1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr Brendan Facey Department of Justice 5 Infringement management & Enforcement Services
Brendan.Facey@justice.vic.gov.au Cc: 10

12-8-2013

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

Ian Grey Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria 233 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000, C/o help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au

15

M Hoyle, Quality and client support Coordinator Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Email: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com

20

Your Ref: BC/15766 Sir,

25

became aware of your 9 August 2013 correspondence to me on about 00.38 am this morning, at least that is the time I copied your email to me onto my harddrive. I noticed that you refer also to Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, and it appears to me that this decision is to me of grave concern, such as:

30 QUOTE Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) 66 A driver might misconstrue his or her actual speed because the error tolerance latent in the vehicles speedometer is greater than that in the detection device. But drivers can meet that risk by having their instruments actual error tolerance measured, or drivers can drive at a speed that allows for a potential under-reading of 10 per cent of actual speed. END QUOTE Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010)

35

I am a motorist who frequently used the Northern Ring Road (between Greensborough and Campbellfield area, where reportedly hundreds of motorist have been booked for speeding, 40 exceeding a 40 kilometres speed limit. Often, at the peril of my life, travelling at just below the 40 kilometres speedlimit indicated signage, where motorist often would zoom past me at estimated double the speed I was doing. Many honking their horns when passing me. One problem is that at times the speedlimit in force is I view abused in that no one can be seen working in that area, and so ignorance is to leave nevertheless speedlimit of 40 kilometres 45 applicable. Indeed, I also wrote to the former Premier Mr Ted Ted Baillieu that up to 5 of the electronic speed limit signs in a row were not working. Clearly, it is unfair if drivers are unaware of a speed limit, because the contractors of the little trailers displaying the speedsigns have not provided sufficient power for the lights to remain activated during the night.(Perhaps p1 12-08-2013 Sheriffs Office Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766
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 Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

2 the clouded day avoided the batteries to be fully charged, but that cannot be an excuse for failing to display the appropriate speedlimit for drivers to be able to be aware off.) Because I am seeking to be very alerts to speedlimits and aware what the signs ordinary provide for, I keep it to the safe speedlimit but it is unfair to other motorist that they may incur a speeding offence because 5 of the circumstances causing it beyond their intention to speed. While the court in Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) held that one could reduce ones speed by 10 kilometres an hour, this in my view would be to obstruct the ordinary flow of traffic. Speedlimits are provided, as I understand it, to provide a maximum 10 speed if safe to do so. To reduce ones speed by 10 kilometres endangering others, who required or desire to travel to the maximum allowable speed limit is in my view irresponsible. It are slow drivers who cause others to overtake and hence enhances the risk of accidents. Also, the cost to the economy to have travel times reduced by say 10% for the sake of perhaps avoiding exceeding unintentionally a speed limit cannot be justified.
15

20

25

30

35

Again, as I am aware of the 40 kilometres speed limit on the freeway, generally, but not always, because of roadworks in progress, I maintain to stick to the speedlimit, but can understand, even so I may not approve, of other drivers being frustrated as to the unjustified speedlimit when no one is working, or when speedsigns lights are out and so it is a guess work what the speedlimit might be, other then using a normally applicable 100 kilometres speedlimit. At times speedlimit signs are partly hidden behind a wall of roadwork constructions and if some are out then a single light can be prevented from being noticed when one is behind a large truck, blocking the view ahead. And traffic signals should be clear and again, I did way back when Mr Steve Bracks was still Premier of Victoria recommend that like the GPS one should be able to have a speed limit electronic signage on the dashboard, so a driver instead of having to constantly being side tracked to look for speedsigns, and so can incur an accident, due to this, then have the appropriate speedlimit displayed on the dashboard. This to me would any government pursue to be implemented if safety: rather then free taxation contribution As I understand Premier Naptine held it was, would be the real issue. . At 3 am, this morning I decided to go to bed as I was too tired to continue to read the judgment of Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) but intend to do so further. However, I must express my concern as to the Judgment and HCA 27 of 1999 Wakim ought to be a reminder that no matter what a court may have ordered as the High Court of Australia made clear:

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999) QUOTE For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail 40 against the Constitution. Mr Gould is 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 . 45 Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942 QUOTE Common 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 a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a 50 decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab initio. END QUOTE 12-08-2013 Sheriffs Office Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766 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 Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati p2

3
In Re O (infants) (1971) Ch 748,754 and 755 QUOTE In my considered opinion the law now is that if an appellate court is satisfied that the decision of the lower 5 court is wrong, it is it's duty to say so and act accordingly. END QUOTE

It should be understood that courts at times may be required by convention, to follow a previous decision but it never can be a bar to the constitution, as Wakim proved!
10 Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) refers to: QUOTE Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) 52 I will not deal in detail with the provisions of that Act, but I will mention a few. The objects of the Act include to establish a national system of units and standards of measurement of physical quantities and to provide for the uniform use of them throughout Australia. Importantly, the Act does not apply to the exclusion of any State law except in the case of inconsistency (s 4). Thus, if a State has legislated on a matter of measurement, and it is not inconsistent with a provision of the Commonwealth Act, the State Act applies unaffected. END QUOTE Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) 20

15

To respond to the above quoted judgment part and some other parts will take a considerable time for me to do so appropriately. Unlike the Supreme Court of Victoria, not being a lawyer, I tend to not assume but to actually rely upon what is constitutionally applicable. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I do not fancy to twist the true meaning and application of the 25 constitution to suit anyone, not even myself for that!
Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) refers to: QUOTE Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) 30 55 Under those powers, regulations have been prescribed in the National Measurement Regulations 1999 with respect to maximum permissible uncertainty in relation to certain measurements (but not speed), and maximum permissible error in relation to a breath analyser.[14] No regulation has been made in relation to a speed measuring device. END QUOTE Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010)

As with the previous quote, this too requires further in depth explanation. Safe to say that because a person has no all around fencing on a property it doesnt mean a person is trespassing when entering the property where reasonable this person would be aware entering private property. As I understand it the High Court of Australia is on record that the police can enter a property to 40 go to the doorbell to alert the occupier of their presents but they are not permitted to stray from the most direct way to the doorbell. the fact that a occupier may not have signs on display to warn about trespassing cannot overcome the fact that there are limits applicable. the same is with the issue of Commonwealth legislative powers versus the State legislative powers. Again, I intend to provide an extensive set out in regard of these and other issues,.
35 45 Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) refers to: QUOTE Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) Forensic argument 50 59 Such a conclusion does not preclude a person from challenging the factual conclusion of the tester that the device was in proper electrical condition or calibrated to the correct tolerance limits, or that the tester was satisfied about those matters, or that the correct records were adequately made and retained. A person may indeed do so to seek to undermine, as a question of fact, the prima facie conclusion derived from the schedule 2 certificate that the device was properly tested and sealed or that proper records were made and retained. p3 12-08-2013 Sheriffs Office Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766 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 Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

4
END QUOTE Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010)

This (above quotation) too is an issue I intend to further address. .

5 QUOTE http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=179&start=54 by slattery Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:42 am Directly from the camera commissioner The Road Safety Camera Commissioner received complaints to the effect that a person cannot be convicted of exceeding the speed limit on the basis of a reading taken by a road safety camera unless it can be established that the measurements obtained by the speed camera comply with section 10 of the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth) (the Commonwealth Act). The decision of Owen J in Breedon v Kongras (1996) 16 WAR 66 has been cited as authority for this proposition. It was hoped that a later contrary decision of Macaulay J in Agar v Dolheguy (2010) VSC 406 would resolve the issue. However, subsequent correspondents seem to have either been unaware of, or paid no heed to this more recent decision. In his judgement, His Honour observed that the provisions of the Commonwealth Act: do not compel States to adopt or apply metrological principles in their regulatory provisions with respect to measuring instruments (eg. their use and testing) except perhaps in relation to measuring instruments used in trade and, as I will show, in relation to an evidential breath analyser. In June 2012, the Road Safety Camera Commissioner briefed a leading Victorian Silk PG Nash QC to examine the authorities and advise. Mr Nash brought all relevant authorities together with the following result. The decision in Breedon v Kongras supports an argument that a prosecution for exceeding the speed limit which is based on a reading by a speed camera is required to satisfy the requirements of the Commonwealth Act. However, that decision is contrary to decisionsof the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, the WA Court of Appeal, the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal, the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the Supreme Court of Tasmania and the Supreme Court of Victoria. No decision handed down in any superior court in Australia since 1960 has followed Breedon v Kongras. Irrespective of the compelling logic of the reasoning in the decided cases, Victorian courts, other thanthe Court of Appeal, are bound by the coinciding views as to the operation of the Commonwealth Act expressed by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, the WA Court of Appeal, and the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal. And that should be the end of the matter. END QUOTE http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=179&start=54 35

10

15

20

25

30

Again:
QUOTE http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=179&start=54 In June 2012, the Road Safety Camera Commissioner briefed a leading Victorian Silk PG Nash QC to examine the authorities and advise. Mr Nash brought all relevant authorities together with the following result.

40 END QUOTE http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=179&start=54

Well, when there are 100 court cases to b e decided by the Court, involving many prominent silks, also of may charging thousands of dollars a day, then where all parties are represented by lawyers then 100 set of lawyers will be found in the wrong and 100 set of lawyers will be found 45 correct. meaning an average of 50%. If doctors had a 50% success rate in operations then they may likely be called charlatans! lawyers give legal advise as to their opinion, but they do not declare the law! And ample of people are so to say losing an arm and a leg litigating, because their legal advisors advised them they had a case, and when the legal advisors turned to be wrong the litigant suffers the financial harm while the lawyers who were so wrong get richer from the 50 monies they make. As a retired Professional; Advocate I represented also lawyers and indeed in Legal Service Commissioner versus Harold James Johnson (a solicitor and barrister for 22 years) I provided my services (including my disbursements) as usual pro bono. In the Colosimo case, I successfully had orders set aside on appeal despite some about 209 lawyers previously having been involved in the cases and that included formally a barrister for Mr Colosimo. they 55 all had it wrong, failing to consider the facts of the case, and this for about 3 1/2 years!
12-08-2013 Sheriffs Office Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766 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 Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati p4

5 Admittedly as English was not my native language and neither did I have any formal education in the English language, my so to say crummy English causes me to consider certain matters more distinctly then ordinary people may do, who generally assume matters, no matter how highly qualified they may be. 5 . Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) to me appears to be a judgment where the judge seemed not to understand the true meaning and application of the constitution, and Victorian Silk PG Nash QC neither appears to me to understand this either. This I intend to set out in greater detail in a further correspondence.
10

Safe to say anyone calling himself to be a constitutional lawyer is using an oxymoron. Like a killer humanist or a firebug fire fighter. One either is a CONSTITUTIONALIST or one is a LAWYER, this as the allegiance of a legal practitioner is to suit his client and to suit the Court, as an OFFICER OF THE COURT, even if this means to the adversity of his client, 15 whereas a CONSTITUTIONALIST has no such allegiance but to the constitution itself. There is however an issue that also needs to be addressed and that is if you have some identity crisis as to who you are really working for? Are you simply some glorified debt collector doing the dirty work for the Government rather then to be a true OFFICER OF THE COURT in 20 regard of court decisions?
. Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE 25 Mr. O'CONNOR: You cannot ask a judge to serve two masters. END QUOTE Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), 30 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 . 35 Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution: 40 END QUOTE

As I understand it the Sheriff (and so those assisting him in the Sheriffs Office) ordinarily is an OFFICER OF THE COURT, who acts upon enforcement of court orders. The Courts are ordinary off limits for the police to enter to arrest any person unless the Chief Justice authorise such a police officer to do so. This, as the police officer is not an OFFICER OF THE COURT 45 but is a law enforcement agency acting rightly or wrongly for the Government of the Day. The Sheriffs Office cannot be part of Government because if for example the Court issue an order such as to arrest the Attorney-General then the Sheriffs Office would be having to serve 2 masters, the Attorney General and the Judiciary. Hence, the Sheriff can only serve within the separation of judicial powers within the court system and cannot be within a Department of the 50 Department of Justice, as this posses a potential conflict of interest. As shown below where a Sheriff had to arrest the Attorney General it must be clear that the Sheriff must be acting for the Court and cannot act within the department of justice under the directions of the Attorney General. p5 12-08-2013 Sheriffs Office Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766
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 Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

6
QUOTE MY 23-7-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

Whereas ordinary a Parliament may not be held in CONTEMPT OF COURT, as its conduct ordinary is protected b y privileges. However, a Parliament sitting in clear defiance of a Court order then those participating in the sitting may be deemed guilty of CONTEMPT OF 5 COURT,. For example, where a Court has declared an election to be invalid and order a new election and issue an order that the Parliament cannot sit unless and until a new election has been held and those elected then are to form the new Parliament, then if nevertheless those held not elected ignore to hold a new election (through the Electoral Commission) and sit in Parliament to enact legislation to retrospectively validate their election, then clearly this would be deemed 10 CONTEMPT OF COURT. Likewise, an Attorney-General acting in blatant violation of a Court order can be and has been held in CONTEMPT OF COURT. Even a judge or a prosecutor can be held in CONTEMPT OF COURT.
http://www.visupremecourt.org/wfdata/frame1769-1163/File34.pdf 15 On Order to Show Cause for Indirect Criminal Contempt In Re The Honourable Leon A. Kendall QUOTE OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM. 20 This Court, in an August 13, 2009 Order, required Leon A. Kendall, a judge of the 1 This Court, in a September 16, 2009 Order, appointed Attorney Hall.a disinterested private attorney.to serve as the special prosecutor in this matter because, given the procedural history of this case, allowing a prosecutor employed by the Department of Justice to prosecute this matter could be perceived as a conflict of interest by the public. See In re Special Proceedings, 373 F.3d 37, 43 (1st Cir. 2004) (affirming appointment 25 of private counsel as special prosecutor because use of government prosecutor would not necessarily have banished the public impression of a conflict in this case.). See also Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 811, 814, (1987) (explaining that prosecutors of contempt action must be guided solely by their sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice and that selection of a prosecutor must not create[] an appearance of impropriety that diminishes faith in the fairness of the criminal justice 30 system in general.). In re Kendall S. Ct. Misc. No. 2009-0025 Opinion of the Court Page 2 of 29 35 Superior Court,2 to show cause as to why he should not be held in indirect criminal contempt.3 On December 18, 2009, this Court appointed the Honorable Edgar D. Ross, a retired Superior Court judge, to serve as a Special Master, with the authority to, among other things, conduct a 2 While this matter was pending, Kendall retired from his position as a Superior Court judge at the conclusion of his term in October 2009. 40 3 The August 13, 2009 Order required, in pertinent part, that Judge Leon A. Kendall . . . SHOW CAUSE . . . why he should not be held in indirect criminal Contempt of Court for (1) Obstructing the administration of justice through a. inflammatory remarks and other characterizations in his July 7, 2009 opinion that appear calculated and 45 intended to prejudice this Court in public estimation, destroy or call into doubt this Court.s function and position as the highest local court in the Virgin Islands, and to reduce confidence in the administration of justice in this jurisdiction; and b. purporting to review the validity and legality of this Court.s May 13, 2009 opinion and order, including, but not limited to, stating that the issuance of this Court.s order was clearly improper, that its conclusions 50 make[] no sense and are erroneous, and that this Court.s mandate should be given no credence, despite this Court.s status as the highest local court in the Virgin Islands; (2) Failing to comply with this Court.s May 13, 2009 opinion and order by a. refusing to schedule the matter for trial and proceeding to trial in the absence of a valid plea disposition; b. refusing to consider a change of venue or a continuance to minimize pre-trial publicity in the underlying 55 matter; and c. recusing himself from the matter below for the purposes of avoiding future compliance with this Court.s mandate, leading to additional scheduling delays; (3) Misbehaving in his official transactions as an officer of the court by 12-08-2013 Sheriffs Office Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766 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 Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati p6

7
a. failing to comply with this Court.s May 13, 2009 opinion and order in violation of Rule 1.1 of the American Bar Association.s Model Rules of Judicial Conduct, made applicable to Judge Kendall pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 205 and Virgin Islands Bar Association Bylaw X.8(D); b. calling into question, through his July 7, 2009 opinion, the integrity of the Virgin Islands judiciary through inflammatory language directed at this Court and concluding that this Court.s May 13, 2009 opinion and order was clearly improper, that its conclusions make[] no sense and are erroneous, and that this Court.s mandate should be given no credence, in violation of Rule 1.2 of the American Bar Association.s Model Rules of Judicial Conduct, made applicable to Judge Kendall pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 205 and Virgin Islands Bar Association Bylaw X.8(D); c. refusing to hear a matter properly assigned to him by recusing himself for reasons not authorized by law, in violation of Rule 2.11 of the American Bar Association.s Model Rules of Judicial Conduct, made applicable to Judge Kendall pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 205 and Virgin Islands Bar Association Bylaw X.8(D)[.] In re Kendall S. Ct. Misc. No. 2009-0025 Opinion of the Court Page 3 of 29 show cause hearing and make and submit to this Court proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. After presiding over the show cause hearing and considering the parties. submissions, the Special Master has recommended that this Court acquit Kendall of all charges. After an exhaustive review of the record, including a transcript of the show cause hearing, a video of the majority of the proceedings, and numerous documents entered into evidence by both parties, we accept in part and reject in part the Special Master.s findings, conclusions, and recommendations. END QUOTE

10

15

20

25 http://www.visupremecourt.org/wfdata/frame1769-1163/File34.pdf On Order to Show Cause for Indirect Criminal Contempt In Re The Honourable Leon A. Kendall QUOTE III. CONCLUSION 30 Based on the foregoing, we find that the People proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Kendall is guilty of indirect criminal contempt by obstructing the administration of justice, failing to comply with the May 13, 2009 Opinion and Order, and misbehaving in his official transactions. Accordingly, we accept in part and reject in part the Special Master.s December 22, 2010 Recommendation, and shall set this matter for a sentencing hearing. 35 Dated this 12th day of October, 2011. ATTEST: VERONICA J. HANDY, ESQ. Clerk of the Court END QUOTE 40 The Government must be deemed to be no more but a party before the Courts and not one who can manipulate the legislative powers of the parliament as to so to say give it an easy ride through some purported court process that basically guarantees that a Infringement notice is enforced regardless if it was ill conceived. We must have and maintain a robust judiciary which is to question the legal validity of any plaintiff/applicant regardless if this is the Government and/or any authority to act for it or an ordinary citizens. 45 END QUOTE MY 23-7-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

. It appears to me however that from your 9 August 2013 correspondence you rely upon a decision such as published by the Road Safety Camera Commissioner which I view makes your correspondence a political issue, as you pursue a Government doctrine, rather then upon a strict 50 court order issue. In my view a Sheriff should act impartially for the court and enforcement of court orders and not be swayed by what may be politically in the interest of the Government of the Day. .
QUOTE 55 http://www.vic.gov.au/inlink/links/search_results.html?keywords=Sheriff's%20Office Your search for "Sheriff's Office" found 99 results. Next 10 results > p7 12-08-2013 Sheriffs Office Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766 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 Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

8
Results 1-10 of 99 Sheriff's Operations (Department of Justice, Victoria) Sheriff's Officers are responsible for actioning warrants in Victoria. 5 http://www.justice.vic.gov.au... http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/DOJ+Internet/Home/Fines+and+Penalties/Fines/J USTICE+-+Sheriffs+Operations Public Record Office Victoria - home page 10 Public Record Office Victoria (PROV) is the archives of the State Government of Victoria. It holds records from the beginnings of the colonial administration of Victoria in the mid-1830s to today. Learn about what records are held, and how you can access them. END QUOTE

Also, as I alluded for in the correspondence, some quoted below, there is an issue as to if the sheriffs Office allows anyone else to use the trade mark/ letterhead/emblem of the Sheriffs Office or not? . QUOTE 20 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
15

25

Sheriffss Office Crn Pearcedale Parade and Dimboola Road Broadmeadows VCI 3047 Australia

20-11-2011

Ref: COMPLAINT

Sir/Madam, I have been receiving correspondence that purports to be of the Sheriffs Office and 30 using its emblem (see below as reproduced) such as on 17 November 2011 (again) but there is no name of the relevant Sheriff or any signature and some time ago when I phoned in requesting the identity of the Sheriff who purportedly issued the correspondence demanding payment on the basis that (to me) an unknown warrant was issued and I was given the understanding there was no record as to the identity of the Sheriff who had issued the correspondence.

35

Because in todays society anyone can copy and paste a Sheriffs Office emblem and pretend it to be from the Sheriffs Office I am obviously concerned that this may now also being done. As
12-08-2013 Sheriffs Office Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766 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 Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati p8

9 you may be aware there are kind of scams going on and citizens therefore must be vigilant not to succumb to this kind of fraudulent demands. I request you therefore to clarify if the Sheriffs Office did forward to me a 17 November 2011 correspondence claiming there was a warrant outstanding and demanding payment and if so the 5 Sheriffs Office clarify as to the name of the Sheriff who forwarded this correspondence to me and also the date of the alleged warrant having been issued and as well as by which court, as I am unaware of any court hearing that resulted to a warrant issue and surely I am entitled to be aware when, if ever at all, a court held a hearing allegedly issuing a warrant. I trust you will ensure that no one for the Sheriffs Office will ever issue correspondences 10 without the identity and the signature of the relevant Sheriff identity and signature being revealed. I look forwards to your urgent response.

15

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

.

( Awaiting your response, END QUOTE

20

Our name is our motto!)

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

QUOTE my correspondence 11-12-2011 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Bendan Facey Director, Infringement Management & Enforcement Services
25 C/o Mr Robert Clark MP Attorney-General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au

11-12-2011

Re: Obl 1106575301

Sir, I refer to the judgements of Fernando and from the judgments it must be clear that the courts refer to the RULE OF LAW as I have been from onset where our constitution is the Supreme 30 rule of law and any legislation offending the constitution is therefore ULTRA VIRES. Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE [start page 2004] Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid. 35 END QUOTE

As shown below the Court makes clear that an Infringement Registrar must issue a warrant and clearly this means the parliament dictates the Court what to do which violated the separation of powers between the legislators, the executives and the judiciary. Hence this is unconstitutional. 40 Also, as is clear it refers to OPEN COURT but only when it comes to a magistrate, where in fact a Chapter III court of the Constitution can only hand down a judicial determination after both parties have been heard. Therefore the Infringement Court offend the status of being part of a Chapter III court and as such a magistrate could never enforce a Infringement Registrars order nor could sanction a Warrant issue by a Infringement Registrar. 45 END QUOTE my correspondence 11-12-2011 As I alluded also to in the past that the Magistrates Court of Victoria is a Chapter III of the Constitution Court which must be an open court and while the Infringement Act 2006 provides
12-08-2013 Sheriffs Office Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766 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 Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati p9

10 that a Registrar must issue a warrant this would be an unconstitutional interference with the Magistrates Court of Victoria, of which the Infringement Court is claimed to be part off. And as my review of the registrars decision was denied by the registrar himself then clearly the orders are for this also invalid! See also for this Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 5 (17 April 1991) where it was held that a registrars decision must always be reviewable.
. 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 10 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 15 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 20 QUOTE Infringement Act 2006 PART 6INFRINGEMENT WARRANTS 80. Issue of infringement warrants (1) An infringements registrar must issue an infringement warrant against a person to whom an enforcement order notice is sent (including a director to whom a declaration under section 91 applies) if the person for a period of more than 28 days (a) defaults in the payment of the outstanding amount of the fine; or (b) in the case of a natural person other than a director to whom a declaration under section 91 applies, defaults in the payment of a payment under a payment order. 30 (2) An infringements registrar who issues an infringement warrant against a natural person, including a director to whom a declaration under section 91 applies, may endorse the warrant with a direction that the person arrested must be released on bail as specified in the endorsement. END QUOTE Infringement Act 2006 (Red colouring, bolt and underlining added)

25

Another issue that appears to me confusing art the very least seems to be the following statemenr: 35 QUOTE Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) 51 To the extent Australia has adopted the recommendations of OIML, its compliance appears to be enshrined in the National Measurement Act. Its provisions do not compel States to adopt or apply metrological principles in their regulatory provisions with respect to measuring instruments (eg their use and testing), except perhaps in relation to measuring instruments used in trade and, as I will show, in relation to an evidential breath analyser. Furthermore, given that Australia has, through the Commonwealth Act, given effect to its Convention obligations, it is not obvious that there is any further legitimate expectation that its provisions would be applied[13] otherwise than through the machinery of that Act.

40

END QUOTE Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010)
45

It appears to me that the Supreme Court of Victoria may sought to limit matters as to trade other then what it otherwise specifically refers to, but no such constitutional limitations can be imposed upon the constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as it would be beyond any Court to interfere with the true meaning and application of the 50 constitution. And as the States were created within s106 of this constitution then the States are bound by its embedded legal principles! .
12-08-2013 Sheriffs Office Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766 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 Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati p10

11 Again I intend to respond further but safe to say I hold the view that the usage of speed cameras without proper certification by the Commonwealth of Australia would be unconstitutional, as the States have no legislative powers in that regard as this was handed over by the Colonies to the Commonwealth of Australia, irrespective if this was in regard of trade or otherwise.
5

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.
10

Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

.

Our name is our motto!)

12-08-2013 Sheriffs Office Ref: COMPLAINT Your Ref: BC/15766 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 Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati p11