewise travel and use accommodation even so notconstitutionally entitled upon?

END QUOTE 2 SEPTEMBER 2013 CORRESPONDENCE

40 And also, for example:

130920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re various issues-Republic bystealth!QUOTE 2 SEPTEMBER 2013 CORRESPONDENCE

45 HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The officesof Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are

50 parliamentary offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to theextent that really the Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right tosubmit their own Estimates, and those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my owncolony, are altogether untouched by the Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, butnot offices of profit under the Crown.

55 END QUOTEWhat basically is applicable is, that a person not when elected but when actually taking up the seat in theParliament at the return of the writs, then and only from then on can the person be paid an allowance, notbeing a salary.


9/32




On Wednesday 128 September 2013 I happen to read an article about a Victorian Member of ParliamentGeoff Shaw, who was instead of being at his local (Frankston) political office was actually working at hisaccountancy office. it seems it was held he was ripping of the public doing so. The truth is he did preciselywhat the Framers of the Constitution debated to be applicable. That those who are elected continue to work in

5 their normal daily job and receive an allowance (not being a salary) towards the travel expenses and lossof income for attending to the Parliament. essentially people have been by masses brainwashed that a personwho actually acts appropriately in that regard may be deemed to be a thief.

END QUOTE 2 SEPTEMBER 2013 CORRESPONDENCE

10 For the record I have to my recollection never had contact with Mr Geoff Shaw or any of hisrepresentatives, and so the man wouldnt even be aware of my writings, and may not even beaware of my existence.

But, my issue is why did the police consider it appropriate to charge Mr Geoff Shaw for alleged15 misuse of a vebicle but doesnt do so with others? Why is he singled out?

If you are going after those abusing Consolidated Revenue funds why then not after all of them,?

You see once the Governor dissolves the House then not a single person in the Lower Houseremains to be a Member of Parliament. And as the States are constituted within s106 of the

20 (federal) constitution its legal principles apply. As such any candidate elected cannot receive an

allowance (not being a salary) until the writs are returned, and they have actually taken up theseat elected for. So for all those months that they are after the dissolution of ther House and

before the writs are returned then they are not entitled to use their former parliamentarian titles,phones, vehicles, etc. After all, they are and never were employed because they are elected to

25 represent. Then if they become Minister of the Crown then as like the Governor they areemployed by the British Crown, and payment is to be made to the Queen and Her Majestydecides their pay. As such, those who were Members of the Parliament, prior to the Houses beingdissolved, and still continued to use their parliamentrian perks, but not c onsgtitutionally entitledto this, in my view all defrauded Consolidated Revenue Funds. All of them failing to declare to

30 the Electoral Commission the monies they had received, the financial beneffits from the perks,etc, then all would in my view have committed offences by concealing those details.The State Parliament cannot override its creator the constitution nor its embedded legal

principles that applies to the states also..

35 As I indicated I understand from various statement on the internet that Mr Shaw was accused ofdefrauding Consolidated Revenue for daring to work in his private office while being paid by theState. While this may not be an issue pursued by the police it nevertheless show how the masseshave been brainwashed to believe in some version of events to be applicable contrary to whatactually is constitutionally aspplicable.

40 .If Mr Shaw acted dishonest, not something I have nor can be permitted to decide, then lets deal

with each and every parliamentarian who has done so. Constitutionally there is no provision for ashadow cabinet, So, why are there so many paid salaries for being a in a shadow cabinert?To me thisn is defrauding taxpayewrs also.

45 Constitutionally, Minister are employed with the Monarch, that is the British Crown and noother, and if Mr Baillieu is no longer a Minister then why is he not charged for using a driver andvehicle? Are we applying double standards?It should be clear that if Mr Shaw was not a Minister then he could not be in receipt of a salary

but only an allowance to compensate him for the loss of income of his ordinary daily work,50 while attending to the Parliament. If therefore he was provided with a vehicle not being a

Minister, as Mr Ted Baillieu was, then I see quite frankly no difference as to one using it or theother.


10/32




Seems to me, the Victorian Police should first of all check out what is constitutionallyapplicable, and forget asking some lawyer who pretends to be a constitutional lawyer but knowslikely next to nothing avout it.Go to any court case involving parties all being represented and of the 100 cases you find 100 set

5 of lawyers to be on the loosing ed and 100 set of lawyer on the winning end, when the court hasto adjudicate, and so you got a 50% chance to have a winning team or a losing set of lawyers. Ifdoctors had this in operations of 50% patients dying they would be deemded to be Charletans.A constitutional lawyer is an oxymoron, as much as a humanist killer or a fire bug firefighhter.

10

As I indicated above, the states are bound subject to this constitution and so also theembedded legal principles that Members of Parliament are not employed by the State and cannotrecieve a salary but only an allowance. Ministers of State are not employed by the State,

but are employed by the British Crown, to which their salaries are payable,.15 It also means, that former Ministers, Premiers and Governors have no legal right to receive so

called pensions from the State Consiolidated Revenue Funds as relating to their employementwith the British Crown, as the moment their commission is terminated this is the end of theirentitlements of that pay.

As such, boy, did the police so to say open a Pandoora Box to charge Mr Shaw but not others as20 this is like a can of worms where they all may be on a slippery slope.Again, the State Parliament cannot legislate contrary to the legal principles embedded in theconstitution, and so it is immaterial if the state legislated for certain perks, as it is and remains to

be ULTRA VIRES to the constitution, if it offends the legal principles embedded in theconstitution.

25

Whatever may or may not be the allegations against Mr Shaw, the Victorian Police, I view has aduty and obligation not to single him out and allow other perhaps more serious offenders to beleft untouched. It is because of my so called crummy English I tend to check out matters morethen most others, including lawyers, tend to do. Hence I discover details and facts most lawyer

30 would never become aware off..A clear example is where I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth in both appeals onFAILING TO VOTE as I submitted to the court on 19 July 2006, that compulsory voting wasunconstitutional, etc.

35 .Now how many lawyers would be aware of this when they still fine people, albeitunconstitutionally? How many magistrates understand this rule of law if they continue to findelectors guilty of FAILING TO VOTE, despite that I proved in court, and unchallenged by theCommonwealth, it is unconstitutional to compel anyone to vote. Hence the legislation is

40 ULTRA VIRES for so far it compels a n elector to vote

.QUOTE

From: Mal

To: [email protected]

Cc:

Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:03 pm


11/32




Subject:Julia Gillard paid $4243 to Department of Finance because Tim Mathieson misusedcar | The Australian

Attachments: Text version of this message. (1KB)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-wrote-personal-cheque-for-4243-to-department-of-finance-because-partner-tim-mathieson-misued-taxpayer-funded-car/story-e6frg6n6-1226720672955

Geoff Shaw was charged today for similar alleged misuses of his State

Government car to do his private commercial business in it, was he not?

The former first bloke appears to have been an expensive hand-bag for her!

But will Tim now also be charged like Geoff Shaw, given the admission byMs. Gillard by her having herself refunded his misuses of public funded

vehicle after being caught out by the department of finance?

JULIA Gillard wrote a personal cheque for $4243 to the Department of Finance because her partner,Tim Mathieson, had misused her taxpayer-funded car to drive around Victoria selling shampoo andother haircare products in breach of parliamentary rules.

Documents released to The Australian under Freedom of Information laws yesterday show that MsGillard made the payment on March 9, 2007, as deputy leader of the opposition because of concernover a breach of rules forbidding the use of the car for commercial purposes.

The documents were provided yesterday after a 10-month battle by the former prime minister andher office to prevent the Department of Finance from following through on its decision to release thematerial.

The $4243 repayment by Ms Gillard indicates her office estimated that Mr Mathieson had drivenseveral thousand kilometres while pursuing his commercial interests in the private-plated car, whichwas wholly funded by the commonwealth.

END QUOTE

5http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-wrote-personal-cheque-for-4243-to-department-of-finance-because-partner-tim-mathieson-misued-taxpayer-funded-car/story-e6frg6n6-1226720672955QUOTE

Julia Gillard paid $4243 to Department of Finance because Tim Mathieson misused car by:10 Hedley Thomas From: The Australian September 17, 2013 9:22AM - See more at:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-wrote-personal-cheque-for-4243-to-department-of-finance-because-partner-tim-mathieson-misued-taxpayer-funded-car/story-e6frg6n6-1226720672955#sthash.KRZcodVM.dpuf

END QUOTE15

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tim-mathiesons-car-use-cost-julia-gillard-4000/story-fn59niix-1226720523293#mm-premiumQUOTE

20 Tim Mathieson's car use cost Julia Gillard $4000 by: Hedley Thomas From: The AustralianSeptember 17, 2013 12:00AM

JULIA Gillard wrote a personal cheque for $4243 to the Department of Finance because herpartner, Tim Mathieson, had misused her taxpayer-funded car to drive around Victoria sellingshampoo and other haircare products in breach of parliamentary rules.Documents released to The

25 Australian under Freedom of Information laws yesterday show that Ms Gillard made the
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/viewmail.exe?id=01c66ff3d557514de4ca83b55e7ff757e134&threadid=H63448655928570&download=0http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-wrote-personal-cheque-for-4243-to-department-of-finance-because-partner-tim-mathieson-misued-taxpayer-funded-car/story-e6frg6n6-1226720672955http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-wrote-personal-cheque-for-4243-to-department-of-finance-because-partner-tim-mathieson-misued-taxpayer-funded-car/story-e6frg6n6-1226720672955http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-wrote-personal-cheque-for-4243-to-department-of-finance-because-partner-tim-mathieson-misued-taxpayer-funded-car/story-e6frg6n6-1226720672955http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://mail.schorel-hlavka.com/edgedesk/cgi-bin/viewmail.exe?id=01c66ff3d557514de4ca83b55e7ff757e134&threadid=H63448655928570&download=0http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-wrote-personal-cheque-for-4243-to-department-of-finance-because-partner-tim-mathieson-misued-taxpayer-funded-car/story-e6frg6n6-1226720672955http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-wrote-personal-cheque-for-4243-to-department-of-finance-because-partner-tim-mathieson-misued-taxpayer-funded-car/story-e6frg6n6-1226720672955http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-wrote-personal-cheque-for-4243-to-department-of-finance-because-partner-tim-mathieson-misued-taxpayer-funded-car/story-e6frg6n6-1226720672955http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-wrote-personal-cheque-for-4243-to-department-of-finance-because-partner-tim-mathieson-misued-taxpayer-funded-car/story-e6frg6n6-1226720672955


12/32




payment on March 9, 2007, as deputy leader of the opposition because of concern over a breachof rules forbidding the use of the car for commercial purposes. The documents were providedyesterday after a 10-month battle by the former prime minister and her office to prevent theDepartment of Finance from following through on its decision to release the material. - See more

5 at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tim-mathiesons-car-use-cost-julia-gillard-4000/story-fn59niix-1226720523293#sthash.KjKTDQIz.dpuf

END QUOTE

10 I be looking forwards if the Victorian Police will be laying any charges against Ms Julia

Gillard (as it was her vehicle apparently) and/or Tim Mathieson!

As I indicated, I view the Police themselves are involved in terrorism, when they are assisting the15 Sheriffs Office to execute purported Infringement Court orders/warrants despite well aware that

since I commenced to challenge the validity of the legislation, etc, they cannot do so..As I quoted above the Wakim decision where the High Court of Australia clearly stated anyonecan ignore those unconstitutional court orders. Well the Sheriff and the Victorian Police

20 obviously are acting contrary to the High Court of Australia decision! Safe to say that the onus

was upon the so called enforcement agency to take the matter to a court of competentjurisdiction, as to prove jurisdiction! Failing that, no valid court order/warrant can exist from theInfringement Court! Hence, the police cannot act, and certainly not assist the Sheriffs Office inexecuting those kind of unconstitutional court orders/warrants.

25 .

Not only must Justice be done; it mustalso be seen to be done R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte

McCarthy ([1924].

Law Encyclopedia: Coram

[Latin, Before; in the presence of.]

30 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 aphrase that describes a proceeding brought before a court thatlacks the jurisdiction tohear such a matter. Any judgment rendered by the court in such a case is void.

35 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

40HALSBURYS LAWS OF AUSTRALIA says under (130-13460): Consent to summary jurisdiction. Theconsent to be tried summarily must be clear and unequivocal and a failure to carry out the procedure for obtainingthe consent will deprive the Court of Jurisdiction to determine the matters summarily.

45 A man who exercises his rights harms no one a Legal Maxim.

Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guiltyaccording to law in a public trial at which she/he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

50 END QUOTE

.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.

55 If your own action is very unlawful and very unethical, if you come to court with Dirty Handsbest not to question others legality, morality, and ethics!


13/32




Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector General of Government HCT-00-CV-MA-593-2003

QUOTEConstitution needles to mention is a supreme law of the land.

5 END QUOTE

The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does tofederal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-

tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm10 QUOTE37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, theprinciple is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything intowhich it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."

END QUOTE

15 AndQUOTE

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutesthe law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must bein agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.

20 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 fromthe time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. Anunconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a

25 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 norights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifiesno acts performed under it. . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede30 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 QUOTESixteenth American Jurisprudence

35 Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)Sixteenth American Jurisprudence 2d; SS: 256 & 257:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and

ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not

merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is

40 as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settlejust as it would be had the statute not been enacted. 'Such 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 to anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts preformed under it . . . 'A void act

cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any

45 existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it issuperseded thereby. 'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to

enforce it." . . . The fact that one acts in reliance on a statute which has theretofore been adjudgedunconstitutional does not protect him from civil or criminal responsibility ....

50 Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)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 QUOTE55 .

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/9.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="otherwise%20fell%20outside%20its%20jurisdiction%20 "

Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)QUOTE
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm


14/32




The Full Court on appeal from Maxwell J. held that the review of the Deputy Registrar's decision wasconfined to an inquiry whether the parties did in fact consent to the terms of the order and whether the termsagreed upon were in a form appropriate to the type of order sought and were enforceable. But the order made

by the Deputy Registrar must have been made pursuant to s.79 - the section which confers power upon the5 Court to order a settlement of or an alteration in the property interests of the parties. The Court could not

make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties consented to it

and it follows, a fortiori, that a Registrar, exercising a delegated power, could not do so. Thus, for instance,under s.80(1)(j) of the Act the Court may make an order by consent, but only in exercising its powers underPt VIII. Section 37A(1)(g) allows the delegation to the Registrar of the power to make an order by consent,

10 but only where it is a power of the Court. And O.36A, r.2(1)(n) delegates to the Registrar the power referredto in s.37A(1)(g).

END QUOTE

QUOTE Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

15 The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.

END QUOTE

QUOTE Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,

Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven

20 END QUOTE

QUOTE Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768,

No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.

END QUOTE25

QUOTE Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910,

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

END QUOTE.

30 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

35

Some exampels as to how a court of competent jurisdiction deals with an OBJECTION TOJURISDICTION:Director General, Department of Commerce v Cianfrano and Anor [2008] NSWADTAP

56 (24 July 2008) NEW SOUTH WALES ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL

40 QUOTE

3 The Tribunal decided, contrary to the Departments submission, that it did have jurisdiction to determinethe adequacy of search question: Director-General, Department of Commerce and anor(No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195. The matter was listed for further directions. The Tribunals orders were as follows:

1. First Respondents objection to

45 jurisdiction dismissed.

2. Tribunal to reconvene to make further directions as appropriate.

END QUOTE.

Trapman v Sydney Water Corporation & Ors [2009] FMCA 942 (16 September 2009)

50 QUOTE1. Accordingly, I find that the Court has jurisdiction to deal with the

matters contained in Particulars (a)(ii), (v), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x),

(xi) and (xii) of Exhibit 1.

1. It follows that I find that the Court does not have jurisdiction to deal

55 with the matters contained in Particulars (a) (i),(iii), (iv) and (vi)of Exhibit 1.

1. I make orders accordingly.

END QUOTE
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s79.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=Q2006S%20NSW%20ADT%20195?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=Q2006S%20NSW%20ADT%20195?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s79.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=Q2006S%20NSW%20ADT%20195?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=Q2006S%20NSW%20ADT%20195?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=


15/32




.

Watson v Director-General, Department of Services, Technology and

Administration [2010] NSWADT 44 (12 February 2010)

QUOTE

5 He also stated that, if the Tribunal agreed this view, he would seek anorder that the Respondent pay the Applicants costs occasioned by the

objection to jurisdiction on an indemnity basis.

END QUOTE

And

10 QUOTEThe orders to be made

64 For the foregoing reasons, each of the applications constituting these

proceedings is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

1565 In consequence, the Tribunals orders made on 6 January 2010 are

discharged.

66 In addition, the directions hearing set down for 15 February 2010 is

20 vacated.END QUOTE

As I objected to the jurisdiction of any court, then the onus was upon the Victorian Police toplace matters before a COMPETENT COURT OF JURISDICTION that could invoke Federal

25 jurisdiction, in view that I all along relied upon legal principles embedded in the constitution. Indeed, the police prosecutor as a OFFICER OF THE COURT should have disclosed myobjection to jurisdiction to the Infringement Court..

Foster(1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)30 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

35 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 knowinglyconceal 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 clientdiscloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the

40 specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.END QUOTE

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

45 In my opinion, the words 'false evidence' in s79A(1) do not mean evidence which is wilfully false. The sub-section should be read according to its terms. To say that 'false evidence should be read as 'wilful falseevidence' is to introduce a provision not expressed by the provision; cf s6H of the Royal Commission Act1902 which speaks of a witness 'who knowingly gives false testimony'. This interpretation is reinforced byreference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and suppression of evidence which

50 would comprehend cases of wilful false evidence. At common law, a judgment will be set aside if ithas been obtained by fraud. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, it has been held that an applicant mustshow 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 theirliteral meaning

55 END QUOTEAndTaylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAQUOTE

In my opinion, the jurisdiction extends not only to the setting aside of judgments which have been obtained60 without service or notice to a party (Craig v. Kanssen [1943] KB 256 at 262 - 263) but to the setting aside

of a default or ex-parte judgment obtained when the absence of the party is due to no fault on his part. I canfind no indication in the Family Law Act of an intention to displace this inherent jurisdiction.


16/32




END QUOTE.

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

5 END QUOTE.

QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true.

END QUOTE10

The issue is not if some private company did or didnt set up a system that prevents a policeofficer to notify the Infringement Registrar of an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION but thatthe police officer was duty bound to notify the Infringement Registrar that I had objected to

jurisdiction and therefore the matter couldnt be proceedings before the Infringement Court,15 unless and until, if at all, a court of competent jurisdiction ruled averse to my claims.

It is not relevant if ordinary the Infringement Court had been dealing with Infringement Noticesin the past, because it is the inherent legal right for a accused to object to the jurisdiction of acourt, and for the plaintiff/prosecutor then to prove jurisdiction. I learned this lesson when the

20 Supreme Court of Victoria had an objection to jurisdiction from government solicitors, and thetrailjudge made clear that it was their right to object no matter what, and I had the onus to prove

jurisdiction! As the trail judge made clear the fact that the Supreme Court of Victoria was thehigherst court of the State, and had been dealing with simular cases in the past, proved nothing!.

25 While it is obvious that the State Government now relies upon the police to be a tax collector inreality the police function is to maintain law and order and not become tax collectors.It was not for me to elect to go to court as I was not seeking to sue anyone. the Police pursued Ihad committed an offence and so it was for the police to then take it to as competent court of

jurisdiction, where from onset I made known my objections. where the police failed to do so then30 this must be fatal to its case. Then to assist the Sheriff in executing purported Infringement Court

orders/warrants to me is nothing less then terrorism..

In my view the Chief Commissioner of Police has a duty of care towards police officers in the

police force, that they are not needlessly left at risk of being personally sued for seeking to35 execute invalid Infringement Court orders/warrants, because their superior couldnt give a damn

about protecting them. There is no such thing for police officers deliberately left unknown bytheir superiors of invalid Infringement Court orders/warrant and then executing them and be freefrom being liable because their superiors seek to con their own officers in acting unlawfully..

40 The history of my case is extensive in writing and if the police and the Sheriffs Office elect toignore this then they must accept the legal consequences, and be personally liable because I donot accept that taxpayers should be ending up paying for cost which was caused deliberately bythe Chief Commissioner and the Sheriff (and those working under them) for thwarting the rule oflaw application.

45

AS I VIEW IT, THIS IS A DELIBERATE CONDUCT OF TERRORISM. INDEED,STOPPING A PARENT IN DRIVING A CHILD TO SCHOOL FOR EXECUTING

INVALID INFRINGEMENT COURT ORDERS/WARRANTS AND TO EXTORT THEM

TO PAY UP OF BE IMPRISONED AND/OR ARRESTING THEM IS NOTHING LESS

50 IN MY VIEW THEN TERRORISM AND EXTORTION.

I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO ISSUE WITH THE POLICE AND/OR THE SHERIFFEXECUTING VALID COURT ORDERS/WARRANTS IN A LAWFUL MANNER, BUTTOTALLY OPPOSE THE MISUSE AND ABUSE OF POWERS IN THE PROCESS OF

55 DOING SO.IF A DRIVER IS STOPPED FOR A ROAD WORTHINESS CHECK AND THE POLICE

FIND THE VEHICLE TO BE OK THEN I VIEW THERE IS NO LEGAL JURISDICTION


17/32




THEN TO DIRECT THE DRIVER TO THE SHERIFF TO BE CHECKED OUT FOR ANYOUTSTANDING ALLEGED ORDERS/WARRANTS BECAUSE THIS GOES BEYOND THEPOWERS OF THE POLICE FOR ROAD WORTHINESS CHECKING A VEHICLE.

5 There are ample of U.S.A Authorities which makes clear the police cannot stop a motorist forulterior purposes nothing to do with the vehicle itself. Indeed, time and time again it held

purported evidence found by the police in a vehicle to be inadmissible because it was anunlawful search, nothing to do with the checking of a road worthiness.

10 As the Supreme Court of Victoria recently made clear a man running away not wanting toanswer questions was entitled to do so. As such, it must be clear that the police has the powers tocheck if a driver is licensed to drive a motor vehicle, but not if somehow then this relaters toother issues, because then the checking is not for lawfulness of using the vehicle but for ulterior

purposes which makes it unlawfull.15 .

QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of LordsIn an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will givegood cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of theconspiracy.

20 END QUOTE.

In my view, if therefore the Victorian Police uses its powers to stop motorist as to enable theSheriffs Office unlawfully to check the driver for outstanding fines/warrants then this becomes aconspiracy!

25

A person may lawfully uses a motor vehicle not belonging to him, and the police cannot just stopthe vehicle, as it does unlawfully, just so the Sheriff can check the identity of the driver againstany outstanding orders/warrants., as much as the police cannot do so against a person walkingalong a footpath or riding a bicycle for the Sheriff to check the identity. That must be clear by the

30 recent decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

And in R v Kidman [1915] HCA 58; (1915) 20 CLR 425 (16 September 1915) it was heldQUOTE

In more developed societies the redress of civil wrongs is in practice required to be sought by the party35 aggrieved, while in the case of violations of the law entailing penal consequences the proceedings are

instituted in the name or on behalf of the sovereign authority. This has been for so long a time the rule

in British communities that any reference in a Statute to judicial power or its exercise must be

interpreted by its light.

The analogy between the two kinds of proceedings is thus expressed in Chitty on the Common Law (2nd

40 ed., vol. i., p. 841):"Criminal informations, properly so called, are analogous to declarations for theredress of a personal injury, except that the latter are at the suit of a subject for the satisfaction of a

private wrong, and the former are in the name of the King, for the punishment of offences affecting the

interests of the public. They are accusations or complaints for serious misdemeanors, which, whether

they immediately affect the safety of the Crown, or, in the first instance, encroach more nearly on

45 individual rights, require to be speedily repressed for the good of society at large."

END QUOTE

R v Kidman [1915] HCA 58; (1915) 20 CLR 425 (16 September 1915)

QUOTE

50 A man attempting to steal Commonwealth treasure may be resisted to death; a man obstructing anyCommonwealth officer in the performance of his duty may be thrust aside with all the force necessary

to enable the officer to perform his duty.

All this is implied executive power, but punishment, whether regarded as retribution or as a deterrent,

is beyond the scope of the executive power. That is, it is not incidental to it, or to its execution, in the

55 sense which would include it by implication in the grant of power. The Executive cannot change or addto the law; it can only execute it; and any change of or addition to law is not incidental when we are

speaking of a non-legislative power.


18/32




END QUOTE

HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

5 Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crownin prosecuting criminals are.

END QUOTE

Then the question arises that if a warrant was issued, when were the matters prosecuted by the

10 Crown in court? When was the sumnmons served upon the accused in name of the Crown?.

As a former police prosecutor stated:QUOTE EMAIL

http://www.membersonly.aussiespeedingfines.com/memberspage.php15

Saturday - Jun 22, 2013 9:21 amHow and why you should fight ALL fines - by an ex-Police Sergeant!

We have received the following e-mail from an Ex-Victoria Police Sergeant and we would urge everyone to20 read it carefully and note that it details the very points that we raise in our e-book about challenging every

fine you get.

Hi,

25 My name is Stan. I am a retired Sergeant of Police in Victoria for 14 years. I was also a police prosecutor attimes, so I know what I am talking about. I spent half my life in Magistrates Court during my time in the

Force. I was only ever a very fair copper, and I am proud of my time in the job, looking after the interests ofVictorians, often to the detriment of my family and my health.

30 I never booked any driver for a trifling offence "ever". People committing trifling offences commonly used toget a warning and a licence / vehicle check. It had to be serious before I booked anyone.

I am so annoyed at what is happening these days, in what I call "Indiscriminate revenue gathering" It isabsolutely disgusting. The government and the Police Force need to hang their heads in shame. If you did a

35 survey of current serving members of the police forces in this country, you would be hard pushed to find

many who disagree with me.

I know how the legal system works, and I know how to beat the system. This is how to do it, and if about 10%of all drivers booked follow my specific instructions, then the entire system will crash and become

40 unworkable to the extent, that the government will have no choice but to stop issuing fines for every type oftraffic offence. The whole lot of them. Seriously.

I do not feel guilty about coming out with this information, as I think it's about time someone stood up forhard working, civil minded, law abiding taxpayers in this country, who are being screwed.

45This is very simple and very basic. The idea is to clog up the system in the traffic camera office and thecourts by drivers exercising their rights to remain innocent until proven guilty.

SIMPLE BASIC LEGAL STEPS TO FOLLOW................50

1. Do not accept the alleged offence. There are numerous valid reasons to dispute every single allegedoffence. Often the charges are incorrect or the evidence is illegally or incorrectly gathered.

2. Challenge it, tell them that you are going to defend the matter. Make them earn their miserable $150 or

55 $200 or whatever. They have to prepare evidence and witnesses. Just the wages for the camera operator orthe Policeman on the day of the court, will be more than the actual fine. You are also taking a cameraoperator or a member of the Police Force off the street for the day. But it won't get to that point.....read on....

3. If a court date is ever set, and it does not suit you, do not accept it, ask for a delay to a time and place that60 suits you.


19/32




4. When they re set the date, delay it as often as possible. keep pleading not guilty all through the process.You have every right to be sick, or go for an adjournment if the day does not suit for any legitimatereason.For example you may have pressing family or work commitments which prevent you from attending a

particular court on a particular day.

55. If it ever actually gets to court, (which is unlikely if everyone does this) and if you are unwell that day, ringthe court in the morning and tell them that you cannot make it as you are sick. The camera operator, and a

police prosecutor will already be at court, and will be greatly inconvenienced, by having to come backanother day. The whole time this is going on, the amount of paperwork involved at the traffic camera office is

10 huge. Several staff are involved, and it rapidly becomes very costly, probably running into thousands. .....withme so far.....keep reading.......

6. The court system is then placed under such a massive load by people who wanted "their day in court" thatit simply will not be able to cope unless they open up about another 50 magistrates courts, and this is

15 obviously going to cost the government a lot more than any revenue raised. If all the above fails, which ishighly unlikely....and you actually go to court and get convicted......you have a right of appeal. Make sure youappeal the conviction. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what happens. They are not going to

spend millions chasing hundreds.

20 7 Tell everyone you know to challenge their alleged offences, and the entire system will crash within a fewweeks.

8. Please pass this on. AND ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTYAND THAT THERE IS A VERY HIGH PROBABILITY THAT THE EVIDENCE USED AGAINST YOU IS

25 WRONG. YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CHALLENGE ANY ALLEGED OFFENCE. THIS IS WHYCOURTS EXIST....SO USE THEM......A LOT.

Regards,

30 StanEND QUOTE EMAIL

The point is when did the police check if the advise on the infringement Notice to make apayment to Civic Compliance Victoria was actually lawful? Politicians all over the world are

35 creating systems that they rip of taxpayers, and this one seems to be to me one of them.

Why is the Victorian Police advising to make a payment to a bank account purportedly beingCivic Compliance Victoria when in fact the Westpac bank has it as Civic Compliance Vicnot being the same as the trademark? Is this a deliberate different version so that monies are notat all paid into an account of Civic Compliance Victoria but in another account known as Civic

40 Compliance Vic in a similar manner as Julia Gillard and her then boyfriend Wilson set up abank account purporting to be a Trade Union account, but was not?Why indeed did Westpac allow the registration of a bank account in the name of CivicCompliance Vic when to my knowledge there is no such registered business operating?.

45 If the company behind Civic Compliance Victoria and/or Civic Compliance Vic is a privatecompany using the trademark or letterheads (as I previously exposed) of the police, the Sheriffs

office the Court, etc, then where does the liability lie if something goes terribly wrong? Is theChief Commissioner of Police willing to take full responsibility for any liability arising ofconduct by the company operating under the Victorian Trademark Civic Compliance Victoria

50 when it uses the Victorian Police letterhead?Indeed, is this a lawful exercise by a private company?.

It is lawful to issue orders/warrants purportedly issued by a Infringement Court Registrar butactually being the private company parading as Infringement Registrar, and accessing court

55 computer facilities. (Seen below also the notation about Business Unit 19)Why is it that the Magistrates court of Victoria doesnt list in its yearly reporting the number ofInfringement Court orders/warrants even so the Magistrates Cou